£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 2
New York
212-1001
June 1991
Risk Ranking Project
Region 2
Comparative Risk Ranking
Of The Health, Ecological,
And Welfare Effects Of
Twenty-Seven Environmental
Problem Areas
Overview Report
HEALTH
ECOLOGY
WELFARE/
ECONOMICS
-------
Risk Ranking Project
Region 2
Comparative Risk Ranking of the
Health, Ecological, and Welfare
Effects of Twenty-Seven
Environmental
Problem Areas
Overview Report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Ranking Work Group
Region 2
February 1991
-------
Foreword
What are our nation's worst environmental problems? Pesticides in our
foods, dwindling wetlands, toxic wastes, the hole in the ozone layer, radon
lurking in the basement, acid rain, closed beaches, and urban smog are among
the many problems that pose threats to our health, to the environment, and to
our well being.
Over the last 20 years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
been given responsibility to deal with many of these problems under a
patchwork of legislative mandates. Given the scarcity of resources available to
confront the expanding list of threats to public health and to the environment,
we need to know what the worst environmental problems are in terms of risks
to people, natural systems, and our welfare. Then, we must assess whether
our priorities make sense in light of the relative risks posed by these problems.
On a national level, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems, a landmark study published by EPA in 1987, was
designed to start answering these questions. In January 1990, EPA's Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation requested that the seven EPA regions which
had not yet completed comparative analyses of the risks posed by environmental
problems at the regional level undertake such studies.
In Region II, a work group composed of staff members with varied
backgrounds, representing each of the divisions was created, and asked by the
Regional Administrator to undertake the Risk Ranking Project. The work group
proceeded to: 1) define the regional list of environment problems; 2) develop the
criteria and methodologies for evaluating the problem areas; 3) collect data and
analyze the risks; and, 4) complete a relative ranking of the problem areas on
the basis of their health, ecological and welfare risks. On October 1, 1990, the
work group presented its rankings and the rationale for its findings to the
Regional Administrator and the region's senior managers. The work group's
recommendations were unanimously adopted by the senior managers.
This report contains an overview of the Region IPs relative risk rankings
for health, ecological and welfare effects, and the rationale for those rankings.
There are three additional reports which contain the detailed health, ecological
and welfare problem areas analyses on which the rankings are based.
m
-------
Region II Risk Ranking Work Group
Chairwoman
Alice Jenik
Branch Chief
Office of Policy and Management
Members
Debra Curry
Hydrologist
Water Management Division
Ellen Parr-Doering
Hydrologist
Air and Waste Management Division
Kevin Doering
Program Analyst
Office of Policy and Management
Marcus Eantz
Section Chief
Environmental Services Division
Robert F. Kelly
Environmental Scientist
Air and Waste Management Division
Carlos O'Neill
Section Chief
Caribbean Field Office
Marian Olsen1
Environmental Scientist
Office of Policy and Management
Timothy J. Ream
Program Analyst
Office of Policy and Management
Ernest Regna
Branch Chief
Environmental Services Division
Palma Risler2
Program Analyst
Office of Policy and Management
Dennis Santella
Section Chief
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
Nancy Schlotter
Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
Walter Schoepf
Environmental Scientist
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
Berry Shore
Congressional Relations Specialist
Office of External Programs
Harvey Simon3
Environmental Scientist
Office of Policy and Management
Marina Stefanidis
Environmental Scientist
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
Lawrence Tannenbaum
Environmental Scientist
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
1 Lead analyst for health risks and editor of the health risk document.
2 Lead analyst for welfare risks and editor of the welfare risk document.
3 Lead analyst for ecological risks and editor of the ecological risk document.
-------
Acknowledgements
The contributions of the following people were essential to the completion of this
project:
Air and Waste Management Water Management
Larainne Koehler Isaac Chen
Alan Fellman Christopher Dere
Anthony Dore
Environmental Services Theresa Faber
Diane Buxbaum Aristotle Harris
William Hoppes
Policy and Management Wayne Jackson
Maeve Arthars Edwin Khadaran
Steve Rubin Bruce Kiselica
Robert Eckman Maureen Krudner
John Baglivi Marit Larson
Vicki Snitzler-Neeck Alex Lechich
Mike Verhaar Elizabeth Lonoff
Robert Nyman
Office of Policy. Planning Douglas Pabst
and Evaluation Patrick Pergola
Catherine Tunis Eric Stern
Richard Worden Shari Stevens
The following firms, under contract to the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
provided assistance by conducting research for and completing some of the problem
area analyses:
ICF, Inc.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc.
Jay J. Wind, Inc.
vn
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Members of the Region II Risk Ranking Group v
Acknowledgements vii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Human Health Effects Rankings 3
Cancer 9
Non-cancer 22
Combined 38
Chapter Three: Ecological Effects Ranking 41
Chapter Four: Economics/Welfare Effects Ranking 61
Appendices
A. Problem Area Definitions 70
B. National vs Regional Cancer Incidence 77
C. Health Effects References 81
IX
-------
Chapter One: Introduction
The primary objective of the Region II Risk Ranking Project is to compare
the risks posed by the different environmental problems facing the New
York/New Jersey/Caribbean Region. The intent of the project is not only to
inform EPA staff and managers, but to inform and to influence the public
debate over environmental issues as well. Another objective is to use the
results as a critical component of a strategic planning process for the region.
The level of risk is only one factor that determines priorities. Strategic
planning also takes into account a variety of other factors: cost/effectiveness;
public concern; the effects of disinvestment; statutory and regulatory mandates;
and, how well government effort leverages private investment in environmental
improvement. The strategic planning process for the Fiscal Year 1993 budget
began in the fall of 1990.
The Risk Ranking Project has two components: analysis and professional
judgement. An mterdivisional work group, composed of Region II staff with
diverse academic backgrounds and encompassing all program areas, was named.
On January 31, 1990 the Regional Administrator convened the work group and
charged it with responsibility for completing a comparative risk analysis and
ranking. In the ensuing months, the work group developed the list of
environmental problem areas that were ranked (see Appendix A), and the
methodologies and criteria for ranking the problems on the basis of their health,
ecological and welfare effects. In many cases, individual staff members
conducted research and analyzed the environmental problem areas. Additional
support in conducting research and completing the analyses was provided by the
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE), and by firms under contract
to OPPE.
After staff analyses were completed, initial meetings were held to
determine the relative risks posed by environmental problems for health,
ecological and welfare effects. The work group evaluated the data and analyses
submitted as well as the professional judgement of the work group, especially
the persons who completed the analyses. The group also considered the
direction of the uncertainty, data gaps, consistency and the technical merit of
the analysis.
After the initial rankings were developed, work group members had
several weeks to review the analyses more thoroughly and to consider the
relative rankings. Proposals to adjust the rankings were prepared during this
period. At a subsequent meeting, the work group reached a consensus on the
rankings. They were presented to the region's senior staff during September
1990. At a joint meeting on October 1, 1990, the Regional Administrator and
his senior staff concurred with and adopted the work group's rankings.
-------
The rankings are presented in the following chapters. Three separate
rankings were developed: health, ecological and welfare/economics. Within the
health area there are rankings for cancer, non-cancer and combined health
effects. A brief introduction, the rankings, and a summary of the rationale for
the rankings is included in each chapter. Additional information on the ranking
criteria and methodologies and the detailed problem area analyses are included
in three companion volumes.
In general, the rankings for the cancer effects and welfare were the most
straightforward since standard numerical measures (i.e. cancer incidence and
damage estimates in dollars, respectively, were available for comparison. This is
particularly true for the cancer analysis since the Agency has collected data on
carcinogens for years, and risk assessment methods provide a well-understood
and widely-accepted basis for comparison. Economic methods and studies were
fairly accessible and easily understood.
The methodologies for determining ecological and non-cancer health risks
are not as well-developed. There is no single endpoint such as cancer cases or
dollars that facilitates comparisons. Professional judgment played a larger role
in each of these rankings.
Although the rankings were completed, the work group had concerns
about different aspects of the process. A major concern was that because the
problem areas were defined according to sources of pollution, programs such as
toxic substances control and pollution prevention are not treated separately.
The ranking of the problem area, Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Layer -
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), was also a constant anomaly because predicted
impacts will occur in the future, unlike other environmental problems that are
causing impacts now.
Members of the group also raised questions about the consistency of the
exposure time frames that were used in the analyses, (for example, the 30-year
time frame prescribed by the Superfund program versus the 70-year time frame
prescribed by the Agency's risk guidelines). The question of how to deal with
residual risk (i.e. the level of risk that remains after program controls are in
place) was also discussed at length. These issues need to be considered during
the strategic planning process.
Other general concerns on the part of the group include the need for
better data on which to base problem analyses, and the heavy reliance on
professional judgement in setting priorities. The project underscored the
importance of environmental data, and its quality and reliability. On a positive
note, the work group learned a lot about the complexity of the environmental
problems that were analyzed, and achieved a better understanding of how the
Agency's programs function. The group also learned how difficult it is at times
to make a decision when faced with incomplete information.
-------
Chapter Two: Human Health Effects Rankings
CANCER
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the results of the Region II Risk Ranking Work
Group's comparative ranking of twenty-seven problem areas for cancer health
effects. The rankings were based on individual problem area analyses prepared
by work group members or by the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
staff and their contractors. The analyses defined the components of the problem
areas in terms of the chemicals of concern, related exposure pathways
(inhalation, groundwater ingestion, soil ingestion, etc.) and the potential cancer
incidence per year associated with each.
Each problem area was analyzed using the four steps of risk assessment
identified by the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council,
1983)1: hazard identification, dose response, exposure assessment and risk
characterization.
The projected cancer incidence was compared across all problem areas. It
is important to remember that these risks are upper bound estimates at a 95
percent confidence limit, and the actual cancer incidence could be, and probably
is, much lower. In addition, potential risks were added together as prescribed
by EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines (U. S. EPA, 1986a-e). The assumption of
additivity of risk across exposure routes and between different chemicals can
lead to either an over or under estimate of risk depending on the nature of the
biological effects of the chemicals which are often not understood. Potential
synergistic and antagonistic effects between chemicals could not be assessed.
Initial scoring recommendations were prepared by the work group member
responsible for the analysis. In general, the work group did not alter these
scores, but decided not to be bound strictly by the projected number of cancers
in completing the rankings. The work group felt that the broad categories of
cancer risks (very high, high, medium and low) represented significant
differences hi relative risks as evidenced by the cancer incidence per year. The
projected cancer incidence was used to rank the problem areas within each
category.
Human- health effects references are cited in Appendix B.
-------
Methods
In developing the risk assessments for each problem area, the group
attempted to assure that Agency guidance was used consistently. To achieve
this goal, the EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines for carcinogens, mutagens,
exposure assessment, and chemical mixtures (U. S. EPA, 1986a-e) were used as
the basis for all of the analyses, and supplemented by program guidance for the
specific problem area. Supplemental guidance included the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Risk Assessment Guidance (U. S. EPA, 1989a; 1989c),
the Exposure Assessment Manual (U. S. EPA, 1989b), and the Office of Water
Regulations Guidance on Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish (U. S. EPA, 1989d).
In addition, the Potency Slopes and Carcinogen Weight of Evidence
Classification used in the analyses were taken from the Integrated Risk
Information System (U. S. EPA, 1990a) maintained by the Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment and the OSWER Health Effects Assessment Tables
(U. S. EPA, 1990b). All calculations were developed using the Beta Test Version
of the computer program Risk*Assistant (developed by the Hampshire Research
Institute under contract to EPA's Exposure Assessment Group) to assure
consistency in exposure parameters and calculations. The Risk*Assistant
calculations were independently verified.
The exposure duration varied across the problem areas, but followed what
was prescribed by program office guidance. In all cases the assessments
evaluated the risks for exposure based on a 70-year lifetime although the
exposure duration varied. For example, in the Superfund analysis 30 years was
used for ingestion of contaminated drinking water. In the problem area analyses
for point and non-point sources of water pollution, consumption of contaminated
fish was assessed for a 70-year period. The differences were identified in each
analysis and discussed during the ranking meetings.
The pathways evaluated also varied from problem area to problem area.
The main pathways evaluated included: ingestion of contaminated drinking
water, ingestion of contaminated fish, ingestion of soil, inhalation of volatiles
from contaminated water during showering, and inhalation of contaminated air.
The determination of exposure routes depended on the problem area and the
availability of data. An attempt was also made to calculate the potential risks
from soil exposure through inhalation of fugitive dusts. However, in the absence
of specific models to calculate the potential air concentrations, these emissions
were not evaluated.
*
In many of the assessments, all chemicals of concern could not be
evaluated since toxicological information for both inhalation and ingestion was
not available. In these cases, the chemicals were excluded from the analysis,
and the analysis was based on those chemicals for which data was available.
-------
The assessments evaluated the risks to the Maximum Exposed Individual
(MEI) and the Average Exposed Individual (AEI) depending on the available
data. In many cases, however, data was only available on either the maximum
or average individual. A risk summary chart (Table I) was developed. It
identifies the problem area, the risks for maximum and/or average individuals,
the associated population, and the projected cancer incidence per year.
The analysis did not distinguish between the different types of cancer. It
was noted that Chlorofiuorocarbons are associated with skin cancer which has a
high cure rate (American Cancer Society, 1990).
Table I identifies the potential number of cancers associated with the
problem areas. Quantitative cancer incidences were calculated for 20 problem
areas and qualitative estimates were developed for three. Based on the data in
Table I the range of cancers associated with all problem areas is from 7,270 to
17,459. The projected number of cancers in Region II on a yearly basis is
101,785 (New Jersey Department of Health, 1988; New York State Department
of Health, 1988; Puerto Rico Department of Health, 1988; and Virgin Islands
Department of Health, 1988).
Four problem areas (accidental releases, Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Class I - III wells and aquatic and terrestrial habitats) were not assessed
and ranked low in the ranking. Accidental risks were determined to have acute
impacts (death, lung damage, etc.); data on the potential long-term effects were
not available. The potential health impacts from Class I - III wells were
considered negligible since the Mechanical Integrity Tests would prevent
potential human exposure. Aquatic and terrestrial habitats were considered to
have primarily ecological impacts and were excluded from the human health
ranking.
Ranking
Based on the analyses and discussions, the work group ranked the
problems on the basis of the predicted cancer incidence. In addition, areas of
uncertainty were identified. Where the uncertainty was high, the ranking of a
problem area was adjusted to reflect the level and type of uncertainty. Best
professional judgement played a major role in the final ranking. Discussions of
these uncertainties, in some cases, resulted in a higher ranking of a problem
area than would have occurred if only the projected cancer incidence was
evaluated.
National Cancer Incidence vs. Region Specific Incidence
To assure that the potential cancer incidences are not overestimates for
the region, the projected number of cancers based on the ranking were
compared with those from other published studies (Doll and Peto, 1981;
National Cancer Institute, 1985). Based on this analysis, which is described in
-------
Appendix C, it was determined that the projected number of cancers associated
with the Region II Risk Ranking Project are consistent with the apportionment
of cancers suggested by current research.
Table I
Causes of Cancer Mortality
-
•
Factor
Tobacco
Alcohol
Diet
Reproductive & sexual
Occupation
Pollution
Industrial products
Medicines and medical
Geophysical factors
All cancer deaths.
Best
Estimate
30
3
35
behavior 7
4
2
1
procedures 1
3
percentage
Range of
Acceptable
Estimates
25 - 40
2 * 4
10- 70
1 - 13
2 - S
1 ~ *5
1 - 2
.5 - 3
2 - 4
Uncertainties
The analyses involved a number of uncertainties which are described
below:
o The cancer risks from a number of chemicals could not be evaluated since
Slope Factors (both oral and inhalation) and the Weight of Evidence
Classifications were not available.
o The risk assessments in most cases were screening risk assessments and,
because of the short time period for completing the ranking project, in-
depth site-specific risk assessments could not be developed. It was not
possible, therefore, to refine the project cancer incidences.
o The lack of data in several problem areas made it difficult to completely
assess all the problem areas. This lack of data was considered in the
description of uncertainty for these analyses and during the ranking.
