vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 November 30, 1990 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMPARATIVE RISK AND PLANNING CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII SEPTEMBERS-?, 1990 KANSAS CITY ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 NOV 2 01990 I am pleased to share these proceedings of the Comparative Risk and Strategic Planning Conference. Thank you for your efforts which produced such useful and insightful findings and conclusions. On September 30, 1990, we submitted to Headquarters draft lists of our ecological and human health residual risk priorities, each categorized as high, medium, or low. To increase our knowledge of these risk areas, we formed a Definitions Workgroup which is developing a set of environmental "focus areas" to provide a better basis for cross-media risk analysis and planning. While we learned much through the conference, we also became acutely aware of how much work is yet required to fill the existing science and data gaps. As a result, we formed a Data Coordination Group. This group is preparing a Uniform Data Framework for risk analysis, and will explore the concept of a Regional clearinghouse on risk analysis data sources. To institutionalize comparative risk analysis and to capitalize on its findings, a planning committee comprised of the Deputy Division Directors is actively engaged in developing a strategic planning process to involve the States and other Federal Agencies. Additionally, the University of Kansas will hold seminars to share the results and implications of the Comparative Risk Project. Dr. William Cooper, of the Science Advisory Board (SAB), has agreed to participate at one of the sessions. This will be particularly timely since the SAB has just published its landmark work, "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection." The fact that Region VII's Comparative Risk analysis process and findings closely mirrored those of the SAB, is a tribute to the quality of your work. Notable similarities include: increasing the emphasis on ecological risk (which has been undervalued relative to human health risk for the last decade); emphasizing pollution prevention; identifying priorities according to environmental, rather than budget categories; improving science and data, and focusing our resources on the greatest opportunities for risk reduction. We seek your continued participation as we move ahead with this innovative approach to risk based environmental decision-making. Sincerely, Susan C. Gordon Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management RECYCLE/* ------- The Comparative Risk Project Early in 1990, EPA's Deputy Administrator asked Region VII and other Regional Offices to conduct a com- parative risk analysis of environmental problems facing them. By the end of this calendar year, all Regions will have conducted such a project and presented their results to Headquarters. The Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation intends to consolidate these Regional reports into a national picture of environmental risk that may ultimately influence planning and budgeting within the Agency. The significance of the Comparative Risk Project for Region VII goes far beyond a ranking of environmental problems. The Region viewed this exercise as an oppor- tunity to build a solid framework for risk-based strategic planning, and the Region's approach to the project has kept this wider goal in mind. The four cornerstones of this approach have been: • Examination of ecological as well as human health risks, using similar ecosystem classes to those defined by EPA/ORD's Environmental Monitoring and As- sessment Program (EMAP); • Selection of representative stressors and receptors for focused, data-based analysis of conditions and trends in the Region; • Identifying data gaps and research needs that should be addressed to improve our understanding of stres- sors and their impacts; and • Emphasis on cross-media analysis and team-build- ing, laying the groundwork for an integrated strategic planning process. The Region organized three "MediaTeams" (see Tables 1, 2, and 3) to examine the relative risks of environmental problems pertinent to the Region's program divisions -Air and Toxics; Waste Management; and Water Management. The Media Teams first defined environmental "problem areas" specific to their programs. Then, using stressor/ receptor worksheets and methodological guidance devel- oped by the Region, they examined each of these problem areas in detail, combining available data and professional judgment to produce a relative rating -High, Moderate, or Low - of its risk. Separate ratings were produced for human health and ecological risk. The Media Teams also identified major data gaps or research needs that should be addressed to improve the confidence level of the risk analyses. Conference Objectives and Participants To provide the all-important cross-media perspective on risks and to lay the foundation for strategic planning, the Region convened the conference that is the subject of this report. The principal objectives of the Comparative Risk and Planning Conference were to: • Begin to build the cross-media sense of ownership and rapport that will be required for integrated strate- gic planning in the Region; • Identify refinements needed to improve the com- parative risk process for its next iteration; and • Determine the next steps to be taken toward institut- ing a strategic planning process. More than 100 people attended the conference, includ- ing the Regional Administrator and Deputy Regional Ad- ministrator; Division Directors and numerous other repre- sentatives from each Regional division; environmental managers and analysts from State agencies; and several members of the academic community. Appendix A lists the attendees and their affiliations. Much of the work was conducted in four breakout groups, each with a specialized mission. On the final day of the conference, the groups presented their recommenda- tions to a plenary session, and a general discussion was held to achieve a preliminary consensus on risk-based priorities and next steps. ------- Opening Remarks Morris Kay Regional Administrator Morris Kay told participants that he considered their efforts very important to the Region and to the whole Agency. He noted that the Comparative Risk Project provides the Region with an unusual opportunity to 1 'look to the future rather than focusing on the past, as we do in so much of our work." Focusing on the future is more difficult, he admitted, but it is also more important. Only in this way, for ex- ample, can we overcome the "disconnect between envi- ronmental programs and ecosystems," in this Region and nationally. He encouraged members of the audience to participate fully and openly in the discussions during the conference, promising "amnesty for everyone" in exchange for their frank opinions and critical thinking. Media Team Presentations Appendix B summarizes the results of each Media Team's comparative risk analysis. These summaries formed the basis for the slide presentations by each Media Team at the conference. The Media Team chairs and other mem- bers described the problem areas examined and presented their teams' intramedia prioritization of those problems. Ecological and human health priorities were listed sepa- rately. Each presentation also listed major data gaps and research needs that had been identified in the course of the risk analyses. Air, Toxics, and Pesticides Media Team Art Spratlin, Director of the Air and Toxics Division, presented his team's findings and the rationale for their relative ranking of the problem areas. Appendices B-la and B-lb show the problem areas and the team's initial ratings for risk and confidence. TABLE 1 Later in the conference, Morris made a point that deserves mention early in these Proceedings. He cau- tioned against using the word "problem" to describe the areas of concern in the risk analysis and strategic plan- ning process. Calling them "problems" fails to take into account the good work that has been done in these areas already, he said. If we say that Agricultural Practices is the Region's highest-risk "problem area," for example, this appears to ignore the real progress that has been made already. We should think in terms of opportuni- ties, he suggested, not problems. In these Proceedings, we continue to use "problem area" in order to avoid confusion, since it is a term everyone involved with the Comparative Risk Project has come to use and understand. However, a new term, such as "action area" or "focus area," will be selected and used in all future comparative risk and strategic planning activities. MEMBERS OF THE AIR, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES MEDIA TEAM Art Spratlin (ARTX), Chair Leo Alderman (ARTX) Dermont Bouchard (ORD) Wolfgang Brandner (ARTX) - Mike Bronoski (PLUG) Diane Collier (ARTX) Bob Dye (ARTX) Doug Elders (ARTX) Dan Harper (ATSDR) JoAnn Heiman (ARTX) John Houlihan (WATR) Walt Foster (PLMG) Dennis Lane (Kansas University) Wayne Leidwanger (ARTX) Robert Patrick (CNSL) Carl Walter (ARTX) Gale Wright (WSTM) Daryl Roberts (MO Department of Health) Allan Stokes (IA Department of Natural Resources) ------- TABLE 2 MEMBERS OF THE WASTE MEDIA TEAM Mike Sanderson (WSTM), Chair Dermont Bouchard (ORD) Larry Cavin (PLUG) Dave Cozad (CNSL) Walt Foster (PLMG) Dan Harper (ATSDR) John Jrwin (KS Division of Environment) Steve Kovac (WSTM) Chet Mclaughlin (WSTM) Bill Pedicino (WSTM) Paul Marshall (WATR) Adi Pour (NE Department of Health) Ceil Price (CNSL) Bob Stewart (WSTM) Gary Welker (ENSV) Mary Williams (WATR) Gale Wright (WSTM) Jim Williams (MO Division of Geology and Land Survey) Pesticide Pollution rated High for both ecological and human health risk, Art pointed out, because of the exten- sive use -137 million pounds of active ingredients applied to 159 million acres of farmland in the Region each year. Indoor Air Pollution was judged to be a High threat to human health, due in large part to the documented high levels of radon gas in the Region. In the health arena, three other problem areas also were rated High - Criteria Air Pollutants, Toxic Chemicals, and Air Toxics. Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution was con- sidered a High long-range risk to ecosystems and a Mod- erate risk to humans, although the lack of definitive data led the team to term their confidence in this rating Low. Waste Media Team Mike Sanderson, Chief of the RCRA Branch in the Waste Management Division, and Chair of the Waste Media Team, began his group's presentation with an over- view of the problem areas and the team's methods. Bob Stewart, Environmental Engineer in the RCRA Branch, then discussed the ecological risk ratings, followed by a Luncheon Address Nancy Firestone Associate Deputy Administrator Speaking at aplenary luncheon on the first day of the conference, Nancy Firestone told the participants that Region VII is setting an example for other Regions in its approach to comparative risk analysis and integrated strategic planning. She noted that the main elements of Region VII's process correspond closely to the recom- mendations in areview of the comparative risk initiative by EPA's Science Advisory Board. Stressing the need for non-traditional approaches to pollution management, she discussed the relationship between strategic planning and two other EPA initia- tives - pollution prevention and total quality manage- ment (TQM). Strategic planning must focus not only on cleaning up existing pollution, she said, but also should encompass prevention of future contamination. One aspect of pollution prevention is screening for contami- nants, such as lead, that are threats in more than one environmental medium. She emphasized the need for an integrated approach to protecting human health and the environment from these multimedia pollutants. To be successful in cross-media strategic planning requires breaking down organizational barriers, she pointed out, and this is one objective of the TQM initiative. Activities such as the Comparative Risk and Planning Conference are important steps toward this goal, she said. She warned that TQM is a process that takes time, though, not a quick fix. She said that strategic planning, pollution preven- tion, and total quality management are all just code words for "How can we do this smarter, better?" She commended the participants in Region VII's Compara- tive Risk Project for their efforts to develop an on-going planning