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

-------