6
-------
o The quality of the data used in each assessment varied. In some cases
actual site-specific data was used while in other cases it was necessary to
extrapolate from national studies to the region.
o The estimation of the potential population exposed was not refined since
specific demographics on communities exposed were not available.
o The ah* risks at hazardous waste facilities managed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), abandoned hazardous waste sites
(Superfund), and other problem areas could not be adequately assessed
since many of these sites lacked specific sampling data and toxicological
information. There is a potential underestimate of the risks from these
problem areas since many work group members felt this was a route of
concern.
o It was not always possible to assess the potential risks to sensitive
subpopulations since they could not always be addressed separately.
o The risks are potential overestimates since the 95 percent upper
confidence limit was used for cancer risks and the risks were added
together across routes of exposure. However, it is also important to keep
in mind, as indicated above, that because of a lack of toxicological
information, not all chemicals and exposure routes could be determined.
This is a potential underestimate of risk.
-------
CANCEi
": Chemical
|£:$i|!|$ip^
&*•!'&::': y;:;Jgi:-;lll;i|;S':.ssl> i>§! iiiil sJKsSS ?!J^^K^?^^5;^1i;::IJi:;:;
i^liiili^;ppp^;^|||:?|^|iSi
:"^|ieil|li^j*|^
inf:- |i6B|Q|^9i::;A|r; ;p||i;iti^l::!:
lipiS|&i^^
^||y||Hs::;^i|||ie;::!^f^^
i^lp|f|3|i||';i:||e^t|^
^^^^^^^••ctf^aWr^i^iiiyiM
ad -
iftatwjn; ptieiig A^pJicittiQii |
i|^!)^ea|^:|5iJ^i^^
l&^i. |$!p;:^^
*a^:;:*'*":S-6^iO|KuJ^
:i|yiBi|ti^nV^t|er;::llj^ •:vxii£:.::J^H?^S¥i»i:&i;:^
IcjpaI^Md]p;;t)i5^p||f |nd.: ;Tr0|||i|nt; •; ^|||;
...._.. ...,.,,...,,,,_..,....M;M§P:::v:
|K||;::t^|d:;|&;-;||(|id:;:np^
i^s&i^iS^^^g^Sij^^^^^i| i
Not Ranked
-------
RATIONALE FOR CANCER HEALTH EFFECTS RANKING
Application of Ranking Criteria
Consistency: The analyses of problem areas were not consistent in
factoring in EPA actions. Various analyses assumed business as usual, no action,
or future corrective action. Because every program will behave differently in
the future, it is difficult to achieve consistency. Therefore, it was decided that
the assumptions made regarding EPA action should be clearly stated in the
discussion of the rationale for the rankings.
Individual Risk vs. Total Risk: The group decided to rank according to
total incidence rather than on the basis of the maximum exposed individual
alone.
Uncertainty: If the direction of the uncertainty was such that the cancer
incidence could be higher than predicted, the problem area was given a higher
ranking.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative: Qualitative assessments were not necessarily
ranked lower than quantitative assessments. The group relied on the best
professional judgement of the individuals most familiar with the problem area.
For areas where a quantitative risk assessment was developed, the group used
best professional judgment to rank the problem area in relation to those with a
quantitative analysis. This affected only a small number of problem areas.
Trends: If the future risk was predicted to be greater than the current
risk, the problem area was given a higher ranking.
Relative Ranking: The work group felt that the broad groupings of cancer
risk (very high, high, medium and low) represented the significant differences in
relative risks.
Discussion of Rankings
VERY HIGH
Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Layer - Chlorofluorocarbons
The cancer incidence numbers are for skin tumors. While the potential
fatality rates associated with skin cancers are lower, Agency guidance considers
all cancer sites equal (U. S. EPA, 1986a). Therefore the work group did not
discount the cancer incidence numbers for Chlorofluorocarbons. The predictions
were based on a national study (U. S. EPA, 1989g) which modeled projected
cancer incidence, and Region II incidences were extrapolated based on a ratio of
the population (i.e., Region II/nation). The national study used all modeled
9
-------
information to calculate the number of cancer cases caused by ozone depletion.
However, even if all anticipated actions are taken to reduce emissions of
stratospheric ozone-depleting compounds, the projected cancer incidence will
occur as predicted (at the low end of the range).
Issues of Concern:
There was moderate uncertainty in the methodology, however, the group
was confident that the magnitude of the total incidence numbers was real. The
model only includes people alive in 1986. Concerns were also raised regarding
the timing of the model. The cancer incidence per year shown in Table I
represents the total incidence for 74 years divided by the total number of years
(74) to provide a yearly average incidence. The incidence numbers are not
really what will be seen next year, but rather what will be seen in future years
as ozone depletion increases the number of cancers.
Radon
Cancer incidence numbers for radon are lower than the high end of the
range for indoor air. The work group thought this problem area should be
ranked higher because the problem was well understood, the uncertainty was
low, and the risks for indoor air and pesticides were considered overestimates.
The analysis excludes Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands because of the lack of
data. The projected cancer deaths were based on monitoring data from the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Estimates were made for New
York's population.
The projected number of cancers represent cancer deaths since it is
anticipated that the exposure will result in lung cancer which is currently 95
percent fatal.
Issues of Concern:
The group felt that extrapolating the numbers for New York made good
sense, since New York and New Jersey have similar housing demographics (i.e.,
percentages of population residing in houses vs. high-rise apartments) and radon
exposure.
Indoor Air Pollutants Other Than Radon
These cancer risks are caused primarily by second hand tobacco smoke,
asbestos, and volatile organic compounds (e.g., formaldehyde) from building
materials. The analysis was developed by a contractor who used a national risk
study and factored out Region II numbers as a ratio of the total population.
10
-------
Issues of Concern:
The national study was based primarily on homes, not workplaces,
although environmental smoke probably includes offices. Consistent, monitored
data were used, but the data were based on only a few studies. Uncertainty
ranged from medium to low. The uncertainty arose from the number of sources
(few studies), and the fact that it was difficult to quantify exposure. The
assessment also assumed a 24-hour exposure while the period of exposure might
be lower (because people are traveling to work, working outdoors, etc.). The
assessment also included a number of pesticides that have been cancelled, thus
potentially overestimating the risks.
HIGH
The risk for this problem area was calculated using the "Cancer Risk from
Outdoor Exposure to Air Toxics" report developed by EPA (U. S. EPA, 1989e)
which summarized information in 10 area-specific or national air quality based
risk-related reports on air toxics, 14 EPA source category and pollutant-specific
studies, risk assessments performed for the development of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and source specific risk data contained in
the EPA Air Toxic Exposure and Risk Information System (ATERIS). Predicted
cancer incidence for Region II ranged from 65 to 124 cases per year. Cancer
incidence from air toxics was considered to be underestimated and the air
problem areas were ranked ahead of toxic waste sites. Another factor leading to
air toxic sources being ranked higher than other problem areas is that the air
route of exposure is more constant and more difficult to control than the
groundwater and soil routes of exposure (the routes of most concern at toxic
waste sites).
Issues of Concern:
The group decided to rank area and mobile air sources "back-to-back" due
to difficulties in apportioning risk between the two.
Area Sources/Non-Point Sources of Air Pollution
This risk assessment was based on a national study and extrapolated to
Region II for an estimated incidence of 36-57 cases per year. Another factor
leading to air toxic sources being ranked higher than other problem areas is
that the air route of exposure is more constant and more difficult to control
than the groundwater and soil routes of exposure (the routes of most concern at
toxic waste sites).
11
-------
Issues of Concern:
Area and mobile air sources are difficult to model or quantify and
separate.
Stationary Point Sources of Air Pollution
This problem area has a lower uncertainty and is easier to quantify than
mobile or area air. Between 25 and 35 cancer cases are predicted per year.
(See discussion for Mobile and Area sources).
Issues of Concern:
Due to difficulties in apportioning risk among the three air source
problems the group decided to rank them together.
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites/Superfund Sites
This problem area includes sites regulated by CERCLA. Data for the
analyses was retrieved from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) reports. Assessment of the health risks at Superfund sites
are based on data before sites were cleaned up. The work group decided that
this approach was reasonable because many non-National Priority List (NPL)
sites have not yet been remediated. A potential increased individual cancer risk
of 9.6 x 10"3 and a total population cancer incidence per year between 128 to 640
was calculated based on a range of 200 to 1,000 National Priority List and
potential National Priority List sites. The projected cancer incidence is based on
no remediation at the sites.
The exposure scenario resulting in the greatest cancer risk is the
ingestion of drinking water. The ingestion of soil, however, also poses a
significant risks and the cancer risks numbers are comparable to those found for
drinking water. The uncertainty was high because the inhalation route of
exposure and very high risk radiation sites were not addressed. It was also not
possible to account for the effect that individuals may be exposed to several
sites and may suffer deleterious health outcomes as a result.
Issues of Concern:
In the analysis, conservative assumptions were made in accordance with
EPA and Superfund risk assessment guidance (U. S. EPA, 1986a-f; 1989a; 1989c).
An effort was made to make the assumptions consistent with those in the other
problem areas.
12
-------
Considerable discussion took place in the work group meetings over the
assumption that soil ingestion is a significant route of exposure and the number
of people potentially exposed. Although significant risks also result from soil
inhalation it was not possible to analyze this pathway because of the lack of
inhalation toxicity numbers and appropriate models.
The work group decided that even though uncertainties existed in the
Superfund analyses, these uncertainties exist for many problem areas and the
relative ranking of Superfund (below air and above ingestion of contaminated
fish) was appropriate.
Active Hazardous Waste Sites. Sites Currently Regulated under RCRA's Subtitle C
The problem area was ranked based on the similarities of the anticipated
exposures from abandoned (CERCLA) and active sites (RCRA) requiring
corrective action although there is much less data for the RCRA sites than for
CERCLA sites. For purposes of this analysis, the sites were evaluated on the
basis of the risks posed before permit/corrective actions are taken. Attempts
were made to use information from sites in the region but that information was
largely unavailable for these purposes. The group used the assumption that
RCRA sites pose a risk level between 1 x 1(T to 1 x 1Q~*. There are 35,000
RCRA facilities in the region; these include not only Treatment Storage and
Disposal facilities subject to permitting but also generators.
Issues of Concern:
The incidence numbers were much lower for this problem area compared
to other problem areas given a high ranking. Even lacking quantitative data the
group linked this problem with the Superfund problem in terms of severity
based on the similarity of sites and an assumption of similarity in severity.
Special concerns were raised about the large number of RCRA facilities in the
region.
Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
Of all the water related problems, non-point sources were seen as the
largest cancer risks based on potential exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), dioxin and chlordane. The two routes of exposure of greatest concern
are drinking contaminated water and eating contaminated fish. Of these
consumption of contaminated fish is considered the primary route of exposure
since toxic substances are bioaccumulated from the sediments in fish tissues.
Following the initial ranking, the Water Management Division calculated
potential risks for consumers of fish from non-point sources. The estimated
risks were calculated for two consumer populations i.e., those ingesting 6.5 or 33
13
-------
grams of fish/day. The risk calculations were based on potential fish tissue
levels of 0.5 to 4.5 ppm of PCBs. The calculated potential cancer risks ranged
from 1 x 10"2 to 1 x 10"4. The estimated risks assumed that non-point sources
were the only source of the PCBs. However, EPA's ambient water quality
criteria are based on an incremental risk level of 1 x 10"6.
Issues of Concern:
Site-specific information on the populations potentially exposed, the type
of fish consumed, contributions to fish contamination from other sources (point
sources and combined sewer overflows [CSOs]) were not available for this
analysis. Populations of anglers were used in the absence of more specific data.
Depending upon the type of fish and consumption pattern there is a potential
for underestimation (research continues in the area of toxics in fish and state
health department sampling and health advisories). The data that exist are
insufficient to discriminate between point sources, non-point sources, and CSO
contributions to fish contamination, but it does indicate that non-point sources
contribute a considerably larger share. While in-place contaminated sediments
were categorized as non-point sources, in many cases the sediments were
initially polluted by point sources. Best professional judgment was used in
ranking this problem area since data on shellfish contamination and the relative
contributions of point and non-point sources could not be determined.
Information on the populations potentially ingesting these fish were also
not available. General numbers of recreational anglers were estimated in the
absence of more specific information. The potential for some ethnic populations
to consume the entire fish was not assessed since specific information was
lacking.
Pesticide Residues in Food
Cancer risks from dietary exposure to pesticide residues on food were
estimated using EPA Office of Pesticide Program's Dietary Risk Evaluation
System (DRES) and State and federal residue data. The analysis was developed
by the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) and the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP). In their study, OPP did not use the additive risk of
different chemicals. The region used additive risk as indicated in the Agency's
Risk Assessment Guidelines (U. S. EPA, 1986a). The potential cancer incidence
ranged from 16.24 to 57.4 cancers per year.
Issues of Concern:
Only 7 chemicals were chosen for the OPP study out of more than 600
active chemicals, therefore the direction of the uncertainty is towards an
underestimate. The uncertainty in the numbers was high. The analysis did not
address potential risks from ingestion of dairy products, meats and poultry.
Only fruits and vegetables were assessed.
14
-------
With both Pesticide Residues in Foods and Pesticide Application, a major
data gap is that information regarding the bioaccumulation of new pesticides is
lacking. In addition, the carcinogens used in the analysis are B2 carcinogens
(i.e., probable human carcinogens based on animal studies).
Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
The analysis indicated an average risk of 1 x 10"4 with 2.85 million people
potentially exposed. The problem did not address alternatives to municipal solid
waste sites which will be potential problems for the future. Sixteen percent of
municipal solid waste landfills in New York are known to exceed groundwater
standards based on monitoring results. Monitoring data are not yet available for
many of the active and inactive landfills. It is possible that 33 percent of the
municipal solid waste landfills could be exceeding groundwater standards.
Based on EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER's) modelling of municipal solid waste landfills nationwide 40 percent
are assumed to have risks of 1 x 10"4 or greater due to the existence of drinking
water wells within 1 mile of the facility.
Issues of Concern:
The numbers probably underestimated the risk, because drinking water
was the only route of exposure examined. There were no data available for
other exposure routes. Some work group members felt it was the highest risk
of all the hazardous waste problem areas. Thirty percent of all Superfund sites
started as municipal solid waste sites. The risk calculations assumed the sites
were being addressed by EPA. The uncertainty was high since the conclusions
are primarily based on modeling data and site-specific information was not
available.
MEDIUM
Non-Traditional Underground Injection Control Wells (Class IV and V)
Class IV wells are shallow injection wells which receive hazardous waste.
Class V wells include sewage related, drainage, industrial drainage and service
bay discharge. It was estimated that there are well over 50,000 Class V wells in
Region II. The exact location of these wells was not available.
The primary risk from Class IV and V UIC wells is the potential
contamination of groundwater by the chemicals injected into the wells.
Potential exposures may occur through ingestion of contaminated water, dermal
exposure (when bathing) and inhalation of volatiles while showering. The
15
-------
population at risk are people located in industrialized areas and using drinking
water supplied by private wells.
Using actual data from contaminated wells risk levels of 5 x 10"4 were
calculated and the population potentially exposed was estimated at 3.67 million
people. For the highest concentrations found at the wells only showering risks
were calculated since the residents are drinking bottled water.
Issues of Concern:
The uncertainty associated with this problem area was high based on the
lack of specific information on the number of wells, sampling methodologies, and
the number of people potentially exposed. The exposure was based on 5 actual
well concentrations and extrapolated to the rest of the region.