process that truly is focused on environmental results. ------- presentation of the human health ratings by Gale Wright, Remedial Section Chief in the Superfund Branch. Appen- dices B-2a and B-2b show the Waste Media Team's risk and confidence ratings. None of the problem areas were rated High with respect to ecological risk, although inadequate data kept confidence Low in some cases, Bob Stewart explained. Two kinds of Superfund sites were rated High for human health risk, however: VOC-Contaminated Water Supplies, and Lead/Zinc Mining Sites. Sixty-nine public water sources or systems in the Region are known to have been contaminated by either TCE, carbon tetrachloride, or vinyl chloride, Gale Wright said, potentially exposing nearly 300,000 people. Though pollution from abandoned min- ing wastes does not affect a large area in the Region, residents and workers in the two counties involved face a substantial risk, the team found, prompting its High overall rating of this problem. TABLE 3 MEMBERS OF THE WATER MEDIA TEAM TimAmsden (WATR), Co-Chair Susan Gordon (PLMG), Co-Chair Wes Hartley (WSTM) Jerry Brabander (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Diane Callier (ARTX) Dave Crawford (WSTM) Terry Deen (WATR) Gerry Force (WATR) Kerry Herndon (PLMG) Diane Hershberger (PLMG) John Houlihan (WATR) Gale Hutton (NE Department ofEnv'tal Control) DeWayne Knott (PLMG) Lynn Kring (PLMG) Dale Lambley (KS Department of Agriculture) Darrell McAllister (IA Env'tal Protection Division) Rowena Michaels (PBAF) Delores Plate (PLMG) Martha Steincamp (CNSL) Rao Surampalli (WATR) Mary Williams (WATR) Water Media Team Tim Amsden, Acting Director of the Water Manage- ment Division and Co-Chair of the Water Media Team, began his presentation by reminding the audience that we live on "The Water Planet" - water is the source and sustainer of all life and the ultimate receptor of all pollu- tants. A comprehensive look at the risks to water in Region VII should include all sources of water pollution, whether or not they are specifically regulated by the Water Manage- ment Division. The problem areas defined by the Water Media Team therefore overlap somewhat with those used by the other teams, he explained. The problems selected and the results of the Water Media Team's risk analysis are summarized in Appendices B-3a and B-3b. Kerry Herndon, Chief of the Environmental Review Branch, presented the team's ecological risk findings. Habitat Alteration from many stressors was rated a highly significant problem in the Region, with emphasis on the loss of wetlands due to agricultural conversion. The ecological risk of Agricultural Practices also was rated High by the team, she said, with pesticides, nutrients, tillage, erosion, sediment deposition, and hydrologic modification all listed as potential stressors to aquatic ecosystems in the Region. The Water Media Team also rated water contamination by Municipal Wastes a high-risk problem area, although insufficient data prompted a Low confidence rating. Mary Williams, an Environmental Scientist in the Drinking Water Branch and one of the Region's health risk specialists, discussed the team's human health risk ratings. Agricultural Practices and Municipal Wastes rated High in this analysis, too, due to the ubiquity of contamination from these source categories. The team also rated Drinking Water System Contaminants a High risk to human health in the Region, primarily because of potentially severe effects of lead on children. Monitoring data are scarce, however, and the Water Media Team rated its confidence level Low with respect to this problem area. ------- Breakout Groups TABLE 4 A central objective of the Comparative Risk and Planning Conference was to bring media-specific analysts and managers together to examine multimedia issues and risks. Much of the cross-media discussion and analysis was conducted in four breakout groups: • Ecological Priorities Group • Human Health Priorities Group • Science and Data Priorities Group • Strategic Decisions Group The groups met at least four times during the course of the conference to work on their assignments and to prepare a presentation on their recommendations for the plenary session on the final day. Ecological Priorities Group John Houlihan (WATR), Group Presenter The Ecological Priorities Group (Table 4) was charged with producing a single cross-media prioritization of the environmental problem areas, using the lists prepared separately by the three Media Teams. The group spent much of its meeting time determining how the three separate lists of problem areas should be condensed into a single mutually-exclusive list. They then exami ned the ecological risk ratings given to the respective problem areas by the Media Teams, and the members added their own judgment concerning the relative risks to Region VII ecosystems. After extensive discussions, the group reached consensus on the prioritization shown in Table 5. The items are rank ordered within each of the priority categories, providing a list that is ranked from top to bottom. John Houlihan, Acting Chief of the Planning and Evaluation Section in the Water Division, presented the group's findings to the whole conference. After reviewing the group's prioritized list of ecological problem areas, he expressed some of the group's ideas for improving the MEMBERS OF THE ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES GROUP Dr. Ernest Angino (KU Department of Geology) David Bedan (MO Department ofEnv'tal Quality) Diane Collier (ARTX) Doug Elders (ARTX) JoAnn Heiman (ARTX) Diane Hershberger (WATR) John Houlihan (WATR) Steve Kovac (WSTM) Dr. Edward Martinko (KS Biological Survey) Tom Nash (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Ceil Price (CNSL) Bill Ward (CNSL) Jim Williams (MO Dept. ofGeol. & Land Survey) Facilitators Marian Hess (PLMG) Steve Wurlz (PBAF) ecological analysis in future comparative risk efforts. Points made include the following: • The Media Team risk analysts seem to have consis- tently equated the volume of pollutants with the extent of ecosystem impact. The group felt that there is little or no basis for this assumption. We need better indicators of effects of many contaminants on different ecosystem classes and a commitment to monitoring those indicators. • Soil loss or depletion in agricultural ecosystems should be included as a problem area in future risk analyses. The loss of agricultural productivity resulting from this type of stress is a potentially severe welfare effect. • Land use issues also should be factored into the ecological risk analysis process. The effects of land use decisions should be projected over the same timescale that is being used for studies of large-scale atmospheric pollution (e.g., 50 years or more). The group recognized that these issues must be handled carefully, since they are not within EPA's jurisdiction. ------- TABLE 5 ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES GROUP CROSS-MEDIA PRIORITIZATION High • Agricultural Practices I Pesticide Pollution 1 Habitat Alteration • Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution Medium • Municipal Wastes I Municipal Solid Waste Sites > Resource Extraction I Superfund Sites: Lead &Zinc Mining • Industrial Waste Dischargers I Industrial Solid Waste Sites • Hazardous Wastes I Active Hazardous Waste Sites I Superfund Sites: Manufactured Gas Plants I Superfund Sites: Other Sites • Air Toxics I Criteria Air Pollutants Low • Underground Storage Tanks I Petroleum Product Spills and Leaks • Toxic Chemicals (from pathways not covered elsewhere) - Radiation As with the Ecological Priorities Group, the Human Health Priorities Group devoted much effort to determin- ing how the three separate lists of problem areas should be condensed into a single non-redundant list. The members examined the health risk ratings given to the respective problem areas by the Media Teams, and they added their own judgment concerning the relative risks to human health. After extensive discussions, the group reached consensus on the prioritization shown in Table 7. The items are not ranked within each of the categories. The group wanted to keep the "High" category fairly small, containing only those problem areas for which there was a clear-cut consensus that they posed the greatest risk to human health in Region VII. This left a large number of problems areas in the "Medium" category. The "Medium Plus" and "Medium Minus" categories were added to enable the group to draw some distinctions between items in this middle-priority group. TABLE 6 MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN HEALTH PRIORITIES GROUP In the discussion following the presentation, a concern was expressed that the term Agricultural Practices is so broad that it implies that farming in general is responsible for many of the Region's environmental problems. To avoid the appearance of placing the blame on the farming industry as a whole, some discussants said, we should examine categories of agricultural practices separately - e.g., chemization, tillage, channelization, and so on. Human Health Priorities Group Wolfgang Brandner (ARTX), Group Presenter The Human Health Priorities Group (Table 6) had the responsibility to produce a cross-media prioritization of the environmental problem areas, using the lists prepared separately by the three Media Teams. Dr. Matthew Adeyanju (KU School of Education) Leo Alderman (ARTX) Wes Bartley (WSTM) Carl Birns (KS Division of Health) Wolfgang Brandner (ARTX) Larry Cavin (PLMG) Dr. CurtKlaassen (KU Medical Center) Dave Cozad (CNSL) Bob Dye (ARTX) Gerry Force (WATR) Dan Harper (ATSDR) Wayne Kaiser (AR1"X) Bob Stewart (WSTM) Rao Surampalli (WATR) Mary Williams (WATR) Facilitators Aaron Zimmerman (WSTM) Linda Garwood (PLMG) ------- In his presentation to the full conference, Wolfgang Brandner, Chief of the Asbestos Control Section in the Air and Toxics Division, listed the group's conclusions on the major human health concerns for Region VH To the three highest-priority problem areas from the Media Team lists the group added a fourth - exposure to lead. Lead is a stressor of concern in several problem areas, he said, and the group felt that the aggregate threat to human health from this single substance is underestimated by the pro- grammatic breakdown of problem areas adopted in the Comparative Risk Project. He voiced the group's recom- mendation that future comparative risk and strategic planning activities in Region VII take the stressor-specific approach into account. Wolfgang described the group's concern that several science and data gaps prevent a better understanding of the major health risks in the Region. He cited five needs as a proposed focus for research and information-gathering (not in priority order): • Human health effects of long-term, low-level expo- sure to many chemicals; • Human health effects of nitrates for populations older than six months of age; • The proportion of nitrates found in groundwater that are attributable to agricultural practices, and the pro- portion attributable to septic tanks; • Human health effects of lead toxicity for adult popu- lations; and • Technology to measure the many components of indoor air. Topics of discussion following the presentation in- cluded the apparent underplaying of welfare factors throughout the comparative risk process, and the High risk rating given \.o Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution. On the latter subject, a member of the group explained that the High rating was meant to highlight the potential for enor- mous health effects, even worldwide devastation, from ozone depletion. The Human Health Priorities Group de- TABLE 7 HUMAN HEALTH PRIORITIES GROUP CROSS-MEDIA PRIORITIZATION High • Agricultural Practices I Pesticide Pollution • Indoor Air Pollution I Radon ' Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution (only High if research bears out fears about global warming and ozone depletion) < Exposure to Lead (not on the initial problem lists) Medium Plus • Ambient Air (including Air Toxics) • Drinking Water System Contaminants (including lead) • Toxic Chemicals Medium • Municipal Waste (solid and liquid) • Industrial Waste (solid and liquid) • Hazardous Waste Sites (active and inactive) Medium Minus • Underground Storage Tanks I Petroleum Product Spills& Leaks Low • Naturally Occurring Contaminants (in water) • Resource Extraction • Radiation (including everything except radon) bated vigorously whether the evidence for ozone depletion does exist and what the health effects will be if depletion continues. The group decided on the basis of these discus- sions to elevate Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution to the High category as a warning signal to Headquarters and to the public but not as a basis for increased programmatic emphasis in the Region. ------- Science and Data Priorities Group Lynn Kring (PLMG), Group Presenter The Science and Data Priorities Group (Table 8) was charged with developing prioritized lists of research and data needs for improving comparative risk analyses in future iterations of this activity. Before beginning the task of listing and prioritizing specific science and data gaps, the group discussed the broader need for a uniform framework for using data in comparative risk analyses. Some members of the group noted that the approach taken by most analysts in the first round of the Comparative Risk Project was unavoidably flawed. Because of the lack of resources and the short timeline for the project, much of the data collection and assessment was cursory, which calls into question the scientific validity of the exercise. It was suggested that the most important step that could be taken to improve the process is to define systematically: TABLE 8 MEMBERS OF THE SCIENCE AND DATA PRIORITIES GROUP Mike Bronoski (PLMG) Dr. Robert Budemeyer (KS Geological Survey) Terry Deen (WATR) Gordon Gregory (PLMG) Larry flacker (ARTX) Lynn Kring (PLMG) Wayne Leidwanger (ARTX) Dr. Glen Marotz (KU Dept. of Civil Engineering) Chet Mclaughlin (WSTM) Steve Meek (MO Department of Health) Bill Pedicino (WSTM) Bob Stciert (WATR) Mary Tieljen-Mindrup (ARTX) Gary Welker (ENSV) Facilitators Ann Keener (CIGL) Bettye Hadley (PLMG) • What kinds of information are desirable in making risk evaluations of chemical substances; • Of this ideal information set, what information is actually available; and • Where that information may be obtained by Region VII risk analysts. The group decided to make a strong recommendation to the conference as a whole: The Region should develop a uniform compara- tive risk data frame work. A preliminary concept for the framework, prepared and discussed by the group, is shown in Appendix C. Members of the group also suggested that the informa- tion about comparative risk information should be main- tained in a single designated location in the Regional office - a clearinghouse responsible for pointing risk analysts toward potentially useful sources of data. Much of the information needed to perform this role would come from the completed "uniform data framework" sheets. The clearinghouse would also be responsible for updating the information about data sources and their characteristics as new sources are found and evaluated. After discussion, the group approved a second general recommendation: The Region should establish a clearinghouse of information on data sources and uses. The group spent the remainder of its meeting time on its main charge - producing prioritized lists of science and data gaps, based on the needs identified by each of the Media Teams in their opening presentations. The prelimi- nary lists were composed of gaps specifically identified in the risk analysis abstracts prepared by each Media Team. After revising and condensing the lists somewhat, mem- bers of the group determined, by voting, the relative 10 ------- priority assigned to each gap. The seven items that scored highest are listed in Table 9. (See Appendix D for the full lists of gaps and the group's prioritization.) This list may be modified after further evaluation by a committee estab- lished after the conference for this purpose. Lynn Kring, Director of the Office of Integrated En- vironmental Analysis, made the group's formal presenta- tion to the full conference at the plenary session on the final day. The audience agreed in principle with the recommen- dations on the uniform data framework and the risk analysis information clearinghouse. The recommendations concern- ing the high-priority science and data gaps drew most of the discussion. In general, the participants thought that the top-priority research needs were too broad to be meaning- ful as targets for action. It was pointed out, for example, that the need for research on ecosystem impacts of hazard- ous contaminants should be broken down into more spe- cific needs, such as the need for indicator species for various stressors and receptors. Commenters also urged that certain gaps not on the group's top-priority list should be added: long-term stud- ies on the Regional impacts of large-scale atmospheric pollution; research on the health effects of nitrate on non- infants; studies to establish dose-response relationships for low-level chronic exposure to many other toxic substances, including lead; and research on human health endpoints of many toxins. Other discussants suggested that it may be premature to focus on a handful of research needs at this point in the process. At the close of the discussion, the consensus of the participants was to accept the lists of gaps, as expanded by additions from the audience, as a starting point for future work to zero in on the highest-priority needs. Strategic Decisions Group Gale Wright (WSTM), Group Presenter The Strategic Decisions Group (Table 10) was charged with developing ideas for new strategic activities and policies based on the results of the Comparative Risk Project. While the other three groups focused on prioritiz- TABLE 9 HIGHEST-PRIORITY SCIENCE AND DATA GAPS Three science gaps should be considered among the highest priorities for research: • Ecosystem impacts of and responses to hazardous contaminants and other anthropogenic stresses • Human health effects of many contaminants, including gaso- line constituents, metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, nonionizing radiation, and indoor air pollution • Synergistici'antagonistic reactions of multiple contaminants Four data gaps should be seen as the highest priorities for action: • Current and past use of individual pesticides, including data on area-specific use • More field monitoring data for pesticides in ground water, surface waters, and soils • Site-specific ecological data • Number, location, and water quality of private wells ing the lists of problem areas and information gaps, this group was asked to look at cross-media implementation issues and identify potential concrete steps the Region could take to address the highest-priority needs. They were also asked to examine how the comparative risk and strategic planning process could contribute to major geo- graphic-based projects undertaken by the Region, such as the Platte River Enforcement Initiative. The group realized quickly that it would be very difficult to develop action ideas without a clear definition of the strategic planning process. In addition, they encoun- tered the same difficulty that the other groups found with the highly media-specific way many of the problem areas were defined. They spent much of their meeting time, therefore, developing an outline of a recommended ap- proach to strategic planning in the Region and discussing the need to revise the list of problems. 11 ------- TABLE 10 MEMBERS OF THE STRATEGIC DECISIONS GROUP Dave Crawford (WSTM) Julie Elfving (WATR) Jaci Ferguson (CIGL) Robert Glicksman (KU School of Law) Charlie Hensley (ENSV) Kerry Herndon (PLMG) Tom Hallway (ENSV) Gale Mutton (NE Department ofEnv'tal Control) Dr. Charles Marsh (KU School of Journalism) Robert Patrick (CNSL) Delores Platt (PLMG) Daryl Roberts (MO Department of Health) Mike Sanderson (WSTM) Dr. Eric Strauss (KU - Arch. & Urban Design) Carl Walter (ARTX) Gale Wright (WSTM) Facilitators Chris Hess (PLMG) Betty Berry (WSTM) Gale Wright, Remedial Section Chief in the Superfund Branch, presented the group's recommendations to the full conference. He said that they had reached a strong consensus on basic principles for the strategic planning process (Table 11). They also had wanted to show how the process might work by applying it to one or more of the problem areas. They found, however, that they spent most of their time discussing what the problem areas should be, concluded that the present breakdown is unworkable, and thus did not produce an illustration of how strategic planning might work with respect to a particular problem area. Gale emphasized the group's belief that further refine- ment of the problem area list, based on a cross-media approach, is vital to the success of strategic planning. This effort should begin immediately, he suggested, and should not be constrained by the way the problems have been defined up to now in the Comparative Risk Project. A true multimedia approach is necessary, he said, if we are to conduct strategic planning aimed at reducing risks. We need to gain some efficiencies in the next stage of the risk analysis process by breaking down the organizational barriers to cross-media cooperation. Gale brought up another of the Strategic Decisions Group's main points: State, local, and other federal agen- cies should be an integral part of the entire strategic planning process. He suggested that a series of workshops or forums be organized to ensure that government organi- zations at all levels have an opportunity to contribute their knowledge and experience to EPA's strategy and to com- ment on plans before they become final. Gale then made the group's last point - that the Region should specifically dedicate resources to the strategic planning process. The consensus-building process, begun so well in the Comparative Risk Project, should not be sacrificed simply to meet a tight Headquarters deadline for completing an initial strategic plan, he warned. Each division should commit some resources for participation in a Regional Planning Committee to ensure a truly cross- media product. TABLE 11 RECOMMENDED MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE REGION VII STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS • Refinement of the problem definitions (This is the first and highest-priority step) • An integrated cross-media focus proceeding along a variety of avenues, including: Regulation Negotiation Education Prevention Remediation • Explicitly addressing the following issues: Expected risk reduction Measurable goals Resource allocation Data gaps and needs 12 ------- It was then suggested that a committee made up of the Deputy Division Directors be responsible for preparing the strategic plan. The forums for State and local input would be conducted in conjunction with this workgroup's activities. There was general agreement that this approach to devel- oping the strategic plan should be pursued. Consensus-Building on Risk-Based Priorities and Next Steps Following the small group presentations, the whole body participated in an hour-long session of open discus- sion to fine-tune the prioritized lists of environmental problems that would be one major product of the confer- ence. The principal short-term use of the lists, explained conference moderator Susan Gordon, Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management, would be to meet the Headquarters request that the Region submit a ranking by the end of September. More important, however, the lists provide a starting point for the Region's strategic planning initiative, which will be a natural extension of the comparative risk analysis process. An important objective of the conference, Susan said, is to establish a spirit of cross-media teamwork among all participants by examining the relative priorities of the problems as they were initially defined. Thisprocess is more valuable to the Region than the lists. Tables 12 and 13 show the final consensus on the priority lists, which are subject to substantial revision in the future. The comments during the open discussion revealed a growing sense among the conference participants that, as the Strategic Decisions Group had pointed out, the prob- lem areas used in this initial round of comparative risk analyses are unworkable as a basis for integrated strategic planning. More work is needed to define problem areas that can be handled consistently by ecological and human health risk analysts. In some cases, such as lead, it may be better to focus on a single contaminant or contaminant class as a whole instead of handling pieces of it in three or four different pathway-oriented problem areas. TABLE 12 CONSENSUS PRIORITIZATION OF ECOLOGICAL PROBLEM AREAS High • Agricultural Practices I Pesticide Pollution • Habitat Alteration • Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution Medium • Municipal Wastes I Municipal Solid Waste Sites • Resource Extraction I Superfund Sites: Lead and Zinc Mining • Industrial Waste Dischargers I Industrial Solid Waste Sites • Hazardous Wastes I Active Hazardous Waste Sites I Superfund Sites: Manufactured Gas Plants I Superfund Sites: Other Sites • Air Toxics I Criteria Air Pollutants Low • Underground Storage Tanks I Petroleum Product Spills & Leaks • Toxic Chemicals (from pathways not covered elsewhere) • Radiation At the end of the discussion session, the group agreed to view the priority lists as an acceptable though imperfect first step toward the goal of using comparative risk analysis to support strategic planning in the Region. The most important issue is not whether a given problem should be placed in this or that priority category, but rather how the whole risk analysis process can be made into a sounder foundation for strategic planning. The State Perspective Representatives from each State in Region VII partici- pated in the conference, adding the perspective of State environmental and public health agencies to the breakout groups and the consensus-building process. These repre- sentatives held a breakfast meeting on the final day of the conference topool their opinions about the Region's compar- ative risk and planning process and where it should go from here. GaleHutton, Chief of the Water Quality Division at 13 ------- TABLE 13 CONSENSUS PRIORITIZATION OF HUMAN HEALTH PROBLEM AREAS High • Agricultural Practices I Pesticide Pollution • Indoor Air Pollution I Radon • Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution (only High if research bears out fears about global warming and ozone depletion) • Ambient Air (including Air Toxics) • Toxic Chemicals Medium • Drinking Water System Contaminants (including lead) • Municipal Waste (solid and liquid) • Industrial Waste (solid and liquid) • Hazardous Waste Sites (active and inactive) • Underground Storage Tanks I Petroleum Product Spills and Leaks Low • Naturally Occurring Contaminants (in water) • Resource Extraction • Radiation (including everything except radon) the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, serv- ing as the group's presenter, addressed the full conference shortly before it closed. He made the following major points on which the State representatives had reached unanimous agreement: • Strategic planning is important if EPA and the States are to achieve environmental results. The Region should institutionalize the comparative risk / strategic plan- ning process begun this year, turning it into a long-term, repetitive process of re-examining and sorting priorities. • The risk-based planning activities are so important, in fact, that the Region should establish a Regional Planning Group to meet regularly. State department directors should be invited to be members of this group. • The State representatives were very pleased to observe a sincere effort at the conference to coordinate among programs. The Comparative Risk Project has been very fruitful in improving cross-media communication, and it is important to continue this dialogue. • A vital step for the Region to take very quickly is to find a better set of problem definitions than those used in the first round of comparative risk analysis. A State agency cannot tackle the issue of "agricultural practices," for example. A more focused approach is needed. What are the priority issues within the broad problem categories? • The Region also should move quickly to validate the data on which decisions will be based. Faced with tight deadlines in the Comparative Risk Project, we seem to be making a great leap of faith in some cases instead of basing priorities on solid data and rigorous analysis, Gale said. • The States wish to reinforce the steps the Region has taken to solicit wide involvement in the risk analysis and planning process. EPA should continue to pursue a broad- er working relationship with State and local agencies, since they will ultimately be the ones who must implement the programs and initiatives. Such involvement should take two forms. First, if the Region redefines the environ- mental problem areas used in the Comparative Risk Project, then a workshop should be held to obtain State input on the new schema. Second, EPA should invite State and local agencies in to discuss the Region's draft strategic plan. • The Region should begin setting long-term (e.g., 10- year) goals in its strategic plans but should not overlook shorter-term goals that are consistent with the long-term objectives. It is important to "take smaller bites" too. • The Region should allow some flexibility in the stra- tegic plan. The document should not be treated as rigid guidance; it must leave room to accommodate the differ- ences among the four States. • Public involvement in the planning process is also very important. The Region should look for the earliest appropriate point to begin formally soliciting public input. • Education is a vital element in future efforts to reduce environmental threats and prevent new pollution. C rea ti ve educational approaches will be needed. 14 ------- Closing Remarks and Discussion Deputy Administrator Bill Rice spoke briefly to give his impressions about the conference and its impact. He was very impressed, he said, with the extent of the partici- pation in the conference and in the quality of the discussions. He emphasized that the Comparative Risk Project has not been and will not be an exercise in reallocating resources. A main objective is to promote cooperation within the Region in identifying and addressing crucial needs that may otherwise go unmet. Bill said he was especially pleased with the degree of interchange between people from different divisions, which he sees as a prerequisite for effective strategic planning in the Region. He complimented everyone on their openness and urged them to keep up the momentum of cross-media communication after leaving the conference. In his wrap-up comments to the conference partici- pants, Morris Kay stated again that the Region is engaged in an important process. We should be looking at what our priorities are for protecting the environment in our States. He said that everyone in the Regional Office should feel that they are making a significant contribution to success in this effort. He stressed, however, that it is a continuing process. It will be a useless exercise if we let it end with the confer- ence. We now must use the information generated from the process in two concrete ways to operationalize the good intentions. First, he said, we must work with the States via the State/EPA Agreement discussions to set clear priori- ties. Second, we must track our progress by "putting a STARS focus" on the priorities that arise from the com- parative risk and planning process. Morris noted that the ability to measure success is vital to a risk-based approach to environmental protection. He said he hoped that one of the next steps in the comparative risk process will be to begin developing new environmen- tal indicators and other methods of assessing the condition of ecosystems and evaluating the results of efforts to protect or restore them. This must be an outgrowth of the Comparative RiskProject, he said-a part of implementing its findings. Measuring progress requires a significant investment in data gathering and analysis, he cautioned. If we truly want to use data as a basis for our decisions, then our budgeting process must reflect the need for data collection above and beyond those things that EPA is required by sta- tute to do. We must communicate this important need to the top managers of our environmental programs, he said. Finally, Morris said that he would like to see the comparative risk process begin to concentrate on how to tackle broad areas that have been identified as high priorities for the Region but which are probably too general as a focus for specific actions. He encouraged the group to start thinking about implementation methods in the area of Agricultural Practices I Pesticide Pollution, for example. What levers will be most effective in reducing the risk to human health and the environment from this extremely broad set of activities? Participants in the comparative risk process should very soon turn to the task of breaking the problem areas into their constituent sub-areas and making recommendations on how to address specific concerns (e.g., increased education on the ecological effects of habitat alteration). Next Steps Region VII will take these steps to follow up on the recommendations made during the conference: • Planning Council. A Regional Planning Council of Deputy Division Directors will be established to develop the structure for the Region's initial strategic plan, due to be completed by the end of February 1991. • Revised Definitions, A Definitions Workgroup will be convened as soon as possible to develop a set of environ- mental "focus areas" or "action areas" that provide a better basis for cross-media risk analysis and planning. • Data Framework. The Data Coordination Group of the Comparative Risk Project will prepare a proposed Uni- form Data Framework for risk analysis and will explore the idea of a Regional clearinghouse on data sources. 15 ------- • R&D Roundtable. Several conference participants were to take part in a roundtable discussion on science and data needs with Erich Bretthauer, Assistant Admin- istrator for Research and Development, during his visit to the Region the week following the conference. • Seminar Series. The Region and Kansas University will co-sponsor a seminar series beginning in the winter of 1990-91 designed to share the results and implications of the Comparative Risk Project. The seminars will be open to the staffs of EPA and other state and federal natural resource agencies, members of the university community, and other interested parties. • Regional Forums. The Policy and Management staff will organize periodic meetings to keep all interested Regional and State personnel informed about progress and plans in the comparative risk and strategic planning pro- cess. • Expert Speakers. The Region will bring in nationally- recognized experts in comparative risk and strategic plan- ning to discuss their work and its relevance for the Region's planning process. The first speaker in this widely-publi- cized series will be William Cooper, Professor of Ecology at Michigan S tate University and chair of the Ecology Task Force of EPA's Science Advisory Board. 16 ------- APPENDICES ------- APPENDIX A CONFERENCE ATTENDEES Office of the Regional Administrator Morris Kay, Regional Administrator Bill Rice, Deputy Regional Administrator Kathy Montalte Office of Policy and Management Susan Gordon, Assistant Regional Administrator Mike Bronoski Mary Carter Larry Gavin Linda Garwood Gordon Gregory Bettye Hadley Mark Hague Kerry Herndon Diane Hershberger Chris Hess Marian Hess Lynn Kring Dominique Lueckenhoff Delores Platt Elaine Preis Gene Ramsey Dick Sumpter Dan Vallero Air and Toxics Division Art Spratlin, Division Director Leo Alderman Wolfgang Brandner Diane Callier Bob Dye Doug Elders Larry Hacker JoAnn Heiman Wayne Kaiser Wayne Leidwanger Mary Tietjen-Mindrup Carl Walter Environmental Services Division Billy Fairless, Division Director Charlie Hensley Tom Holloway Gary Welker Waste Management Division Dave Wagoner, Division Director Betty Berry Dave Crawford Maureen Hunt Steve Kovac Chet McLaughlin Bill Pedicino Mike Sanderson Bob Stewart Gale Wright Aaron Zimmerman A-l ------- Water Management Division State Agencies Tim Amsden, Division Director (Acting) Terry Deen Julie Elfving Gerry Foree John Houlihan Paul Marshall Bob Steiert Rao Surampalli Mary Williams David Bedan, Missouri Department of Environmental Quality Carl Birns, Kansas Division of Health Gale Hutton, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control Steve Meek, Missouri Department of Health Daryl Roberts, Missouri Department of Health Jim Williams, Missouri Department of Geology and Land Survey Office of Regional Counsel Dave Cozad Robert Patrick Ceil Price Bill Ward Other Federal Agencies Dan Harper, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Tom Nash, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Public Affairs Rowena Michaels, Director Steve Wurtz Congressional and Intergovernmental Liaison Jacki Ferguson Ann Keener EPA Headquarters Nancy Firestone, Associate Deputy Administrator Mike Drysdale, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation University of Kansas Faculty Dr. Matthew Adeyanju, Assistant Professor, School of Education Dr. Ernest Angino, Professor, Department of Geology Dr. Robert Budemeyer, Senior Scientist, Kansas Geological Survey Dr. Robert Glicksman, Professor, School of Law Dr. Curt Klaassen, Professor, Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology Dr. Glen Marotz, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering Dr. Edward Martinko, Director, Kansas Biological Survey Dr. Charles Marsh, Assistant Professor, School of Journalism Dr. Eric Strauss, Associate Professor, School of Architecture & Urban Design A-2 ------- APPENDIX B-la ECOLOGICAL RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1990 Region VII Comparative Risk Project ECO RISK RATING ECO CONF RATING PROBLEM AREA REPRESENTATIVE STRESSORS RECEPTORS OF CONCERN H H PESTICIDE POLLUTION Triazines, grain fumigants, organophosphates, chlorinated hydrocarbons, phenoxy herbicides, inert pesticide ingredients Ground water, aquatic life, nearby vegetation and animals (via drift) H LARGE-SCALE ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION Acid deposition, greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion All ecosystems M M CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Carbon monoxide, ozone, paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead Surface waters, trees and other vegetation, terrestrial animals; buildings, agrosystems, and other welfare receptors M M TOXIC CHEMICALS PCBs, lead, plastics, known carcinogens, chlorinated solvents Aquatic life, wetland habitats H RADIATION Nonionizing radiation, released radioactivity All ecosystems (due to ubiquity of nonionizing radiation sources) AIR TOXICS 19 substances of concern in Region 7, including metals, chlorinated solvents, others All ecosystems B-l Not applicable for ecological risk analysis: Indoor Air Pollution ------- AIR, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES MEDIA TEAM SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONDITIONS DOMINANT RISK FACTORS HLTH RISK RATING HLTH CONF RATING 137 million pounds of active pesticide ingredients are applied to the 159 million acres of farmland in the Region each year. Numerous incidences have been reported of ground water and surface water contamination and habitat destruction via drift, but data are not readily available to show extent and severity of the problems. With pesticides ubiquitous in the Region, though, the ecological impact is assumed to be great. All risk factors were rated High overall, with highest composite risk to surface waters, wetlands, agrosystems, and ground water. H H Climate modification due to greenhouse gases and UV-B effects of stratospheric ozone depletion are still being studied, but the long- term risk to all ecosystems except ground water is considerable. Acid precipitation does not appear to damage crops and forests in Region VII. The acid neutralizing capacity of surface waters in the Region is relatively high. Long-term risk to all ecosystems except ground water was rated High. Confidence in these ratings was Low in each case, due to absence of data on impacts. M Several areas in the Region exceed the national standards for ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. Portions of wetland, forest, grassland, and agricultural ecosystems are exposed to above welfare-based standard levels of one or more of these pollutants. Data on specific impacts are not available. High intensity of stress and areal extent of response are counter- balanced by Moderate ratings on other factors. Greatest impact on forest and wetland ecosystems. H H Data from the Toxic Release Inventory and other sources shows sizable releases of many toxic chemicals into all media. Many of these substances are known to have acute and/or chronic effects on animals, fish, and birds, though data on the extent of Region VII impact are not readily available. Moderate ratings predominated across the risk factors and across the ecosystem classes. H M A serious radiation-release accident might contaminate the surrounding ecosystem and prompt its destruction to prevent human exposure, but the probability of serious accidents is considered to be very small. There is no known risk to ecological systems from nonionizing radiation. There is no evidence that radiation from normal operations of nuclear power plants and other radioactive sites has measurable effect on the biosphere. Composite risk was rated Low on all factors except areal extent of stress. H 1988 TR1 air emission total of 136 million pounds for Region VII accounts for a portion of all toxic air emissions. While stressor chemicals are continuously present in the atmosphere, little information is available to document the impact on ecological systems in the Region. Region V studies on air transport of mercury, toxaphene, and PCBs suggest direct effects on surface waters and wetlands. Moderate extent, intensity, and persistence of stress is offset by Low risk ratings on response factors. H M B-2 ------- APPENDIX B-lb HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1990 Region VII Comparative Risk Project HLTH RISK RATING H H H H H M L HLTH CONF RATING H H H M M L H PROBLEM AREA INDOOR AIR POLLUTION PESTICIDES POLLUTION CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS TOXIC CHEMICALS AIR TOXICS LARGE-SCALE ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION RADIATION REPRESENTATIVE STRESSORS Radon, environmental tobacco smoke, asbestos, formaldehyde, respirable particles, biological contaminants, organic compounds Triazines, grain fumigants, organophosphates, chlorinated hydrocarbons, phenoxy herbicides, inert pesticide ingredients Carbon monoxide, ozone, paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead PCBs, lead, asbestos, dichloromethane, formaldehyde 19 substances of concern in Region VII, including metals, chlorinated solvents, others Acid deposition, greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion Nonionizing radiation, released radioactivity RECEPTORS OF CONCERN General population Farmworkers, commercial employees, general population (via ground water contamination) People with respiratory problems, children, elderly people, people under physical exertion Workers who produce or dispose of toxic chemicals, end users of products containing toxic chemicals (e.g., janitorial and maintenance workers), general population General population (urban and rural exposure differences) General population People exposed to nonionizing radiation, people within 50 miles of nuclear power plants, people in the vicinity of radio- active material and waste sites B-3 ------- AIR, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES MEDIA TEAM SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONDITIONS Radon screening survey is finding high levels of radon in all areas of the Region. Average radon level in the Region is 4.0 pCi/1, the national EPA action level. 71% of Iowa homes tested were above 4.0 pCiA. Individual lung cancer risk for the Region is estimated at 1 in 100, compared to national level of 6 in 1,000. Millions of people are exposed to other indoor air pollutants, with health effects assumed to be the same as national levels. 137 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients are applied to the 159 million acres of farmland in the Region each year. Highest potential for human exposure occurs during mixing, loading, and application operations. Difficult to quantify risk posed by pesticides in drinking water supplies because of need for better monitoring data and seasonal nature of contamination (primarily due to runoff). Several areas in the Region exceed the national standards for ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. 37% of total Regional population lives in these "violation areas." Exceeding NAAQS is defined as producing "High" health risk. Toxic chemicals are widespread in daily life, with the entire Region VII population potentially exposed. Data from the Toxic Release Inventory and other sources shows sizeable releases of many toxic chemicals into all media. Many of these substances are known to have adverse human health effects. 1988 TRI air emission total of 136 million pounds for Region VII accounts for a portion of all toxic air emissions. Data from 3 urban air monitors in 1989 showed 18 of the 38 toxic chemicals detected exceeded the mean for cities studied. 4.7 million people live in the Region's 18 cities of 50,000 or more, subject to greatest exposure. Health effects from acid deposition have not been characterized and are not thought to be significant. Global warming may lead to increases in human mortality and illness and raise ambient ozone levels. UV-B exposure from ozone depletion is estimated to increase cataracts and skin cancers significantly. The entire Regional population is exposed to nonionizing radiation, but dose-response relationships are not known. Average individual cancer risk associated with each type of radioactive emission source is well below 1 in 100,000 nationally. DOMINANT RISK FACTORS High ratings on all risk factors except welfare impacts. All risk factors were rated High, driven by risk to agricultural workers and commercial applicators, with Moderate composite risk to other exposed subpopulations. All risk factors except persistence of stress were rated High. High composite risk to all exposed subpopulations. High ratings on area! extent, persistence of stress and intensity of response drive the overall rating. Most risk factors were rated High, with urban subpopulation rated High and rural rated Moderate. Moderate intensity and likelihood of response to UV-B increases offsets High ratings on other risk factors. Composite risk was rated Low on all factors except areal extent of stress. ECO RISK RATING NA H M M L H L ECO CONF RATING NA H M M L L H B-4 ------- APPENDIX B-2a ECOLOGICAL RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1990 Region VII Comparative Risk Project ECO RISK RATING M ECO CONE RATING PROBLEM AREA INDUSTRIAL SOLED WASTE SITES REPRESENTATIVE STRESSORS Numerous non-hazardous (per RCRA) wastes; no substances or classes of substances cited as representative RECEPTORS OF CONCERN Aquatic life, ground water, nearby vegetation and animals M H ABANDONED OR UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: Lead/Zinc Mining Lead, cadmium, zinc Biota in surface waters near mining sites M MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SITES Ammonia, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, dibenzofurans, methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, phenols, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylenes, 1,1-dichloroethane, lead, mercury, barium, iron Aquatic life, ground water, nearby vegetation and animals M M UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS "BETX" - benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylcne Aquatic life, ground water M M ABANDONED OR UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: Mfd. Gas Plants Benzo(a)pyrene, benzene Ground water, aquatic life ABANDONED OR UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: Other Aromatic hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, dioxin, TNT Terrestrial species, such as burrowing mammals; migratory birds; aquatic life ACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES Lead, pentachlorophenol, tri- chloroethylene, vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, tetrachloro- ethylene, benzo(a)pyrene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, chromium, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane Aquatic life, ground water B-5 Not applicable for ecological risk analysis - Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites: VOC-Contaminated Water Sources/Systems ------- WASTE MEDIA TEAM SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONDITIONS DOMINANT RISK FACTORS HLTH RISK RATING HLTH CONF RATING Several thousand disposal sites in the Region (exact number unknown). Anecdotal reports of ground water and surface water contamination and airborne migration of methane and other gases. Data on type and extent of impacts is not readily available. All ecosystem classes were rated Moderate on all factors but one, with Low confidence assigned to all ratings due to absence of information. M Limited information on mining sites indicates high level of contaminants, especially zinc, in surface waters in the vicinity of mines - well above the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for protection of aquatic