There was concern that the estimated population affected by Class IV and
V was too high. It was placed as a medium risk because there will be more
wells in the future and the wells are located within population centers. Using
the same assumptions as the Superfund analysis (i.e., 30 year groundwater
consumption), the incidence numbers for Class IV and V wells would increase
dramatically.
Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems - Trihalomethanes. Lead.
Microbiological Contamination
This problem area is not only a source, but also a route of exposure for
other problem areas. It was artificially defined by using only those sources
introduced by system maintenance, treatment and delivery systems (e.g., lead
from delivery pipes, trihalomethanes (THM's), and by non-anthropogenic sources
(e.g., bacteria and cryptosporidium), thereby eliminating the possibility of double
counting. Chloroform was used as an indicator for THMs.
The analysis estimated that 20 million people could potentially be exposed
to an average concentration of 34 ug/1 of chloroform and 6 million people could
potentially be exposed to a concentration of 209 ug/1 of chloroform. The
potential cancer risks associated with the average and maximum concentrations
were 4.29 and 2.25 cases/year, respectively.
Issues of Concern:
The potential contribution of lead to the total cancer incidence was not
evaluated since a slope factor was not available. The levels of THM's are
potentially underestimated since there is the possibility for increases in these
levels after they leave the treatment plant and before they reach the consumer.
16
-------
Pesticide Contamination Associated with Application
The estimates were quantitative and based on a California study. The
California numbers may not truly reflect Region II pesticide use, because
different chemicals are used. Workers were identified with a potential 6 times
higher rate of non-Hodgkins lymphoma than the general population.
The data from the Office of Pesticide Program's evaluation of risks from
pesticides were also used to calculate the potential cancer risks for Region II.
The results are provided in Table I.
Issues of Concern:
The study only looked at the farm community. It did not consider home
or garden use, because of low exposure frequency. It was also noted that home
users of pesticides tend to use 10 times more pesticides than recommended by
the manufacturer. Potential acute impacts were evaluated under non-cancer
analysis. The uncertainty is high due to major data gaps regarding
bioaccumulation of newer pesticides.
Accidental Releases During Transport or Production
This problem area is highly unpredictable and difficult to quantify. The
analysis is qualitative only. Currently, oil spills are the major group of
accidental spills.
Issues of Concern:
Analysis of potential health impacts could not be calculated since routes
and degree of exposure have not been well documented. Accidental releases
were placed in the medium range with the caveat that it has the potential to be
a very high risk problem (in the case of a Bhopal-like accident).
Materials Storage Tanks. Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated Under RCRA
Subtitle C. (Underground Storage Tanks TUSTS1 and Others)
103,361 tanks were identified in this area. 5,461 confirmed releases were
reported in 1989. In 1987 there were 935 releases that discharged directly into
rivers, streams and lakes. It is a greater problem in rural areas where shallow
domestic wells are more prevalent.
Issues of Concern:
This area had a high degree of uncertainty; actual releases may be higher.
Although UST's are a major risk in a few select areas, overall it was concluded
to be a medium risk.
17
-------
Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Wastewater Treatment
Discharges to Water
This problem area includes all municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment plants requiring National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. Primary industries such as paper manufacturers,
Pharmaceuticals, petroleum, organic or inorganic chemical producers, etc.
discharge toxic substances including heavy metals, priority organics and
inorganics.
The two routes of exposure of greatest concern are drinking contaminated
water and eating contaminated fish. Of these, consumption of contaminated fish
is considered the primary route of exposure since toxic substances are
bioaccumulated from the sediments in fish tissue.
Following the initial ranking the Water Management Division calculated
potential risks to consumers of fish from non-point sources. The estimated risks
were calculated for two consumer populations i.e., those ingesting 6.5 or 33
grams of fish/day. The calculations were based on potential fish tissue levels of
0.5 to 4.5 ppm of PCBs. The calculated potential cancer risks ranged from 1 x
10~2 to 1 x 10"4. The estimated risks assumed that non-point sources were the
only source of the PCBs. However, EPA's ambient water quality criteria are
based on an incremental cancer risk level of 1 x 10"6.
Issues of Concern:
Previously unregulated point sources can contribute to non-point problems
such as contaminated sediments. Some believe that even current levels of point
source discharge of some toxics (e.g., PCB's) are adding to the problem; however,
there are no definitive data. Pollution in the New York/New Jersey harbor
area is a point source driven problem. High uncertainty was identified in this
area since information on the types of fish, methods of fish sampling,
consumption patterns for different types of fish, etc. were not available.
Information on the populations potentially ingesting these fish was also
not available. General numbers of recreational anglers were estimated in the
absence of more specific information. The potential for some ethnic populations
to consume the entire fish were not assessed since specific information were not
available.
Depending on the type of fish and consumption patterns there is a
potential that the risks might be underestimated, however, the degree of
underestimation could not be calculated. The data that exists is insufficient to
discriminate between point sources, non-point sources and CSO contributions to
18
-------
fish contamination, but it does indicate that non-point sources contribute to a
considerably larger share.
Radiation Other Than Radon
The work group decided to modify the national definition of this problem
area. Natural background radiation and medical exposure were eliminated.
Medical exposure was excluded from the quantitative analysis since it is not an
environmental risk. Some work group members felt radiation from electrical
wires should be included in the definition.
Issues of Concern:
This area had a very high degree of uncertainty. A major caveat in this
problem area is that not enough is known about non-ionizing radiation.
Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
Assuming business as usual (i.e., dumping at the 106 mile site), this area
is a low cancer risk. By December 31, 1991, however, ocean dumping will be
banned and other forms of sludge disposal will have to be employed. These
other forms of disposal (e.g., incineration, landfilling) have higher cancer risks
associated with them, (see U. S. EPA, 1989f).
Issues of Concern:
Region-specific information on potential risks from incineration were
unavailable and the cancer risks were based on national risks. There is a
potential that these risks are underestimated because Region II has a potentially
higher level of metals in its sludge. Based on present conditions this problem
warranted a low ranking, but it was given a medium ranking on the basis of
future trends.
Municipal Solid Waste - Incinerators
This analysis was primarily based on the proposed Brooklyn Navy Yard
emissions and extrapolation from national incidence to Region II.
Issues of Concern:
Currently, there are 16 municipal solid waste incinerators in Region II,
but this number is projected to increase. Potential risks when the number of
incinerators is expanded to accommodate municipal waste and sludge were not
included in this assessment. A report by the New York State Department of
19
-------
Environmental Conservation that evaluates the potential risks associated with
these incinerators is anticipated next year.
LOW
Dredging and Dredge Disposal
This problem area includes dredging of sediments from navigation
channels, harbors, marinas and contaminated sediment remediation as well as
the disposal of the dredge soils. PCBs and dioxin are major contaminants of
concern for estimating cancer risks. The route of exposure would be ingestion
of contaminated fish and shellfish.
Dredging was considered to be a low risk problem, because it is not very
widespread compared to other water problems such as non-point source
pollution, and the most contaminated sediments are left in place under current
dredging protocols. Based on current information, one can assume that testing
methods have reasonably characterized bioaccumulation impacts. Combined with
current information on food chain transfer to human consumer species, it can be
estimated that there is probably a low intensity of impact.
Issues of Concern:
Monitoring studies are underway to assess the bioavailability of the toxics
in the dredge material. This information is necessary to assess human health
risk.
Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
CSO's are a pathogen-driven problem area, and although it is a high non-
cancer human health risk, it presents a low cancer risk.
Issues of Concern:
The amount of contamination contributed by CSO's, non point sources and
point sources cannot be differentiated easily. See Non-Point Source and Point
Source write-ups for additional information.
Sources of Air Pollution that Lead to Acid Deposition. Primarily from Tall
Stacks
Potential cancer health impacts include releases of asbestos from asbestos-
lined concrete containing systems resulting in a potential risk of 1.4 excess
20
-------
cancers/year with a lower risk of 0. The potential risks from airborne exposure
is 1.2 cancers/year with a lower estimate of 0.
Issues of Concern:
The estimates for this problem area were very rough with high
uncertainty because it was difficult to quantify. Research on the potential
human health impacts in this area are rated high since information on the
toxicology is not available. Some work group members felt the incidence
estimates were too high, and generally acid deposition was seen as a very low
cancer risk.
Traditional Underground Injection Control Wells (Class I-III)
Class I wells include injecting deep hazardous and non-hazardous waste
below drinking water aquifers. Class II wells are oil and gas recovery wells and
Class III are solution mining wells. The wells are primarily located in New
York State. Region II has no Class I wells; 1,190 Class II wells; and
approximately 90 Class III wells.
Analysis of this problem area revealed a very low potential for
groundwater contamination due to Class I-III wells. There have only been one
or two instances of possible discharges into potable aquifers in this region, and
there have been no documented contamination incidents. Use of Mechanical
Integrity Tests that Class I - III wells must undergo assure against potential
contamination.
Wastewood Disposal and Treatment
The human health impacts from wastewood burning are probably low or
non-existent.
Not Ranked
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitats
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats (except Dredging)
21
-------
NON-CANCER
Introduction
To complete an evaluation of the potential toxic effects from exposure to
environmental contaminants, it is important to consider both the cancer and
non-cancer health impacts for each problem area. Non-cancer health impacts
vary depending on the dose, the exposure and the organ impacts. The health
impacts can range from irritation of the upper respiratory tract to severe acute
health impacts, including death.
In evaluating non-cancer health effects the Agency assumes there is a
threshold, i.e., a safe level that a person can be exposed to without adverse
effects. The degree to which the exposure is higher than the threshold
indicates the potential for increased non-cancer health impacts. This analysis
differs from the evaluation of cancer risks where the Agency assumes there is
no threshold, i.e., no safe level of exposure, and each incremental increase in
exposure results in an increased risk of cancer.
One problem in assessing non-cancer health impacts is the wide variety of
health impacts associated with exposure, and the need to develop a weighting
factor for assessing these impacts. The variety of health impacts makes the
comparison of health problems difficult. Specific guidance for comparing health
impacts and the assessment of systemic toxic effects is being developed by the
EPA
The Region II Risk Ranking project evaluation of potential non-cancer
health impacts is based on the Unfinished Business report methodology (U. S.
EPA, 1987), as modified by Region I. The methodology is described below.
Methodology
To assess the potential non-cancer health impacts from each problem area,
the work group applied a scoring system that included three aspects of the risks
associated with exposure: the severity of the health effects; the number of
people exposed; and the potency of the exposure. A scoring system ranging from
1 to 4 was used. Under the system, 1 is the lowest or least effect score; 4, the
highest or greatest effect score. The scores were then added to provide a
numerical guide for the final ranking process.
The work group first evaluated the health endpoints using a severity
scoring scale. Severity is essentially based on the reversibility of the potential
health impacts. The scoring for potential chemical exposure in each problem
area was based on available information on toxicological health impacts.
Unfortunately, specific information on the effects of exposure to low levels of the
chemicals was not available. In many cases, data on the identified occupational
22
-------
health impacts (NIOSH, 1985) were used as an indicator of the potential health
impacts for exposure to the chemicals of concern.
In specific cases direct information on environmental health effects was
used. In the assessment of the potential impacts of Chlorofluorocarbons,
cataracts were used as an indicator. In assessing the air problems, restricted
activity days, increased asthma attacks, and angina were used to develop the
score. Lead was rated a 4 based on the potential for several health impacts
(i.e., effects on the central nervous system).
The severity score for pesticides on food was not easily determined since
the potential impacts from exposure to low levels of pesticides found on fruit
and vegetables are still being researched. Currently, there is a significant
database of information on the acute effects from exposure to pesticides, but
data on the long-term, low-level effects are not available. Therefore, the
severity was qualitatively placed at 2-3 for the purposes of this analysis.
In addition to developing the severity score, the population potentially
exposed was also evaluated. A scoring system of 1 to 4 was developed to
evaluate the population exposed. A score of 1 represents 0 to 500,000 people; 2,
500,000 to 2,000,000 people; 3, 2,000,000 to 8,000,000 people; and, 4, 8,000,000 to
28,500,000 people. Attempts were made to assure that the severity score was
associated with the correct population; however, the association was not always
clear.
To characterize the potency of exposure, the group used two approaches,
depending on what type of data was available. The first approach characterized
whether the exposure level was above the oral Reference Dose (RfD) or
inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC), the assumed thresholds for exposure.
The order of magnitude by which the exposure level was above the RfD or RfC
was scored using the following system: 1, 1 to 10; 2, 10 to 100; 3, 100 to 1,000
and 4 for greater than 1,000. In most cases, at least 1 or more of the chemicals
of concern were above the RfD or RfC, and the problem area was scored
appropriately.
If an RfD or RfC was not available, the alternative approach was to use
available incidence data, i.e. the number of cases of a disease associated with the
population exposed. The incidence data were converted to a number which
represented the risk (e.g., 1 x 10"6' or one in a million) of contracting a disease
in a specific population. A ratio score was calculated by dividing the annual
incidence by the estimated population at risk. Incidence data was used to
characterize many of the air and water problem areas where projections of the
number of restricted activity days due to air pollution; asthma attacks; gastro-
intestinal disturbances; etc., were available. The incidence data provides a
better indicator of the potential health impacts than do exceedences of the RfD .
23
-------
In the assessment of potential health impacts from lead, the group used
the proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 15 micrograms/h'ter (ug/1)
and the Ambient Air Quality Standard for air (1.5 ug/cubic meter). These were
used in the absence of an RfD and RfC for the chemical.
The combined scores for severity; population exposed; and incidence or
exceedence above the RfD or RfC were then combined to develop the total score
for each problem area. The maximum possible score using this system was 12.
In addition, an uncertainty estimate associated with each problem area was also
developed to identify the data gaps in each problem area. As in the cancer
analysis, uncertainty could be used to move a problem area up in the ranking.
Results
Using the ranking criteria, the very high problem areas scored a minimum
of 8, with many having a total of 9 or 10. The medium scores ranged from 6 to
7. The low scores were less than 5, reflecting projected low impacts for the
health effects, population exposed or severity.
During the rankings, it was obvious that although the scores provided an
indication of the grouping of the problem areas, the method did not adequately
address the large populations that are potentially affected in Region II. In many
cases, the rankings were based on the best professional judgment of the group
since the scoring did not provide the refinement needed to rank the problem
areas more scientifically. It is important to remember that the methods and
tools for non-cancer risk assessment are still evolving.
Uncertainties
A number of uncertainties were identified in the non-cancer ranking:
o Many chemicals lacked RfDs so that it was impossible to analyze the
potential non-cancer health impacts from these chemicals. This could
potentially lead to underestimation of the risks.
o Only 2 RfCs are available on IRIS (as of July 1990) so that an assessment
of the non-cancer health impacts through inhalation could not be
evaluated.
o The assessment of all potential routes of exposure could not be completed;
only those routes where information was available were assessed. Specific
exclusions include inhalation of dusts; soil ingestion; and exposure to
contaminants on fruits and vegetables. This could potentially lead to
underestimating the risks.
o Lead was addressed using the proposed MCL in water and the National
Ambient Air Quality standards in air. This is a potential underestimate of
24
-------
risk since EPA's Reference Dose Work Groups have not determined a
threshold for this chemical.
o The association of population exposed to the level of exposure was not
exact. In most cases the population could potentially be overestimated;
however, this was a conservative approach.
o A description of the non-cancer health impacts from ingestion of pesticide
residues on food was not developed by the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE), the group that analyzed this problem. The analysis oJ
the potential health impacts was based on a qualitative assessment of the
problem in the absence of more specific data.
o The methodology was based on previous regional and Headquarters' risk
ranking projects since specific Risk Assessment Guidelines on Systemic
Toxicants are not available at this time.
o Significant uncertainties were associated with the assessment of the
populations exposed. Given the population size of Region II
(approximately 28.5 million in 1990) the uncertainty seriously complicated
relative ranking judgments.
RATIONALE FOR NON-CANCER HEALTH EFFECTS RANKING
Application of Ranking Criteria
A scoring system was developed to rank the non-cancer human health
impacts of the twenty-seven problem areas based on the rankings used for in
the Unfinished Business Report (U. S. EPA, 1987) and the Region I Regional
Ranking. The system was reviewed and modified by the work group. Health
impacts, population at risk and severity of problem were scored 1 to 4 for each
problem area. The three factors were summed for a total non-cancer health
impact score. The group decided it would be inappropriate to consider the three
factors independently.
Health Impacts: This category was based on toxicity (i.e., the endpoint
health impacts). An issue of concern was whether the most frequent or most
severe health effects should be considered. The group decided to use the most
severe health impact. Examples of the scoring are provided below:
1) irritation, dermal sensitivity, tooth mottling
2) jaundice, irritability, allergic reactions
3) aggravation of angina, bone marrow hypoplasia
4) heart attacks, death, birth defects
25
-------
v jgg^pl^^^lll^ajiG--
Active
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
•£::-W::!T2i:::^::i£:&^^ !£!":" -:::::: ::
^^^j^^^^^^^H^i^S^^^^i^K
|M^prt|:;|^-^|^|||^|^;f--:
|||||p||i;|ip||3;;;|f ||||p:||c|p|||6f s •:
S|i|i3ii|iM
-:-:<-:'w
i^
:||[|l||i||i||
iii^iiii^iiii
26
-------
Population: The population categories were:
1) 0-500,000
2) 500,000-2,000,000
3) 2,000,000-8,000,000
4) 8,000,000-28,500,000
Severity: The severity index was used to rank the potential impacts from
exposure. Two indices were used based on the available data. If available, the
severity index was based on a comparison to the oral reference dose (RfD's).
RfD's identify the threshold to which an individual can be exposed without
adverse health effects. If the exposure is less than the RfD (or threshold), the
health impacts are not considered significant. However, if the exposure dose is
greater than the RfD (i.e., greater than 1) there is an increased concern about
the health impact. The greater the exposure above the RfD, the greater the
potential health impacts. The second approach used projected health incidence
(i.e., number of gastro-intestinal upsets/population exposed, etc.) based on the
estimate of the fraction of people exposed who exhibit a specific disease.
A major data gap with all problem areas is the lack of inhalation
Reference Concentrations (RfCs). An issue of concern was that the air problems
were limited to a severity of 1 to 2. In lieu of an RfC, the group determined a
severity ranking based on the likelihood of the population at risk to develop the
health impact. The RfD Scale is
1) 1-10 times the RfD or RfC;
2) 10-100 times;
3) 100-1000 times; and
4) > 1000 times.
The incidence score is:
1) < 10"6 (less than 1 in a million);
2) 1Q-4 - 10"6 (from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in a million);
3) 10'2 - 10'4 (from 1 in 100 to 1 in 10,000); and,
4) > 10'2 (greater than 1 in 100).
Discussion of Rankings
VERY HIGH
Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles
Exposure to particulate matter (10 microns per cubic meter or less,
PM10), can cause severe upper respiratory problems. Ozone (O3) and carbon
monoxide (CO) also contribute to a number of respiratory ailments and other
27
-------
health problems. Mobile air sources contribute approximately 50 percent of O3,
70 percent of CO and 25 percent of PM10. The analysis looked at the potential
health impacts from CO and lead. The health impacts were based on CO
exposure leading to impaired mental capacity. Potential health impacts from
angina were also evaluated but the score was less than that for CO. The
potential health impacts from the other criteria air pollutants are evaluated in
the area and stationary air problem areas where the contribution is the highest.
Issues of Concern:
It was difficult to apportion health impacts to mobile, area and stationary
air sources.
Score: 1 - 2 health, 3 pop., 4 severity; total 8-9, uncertainty Medium
Area Sources/Non-Point Sources of Air Pollution
A major health concern is an increase in asthma cases which may be
related to ozone exceedences. Area air sources contribute approximately 40
percent of 03.
Issue of Concern: It was difficult to apportion health impacts to mobile,
stationary and area air sources.
Score: 2-3 health, 4 pop., 1 severity; total 7-8, uncertainty Medium
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites/Superfund Sites
The pathways evaluated included drinking water, showering, soil and fish
ingestion. The assessment of the health risks at Superfund sites are based on
exposure data before sites were cleaned-up. The work group decided that this
approach was reasonable because many non-NPL sites have not yet been
remediated. The uncertainty is high because the inhalation route of exposure
was not evaluated since there were no ambient air data or inhalation reference
concentrations for the chemicals of concern.
Issues of Concern:
A major problem in the analysis was the lack of non-cancer data on the
various chemicals to which the population is potentially exposed from Superfund
sites. Considerable discussion took place in the work group meetings over the
soil ingestion assumptions and the number of potentially exposed people.
Although significant risks also result from inhalation of soil particulates, the
group was unable to analyze this pathway because of the lack of inhalation
Reference Concentrations and appropriate models.
28
-------
Potential impacts of lead could not be assessed in the absence of a lead
RfD and RfC. Potential impacts of exposure to multiple chemicals could not be
assessed using an approach other than additivity, since research on synergism,
antagonism, etc. is not available.
Score.- 3 health, 3 pop., 3 severity; total 9, uncertainty High
Active Hazardous Waste Sites. Sites Currently Regulated Under RCRA's Subtitle
C
The potential health impacts include responses to a variety of toxic
chemicals also identified under the Superfund problem area since the sites are
similar in severity and type.
Issues of Concern:
(Same issues of concern as Superfund). Specific site information is lacking
since the program is only beginning to develop risk assessments for sites.
Concerns were also raised about the large number of RCRA facilities and the
number of corrective actions required. There was high uncertainty associated
with the population score. The affected population may be lower than
predicted.
Score: 3 health, 3 pop., 3 severity; total 9, uncertainty High
Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Layer - Chlorofluorocarbons
Cataracts are a major health problem associated with depletion of the
ozone layer. The data are based on a national model (U. S. EPA, 1989g). The
severity was based on projected incidence data.
Issues of Concern:
Yearly incidence was based on a model of the next 74 years and dividing
by 74. Actual incidence may be considerably lower. The population at risk may
be overestimated.
Score: 3 health, 4 pop., 2 severity; total 9, uncertainty High
29
-------
Indoor Air Pollutants - Non-Radon
Environmental tobacco smoke is the major source of non-cancer human
health impacts. CO and NOX contribute to the non-cancer impacts for indoor
air. The assessment included pesticides that are banned.
Issues of Concern:
Specific data were unavailable for the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
The analysis assumed they were at the same risk as the U.S. There was also a
lack of severity data. The severity may be higher than 1.
Score: 3 health, 4 pop., 1 severity; total 8, uncertainty High
Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems. Trihalomethanes. Lead.
Microbiological Contamination
This problem area is not only a source, but also a route of exposure for
other problem areas. It was artificially defined by using only those sources
introduced by system maintenance, treatment and delivery systems (e.g., lead
from delivery pipes, trihalomethanes (THM's), and by non-anthropogenic sources
(e.g., bacteria and cryptosporidium), thereby eliminating the possibility of double
counting. Chloroform was used as an indicator for THMs.
Non-cancer estimates were calculated for chloroform, lead, Giardia and
coliform. Lead, a cause of central nervous system damage, drives the health
impact score. Since the RfD Work Group has not developed an RfD for lead the
proposed MCL of 15 ug/1 was used.
Chloroform was used as the indicator for trihalomethanes. However, since
the other trihalomethanes, and some bacteria and viruses (e.g., Legionella and
cryptosporidium) were not addressed, the risks from these problems could be
significantly higher.
Issue of Concern:
The proposed MCL for lead was used in absence of an oral RfD.
Score: 4 health, 3 pop., 1 severity; total 8, uncertainty Medium-High
Pesticide Residues in Food
Pesticide exposure in occupational settings can result in potential damage
to the central nervous system, teratogenic effects, etc. However, studies of the
30
-------
potential health impacts from exposure to the low levels of pesticides that might.
be found on fruits and vegetables are currently being investigated.
<
The analysis for cancer was prepared by the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation with input from the Office of Pesticide Programs but an analysis for
non-cancer effects was not provided. The work group developed the score for
this problem area based on best professional judgement.
Issues of Concern:
Specific data on the potential central nervous system effects of pesticides
in food are difficult to evaluate since experimental data on low level effects of
pesticides are not available. There is a continuing need for additional research
hi this area. The uncertainty with this problem area was high, and the group
felt the severity may be greater than 1.
Score: 2-3 health, 4 pop., 1 severity; total 7-8, uncertainty High
HIGH
Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
Potential ingestion of contaminated fish is considered the major route of
exposure. Non-point sources are a pathogen-driven health impact. In addition,
non-point source contaminants of concern include mercury, cadmium, lead,
dieldrin and heptachlor epoxides.
Issue of Concern:
Site-specific information on the populations potentially exposed, the type
of fish consumed, contributions to fish contamination from other sources (point
sources and CSOs) were not available for this analysis. The data that exist are
insufficient to discriminate between point source, non-point sources and CSO
contributions to fish contamination, but it does indicate that non-point sources
contribute a considerably larger share. While in-place contaminated sediments
were categorized at non-point sources, in many cases the sediments were
initially polluted by point sources. Best professional judgment was used in
ranking this problem area since data on shellfish contamination and the relative
contributions of point and non-point sources could not be determined.
Information on the populations potentially ingesting these fish were also
not available. General numbers of recreational anglers were estimated in the
absence of more specific information. The potential for some ethnic populations
to consumer the entire fish was not assessed since specific information was
lacking.
31
-------
Potential impacts from drinking pathogenically contaminated water are a
part of the drinking water problem area.
%
Score- 3 health, 3 pop., 2 severity; total 8, uncertainty High
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Discharges to Water
This problem area is pathogen driven. Although the CSOs are confined to
a limited geographic area, the impacts in these areas can be severe. The
primary routes of exposure are ingestion of contaminated fish/shellfish and
primary contact recreation. Recreational fisherman and lower income groups
who eat contaminated fish and shellfish regardless of fishing bans represent the
population at the greatest risk.
Issues of Concern:
The amount of contamination contributed by CSOs, non-point sources and
point sources cannot easily be differentiated or quantified. Also there is some
uncertainty associated with the population actually exposed.
Score: 3 health, 3 pop., 2 severity; total 8, uncertainty Low
Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Wastewater Treatment
Discharges to Water
The major contributors to point source problems are publicly owned
wastewater treatment plant (POTW) breakdowns. Point sources have been
regulated for a long time and the program has had a very positive effect;
however, this problem area still ranks high due to treatment plant breakdowns
that cause untreated discharge. In Region II, a number of New York/New
Jersey interstate waters fail to meet the fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean
Water Act due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
Issue of Concern:
There has been much recent research on anthropogenic impacts to reefs
in the Caribbean. Some believe that point source discharges and land use
changes on Puerto Rico and other islands have contributed to the growth of
undesirable algae that cause neurotoxic impacts (e.g., Ciguera toxin).
The amount of contamination contributed by CSOs, non-point sources and
point sources cannot easily be differentiated or quantified. Also there is some
uncertainty associated with the population actually exposed.
Score: 2-3 health, 3 pop., 2 severity, total 7-8, uncertainty High
32
-------
Accidental Releases During Transport or Production
There are two possible scenarios of non-cancer health impacts: 1) acute
impacts (e.g., explosion, fire, acute toxic chemical exposure, and multiple
exposures), and 2) chronic impacts based on a single acute exposure.
Issues of Concern:
This area is impossible to predict. A Bhopal-type accident would cause
the ranking for this problem area to skyrocket. The group decided to give it a
score of 8 with the understanding that there was a high uncertainty resulting
from the lack of data.
Score: 4 health, 1 pop., 3 severity; total 8, uncertainty High
Pesticide Contamination Associated with Application
Impacts include acute effects to the central nervous system and potential
teratogenic effects. Data from actual cases within Region II were used in
assessing this problem area.
Issue of Concern:
The assessment did not address residential use/abuse of pesticides.
Score: 4 health, 1 pop., 3 severity; total 8, uncertainty Medium
Stationary Point Sources of Air Pollution
Stationary sources contribute approximately 95 percent of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions produced within the region. S02 was used as the chemical of
concern to identify health impacts from this problem area. Based on the
analysis the health impact was rated a 1 for restricted activity days; the
population in the non-attainment area is 9,351,534 and the incidence calculated
at 3,700,759 people with restricted activity (3.95 x 10'1). The projected incidence
was based on a model.
Lack of RfCs and chemical specific data did not allow the group to
evaluate the potential health impacts from the chemicals of concern (i.e.,
benzene, products of incomplete combustion, etc.).
See descriptions of mobile and area sources for a discussion of the
uncertainties associated with the separation of these three problem areas.
33
-------
Issues of Concern:
There is a need for specific separation of mobile, area and stationary air
sources. The severity, which was based on the projected number of asthma
cases from exposure to stationary air sources. Potential contributions to other
health effects could not be evaluated.
Score: 1 health, 4 pop., 4 severity; total 9, uncertainty Medium
Non-traditional Underground Injection Control Wells (Class IV-V)
Health impacts can be caused by a large number of toxic chemicals which
are found hi these wells leaching into the groundwater. The calculations were
based on one documented incident in which there was gross contamination of a
private well by a few chemicals.
Issue of Concern:
Because this is a new program, the actual number and location of
injection wells, their contribution to the concentration of toxics in drinking water
wells and the population exposed are not well defined. Possible chemical
synergistic and antagonistic effects could not be evaluated. The uncertainty was
high because the actual number of wells and population potentially impacted is
not known.
Score: 3 health, 3 pop., 2 severity; total 8, uncertainty High
MEDIUM
Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
The ranking is based on current impacts on drinking water.
Issues of Concern:
The potential for further problems based on the inability to develop
additional landfills was not addressed. Based on the paucity of exposure data
the severity was rated 1; the severity may be too low.
Score: 3 health, 3 pop., 1 severity; total 7, uncertainty High
34
-------
Material Storage Tanks. Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated Under RCRA Subtitle
C (Underground Storage Tanks FUSTsI and Others^
UST's are a problem of special concern in rural areas where wells are
shallow. Potential exposures include petroleum products, gasoline, etc.
Issue of Concern:
Data gaps exist with severity, it may be greater than 1.
Score: 3 health, 3 pop., 1 severity; total 7, uncertainty High
Sources of Air Pollution that Lead to Acid Deposition. Primarily from Tall
Stacks
Health impacts include lung damage caused by asbestos or particulate
deposition.
Issues of Concern:
Work group members questioned the degree to which this area is a
sulfate-driven problem. The uncertainty is extremely high due to a lack of
toxicological information. Population and severity may merit higher scores.
Score: 3 health, 1 pop., 1 severity; total 5, uncertainty Very High
Dredging and Dredge Disposal
Dredging is a problem with contaminated sediment in urban areas. The
primary route of exposure is through consumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish.
Based on current information, the major potential impact is to the
benthos. In order to assess health impacts it is necessary to assess food chain
transfer or magnification to consumer species from the benthos. It is also
necessary to assess human fish consumption information for Region II
populations. Based on current information, it was assumed that testing methods
have reasonably characterized bioaccumulation impacts. Combined with current
information, on food chain transfer to species consumed by humans, it was
estimated that there is probably a low intensity of impact. However, without
field monitoring results, high confidence inferences on health impact are
difficult.