life. Effects on other ecosystems uncertain but presumed minor due to limited areal extent of mining sites. Low area! extent of stress and response counterbalanced High ratings on most other factors. H H 688 disposal units in the Region, including 336 permitted sanitary landfills. Perhaps 1% of total disposed tonnage is household hazardous waste. Ground water contamination by some sanitary landfills has been documented, leading to concern that existing design standards are not adequate. Surface water impacts projected for 10% of facility universe. High ratings on most factors for ground water drives up the overall rating, offsetting composite Lows on other ecosystems. M More than 80,000 petroleum USTs in the Region. Data from 10 Lust Trust Fund sites indicates high potential for ground water contamination by leaking tanks but relatively minor incidence of surface water impacts from spills. Studies suggest mat action on biota is restricted to bioavailable components of petroleum products. High overall risk rating for ground water and Moderate rating for surface waters and wetlands counterbalances Lows assigned to other ecosystem classes due to lack of information. M M 200 urban sites where historical production of town gas left large amounts of coal tar and other hazardous wastes, generally disposed of in buried tanks or open pits. Data from 3 sites suggests that contamination of ground water is common. Little evidence of surface water impacts through ground water transfer. No effects on other ecosystems since sites are urban. High risk to ground water, based on relatively high duration and persistence of stress and response. Low risk to surface waters brings overall rating down to Moderate. M M Information from RI/FSs, risk assessments, and other documents for 11 sites indicates high incidence of ground water contamination. Elevated concentrations also detected in surface water and sediments. Moderate risk to ground water is counterbalanced by Lows assign- ed to other ecosystem classes due to lack of information. H 96 land disposal facilities, 231 storage and treatment sites, and 16 incinerators. 80% of land disposal sites have had localized impacts on ground water. Less than 10% of all facilities are thought to have non-ground water ecological impacts, mainly contamination of fish and sediments in nearby streams. High ratings on four factors for ground water are offset by Low ratings on most factors for all other ecosystems (Low confi- dence due to lack of information). M M B-6 ------- APPENDIX B-2b HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1990 Region VII Comparative Risk Project HLTH RISK RATING H H M M M M M L HLTH CONF RATING M H L M M L M H PROBLEM AREA ABANDONED OR UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: VOC-Contaminated Water Sources/Systems ABANDONED OR UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: Lead/Zinc Mining MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SITES ACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE SITES ABANDONED OR UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: Mfd. Gas Plants ABANDONED OR UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: Other REPRESENTATIVE STRESSORS Trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, vinyl chloride Lead, cadmium, zinc Ammonia, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, dibenzoforans,methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, phenols, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylenes, 1,1-dichloro- ethane, lead, mercury, barium, iron Trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, methylene chloride, trans-l,2-dichloro- ethylene, lead, chromium, hexachlorobutadiene "BETX" - benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene Numerous non-hazardous (per RCRA) wastes; no substances or classes of substances cited as representative Benzo(a)pyrene, benzene Aromatic hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, dioxin, TNT RECEPTORS OF CONCERN Users of drinking water delivered by public water supply systems Residents and workers near mining sites, children especially at risk from lead exposure Residents, schoolchildren, waste site workers, collection workers Adult residents, child residents, and schoolchildren are sub- populations evaluated. Other vulnerable subpopulations are workers, infants, and pregnant women. Residents, gas station workers (via inhalation) Waste site workers, residents, waste collectors Construction workers, employ- ees at operating sites, nearby residents, city residents (via water supply contamination) Residents, commercial/ industrial workers, agricultural workers, recreational users B-7 ------- WASTE MEDIA TEAM SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONDITIONS 1,588 former USDA grain storage facilities in the Region. 69 public water sources or systems are known to have been contaminated by at least one of the stressors, potentially exposing nearly 300,000 people. Limited information on mining sites suggests continual, long-term leaching and run-off resulting in exposure of several thousand people via drinking water contamination and other pathways. Effects are limited to one county each in Missouri and Kansas, where most lead mines are located. 688 active disposal, units in the Region, thousands of closed facilities. Perhaps 1% of total disposed tonnage is household hazardous waste. Data from 8 facilities suggests high stressor concentrations in ground water are common. Substantial risk to workers and neighboring residents from direct contact and gas releases. 383 RCRA-permitted sites in the Region, including 96 land disposal facilities, 231 storage and treatment sites, and 16 incinerators. Extrapolation from data on 12 facilities suggests at least 5,000 human expo-sures Regionwide, possibly many thousands more if ground water drinking supplies are contaminated. More than 80,000 petroleum USTs in the Region. Data from 10 Lust Trust Fund sites indicates high potential for ground water contamination by leaking tanks. More than 100,000 gas station workers are exposed to vapors from spills and overfills. Several thousand disposal sites in the Region (exact number unknown). Anecdotal reports of ground water and surface water contamination and airborne migration of methane and other gases. Very little information on type and extent of impacts. 150-200 sites where historical production of town gas left large amounts of coal tar and other hazardous wastes, generally disposed of in buried tanks or open pits. Data from 3 sites suggests that contamination of ground water may be common. Risk is considered highest for construction workers who may encounter buried wastes in very high concentrations. Information from RI/FSs, risk assessments, and other documents for 12 sites indicates high incidence of ground water contamination. Elevated concentrations also detected in surface water. Fewer than 10 people currently exposed, per site. An estimated 5000 to 6000 people exposed for all 1100 sites in the Region. DOMINANT RISK FACTORS High ratings for all factors. High risk to local residents, especially children, counter- balances the Low rating on areal extent of stress. Moderate ratings on most factors. High magnitude and duration of stress and High intensity of response (cancer) offset Low areal extent of stress and Moderate likelihood of response. Moderate ratings for areal extent and likelihood of response outweighed High ratings on all other factors. Moderate ratings on all factors except likelihood of response, which was rated Low due to absence of data. High persistence of stress and High intensity of response by those exposed counterbalance the Low likelihood of response (except for construction workers). Low ratings for areal extent and likelihood of response offset High ratings on all other factors. ECO RISK RATING NA M M L M M M L ECO CONF RATING NA H L L M L M L B-8 ------- APPENDIX B-3a ECOLOGICAL RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1990 Region VII Comparative Risk Project ECO RISK RATING H H H M M M L ECO CONF RATING M M L M L M M PROBLEM AREA HABITAT ALTERATION AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES MUNICIPAL WASTES RESOURCE RECOVERY INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGES HAZARDOUS WASTES PETROLEUM PRODUCT SPILLS AND LEAKS REPRESENTATIVE STRESSORS Hydrologic modification, recreational impacts, vegetation changes, development, thermal pollution, dredging, acid rain and other air releases Pesticides, nutrients, tillage, erosion, sediment deposition, hydrologic modification Many substances, including metals, nitrates, pesticides, PCBs, organic compounds, bacteria Lead, acid, salts, alkaline materials Heavy metals, organics, oxygen-demanding materials, ammonia, pesticides, thermal loadings, nutrients Metals, inorganics, volatile organics, semivolatiles, pesticides, dioxins, furans and PCBs, compounds with extreme pH, ignitable and reactive wastes, medical waste, asbestos Fuels and oils RECEPTORS OF CONCERN All ecosystems All flora and fauna Aquatic life Aquatic life, nearby animal and plant life Aquatic life Surface waters, ground water All flora and fauna in affected lake, stream, wetland, or under- ground ecosystems B-9 Not applicable for ecological risk analysis: Naturally Occurring Contaminants ------- WATER MEDIA TEAM SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONDITIONS DOMINANT RISK FACTORS HLTH RISK RATING HLTH CONF RATING 3.9 million acres remain of the original 13.3 million acres of wetlands in Region VII. 87% of wetlands loss is due to agricultural conversion. In MO, which originally had over 56,000 miles of natural streams, 16,000 acres of aquatic stream habitat have been lost and 20,000 acres degraded by channelization. High risks to surface waters and wetlands, mainly from hydro- logic modification and vegetation changes (e.g., conversion to cropland). NA NA 49% of the Region's land surface is under cultivation. About 70,000 tons of pesticide active ingredients and 2.1 million tons of fertilizer are applied to farmland in Region VII every year. About 15 billion gallons of irrigation water are drawn each day from surface and ground water sources. The most important ecological effects appear to be on surface water life via toxicity, sedimentation, siltation, and blooms. All risk factors except Welfare Impacts were rated High. Composite ecosystem risk was High for agrosystems and ground water, Moderate for surface waters and wetlands. H M Sources of stressors include publicly-owned treatment works, storm water runoff, combined sewer overflows, septic tanks/ absorption fields, sludge and ash disposal, and municipal landfills. Contamination is widespread in the Region, due to the very large number of potential sources. High intensity and duration of impact on ground water, along with High intensity of surface water response, produce a High overall rating despite prepon- derance of M and L ratings. H M Over 50,000 active and inactive sites in the Region, about 95% of them oil and natural gas sites. Total acreage posing environmental threat is about 94,000, or 0.0005% of Regional land surface. High intensity of stress and response counterbalances Low areal extent of potential contamination. Region VII industrial facilities reported 62 million pounds of toxic pollutants discharged into surface waters in 1987. In ESD testing, 60% of facilities had effluent toxic to test organisms. 