35
-------
Issues of Concern:
Data on fish species, chemical concentrations, etc. were not available for
evaluation. The high uncertainty was due to a lack of bioaccumulation
information. Monitoring studies are underway to assess the bioavailability of the
toxics in the dredge material. This information is necessary to assess human
health risks.
Score: 2 health, 2 pop., 1 severity; total 5, uncertainty High
Municipal Solid Waste - Incinerators
The health impacts were predicted to be higher in the future as the
number of incinerators increases.
Issues of Concern:
Specific data on health impacts from current incinerators will not be
available until next year. The potential impacts of increasing the number of
sludge incinerators were not addressed under this problem area.
Score: 2 health, 1 pop., 1 severity; total 4, uncertainty Medium
LOW
Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
There seems to be no impact now, but the work group did not discuss
future problems when disposal of municipal sludge is banned from the ocean.
The risks were based on the national studies (U. S. EPA, 1989f).
Score: 0 health, 0 pop., 0 severity; total 0, uncertainty High
Traditional Underground Injection Control Wells (Class I-III)
These are wells that inject fluid below drinking water aquifers. There
have been only one or two instances of possible discharge into potable aquifers
in this region, and there have been no documented contamination incidents.
Score: 0 health, 0 pop., 0 severity; total 0, uncertainty High
36
-------
Currently the Army Corps of Engineers is the only woodburning at sea
permittee and operates under a one year interim permit issued by EPA. The
permit contains several special conditions to assure minimal environmental and
health impacts.
It is expected that wood-burning at sea will be phased out by the end of
1991. Based on this information the work group concluded that the potential
human health risks were negligible.
Score: 0 health, 0 pop., 0 severity; total 0, uncertainty Low
Not Ranked
Radon
Non-Radon Radiation
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats (except Dredging)
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitats
37
-------
COMBINED CANCER AND NON-CANCER
The work group attempted to combine the cancer and non-cancer rankings
for each problem area in an effort to understand the total health impacts
presented by the problem areas. It is important to realize that the Agency uses
distinctly different approaches in analyzing health risks for cancer and non-
cancer effects based on the biological mechanisms of action.
Initially, the work group discussed the possibility of a numerical approach
to combining both scorings. However, this approach involved the following
uncertainties:
o The biological mechanisms are different.
o Different methodologies are used to assess the potential health impacts
for cancer and non-cancer and a method for addressing these uncertainties
was not available.
o Different guidance is available for developing risk assessments in these
areas.
o Each individual cancer and non-cancer ranking involves a number of
uncertainties which in turn must be considered in the combined
cancer/non-cancer assessment.
o The cancer analysis was primarily quantitative while portions of the non-
cancer analysis were based on a qualitative approach.
o The ranking methods and uncertainties associated with each problem area
in the cancer and non-cancer ranking varied.
In addition, any attempt to combine the rankings quantitatively requires an
implicit weighting of cancer and non-cancer effects which is beyond the scope of
this project.
In the absence of a quantitative method for assessing the cancer/non-
cancer health impacts, the work group used a qualitative approach to combine
the rankings. First, the problem areas that were ranked very high in both
cancer and non-cancer were combined into the very high category of the
cancer/non-cancer ranking. This process was followed for each of the other
ranking categories.
The problem areas that did not appear in the same category on both lists
were reviewed and discussed, and a qualitative judgment made as to the relative
position of the problem area for the combined ranking. In most cases, the
higher ranking was used to determine the combined ranking.
38
-------
Following the initial categorization of the problem areas, attempts were
made to rank the problem areas in the very high, high, medium and low
categories. The final ranking, shown in Table IV, reflects a qualitative
assessment only.
39
-------
lll
-------
Chapter Three: Ecological Effects Ranking
Introduction
The following is a summary of the results of the Region II Risk Ranking
Work Group's comparative ranking of twenty-three ecological problem areas (See
Table V). The rankings are based on individual problem area reports prepared
by work group members, other EPA staff, or by EPA contractors. The object of
each report was to analyze the components of the problem in terms of the
associated chemical or physical stressors, the related exposure pathways for each
stressor, and the expected ecological risk or harm from each stressor to each
major ecosystem category. The broad ecosystem categories that were considered
are described in Figure 1.
The problem area ranking was based in large part on combining scores for
the following criteria: intensity of ecological impact, scale (i.e., fraction of the
resource affected), and the ecological value of the affected resource. The three
separate scores were summed for each problem area, with the highest scores
indicating the worst effects. An additional criterion, uncertainty, provided a
subjective evaluation of the overall uncertainty of the risk estimates for each
analysis. (See Table VI.)
An important consideration in the scoring was maintaining consistency
across the criteria. In other words, if the intensity score was 5, the scale and
value scores would have to be based on the ecosystems subject to that intensity
(5) of impact. Initial scoring recommendations for each problem area were
provided by the work group member responsible for each analysis. Generally,
the work group did not alter these scores. However, the group decided not to
follow those scores strictly when assigning rankings to the problems.
The decision to avoid a strict adherence to the scores during the relative
ranking was designed to counterbalance some of the subjective values that
influenced those scores and to ensure that professional judgment about severity
and impact had some influence on the final rankings. This decision also allowed
the work group to focus its discussions on the nature and impacts of the
problems rather than on the scoring system and its application.
Final rankings were based on group consensus about the relative threats
posed by the problems, taking into consideration the scoring recommendations
and the group discussion. The problem area summaries that follow describe the
major issues that went into the ranking considerations. The broad groupings of
ecological risk (very high, high, medium, and low) are intended to represent
41
-------
ECOSYSTEM/RECEPTOR CATEGORIES
Oceans - All deep coastal waters, extending to
international boundaries and including near coastal waters
that are not estuarine.
- Semi-enclosed areas where fresh and
marine waters mix and/or river flows are influenced by the
tides. This category includes tidal wetlands.
Freshwater Wetlands -All inland areas that
exhibit the characteristics of a wetland as defined by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Rivers, streams and lakes -AII navigable
waterways and their tributaries, as well as all man-made
and naturally occurring inland bodies of water other than
the Great Lakes.
Great Lakes - Treated separately from other takes in
the Region because of size and complexity.
Forest and other Non-Agricultural
Upland - All wooded areas including parks.wildlife
refuges, commercial forest lands, and other non-agricultural
upland habitats such as meadows and grassland.
AgroeCOSVSternS - All farmland and surrounding
buffer areas.
Figure I
-------
TABLE V
Ecological Problem List1
1, Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Wastewater Treatment
Discharges to Water
2. Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
4 Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
5. Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Classes ME)
6. Other Underground Injection Wells (Class TV-V)
7. Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of A
-------
Intensity of
Sciali
|||||i:|p||i||p||;;;:u^|
^^^j^^^^j^sjied
Ifllllll^^
^M^^^^^i^^^l^
:•,'>?<-'•-' L, . .' -- .-- -^ -• L •- .• •- -• • T.-,--..-.. •.-'.-. ', ,-X ' ^' '- '. '- •-•-.-- .-. ;. s..
;;-ia|J&te3pl
'•"i^l-ii'&iv' !"v!. :':':'.''"v.:::;.
:• -:::-.;:;X;:>- ;•;:-!; >•: ;:.:/-;,':>..';!_:_-•:•:
;i£j^iitieii;;::;|;:!|
44
-------
significant differences in relative risks (Table VII). There was less confidence in
the placement of problem areas within each group. For example, the work
group is confident that areas ranked "high" pose greater threats than those
ranked 'low", but has less confidence that the order of priorities within each
group is exact.
Several aspects of the ranking are noteworthy.
o The two highest-ranking problems deal with the effects of land use on
aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Although EPA has limited authority
over land use, there was strong agreement that development is the
major threat to some of Region H's important ecological resources.
Risks to coastal systems and fresh water wetlands were considered to
be particularly significant. The Science Advisory Board (SAB) has also
identified habitat loss as a major problem that EPA needs to address.
o Sources of acid deposition and non-point source pollution to surface
water were also ranked very high. Acid precipitation is widespread in
the Northeast and threatens forest systems, high-altitude lakes, and
the pine barrens. Nonpoint source pollution generates a wide variety
of ecological stressors and adversely impacts a high percentage of
Region IFs surface waters.
o Although the work group placed chemical uses that deplete the ozone
layer into the "high" rather than "very high" risk category, there are
some unusual aspects to this problem that should be noted. The
ranking is based on predicted effects on plants at current exposure
levels. Although the work group was skeptical of some of the
scenarios presented in an Agency study, future damage to terrestrial
vegetation and phytoplankton and contribution to global warming
could be catastrophic. The SAB has recommended that this type of
problem, which has a very high uncertainty, but has huge potential
risk and low reversibility, should be acted on even before additional
research can confirm the predictions.
o Global climate change was the SAB's most highly ranked ecological
problem, and was another large scale problem that the SAB
recommended action on in the face of uncertainty. However, the
Region II list did not include climate change as a separate problem
area, since it was a list of pollution sources rather than effects.
However, climate change impacts are discussed separately under the
problem areas that contribute to the emission of "greenhouse" gases
such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide
(i.e., all of the air pollution problem areas, and the land use problem
areas). However, the work group considered climate change to be one
of the most significant threats to the region's ecosystems.
45
-------
o Accidental releases also present a difficult problem in terms of relative
risk ranking. The "medium" ranking was based on spills occurring in
an "average" year. But the prospect of a very large release into
ecologically important areas is difficult to factor into the overall
analysis.
o Problems that involved toxic contamination were generally ranked
lower than problems that cause more overt damage via habitat
degradation, nutrient loadings, reduced oxygen levels, and acidification.
However, certain geographic regions (e.g., the Niagara Frontier, the
Hackensack Meadowlands) were identified; these ecosystems are
significantly threatened by toxic pollutants.
o Two problem areas — municipal sludge disposal and dredging ~ were
ranked low in terms of ecological risk, even though these areas have
generated significant public concern. Although monitoring at the deep
water sludge disposal site in the Atlantic is still under way, ocean
disposal of sludge at that site is not anticipated to produce significant
impacts on oceanic or coastal ecosystems. There is some uncertainty
about the severity of impacts on bottom-living (benthic) communities
from dredging. Nevertheless, impacts at disposal sites and dredged
channels are localized, and the problem area was ranked lower in
priority than many others.
Because of extensive data gaps and the lack of any generally accepted
quantitative model for comparing ecological risks, best professional judgment was
relied on rather heavily in this analysis. The final ranking represents a
qualitative evaluation of the effect of various pollutant sources and human
activities on the region's ecological resources. For a majority of the problem
areas, ecological resource data and direct measures of impacts on biota and
biological communities were either unavailable or difficult to obtain. This was
particularly true in regard to the information needed to support judgments
about intensity of impact (changes in biodiversity, population numbers of select
species, biomass, and community structure related to environmental stressors),
and ecological value of threatened or impacted resources in Region II.
A more quantitatively based analysis would require a shift in the way the
Agency currently monitors ecosystems and stores and interprets environmental
data. Such a shift is already occurring, with recent changes in EPA data
systems, the advancement of geographic information system technology, the
ongoing development of biocriteria and bioindicators, and the Office of Research
and Development's environmental mapping efforts. However, the Agency has
long focused on human health concerns, and a shift in its culture and
capabilities is likely to take some time.
46
-------
TABLE VII
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS RANKING
VeiyHQgh
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats other than Dredging
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitats
Extra-Regional Sources Leading to Acid Deposition, Primarily from Tall Stacks
Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
High
Pesticides Contamination During Application
Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Wastewater Treatment Discharges to Water
Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Layer - Chlorofluorocarbons'
Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
Medium
Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles
Area/Non-point Sources of Air Pollution Other Than Chlorofluorocarbons
Accidental Releases During Production or Transport
Stationary and Point Sources of Air Pollution
Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
Abandoned Hazardous Sites/Superfund Sites
Active Hazardous Waste Sites Currently Regulated Under RCRA Subtitle C
Low
Materials Storage Tanks, Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated under RCRA Subtitle C
Dredging and Dredge Disposal
Municipal Solid Waste - Incinerators
Other Underground Injection Wells (Class IV-V)
Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
Radiation other than Radon
Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Classes I-III)
Wastewood Disposal or Treatment
Not Ranked
*
Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems
Pesticide Residues on Food
Radon
Indoor Air Pollutants Other Than Radon
^Based on current impacts on plants. Ecological risks could be
catastrophic if predictions are accurate, Anatysis, however, has very high
uncertainty.
47
-------
RATIONALE FOR ECOLOGICAL RANKINGS
VERY HIGH
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats other than
Dredging
Includes physical modifications that cause disruption of aquatic habitats
such as dam construction and operation; flood control channelization; filling for
highways, housing, industrial areas and landfills. The geographic extent of land
use changes/physical modifications of aquatic habitats encompasses most of the
region. Impacts are particularly severe in the region's coastal areas. While
much of the ecologically important aquatic habitat has already been lost in
urban areas, the few remaining areas are oases for rare and endangered species.
The undeveloped areas in the region are at high risk for habitat loss or
degradation. Wetlands are vital ecological breeding grounds and habitats for
many aquatic species. Wetland modifications are highly irreversible and severely
impact aquatic species. There was a strong consensus among work group
members that this problem area presented the highest ecological risk.
Issues of concern: Work group members questioned whether all wetlands are
high value ecosystems. Wetland acreage losses are estimates, there are no data
on total acreage losses.
Information Sources: Several technical reports and contractor habitat loss
estimates.
Score: Intensity 5, Scale 5, Value 5, Total 15, Uncertainty M-H
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitats
Includes physical modifications that cause disruption of terrestrial
habitats such as flooding from dams; pipeline construction; flood control
channelization. This problem area focused on the loss or conversion of forests
and agricultural land. Urban sprawl is contributing to piecemeal elimination of
farmland and forest areas in the region and is reducing or degrading habitat for
wildlife and crop production. Although some increase in forested areas has been
observed in New York and Puerto Rico, replacement forests are of lower value
as wildlife habitat.
Issues of concern: Some group members did not feel that all terrestrial habitats
warranted a value score of 5. Therefore, even though they have equal scores,
wetlands loss was ranked higher. Also, not all the forest or rural lands are
being degraded. Much of the interior of New York State, for example, is not
being developed
48
-------
Information Sources: Several technical reports and contractor habitat loss
estimates.
Scorn- Intensity 5, Scale 5, Value 5, Total 15, Uncertainty M-H
Extra-Regional Sources Leading to Acid Deposition
This problem area includes sources of precursor pollutants contributing
to acid precipitation originating from outside the region including utilities,
transportation, and other industrial and commercial processes. The deposition of
acidic particulates is exceeding calculated environmental threshold values over
much of the New York and New Jersey region. Detrimental effects have been
observed in several of the region's sensitive ecosystems, including the Adirondack
and Catskill regions of New York and the Pine Barrens in New Jersey. Adverse
impacts range from moderate to severe, however both the severity and some of
the causes are still widely debated amongst different members of the regulatory
and scientific community. Detrimental effects of acid deposition have been
observed in several of Region II's most sensitive ecosystems. The impacts vary
from moderate to severe, but the systems worst hit are the most pristine.
Issues of concern: The description of ecological impacts varies greatly depending
on the data source. The extent of the ecological threat from acid precipitation
is still the subject of debate in the regulatory and scientific community.
Information Sources: The NAPAP Study and other research literature.
Score: Intensity 5, Scale 3, Value 5, Total 13, Uncertainty Medium
Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
Non-point sources (NPSs) of water pollution include contaminated and
non-contaminated sediments, airborne deposition of toxic compounds, and runoff
from urban, agricultural, silvicultural and resource extraction activities.
Atmospheric deposition, nutrients, and sediments are the most frequently
occurring NPS pollutants in Region II. Principle ecological stressors include
sediments, nutrients, acids, heavy metals, toxic organics, and oxygen demanding
compounds. Nutrients cause eutrophication in impoundments, and sediments
destroy benthic organisms and pose a threat to the unique coral reefs in the
Virgin Islands. Because much of the region is highly urbanized, urban runoff
presents a significant problem. Impacts from nutrients associated with
agriculture continue to pose problems in New Jersey, New York and Puerto
Rico.
49
-------
Issues of Concern: In order to avoid double counting, non-point sources were
artificially defined to exclude pesticides. Scores for this problem area were
driven by contaminated sediments. Due to data limitations, non-point source
impacts are difficult to quantify and the analysis has high uncertainty.
Information Sources: State NFS Assessment Reports, and 305(b) Reports.
Score: Scores were determined for each area in Region II:
NY: Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 4, Total 12
NJ: Intensity 5, Scale 4, Value 4, Total 13
PR: Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 5, Total 13
VI: Intensity 3, Scale 2, Value 5, Total 10
The total score is not necessarily an average of these scores. The group
member responsible for developing the scoring was also responsible for
determining an aggregate score for the region.
Aggregate Score: Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 4.5, Total 12.5, Uncertainty High
HIGH
Pesticides Contamination during Application
Pesticide application includes air pollution drift and non-point source
runoff. Acute impacts to non-target biota are likely during application, but data
are sparse. Most non-point source pesticides impacts are from pesticides no
longer hi use such as DDT. NPS impacts can range from fish kills (short term)
to various chronic impacts on fish populations and aquatic communities.
Issues of Concern: High uncertainty was associated with the fact that this is a
difficult problem to quantify or model and environmental exposure data are
limited.
Information Sources: Various literature sources, Headquarters contractor
analysis.
Score; Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 4, Total 12, Uncertainty High
Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Wastewater Treatment
Discharges to Water
This area includes industrial point discharges and municipal/public
wastewater treatment discharges. Due to effective regulation, most of Region
II's waters are not severely impacted by point source pollution, however, some
50
-------
waters in industrialized areas have been significantly impacted. The 304(1) short
list describes all point source driven toxic problems. Point sources also
contribute to nontoxic ecological problems (i.e., excessive nutrients).
Issues of Concern: Some group members felt the value was too high, because
the impacts occur in industrialized areas. However, since 84 percent of all
commercial fish species come into estuaries and harbors (e.g., New York Harbor)
to spawn, it was decided the value did merit a 5. The intensity was given a 4,
due to waters not meeting standards for fish propagation or fish passage.
According to New Jersey's State Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report), 38
percent of New Jersey's waters do not meet the standards for fish propagation.
The report does not differentiate, however, between point and non-point sources.
The group felt point sources were a lesser ecological risk than non-point sources
(New York's 305(b) report apportions 80 percent of water pollution impacts to
non-point sources and 20 percent to point sources).
Information sources: State 305(b) Reports and State 304(1) Lists.
Score: A score was determined for each area in Region II:
NY: Intensity 4, Scale 3, Value 3, Total 10
NJ: Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 3, Total 11
PR: Intensity 5, Scale 3, Value 5, Total 13
VI: Intensity 4, Scale 1, Value 5, Total 10
The total score is not necessarily an average of these scores. The group
member responsible for developing the scoring was also responsible for
determining an aggregate score for the region.
Aggregate Score: Intensity 4, Scale 3, Value 5, Total 12, Uncertainty Medium
Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Laver - Chlorofluorocarbons
Includes impacts resulting from increased UV radiation due to man-
induced thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer. Increased UV radiation can
disrupt terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and lead to increased mutation rates.
Ranking is based primarily on current impacts on plants. Ecological risks could
potentially be catastrophic if predictions concerning impacts on phytoplankton
and resulting food chain effects are accurate. The analysis, however, has very
high uncertainty.
Issues of Concern: The ecological impacts from CFCs are potentially cataclysmic,
but the projected impacts are all future theoretical damages. The uncertainty of
this area was very high, and the impacts may not be seen for several years.
CFCs were originally ranked higher, but the ranking was reduced because the
work group viewed some of the predicted impacts with skepticism. The group
51
-------
decided to rank this problem area in the "High" rather than 'Very High" risk
category, with the caveat that the ecological impacts could be much greater.
Information Sources: One EPA and one UN study.
Score: Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 4, Total 12, Uncertainty Very High
Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) occur when storm events cause such
a large volume of water to flow through sewers that treatment works must
allow a significant amount to bypass the plant without treatment. Floatables
from CSOs represent a hazard to marine life and birds. High levels of nutrients
and oxygen demanding substances following storm events can lead to low oxygen
conditions and result hi degradation of aquatic communities and fish kills. In
industrial areas oils, grease, and toxic organics, which present both acute and
chronic risks to aquatic organisms, are also released following storm events.
New York/New Jersey Harbor shows significant impacts. Moderate impacts also
noted for Lake Ontario, and minor or negligible impacts described for Camden
County, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Impacts.
Issues of Concern: CSOs were initially ranked below air and hazardous waste
problem areas but CSOs were later elevated with non-point and point sources on
the basis of high values assigned to harbors and estuaries. CSOs are only a
major problem in the Hudson/Raritan Estuary, therefore the scale merited a 1.
Information sources: State 305(b) Reports, and State 304(1) Lists, New York
Harbor Floatables Study.
Score- Intensity 3, Scale 1, Value 5, Total 9, Uncertainty Medium
MEDIUM
Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles
This category includes automobiles, trucks and buses. Emissions
include some criteria pollutants, air toxics and contributions to low level ozone
and global warming. The ranking is based primarily on the contribution of
mobile sources to stresses on plants from ground level ozone.
Issues of Concern: The impacts of low level ozone are complex and it is difficult
to characterize how mobile source stressors interact with other stressors such as
acid rain. The uncertainty is therefore high. Criteria pollutant emission
52
-------
impacts are relatively low and toxic emissions are moderate from mobile sources.
Information about the effects of pollutants other than ozone is sparse.
Information Sources: Contractor analysis, and other technical literature.
Score: Intensity 3, Scale 3, Value 3-4, Total 9-10,
Uncertainty Medium-High
Area/Non-point Sources of Air Pollution other than Chlorofluorocarbons
This problem area includes sources not usually regulated as a stationary
source but having estimated contributions to global warming, criteria air
pollution (especially ozone), and air toxics. Sources include: incinerators in
residential buildings, wood burning stoves, and VOC emissions from small
sources such as dry cleaners.
Issues of Concern: This problem area is difficult to quantify or model, hence the
high uncertainty. This area was ranked below mobile sources because of best
professional judgement that it represented a relatively smaller contribution to
precursors to ground level ozone.
Score- Intensity 3, Scale 3, Value 3-4, Total 9-10, Uncertainty High
Accidental Releases During Production or Transport
Includes accidental releases with acute impacts, some requiring some
sort of emergency response (oil spills, Bhopal like releases) as well as smaller
releases that have no obvious impacts and go relatively unnoticed. The impacts
from accidental releases can be acute or chronic. Accidental releases of
hazardous substances, oil, and other substances contribute to the degradation of
both terrestrial and aquatic environments. The extent of the impacts depends
on the nature of the release, the environmental conditions at the time of the
spill, and the nature of the emergency response.
Issues of Concern: Large data gaps exist with accidental releases. The potential
impacts are very high in the case of a Valdez-like spill. The group cited a need
to make it mandatory to collect ecological impact data from spill sites. The
uncertainty is very high due to unpredictability of spills. Comparisons of
relative risk'are difficult, since the most serious impacts would result from high
risk, low probability events, while other problem areas deal with more
predictable and known exposures.
Information Sources: ERNS and other accidental release data bases.
Score: Intensity 4, Scale 1-2, Value 4, Total 9-10, Uncertainty Very High
53
-------
Stationary and Point Sources of Air Pollution
Stationary air sources include industrial point sources and power plants.
They emit some criteria pollutants and air toxics and contribute to ozone
problems and global warming. The primary ranking consideration was the
problem area's contribution to the formation of low-level ozone, which was
considered to be less significant than mobile or area sources.
Issues of Concern: The medium uncertainty is the result of uncertainties about
global warming and ozone impacts. The air toxic and criteria pollutants data for
stationary air sources are more accurate and complete than data available for
other air related problem areas.
Score: Intensity 3, Scale 2, Value 2, Total 7, Uncertainty Medium
Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
This area includes municipal waste or storage sites containing primarily
non-hazardous wastes such as: municipal landfills, and municipal surface
impoundments. Some municipal solid waste sites eventually become Superfund
sites and many are located in high value wetlands. The nature of the impacts
for Superfund, active hazardous waste, and solid waste sites are likely to be
similar, in that they involve acute and chronic toxic impacts on organisms via
surface run-off and groundwater leachates to surface water. Municipal solid
waste sites were judged to present the highest relative ecological risk of these
problem areas, because of the great number of sites, their high potential to
become Superfund sites, and their proximity to wetlands.
Issues of Concern: The value score of 4 relates to the fact that many landfills
are situated in wetlands. The intensity was given a 3, due to non-point source
runoff from surface landfills. The high uncertainty is the result of lack of data.
Score: Intensity 3, Scale 1, Value 4, Total 8, Uncertainty High
Abandoned Hazardous Sites/Superfund Sites
This area includes all hazardous waste sites that are not regulated by
RCRA. For the purposes of this analysis, the sites were evaluated on the basis
of risks posed before any corrective actions are taken. Generally they are
inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites. This problem area is better
documented than RCRA. Although contaminants from some sites can cause
relatively severe ecological impacts, observed effects are usually localized. In
addition, roughly 35 percent to 46 percent of the region's sites are within three
miles of a sensitive environment (estuary, critical habitat, 100 year flood plain,
barrier island/coastal high hazard area) and can potentially impact valuable
54
-------
ecological resources. Judged to be greater risk than RCRA sites because of
proximity to sensitive environments.
Issues of Concern: Major sources of uncertainty in this analysis include the
difficulty of making generalizations about average risks or impacts from sites
that vary widely in terms of their ecology and contamination, the lack of
detailed information about ecological risks at CERCLIS sites, and much of the
available data is not in a centralized database.
Information Sources: CERCLIS and NPL Characterization Studies, OPPE study
of ecological risks at Superfund and RCRA sites.
Score: Intensity 3-4, Scale 1, Value 5, Total 9-10, Uncertainty High
Active Hazardous Waste Sites Currently Regulated Under RCRA Subtitle C
This problem area includes active hazardous waste sites regulated
under RCRA Subtitle C. For purposes of this analysis, the sites were evaluated
on the basis of the risks posed before permit/ corrective actions are taken.
Many sites are in areas that are currently of low ecological value, because
habitats were destroyed or degraded when the facilities were originally
developed. Secondary impacts of chemical contamination range from moderate
to negligible depending on the site. The group decided to rank RCRA below
Superfund because RCRA sites were considered to be less frequently in
proximity to sensitive or high value ecosystems.
Issues of Concern: This problem area is not as well documented as Superfund
and the analysis is based largely on professional judgement. This is due to the
scarcity of ecological assessments for RCRA sites. A major source of uncertainty
is that the total number of RCRA sites with ecological effects is unknown. The
medium-high uncertainty is due to lack of data.
Score: Intensity 3-4, Scale 1, Value 1-3, Total 7-8, Uncertainty Med-High
LOW
Materials Storage Tanks. Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated under RCRA
Subtitle C
Includes industrial waste or storage sites containing primarily non-
hazardous wastes such as: industrial landfills, industrial surface impoundments,
oil and gas waste impoundments, incinerators and land application units. Also
includes all types of storage units and associated pipelines such as above and
below ground storage tanks, barrels, etc. which contain non-hazardous materials
55
-------
such as motor fuels, heating fuels, solvents and lubricants. Although data are
sparse about this problem area, effects on terrestrial and aquatic systems are
assumed to be localized and most USTs are in relatively degraded areas. The
greatest risk to ecosystems is from tanks that are in shallow soil where a leak
could easily impact adjacent surface water systems, particularly for small
streams.
Issues of Concern: Impacts on small streams could be high. The high
uncertainty was from inability to compare the location of the tanks to the
location of sensitive ecological receptors (i.e., are they located in high value
ecosystems?).
Information Sources: EPA study of ecological effects of underground storage
tanks, EPA national survey of motor vehicle fuel tanks, Region I's comparative
risk study, and contractor analysis.
Score: Intensity 2, Scale 1, Value 3, Total 6, Uncertainty High
Dredging and Dredge Disposal
This area includes dredging of sediments for navigation channels,
harbors, marinas, and contaminated sediment remediation as well as the disposal
of dredge spoils. Ecological stressors of concern include PCBs, cadmium,
mercury and petroleum products, as well as physical disruption of benthic
habitats. Although the Army Corps of Engineers has established protocols based
on testing of sediments which are intended to protect aquatic life, the protocols
are being revised on a national level, and there is a fair amount of uncertainty
in characterizing risks to ecosystems from dredging. The major potential impact
with regard to ocean disposal of dredged material is to benthic communities.
Impacts are probably restricted, for the most part, to disposal sites. Impacts to
dredged sites are intermittent and limited to navigational channels which have
been historically disturbed. Intensity of impacts are probably low.
Issues of Concern: The intensity was questioned because of concerns with the
Corps disposal practices. The scale is low, because dredging only occurs in
navigational channels, harbors and marinas, and disposal sites encompass a
limited area.
Information Sources: EPA/COE dredged materials testing protocols, monitoring
studies.
Score: Intensity 2, Scale 1, Value 2, Total 5, Uncertainty Medium
56
-------
Municipal Solid Waste - Incinerators
Includes refuse and resource recovery incinerators. Currently in Region
II, there are 16 active solid waste incinerators. In the future, the number of
incinerators is expected to increase. The overall ecological impacts are minimal
from criteria air pollutants, due to low emission rates from those incinerators.
Issues of Concern: This ranking was determined considering incinerators
currently in place. The intensity of 1 is due to stack emissions and 2 is for the
ash disposal. Ash waste potentially contains toxic contaminants. The medium
uncertainty is due to a lack of data.
Information Sources: Municipal Waste combustion Study, Contractor Analysis.
Score: Intensity 1-2, Scale 1, Value 1, Total 3-4, Uncertainty High
Other Underground Injection Wells (Class IV-V)
Includes Class IV (shallow hazardous waste wells) and Class V wells
(includes dry wells, commercial septic tanks, and drainage fields). Class IV and
V UIC wells are sources of potential contamination of groundwater by the
chemicals injected into the wells. Groundwater contaminants from these wells
that are dispersed to soils, sediments, and surface waters represent a potential
source of risk to regional ecosystems. These wells probably contribute to non-
point source pollution, however, there is little information available on the
ecological impacts of these wells. In general, however, these sources probably
represent some portion of total non-point source loadings to regional ecosystems.
Issues of Concern: The value was considered to be low since most wells were
assumed to be in urban areas. The high uncertainty is the result of a large
data gap associated with Class IV-V wells. Because the work group felt that the
risk may be underestimated for this problem area, Class IV-V wells were ranked
higher than sludge disposal.
Score: Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Total 3, Uncertainty High
Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
This area includes the ocean dumping of sludge as well as alternatives
such as land application, incineration or composting of municipal sewage sludge
from municipal wastewater treatment works. A monitoring program of the
current deep water disposal site off of New Jersey is still underway. Results to
date have not identified significant impacts. Ecological impacts of land disposal
practices are difficult to characterize but they were judged to be localized and
relatively minor.
57
-------
Issues of Concern: This ranking was based on present conditions; it did not
consider alternative disposal methods which will occur after the ocean dumping
ban act is activated. Although the current low level risks to ocean ecosystems
will be eliminated by the use of these alternatives, ecological risks to terrestrial,
freshwater and inshore ecosystems in proximity to disposal sites are likely to
increase. The analysis lacks detailed description of current risks from land
disposal and discussion about future disposal scenarios and trends. The 106-mile
site was determined to have a low ecological value based on the site selection
criteria. A monitoring program at the 106-mile site has not identified significant
impacts to date. Monitoring at the site is continuing, however, and additional
results will be available in the near future.