305(b) reports indicate that industrial discharges caused less than full ecological support in only 3% of the assessed stream miles and almost no lake acres. Anecdotal information on leachate and runoff suggests localized toxic impacts on aquatic life. Moderate ratings for stress factors and intensity of response outweighed Low ratings on other factors. M 345 RCRA TSD facilities and 12,743 hazardous waste generators in the Region; 2,316 Superfund sites, 1,182 of which may require further action, including the 45 now on the NPL; numerous other sources of hazardous wastes. The threat from volatile organic compounds is judged to be higher than that from other stressor categories. Moderate intensity of stress and persistence of stress and response were outweighed by Low ratings on other factors. Moderate impact on surface waters and ground water. L+ M+ 7 spills reported since October 1989, including crude oil pipeline discharge into Gasconade River in MO. Estimated 25,000 leaking underground storage tanks in the Region. Most severe ecological impacts appear to be to aquatic mammals and macrovertebrates from major spills to surface waters. Low risk to surface waters and wetlands offsets the higher risks to ground water from leaking underground tanks. M B-10 ------- APPENDIX B-3b HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1990 Region VII Comparative Risk Project HLTH RISK RATING H H H M M L+ L L HLTH CONF RATING M L M L M M+ L M PROBLEM AREA AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES DRINKING WATER SYSTEM CONTAMINANTS MUNICIPAL WASTES PETROLEUM PRODUCT SPILLS AND LEAKS NATURALLY OCCURRING CONTAMINANTS HAZARDOUS WASTES RESOURCE RECOVERY INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGES REPRESENTATIVE STRESSORS Atrazine, nitrate, carbon tetrachloride Lead, asbestos, trihalomethanes Many substances, including metals, nitrates, pesticides, PCBs, organic compounds, bacteria Gasoline constituents: benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene Radionuclides, lead, fluoride Metals, volatile organics, semivolatiles, explosives/ munitions process wastes, non-metal inorganics, pesticides, radionuclides, acidic/corrosive wastes, and dioxins Lead, zinc, and cadmium (lead mining); iron and aluminum (coal mine drainage); sodium and chloride (oil drilling) 126 "priority pollutants" regulated under authority of the Clean Water Act RECEPTORS OF CONCERN General population (urban and rural exposure differences) Adult residents, children, workers, infants, pregnant women, nursing women Infants (nitrates), urban fish consumers, recreational water users Adult residents, children, workers, infants, pregnant women, nursing women Adult residents, children, workers, infants, pregnant women, nursing women General population Adult residents, children, workers, infants, pregnant women, nursing women General population B-ll Not applicable for human health risk analysis: Habitat Alteration ------- WATER MEDIA TEAM SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONDITIONS DOMINANT RISK FACTORS ECO RISK RATING ECO CONF RATING Atrazine, a triazine pesticide, has been detected in surface water in many locations in the Region. An estimated 6.8 million people are exposed to atrazine in drinking water. Nitrate has been detected in ground water throughout the Region, often at levels above the drinking water standard. Carbon tet is found in ground water throughout ME and KS. Composite rating was High on most factors, with bottom line driven by High risks to infants from nitrates and to all receptors from carbon tet. H M Region VII exposure of children to lead in drinking water is not known, due to lack of monitoring data. ODW estimates that 57% of public water supplies could not meet a proposed lead standard of 15 ug/L instead of the current standard of 50 ug/L. No data on asbestos. Trihalomethane violations are very rare. High overall rating is due to the possibility of severe health effects on children exposed to lead in drinking water. NA NA Sources of stressors include publicly-owned treatment works, storm water runoff, combined sewer overflows, septic tanks/absorption fields, sludge and ash disposal, and municipal landfills. Contamination is widespread in the Region, due to the very large number of potential sources. High risk to infants from nitrates in drinking water drove the overall rating to High, despite preponderance of Moderate ratings. H Estimated exposed human population is 1.6 million, based on estimated national UST leak rate of 25% and Region's 54% reliance on ground water as a drinking water source. See also Waste Media Team's analysis. High persistence of stress and intensity of response are outweighed by Moderate ratings on other factors. M 34 public water supplies in the Region have reported radium and fluoride violations. National surveys found unregulated radionuclides in approximately 90 Region VII public water supply systems. Lead concentrations have been found in several surface waters and ground water systems. High risk to children from lead is outweighed by Moderate risk ratings for other stressor-receptor pairs. NA NA 345 RCRA TSD facilities and 12,743 hazardous waste generators in the Region; 2,316 Superfund sites, 1,182 of which may require further action, including the 45 now on the NPL; numerous other sources of hazardous wastes. The threat from volatile organic compounds is judged to be higher than that from other stressor categories. Low area! extent, likelihood of response, and exposed human population counterbalanced Moderate ratings on other factors. M M Lead is found in surface and ground waters in the Region, but most if not all of the contamination is being handled under Superfund. Other stressors are thought to have negligible health effects. Low overall rating assumes that lead contamination is being addressed by Superfund. Low confidence due to lack of data. M M+ Approximately 1,000 permits have been issued in the Region for industrial direct discharges to surface waters. The risk analyst concluded that drinking water standards and control of discharges minimize the risk of public water supply contamination. Low intensity of stress and likelihood of response offset High areal extent and other factors rated Moderate. M B-12 ------- APPENDIX C CONCEPT FOR UNIFORM DATA FRAMEWORK The Science and Data Priorities Group recommended that the Region develop a matrix identifying the data types to be considered in conducting comparative risk evaluations and providing a variety of information about the sources and nature of each individual data type. Separate matrices should be developed for human health and ecological risk analyses. The matrices will provide a framework for data acquisition and evaluation during future comparative risk analysis projects. A conceptual format for the human health matrix for a particular chemical, contaminant, or disease agent is shown below. A similar example matrix could be created for ecological data. DATA TYPE Region VII Uses Amount Used in Region VII Amount Used Nationally Amount Projected to be Used in Region VII in 5 Years, 10 Years Number of Locations or Sources, By Type Projected Number of Locations or Sources in 5 Years, 10 Years Geographical Distribution of Locations or Sources Potential Exposed Population per Source or Location (for specified subpopulations and exposure routes) Acute and Chronic Exposure Limits for Inhalation, Ingestion, and Dermal Routes Health Effects, Including Morbidity, for Inhalation, Ingestion, and Dermal Routes SOURCES OF DATA QUALITY OF DATA REGION vn SPECIFIC? COMMENTS C-l ------- APPENDIX D PRIORITY RATINGS OF RESEARCH AND DATA NEEDS This appendix contains lists of research and data needs mentioned specifically in the Risk Analysis Abstracts prepared by the Media Teams (pages D-2 and D-3). It also presents the Science and Data Priorities Group's condensations of those lists and that group's rating of the relative priorities of the needs (pages D-4 and D-5). In the interest of time, the Science and Data Priorities Group split into two subgroups to examine and rank the data gaps and the research needs simultaneously. The data gaps contingent made minor modifications to the initial list (e.g., consolidating the needs for information on private wells that were listed by both the Waste and the Water Media Teams). The resulting list of data gaps contained 20 items. The science gaps subgroup decided to boil their initial list of 24 down to a more manageable number of items. By combining similar items and grouping others into more general categories, they produced a list of 13 research gaps. The full group then voted on each item in each list to determine whether it would be ranked as a High, Medium, or Low priority. Gaps receiving seven or more High votes out of the twelve cast were considered High priority; those receiving seven or more Low votes were rated as Low Priority; and the remainder were classified as Medium Priority. Pages D-4 and D-5 show the results of the voting. D-! ------- RESEARCH NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN RISK ANALYSIS ABSTRACTS Air, Toxics, and Pesticides Media Team Health effects of toxic chemical interactions (synergistic effects) Chronic responses to short term exposures to toxic chemicals Human health effects of certain pesticides Interactive effects of atmospheric pollution and modification factors on human health and indi- vidual ecosystems Health effects of nonionizing radiation and indoor air pollution Refinement of lung cancer risks from radon Ecosystem impacts of toxic releases to air and land Lower detection levels (parts per billion range) for certain air toxics Waste Media Team Ecosystem (especially non-water) responses to hazardous substances Ecosystem safe or protective levels for most hazardous substances Health impacts of gasoline constituents, metals, PAHs, and other hazardous substances Synergistic/antagonistic reactions of multiple contaminants Quantitative methods for estimating ground water transport of dense non-aqueous liquids from manufactured gas plant sites and other sites Metal particle size of greatest health risk if ingested Water Media Team Field studies on biotoxicity and long-term ecosystem effects of individual and multiple stressors from various sources (e.g., hazardous waste sites, industrial discharges, municipal landfills, agricultural practices) Indicators of agricultural chemical effects on aquatic ecosystems Long-term fate and transport of organic chemicals Ability of ecosystems to recover from severe anthropogenic stress Non-cancer toxicity values for radionuclides Reference dose and potency factor for lead Nitrate contamination effects on individuals older than 6 months D-2 ------- DATA NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN RISK ANALYSIS ABSTRACTS Air, Toxics, and Pesticides Media Team Current and past use of individual pesticides Baseline levels of pesticides in ground water and surface waters Air toxics emissions in rural and medium-sized urban areas Toxic chemical releases by non-TRI reporters (<50,000 pounds per year) NAAQS exceedances at problem areas for particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide Waste Media Team Site-specific data on releases and impacts from a larger number of sites of all types Toxic air releases from hazardous waste sites Exposure of solid waste site workers Releases from all site types to ecosystems other than surface waters and ground water Number and location of hazardous substance tanks and aboveground storage tanks of all types Private well number and locations More recent test results from public water supply systems Ground water contamination impacts on agriculture and other non-drinking uses Water Media Team Water quality of private wells Baseline data on ground water quality Industrial waste releases to water via leaching and runoff (e.g., storage pile losses, sludge/ash disposal, landfills) Toxic chemicals in POTW effluents Number of unregulated petroleum product tanks (e.g., aboveground, fuel oil, <500 gal.) Ambient lead levels throughout the Region Subpopulation size estimates D ------- DATA NEED RATING RESULTS DESCRIPTION OF NEED Ecosystem impacts and responses to contaminants and other anthropogenic stresses Long-term studies to better predict regional impact of global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion Synergistic/antagonistic reactions of multiple contaminants Health impacts of many contaminants, including gasoline constituents, metals, PAHs, nonionizing radiation, and indoor air pollution Human exposure to pesticides Study of lung cancer risks from radon in Iowa Better monitoring and analytical methodology for certain toxics Drinking water nitrate health effects on individuals older than six months Ecosystem quality indicators Long-term fate and transport of organic chemicals Quantitative methods for estimating ground water transport of DNAPLs and non-DNAPLs Non-zero contaminant carcinogenicity values, where appropriate (i.e., threshold values) Metal particle size of greatest health risk if ingested MEDIA TEAM All Air-Tox-Pest All All Air-Tox-Pest Air-Tox-Pest Air-Tox-Pest Water Water Water Waste Water Waste RATING RESULTS (H-M-L Votes) H (9-2-1) M (6-5-1) H (7-5-0) H (9-3-0) M (6-6-0) M (4-7-1) M (5-6-1) M (5-3-4) M (6-4-2) M (3-5-4) M (0-8-4) L (1-4-7) L (0-3-9) D-4 ------- DATA NEED RATING RESULTS DESCRIPTION OF NEED Current and past use of individual pesticides, including area-specific use data More field monitoring data for pesticides in ground water, surface waters, and soils Air toxics emissions in rural and medium-sized urban areas Toxic chemical releases by non-TRI reporters Toxic air releases from hazardous