Information Sources: 106-Site monitoring reports, and sludge regulations.
Score: Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Total 3, Uncertainty Low
Radiation other than Radon
The study provided by OPPE identifies natural and manmade sources of
ionizing radiation other than radon, and their potential for impacts on
ecosystems. Ionizing radiation is a known carcinogen, and can also cause genetic
and teratogenic (birth defects) effects. According to the provided analysis, no
known ecological impacts are attributable to ionizing radiation under current
exposure scenarios. No estimates of ecological impacts from exposure to non-
ionizing radiation are given.
Issues of Concern: The work group was somewhat skeptical of the OPPE
study's conclusions. Some recently released studies have identified significant
environmental transport and bioaccumulation of radionuclides around
Department of Energy weapons production facilities, and the work group felt
that there were potential localized impacts at high level waste sites in Region
II.
Information Sources: OPPE contractor analysis.
Score.- Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Total 3, Uncertainty Medium
Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Classes I-III)
Includes Class I injection wells (deep hazardous and non-hazardous
waste below an underground source of drinking water); Class II injection wells
(Oil and gas recovery wells); and Class III injection wells (solution mining).
There is a low potential for ecological impacts associated with groundwater
contamination as a source of exposure to surface ecosystems due to the depth of
58
-------
the wells and their small number in Region II. The impacts of the surface
operations for these wells present more of a potential threat hi terms of their
contribution to habitat loss and non-point source pollution. Information about
the ecosystem resources around these wells is not available to make any
quantitative estimates of risk.
Information Sources: Unfinished Business Report, Region I comparative risk
study.
Score: Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Total 3, Uncertainty High
Wastewood Disposal or Treatment
The ecological impacts from wastewood burning are probably low or
non-existent. The program is also being phased out. Disposal alternatives
were not evaluated.
Information Sources: Wastewood Disposal Environmental Impact Statement
Score.- Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Total 3, Uncertainty Low
59
-------
Chapter Four: Economics/Welfare Effects Ranking
Along with EPA's mandate to protect human health and ecosytems is a
concern about reducing the negative effects of pollution on the welfare and
economic well being of society. The effects of environmental problems on
human welfare include a variety of damages to property and resources that
affect human use or enjoyment.
The economic/welfare damages analyzed include: damages to
commercial and recreational fishing; the need for treatment of surface water
supplies; loss of commercially valuable forests; loss of recreational opportunities
in wetlands, forests or coastal areas; declines in property value around toxic
waste sites or other polluted areas; buildings and cultural monuments damaged
by air pollution; reduced visibility; destruction of watersheds; increased health
care costs; and, destruction of groundwater resources. Health care costs were
included because health problems caused by pollution are concern to EPA in and
of themselves, and the cost of health care is also an economic concern. This list
is not all inclusive but serves to illustrate the major categories of economic
damages from pollution considered.
Although economic losses do parallel health or ecosystem problems,
some important areas are captured only in the welfare ranking. The negative
effects of losses in property value, closing of fisheries, destruction of
groundwater resources and destruction of watersheds may have negligible health
or ecological effects but do have large economic effects. If priorities were set on
health and ecological criteria alone, EPA would not be troubled by beach closings
or closing of drinking water wells because health concerns have been eliminated
and the ecological impacts are negligible. But protecting society from the
economic damages of pollution and environmental destruction is one of the
Environmental Protection Agency's roles. This role can be especially important
because environmental problems are often characterized by an unequal
distribution of benefits and costs. Often the individuals whose well being is
reduced by a soiled beach or a closed shellfish bed are different from those who
benefit from the reduces costs that created the pollution in the first place.
It is important to distinguish between the losses and damages caused
by pollution that are encompassed in the analysis and ranking, and the economic
costs of controlling pollution. The costs of control are not included. The
Although the term "welfare" connotes a broader range of impacts than economics effects alone, both
terms can be used for this analysis. The type of economic effects considered include monetization of damages to
an individual's welfare such as loss of recreational opportunities and other public goods. Although individuals are
not currently paying for enjoyment, there is definite evidence that individuals value these goods and would be willing
to pay for continued use.
60
-------
economic damages caused by pollution are sometimes referred to as economic
benefits, when and if the pollution were eliminated. Again, the control costs are
not included in this analysis.
It is tempting but incorrect to try to compare the estimates of damages
to control costs. First, the analysis could not be conducted with sufficient detail
to lead to any conclusions about cost versus benefits. Second, neither time
frame or equity concerns have been addressed, and these are very important
components of cost/benefit analysis. For many environmental issues, the control
costs are large but they are incurred in the present, while benefits
characteristically continue infinitely into the future. Thus, comparing the level
of costs and benefits can hinge upon the time frame and discount rate
considered appropriate. An example may help to illustrate the nuances involved.
In our analysis, acid rain was found to result in approximately $400 million in
losses to society yearly. While the present day control costs are probably higher
than this, the benefits of healthy forests and fisheries will continue for
generations. In addition, the people who benefit from the lower cost of
electricity that results in acid rain are different from those who are hurt by the
effects of the pollution. Equity concerns, even intergenerational equity, need to
be considered, along with the level of dollars estimated.
This report is a summary of both the analysis prepared for the regional
ranking project and the work group discussions and decisions on that analysis.
The analysis prepared for the regional ranking project was a review of existing
research in the area of economic damages from pollution for Region II, followed
by preliminary analyses completed by Region II staff and contractors. Both the
review of the literature and the staff analyses were constrained by time and
resources. While there is confidence in the order of magnitude of the damages
and their legitimacy for ranking purposes, the actual dollar figures are far from
exact. Dollar estimates were not included for two very important damages - the
loss of a life and the existence of ecosystems. The methods for putting dollar
values on these types of damages are controversial and unreliable. It is noted
here because damages that are not quantified are often minimized in value, and
this is not intended.
The work group reviewed the results of the analyses, and determined
the relative ranking of each problem area. This was a difficult task because
some evaluations contained only part of the total economic impact because
certain factors could not be quantified; some environmental problems had no
dollar estimates at all. The group did not want to restrict the ranking to
quantitative problem areas, so they used best professional judgement to rank the
more qualitative problem areas. The differences between problems ranked close
to another are often minimal.
The categories are more reliable and are in general order of magnitude; they
are:
61
-------
o Very high = over 1/2 billion dollars annually
o High = $ 500 - 50 million
o Medium = $ 50 - 1 million
o Low = minimal damages
The limits and uncertainties of the data and methods used are
discussed fully in the draft report. The uncertainties are in the following areas:
1) Does the economic damage exist or is it theoretical?
2) Does data exist on the size or extent of the damage?
3) Is the method for estimating the dollar value of the damage
sound?
4) Does the data accurately reflect what we are trying to estimate?
The welfare ranking of the problem areas is contained in Table VII. A
narrative summary of the rationale for the ranking follows.
62
-------
|^
i
^
|;||||^
63
-------
RATIONALE FOR ECONOMICS/WELFARE RANKINGS
VERY HIGH
Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
Non-point sources of surface water pollution were determined to cause
the largest economic damages because the value of the resources they affect -
primarily fisheries, recreation and surface water supplies - are high. A State
University of New York at Stony Brook report on the New York Bight estimated
that losses to fish and shellfish resources equalled over $1.4 billion annually,
including indirect economic losses. Additional studies estimated navigation
impacts at $500 million, and the striped bass fishery closure at $100 million.
Proportioning between non-point sources and point sources is inexact, however,
the work group agreed with Water Management Division staff that non-point
sources generally cause more damage.
These estimates, although the highest in the quantitative analysis, have
a very low uncertainty, and are not all inclusive further confirming their place
at the top of the economic damages ranking.
Industrial Point Sources and Municipal/Public Wastewater Discharges to Water
(See non-point source discussion.)
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Discharges to Water
The main concern with CSO's is their impact on beach recreation. The
economic damages due to beach closings have been studied by several authors
who estimate losses between $1.4 - 5.8 billion dollars for the worst years. Since
the economic losses were based on the worst years, the group felt that these
estimates should not be considered yearly estimates, and should be ranked lower
than the yearly fishery losses. Despite this concern, the economic damages of
beach closings are substantial and well documented.
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitat
Although there are many types of damages from land use changes
including losses in recreation areas; increased dredging costs and surface water
quality degradation due to soil erosion; and increased air pollution, none of these
damages could be realistically measured. However, large and very real economic
costs will be incurred in the region due to overdevelopment of important
watersheds. Estimated costs to treat New York City's previously untreated
64
-------
water will cost approximately $3 to $4 billion dollars. The sole source aquifer in
Long Island is another example of a relatively inexpensive but valuable natural
resource where costs to society are increasing due to overdevelopment in the
watershed. Current programs and bond issues may reduce this liability; however
the work group determined that this problem area deserved a very high ranking
because of the estimated costs of watershed destruction along with the
unestimated costs.
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications to Aquatic Habitat
That wetlands have important economic value is undeniable. Wetlands
provide fishery habitat, flood protection, water purification and recreational
resources that translate into direct economic benefits to industry or individuals.
For example, 60 to 90 percent of commercially valuable marine fish in the
Atlantic depend on coastal wetlands for part of their life cycle. However,
economic methods to trace these values back to particular wetlands are not
reliable theoretically or empirically. Despite the fact that no dollar estimates
were generated, the work group felt that wetlands deserved to be ranked in the
very high category. Another area of uncertainty is that the amount of wetlands
lost historically is not known, and estimates of the current loss rates are
unreliable.
Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon
The only economic damages estimated for indoor air are the health care
costs from cancer. The very large cancer incidence numbers estimated result in
this problem area rating a very high ranking. Health care costs include direct
medical expenditures as well as lost productivity. Using the wide range of
estimates from the cancer ranking and a smaller range of estimates on health
care costs resulted in annual losses of $56 to 904 million annually. Given this
wide range and the fact that this estimate is all inclusive, indoor air was ranked
very high but below damage estimates of fisheries, beach closing and wetlands
where dollar estimated may not be as high as the high end of the range of
values. By comparison, fisheries, beach closings and wetlands estimates do not
include all damages. .
Mobile Sources of Air Pollution
Mobile and area sources of air pollution contribute to health care costs,
materials damages, agricultural and forestry damages from ozone, increased
soiling of buildings and materials, reduced visibility and to possible damages
from global warming such as sea level rise, crop losses and increased electricity
demand. While each of these damages was estimated with varying degrees of
confidence, estimates of economic damages from mobile and area sources,
65
-------
excluding possible global warming damages, were approximately $400 million
yearly. The workgroup determined that mobile and area sources should be
ranked in the very high category.
Area Sources of Air Pollution
(See mobile sources of air pollution)
Extra-Regional Sources Leading to Acid Deposition
Acid Rain causes damages to materials, fisheries and forests, losses in
agricultural productivity and visibility problems that create economic impacts
upon society. It is difficult to determine any exact dollar figures primarily
because the extent of damages from acid rain are not well established
scientifically. Using available studies of current damages only, estimates of
approximately $270 million annually are possible. (Note that the Adirondack
fishery is but a small proportion of the total, 5 percent.) Adding the value of
visibility decreases could increase acid rain damages to nearly $500 million
annually. The uncertainty associated with these figures is extremely high.
Researchers indicate that "... benefit/cost measurements of acid deposition may
well involve major errors of commission and omission."
HIGH
Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
Stationary sources of air pollution create the same damages to society
as mobile and area sources. (See discussion above.) Stationary sources are
ranked lower because in Region II, stationary sources are responsible for a much
smaller contribution to the damages noted.
Accidental Releases during Transport or Production
Data were not available to conduct a quantitative economic assessment
of this problem area. Baseline data on the number, size and type of releases
must be established along with the ecological and health impacts. However,
largely because of evacuation costs, property damage and oil spills the workgroup
determined that this was a high risk problem with the potential to be even
greater, e.g. in the case of a Valdez-like spill.
66
-------
Radon
Health care costs are the relevant area of concern. Health care
estimates range from $60 to 274 million.
Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Laver - Chlorofluorocarbons
Ozone depletion can cause both health and non-health economic
damages. The estimates used in the ranking were for the cost of health
problems from skin cancer and cataracts. Research is underway to determine
how the cost of skin cancer compares to the health care costs of other cancers;
however, preliminary figures indicate that it could be one quarter lower, leading
to estimates of health care costs of approximately $100 - 200 million. The non-
health problems associated with CFC's include crop loss and habitat change, in
addition, CFC's are predicted to add to global warming problems. The
uncertainty associated with both the cancer estimates and the health care
estimates are high.
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites/Superfund Sites
Three types of economic concerns - increased health care costs, damages
to the groundwater resource, and property value declines - are caused by
Superfund sites. The largest economic damage is the declines in property values
for homes located near Superfund sites. These declines have been noted in
several statistical studies, however, there is no general consensus on the size or
conditions necessary for the existence of property value declines. The analysis
encompassed a wide range of assumptions regarding amount of loss per home
and number of sites. The estimates range from $173 million to $1 billion. The
work group agreed that the most reasonable estimates were on the low end of
the range. In its assessment, the work group chose to consider only current
NPL sites for the economic assessment, while the Superfund analysis for health
and ecological considered all the potential NPL sites. In addition, Superfund
also contributed approximately 5 percent or' $22 million to ground water
contamination not including future use losses, plus approximately $31 million -
$52 million hi health care costs.
Materials Storage Tanks. Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated under RCRA
Subtitle C
The New York State 305(b) report indicates that 65 percent of private
well contamination is related to UST's. Therefore, 65 percent of groundwater
contamination was attributed to UST's for the purpose of this analysis. UST's
were estimated to be causing $200 million dollars worth of damage. This
estimate does not include future use (i.e., contamination which has not closed
wells, but is reducing the available stock of groundwater).
67
-------
Active Hazardous Waste Sites Currently Regulated under RCRA Subtitle C
Groundwater contamination due to RCRA sources is estimated at 5
percent of total groundwater damages, or $22 million annually not including
future use. Although there are no statistical studies on property value decline
near RCRA sites, the work group assumed that losses in property values would
be about half that of Superfund sites. Therefore, the total economic damages
due to RCRA sites was estimated at $120 million.
Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
The group used the same assumptions for municipal solid waste sites as
for RCRA sites (contribution to groundwater contamination and loss of property
value) to come up with an estimated $120 million in economic damages. Some
of the property value studies are based on Superfund sites that are also
municipal solid waste sites.
MEDIUM
Pesticides Residues on Food
Health care costs for cancer were the only area of concern.
Other UIC Wells (Class IV-V)
Contribution to groundwater contamination is estimated at $22 million
plus future use.
Pesticides Contamination during Application
Contribution to groundwater contamination is estimated at $22 million
plus future use.
Municipal Solid Waste - Incinerators
Health care cost increases were estimated at $10 million. In the
future, as more incinerators are sited this problem area is expected to have
greater economic damages associated with it. One issue of concern is whether or
not property value declines should be considered for incinerators.
68
-------
THM. Lead and Microbiological Contamination of Drinking Water Supplies
The main costs to society from THM's, Lead and microbiological
contamination are costs of increased health care. These costs are estimated for
cancer at approximately $1 million per year. Health care costs from
microbiological contamination must be added to these figures. That the benefits
from reducing lead in air and in water are large is a well documented. For
example, reducing lead levels in the drinking water in Boston would result in
approximately $8 million dollars annually in decreased health care costs for
hypertension and cardiovascular disease in adults, reduced materials damage due
to corrosion and avoided neurological damage in children. Therefore, it is likely
that the economic damages from lead in New York and New Jersey are at least
as large and most likely much greater.
Non-Radon Radiation
Health only economic damages were estimated at $10 million.
LOW
Sludge Disposal
The economic damages associated with sludge disposal are estimated to
be minimal or non-existent. A possible, but impossible to verify, economic
impact is that some proportion of the decline in beach attendance is due to the
perception that ocean dumping of sludge causes beach pollution. After ocean
dumping ceases, alternative methods of disposal may have increased economic
damages associate with them.
Dredging
The economic damages are minimal or none. The possible negative
impacts on shipping due to the problem of contaminated sediments that cannot
be safely dredged is considered an economic damage from the causes of
contaminated sediments rather than dredging. Estimates of damages to shipping
were not available.
Wastewood
The economic damages are minimal or none.
69
-------
Appendix A
Environmental Problem Areas
Following are the twenty-seven source categories that were ranked as
part of the Region II Risk Ranking Project. Each category is intended to be
mutually exclusive. Some smaller sources (e.g. municipal sludge disposal and
wastewood disposal) are defined separately because they are the focus of a high
degree of public concern. ^
1. Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Wastewater
Treatment Discharges to Water
Includes all municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plans
requiring permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). Typical sources of discharge include coal and ore
mining, metal finishing, pulp and paper processing, iron and steel
production, chemical manufacturing, electroplating, metal finishing, and
landfill leachates. Also includes both municipal sewage treatment
outfalls and industrial discharges that flow through publicly operated
treatment works.
2. Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
Includes Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). These are "overflows" that
occur when storm events cause such a large amount of water to flow
through the sewers that some water must be diverted away from the
treatment plant.
3. Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems -
Trihalomethanes, Lead, Microbiological Contamination
Includes contaminants resulting from the operation and maintenance of
drinking water systems such as the formation of trihalomethanes as a
result of chlorination and the introduction of lead from distribution
system pipes and solder. Microbiological and other contamination from
cross connections and microbiological contamination from improper or
nonexistent treatment is also included.
4. Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
Includes stormwater runoff such as oils and salts, private septic tanks,
and agricultural and silvicultural runoff such as nitrates.
71
-------
5. Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Class I-III)
Includes Class I injection wells (deep hazardous and non-hazardous
waste below an underground source of drinking water); Class II
injection wells (Oil and gas recovery wells); Class III injection wells
(solution mining) and Class 4 injection wells (shallow hazardous waste
wells).
6. Other Underground Injection (Class IV and V)
Includes Class V underground injection wells which are everything
other than class 1,2,3 and 4 (e.g. dry wells, commercial septic tanks,
drainage fields). This class was kept separate because separate data is
available and the program is a new emphasis which differs substantially
from the traditional UIC classes.
7. Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats
(except dredging)
Includes physical modifications that cause disruption of aquatic habitats
such as dam construction and operation; flood control channelization;
filling for highways, housing, industrial areas and landfills; and mining
and resource extraction.
8. Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial
Habitats
Includes physical modifications that cause disruption of terrestrial
habitats such as flooding from dams; pipeline construction; flood control
channelization; mining and resource extraction.
9. Dredging and Dredge Disposal
Includes dredging of sediments for navigation channels, harbors,
marinas, and contaminated sediment remediation as well as the
dumping/disposal of the dredge spoils.
10. Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
Covers the disposal of sludge generated by municipal wastewater
treatment plants in the ocean and though alternatives such as land
application, incineration or composting. Does not include industrial
sludge which is covered in No. 14.
72
-------
11- Wastewood Disposal or Treatment
Includes releases to air and water from woodburning currently
conducted at sea and potential alternative disposal methods such as
landfill, gasification, and incineration.
12. *Active' Hazardous Waste Sites, Sites currently regulated under
RCRA's Subtitle C
Includes hazardous waste sites regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C program. For
purposes of this analysis, these sites were evaluated before any
permit/corrective actions were taken. These sites include RCRA open
and closed landfills and surface impoundments, hazardous waste storage
tanks, hazardous waste burned in boilers and furnaces, hazardous waste
incinerators, and associated hazardous waste management units. Also
included are associated solid waste management sites and some leaking
storage tanks containing industrial products.
13. Abandoned Hazardous Sites/Superfund Sites
Includes hazardous waste sites not covered by RCRA but by Superfund.
Generally they are inactive and abandoned. For purposes of this
project, sites were evaluated before any corrective actions were taken.
Sites may be on the National Priority List (NPL), deleted from the
NPL, candidates for the NPL, or simply be noted by the Federal
government or states as unmanaged locations containing hazardous
waste. Although some RCRA sites may be double listed as Superfund
sites, care will be taken to allocate the risks in one category or another.
Does not include dredging of contaminated sediments, which is included
under No. 8.
14. Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
Includes municipal waste or storage sites containing primarily non-
hazardous wastes such as: open and closed municipal landfills, and
municipal surface impoundments. The landfill portion of this category
is parallel to the RCRA Subtitle D Program. This category also
excludes municipal sludge.
15. Municipal Solid Waste - Incinerators
Includes refuse and resource recovery incinerators.
73
-------
16. Materials Storage Tanks, Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated
under RCRA subtitle C. (Underground Storage Tanks and
other)
Includes industrial waste or storage sites containing primarily non-
hazardous wastes such as: industrial landfills, industrial surface
impoundments, oil and gas waste impoundments, incinerators and land
application units. Also includes all types of storage units and associated
pipelines such as above and below ground storage tanks; barrels etc.
which contain non-hazardous materials such as motor fuels, heating
fuels, solvents and lubricants. This category is not limited to storage of
wastes.
17. Accidental Releases during Transport or Production
Includes accidental releases with acute impacts, some requiring some
sort of emergency response (oil spills, Bhopal like releases) however,
many accidental releases go relatively unnoticed. Accidental releases
may occur during transport, production, or use. Examples are:
industrial unit explosion, railroad tank car spill, and oil spills. This
category excludes releases from storage unites covered in No. 11, RCRA
sites and No. 14, Underground Storage Tanks.
18. Pesticides Contamination Associated with Application
Includes worker exposures, air pollution drift and non-point source
runoff.
19. Pesticide Residues in Food
20. Stationary Point Sources of Air Pollution
Includes industrial point sources and power plants. These sources
directly emit some criteria pollutants, some air toxics and some
contribute to low-level ozone problems and global warming, often
through complex interactions with emissions from other sources and
natural parameters.
21. Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles
This category includes automobiles, trucks and buses. These sources
directly emit some criteria pollutants, some air toxics and some
contribute to low-level ozone problems and global warming, often
through complex interactions with emissions from other sources and
natural parameters.
74
-------
22. Area Sources/Non-point Sources of Air Pollution
This category includes sources not usually regulated as a stationary
source (No.18) but having estimated contributions to global warming,
criteria air pollution (especially ozone), and air toxics. Sources include:
incinerators in residential buildings, woodburning stoves, VOC emissions
from small sources such as dry cleaners. If data existed, all sources of
combustion including barbecues would be included.
23. Sources of Air Pollution that lead to Acid Deposition, Primarily
from Tall Stacks
24. Radon
Includes naturally occurring radon gas that leaks into buildings.
25. Indoor Air Pollutants
26. Chemical Use that depletes the Ozone layer -
Chlorofluorocarbons
27. Radiation other than radon
75
-------
Appendix B
Human Health References
American Cancer Society (1990) Cancer Facts and Figures 1990.
American Cancer Society National Headquarters, Atlanta, Georgia.
Doll, R. and Peto, R. (1981) The causes of cancer: quantitative
estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J.
NatL Cancer Inst. 66:1193-1308, 1981.
National Cancer Institute (1985) Monograph on Cancer Control
Objectives for the Nation: 1985 to 2.000. National Institutes of Health
Publication 85-691, April, 1985.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (1985)
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. U. S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
New Jersey Department of Health (1988) New Jersey Principal
Causes of Resident Deaths by Age. 1988. New Jersey Department of
Health, Center for Health Statistics, Trenton, New Jersey.
New York State Department of Health (1988) Table of Deaths and
Death Rates from Selected Causes: New York State. 1988. New York
State Department of Health, Vital Statistics, Albany, New York.
Puerto Rico Department of Health (1988) Fifteen leading
causes of death in Puerto Rico in 1987. Puerto Rico Department of
Health, Division of Epidemiology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986a) Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Federal Register 51 FR 33992, September
24, 1986.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986b) Guidelines for
Mutagenicitv Risk Assessment. Federal Register 51 FR 34006,
September 24, 1986.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986c) Guidelines for
Chemical Mixtures. Federal Register 51 FR 34014, September 24, 1986.
77
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986d) Guidelines for
Suspect Developmental Toxicants. Federal Register 51 FR 34028,
September 24, 1986.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986e) Guidelines for
Estimating Exposures. Federal Register 51 FR 34042, September 24,
1986.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987) Unfinished
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989a) Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1. Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A) - Interim Final. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/1-89/002, December
1989, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989b) Exposure Factors
Handbook - Final Report. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600-8-89/043, March 1989, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989c) Superfund Exposure
Assessment Manual. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Remedial Response, EPA/540/1:88/001, April 1988, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989d) Assessing Human
Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A
Guidance Manual. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection and Office of Water Regulations, EPA-
503/8-89/002, September 1989, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989e) Cancer Risk from
Outdoor Exposure to Air Toxics. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/89- ,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989f) Standards for the
Disposal of Sewage Sludge: Proposed Rule. 40 CFR Parts 257 and 503,
pp. 5746-5902, February 6, 1989.
78
-------
\J. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989g) Costs and benefits
of phasing out production of cMorofluorocarbons and halons in the U. S.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
November 1989, Washington, B.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990a) Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990b) Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, (OERR 9200, 6-303, (90-
3) July 1989, Washington, B.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990c) Bietary Risk
Evaluation System. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs, Washington, B.C.
Virgin Islands Department of Health (1988) Summary of five
leading causes of death in the Virgin Islands. Virgin Islands Bepartment
of Health, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.
79
-------
Appendix C
National Cancer Incidence vs. Region Specific Incidence
To assure that the potential cancer incidences are not overestimates for
the region, the projected number of cancers based on the ranking were
compared with those from other published studies.
The Doll and Peto (1981) investigation of cancers risks based on
epidemiological research is an excellent source of information on potential causes
of cancer. The National Cancer Institute's "Monograph on Cancer Control
Objectives for the Nation: 1985 to 2000" (1985) summarized the causes of cancer
mortality in the following table based on the epidemiological studies of Doll and
Peto (1981).
Causes of Cancer Mortality
All cancer deaths, percentage
Best Tlange of
JFactor Estimate Acceptable estimates
Tobacco 30 25 - 40
Alcohol 3 2-4
Diet 35 10-.70
Reproduetiv0 & sexual behavior 7 1-13
Occupation 4 2-8
Pollution 2 1-5
Industrial products 1 1-2
Medicines and medical procedures 1 .5-3
Geophysical factors 3 2-4
It is important to note that the Doll and Peto research is based on
epidemiological studies of cancer deaths and that these studies do not allow
refined assessments of potential environmental risks for cancer. In addition,
Doll and Peto were essentially able to categorize the major risk factors (tobacco,
and diet) but the potential interactions among these factors could not be
81
-------
assessed. The best estimates listed in the table add up to 86 percent of all
cancer deaths.
Based on an analysis of regional data shown in the introduction, the
annual cancer deaths in the region from all forms of cancer is 59,395. As
indicated in the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services publication,
"Cancer Rates and Risks", (NIH, 1985) most cancers are caused by a variable mix
of hereditary and environmental factors.
Some rare cancers such as retinoblastoma are inherited, and usually
appear at an early age. A number of rare hereditary disorders may predispose a
person to cancer,but the added action of one or more environmental factors such
as viruses or diet is often needed for the cancer to develop. Other individuals
seem to be resistant to some cancers.
Subgroups of some of the common cancers have a genetic component
but may require an environmental trigger. Some non-hereditary cancers seem
to run in families, but this may reflect chance or a common environmental
exposure. How a person reacts to the environment is also a part of the
equation. For example, occupational exposures to vinyl chloride are associated
with increased human cancer incidence. In addition, environmental exposures to
asbestos or radon, coupled with lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol
consumption and diet, have been associated with increased cancer incidence.
The publication also indicates that based on cancer incidence statistics,
it is chiefly a disease of middle and old age. It is rare in children and young
adults. More than half of all cases of cancer are diagnosed after age 65. Up to
age 50, the incidence is higher in women. After age 60, there is a dramatic
increase in cancer incidence among men.
Within Region II, the following cancer deaths and rates per 100,000
people in 1988 were identified:
Rate Per
State Cancer Deaths 100.000
NY 38,628 215.6
NJ 17,073 221.1
PR 3,693 112.1
VI 66 66
The data is from the death statistics for each state developed by the
Departments of Health (New York State Department of Health, 1988; New
Jersey Department of Health, 1988; Puerto Rico Department of Health, 1988;
and the Virgin Islands Department of Health, 1988).
82
-------
The national overall risk of developing cancer over a lifetime is 1 in 4
(American Cancer Society, 1990). Based on this information the projected cancer
incidence in Region II was calculated at 101,785 cases per year, based on a
population of 28,500,000. The projected cancer incidence based on the potential
that 25 percent of the population will develop cancer during their lifetime and
annualized to one year is 101,785. This data was used hi the analysis.
To determine whether the cancers projected in the analysis were in
line with the data from Doll and Peto (1981) the following analysis was
performed.
1. Cancer Deaths.
The Regional Ranking projected a total of 2,000 deaths in Region II
from radon exposure - specifically lung cancer. The number of
respiratory cancer deaths in New York State in 1988 was 9,998 and the
number in New Jersey for the same year is 4,268 (based on 25 percent
of the total cancer deaths in New Jersey). Therefore, the total number
of lung cancer deaths in New York and New Jersey is 14,266.
Based on this analysis, radon is responsible for approximately 14
percent of the lung cancers in the region. This is consistent EPA's
report indicating that 20,000 lung cancer deaths a year in the U.S. may
be attributed to radon while the American Cancer Society estimates
there will be a total of about 139,000 lung cancer deaths in 1988 from
all causes. Therefore, our estimate that 14 percent of the lung cancer
deaths in the region are associated with radon is consistent with
national predictions.
2. Skin Cancer.
The projected cancer incidence for exposure to Chlorofluorocarbons
included an estimate of 3,872 to 8,810 excess cancers, specifically skin
cancers. It is anticipated that from 1 to 5 percent of these cancers
would be fatal.
It was not clear how skin cancers are addressed in the cancer mortality
figures developed by Doll and Peto since it is anticipated that skin
cancer would not be reported on a death certificate. Therefore, it is
not appropriate to compare this number to the 2 percent contribution
identified in the Doll and Peto analysis.
3. Occupational Exposure.
Doll and Peto projected 4 percent of the cancer deaths are associated
with occupational exposure. In the ranking occupational risks were
identified only for pesticide applicators. The number of associated
83
-------
cancers is 2 to 68 for applicators. This number is well below the 4,040
cancers projected for occupational exposure in the region
(4 percent of 101,000).
4. Remaining Cancers.
If the cancers associated with the previous sections are excluded; the
total number of remaining cancers is 1,396 to 8,581. Based on the Doll
and Peto study, the anticipated number of cancers from exposure to
pollution projected for Region II is 2,020 to 5,050. The Doll and Peto
projections fall within the work groups estimated range, with those for
the region indicate that the numbers are underestimates for the lower
projections but are potentially overestimates for the higher range.
5. Industrial Area.
It is important to consider that the region has a high population
density in a large industrial area and there is a potential for higher
levels of exposure to toxics than in other parts of the country.
Based on this analysis, it was determined that the projected number of
cancers associated with the Region II Risk Ranking Project are consistent with
the apportionment of cancers suggested by Doll and Peto's research for
environmental cancers.
84
------- |