waste sites Site-specific ecological data Exposure of solid waste site workers Releases from all site types to ecosystems other than surfaces waters and ground water Number and location of aboveground hazardous substance and petroleum storage tanks Numbers and types of unregulated hazardous substance and petroleum product tanks Private well number, location, and quality More recent test results from public water supply systems Ground water contamination impacts on agriculture and other non-drinking uses Ambient water quality - surface and ground Leaching and runoff from industrial sources Subpopulation sizes and distortion Toxic chemicals in POTW effluents Releases from municipal landfills Regional and national trends of water quality Inventory of abandoned wells MEDIA TEAM Air-Tox-Pest Water Air-Tox-Pest Air-Tox-Pest Air-Tox-Pest Waste All Waste Waste Waste Water Waste Waste Waste Water Water Water Water Water Water All RATING RESULTS (H-M-L Votes) H (7-5-0) H (10-2-0) M (1-10-1) M (2-10-0) M (0-6-6) H (10-2-0) L (0-3-9) M (5-5-2) M (2-9-1) M (2-8-2) H (8-2-2) M (4-4-4) M (1-9-2) M (2-9-1) M (2-7-3) M (1-1-10) M (6-4-2) M (6-5-1) M (2-4-6) M (2-4-6) ------- PROCEEDINGS OF THE EPA REGION VII COMPARATIVE RISK AND PLANNING CONFERENCE September 5-7,1990 Kansas City, Missouri EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Comparative Risk Project Early in 1990, EPA's Deputy Administrator asked Region VII and other Regional Offices to conduct a com- parative risk analysis of environmental problems facing them. By the end of this calendar year, all Regions will have conducted such a project and presented their results to Headquarters. The Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation intends to consolidate these Regional reports into a national picture of environmental risk that may ultimately influence planning and budgeting within the Agency. The significance of the Comparative Risk Project for Region VII goes far beyond a ranking of environmental problems. The Region viewed this exercise as an opportu- nity to build a solid framework for risk-based strategic planning, and the Region's approach to the project has kept this wider goal in mind. The four cornerstones of this approach have been: • Examination of ecological as well as human health risks, using the same ecosystem classes defined by EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP); • Selection of representative stressors and receptors for focused, data-based analysis of conditions and trends in the Region; • Identifying data gaps and research needs that should be ad- dressed to improve our understanding of stressors and their impacts; and • Emphasis on cross-media analysis and team-building, laying the groundwork for an integrated strategic planning process. The Region organized three "Media Teams" to exam- ine the relative risks of environmental problems pertinent to the Region's program divisions - Air and Toxics; Waste Management; and Water Management. The Media Teams first defined environmental "problem areas" specific to their programs. Then, using stressor/ receptor worksheets and methodological guidance developed by the Region, they examined each of these problem areas in detail, combining available data and professional judgment to produce a relative rating - High, Moderate, or Low - of its risk. Separate ratings were produced for human health and ecological risk. The Media Teams also identified major data gaps or research needs that should be addressed to improve the confidence level of the risk analyses. Conference Objectives and Participants To provide the all-important cross-media perspective on risks and lay the foundation for strategic planning, the Region convened the conference that is the subject of this report. The principal objectives of the Comparative Risk and Planning Conference were to: H Begin to build the cross-media sense of ownership and rapport that will be required for integrated strategic planning in the Region; • Identify refinements needed to improve the comparative risk process for its next iteration; and • Determine the next steps to be taken toward instituting a strategic planning process. More than 100 people attended the conference, in- cluding the Regional Administrator and Deputy Regional Administrator; Division Directors and numerous other representatives from each Regional division; environmen- tal managers and analysts from State agencies; and several members of the academic community. ------- Breakout Groups A central objective of the Comparative Risk and Planning Conference was to bring media-specific analysts and managers together to examine multimedia issues and risks. Much of the cross-media discussion and analysis was conducted in four breakout groups: • Ecological Priorities Group, charged with producing a single cross-media prioritization of the ecological problem areas exam- ined by the three Media Teams; H Human Health Priorities Group, responsible for prioritizing the Region's environmental threats to human health; • Science and Data Priorities Group, which developed priori- tized lists of research and data needs for improving comparative risk analyses in the future; • Strategic Decisions Group, charged with developing ideas for new Region VEI strategic activities and policies based on the results of the Comparative Risk Project TABLE ES-1 CONSENSUS PRIORITIZATION OF ECOLOGICAL PROBLEM AREAS High • Agricultural Practices I Pesticide Pollution • Habitat Alteration • Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution Medium • Municipal Wastes I Municipal Solid Waste Sites • Resource Extraction I Superfund Sites: Lead and Zinc Mining • Industrial Waste Dischargers I Industrial Solid Waste Sites • Hazardous Wastes I Active Hazardous Waste Sites I Superfund Sites: Manufactured Gas Plants I Superfund Sites: Other Sites • Air Toxics I Criteria Air Pollutants Low • Underground Storage Tanks I Petroleum Product Spills & Leaks • Toxic Chemicals (from pathways not covered elsewhere) • Radiation TABLE ES-2 CONSENSUS PRIORITIZATION OF HUMAN HEALTH PROBLEM AREAS High • Agricultural Practices I Pesticide Pollution • Indoor Air Pollution / Radon • Large-Scale Atmospheric Pollution (only High if research bears out fears about global warming and ozone depletion) • Ambient Air (including Air Toxics) • Toxic Chemicals Medium • Drinking Water System Contaminants (including lead) • Municipal Waste (solid and liquid) • Industrial Waste (solid and liquid) 1 Hazardous Waste Sites (active and inactive) • Underground Storage Tanks I Petroleum Product Spills and Leaks Low • Naturally Occurring Contaminants (in water) • Resource Extraction • Radiation (including everything except radon) Each breakout group contained members from all three Media Teams, other Regional participants, and at least one representative from a State environmental or public health agency in Region VII. These teams met at least four times during the course of the conference. Consensus Products of the Conference On the final day of the conference, each breakout group presented its results to a plenary session. The whole body then participated in an open discussion on the prioritized problem lists and other recommendations. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 show the outcome of the consensus-building discussion of ecological and human health priorities. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 summarize the recommendations of the Science and Data Priorities Group and the Strategic De- cisions Group, respectively. 11 ------- These conference products provide a starting point for the Region's strategic planning initiative, which will be a natural extension of the comparative risk analysis process. An important objective of the conference was to establish a spirit of cross-media teamwork among all participants by examining the relative priorities of the problems as they were initially defined. This process is more valuable to the Region than the lists themselves, which will undergo substantial refinement as integrated strategic planning continues. The State Perspective Representatives from State agencies met on the final day of the conference to pool their opinions about the Region's comparative risk and planning process and where it should be going. The group's spokesman made several points to the plenary session, including: TABLE ES-3 HIGHEST-PRIORITY SCIENCE AND DATA GAPS Three science gaps should be considered among the highest priorities for research: Ecosystem impacts of and responses to hazardous contaminants and other anthropogenic stresses Human health effects of many contaminants, including gasoline constituents, metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, nonionizing radiation, and indoor air pollution Synergistic, antagonistic reactions of multiple contaminants Four data gaps should be seen as the highest priorities for action: Current and past use of individual pesticides, including data on area-specific use More field monitoring data for pesticides in ground water, surface waters, and soils Site-specific ecological data Number, location, and water quality of private wells TABLE ES-4 RECOMMENDED MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE REGION VII STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS • Refinement of the problem area definitions (This is the first and highest-priority step) • An integrated cross-media focus proceeding along a variety of avenues, including: Regulation Negotiation Education Prevention Remediation • Explicitly addressing the following issues: Expected risk reduction Measurable goals Resource allocation Data gaps and needs H Risk-based planning activities are so important that the Region should establish a Regional Planning Group to meet regularly. State department directors should be in- vited to be members of this group. H A vital step for the Region to take very quickly is to find a better set of problem definitions than those used in the first round of comparative risk analysis. A State agency cannot tackle the issue of "agricultural practices," for example. A more focused approach is needed. What are the priority issues within the broad problem categories? H EPA should continue to pursue a broader working relationship with State and local agencies, since they will ultimately be the ones who must implement the programs and initiatives. H Education is a vital element in future efforts to reduce environmental threats and prevent new pollution. Creative educational approaches will be needed. m ------- Next Steps The Region will take these steps to follow up on the recommendations made during the conference: • Planning Committee. A Regional Planning Commit- tee of Deputy Division Directors will be established to develop the structure for the Region's initial strategic plan, due to be completed by the end of February 1991. • Revised Definitions. A Definitions Workgroup will be convened as soon as possible to develop a set of environ- mental "focus areas" or "action areas" that provide a better basis for cross-media risk analysis and planning. • Data Framework. The Data Coordination Group of the Comparative Risk Project will prepare a proposed Uniform Data Framework for risk analysis and will flesh out the idea of a Regional clearinghouse on risk analysis data sources. • R & D Roundtable. Several conference participants were to take part in a roundtable discussion on science and data needs with Erich Bretthauer, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, during his visit to the Region the week following the conference. M Seminar Series. The Region and Kansas University will co-sponsor a seminar series beginning in the winter of 1990-91 designed to share the results and implications of the Comparative Risk Project. The seminars will be open to the staffs of EPA and other state and federal natural resource agencies, members of the university community, and other interested parties. • Regional Forums. The Policy and Management staff will organize periodic meetings to keep all interested Regional and State personnel informed about progress and plans in the comparative risk and strategic planning pro- cess. • Expert Speakers. The Region will bring in nationally- recognized experts in comparative risk and strategic plan- ning to discuss their work and its relevance for the Region's planning process. The first speaker in this widely-publi- cized series will be William Cooper, Professor of Ecology at Michigan S tate University and chair of the Ecology Task Force of EPA's Science Advisory Board. IV ------- |