United StatM
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 1
JFK Federal Building
BotfOn, MA 02203
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Rhode island
EPA
Planning & Management Division Planning, Analysis, & Grants Branch
December 1068
Unfinished Business
in New England:
A Comparative Assessment
of Environmental Problems
Overview Report
-------
NEW ENGLAND COMPARATIVE RISK STUDY RESULTS RELEASED. On December
28, 1988, Region One released the results of its months-long study of
comparative residual risk to the public health and environment of New England;
thirty-five environmental professionals in the regional office-developed the
report. The study showed that the remaining environmental problems posing the
greatest threat to the environment of New England are ozone; acid raift;
contamination of surface water; loss of wetlands and habitat; and accidental
spills of. oil or chemicals. The study showed that the remaining environmental
problems posing the greatest threat to human health in New England are ground
level ozone jsmog;, ieaa, ana raaon. Heaitn enects or acia rain ana particj.es
(ranked together) also ranked high. The study found that the problem
rreas involving hazardous waste and groundwater contamination present relatively
low residual health risk relative to the'other problems evaluated.
-------
Unfinished Business in New England:
A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems
Overview Report
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region I, Boston, Massachusetts
December 1988
-------
Table of Contents
Preface, by Michael R. Defend
Transmittal Memo
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
L INTRODUCTION 1-1
Background 1-1
Objectives 1-2
H. STRUCTURE OF ANALYSES n-1
Types of Analyses and Project Structure n-1
Problem Area Definitions n-1
Ground Rules for the Analyses ' n-3
Summary of Work Group Approaches 114
m. GENERAL LESSONS LEARNED AND WORK GROUP RESULTS HI-1
General Lessons m-1
Public Health Risk Work Group m-5
Ecological Risk Work Group m-11
Risk Management Work Group ffl-13
IV. SUMMARY OF RANKING INFORMATION FOR EACH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM AREA IV-1
-------
PREFACE
BY
MICHAEL R. DELANO
Friends of the Environment:
New England is renowned for its rich and varied environment.
Our mission at EPA Region I is to protect and preserve both the
health of our residents and visitors and the diversity and vigor of
our natural environment. Unfinished Business in New England is an
objective self-assessment of how we are meeting that challenge.
This report does two things. First, it summarizes current
conditions in New England by bringing together "snapshots" of 24
environmental problems, both in terms of the risks they pose and
how EPA is equipped to deal with them. Second, it marks the first
step in our use of comparative risk evaluation: an innovative new
approach to setting environmental priorities.
As environmentalists, we at EPA share our neighbors' concerns
about the seemingly endless stream of contaminants and pollutants,
chemicals and waste that threaten our health and assault our natural
surroundings. Often at EPA we become frustrated because for every
problem we begin to solve, many new problems appear. At the same
time the Federal budget deficit is-a reality that we must deal with
for the foreseeable future. Comparative risk evaluation will help
us direct our resources to those areas where they can do the most
good, that is, where they can achieve the greatest reduction in
risk. Moreover, it is a first step towards breaking down artificial
bureaucratic delineations between air, water and land pollution
problems.
At the start of this project more than a year ago, we asked the
questions - "Which environmental problems pose the greatest risk to
public health and to our ecosystems?" and "What management tools
do we have to address the highest risk problem areas?" Unfinished
Business in New England is our response to these questions and some
of the answers are disturbing. They challenge our institutional
complacency and suggest a need to reconsider how we use our
resources.
For example, we are directing only limited attention to some of
the highest risk environmental problems such as lead in soil and
loss of wetlands and habitat. We have had only limited success in
solving some of our most persistent problems such as smog. And in
some cases, we are poorly equipped, either through lack of resources
or legal authority, to address high risk problems such as indoor air
pollution.
-------
Our evolving understanding of the complexity of the environment
demands that we reexamine our approach to solving environmental
problems. Federal, state and local government must work together to
find environmental solutions that manage risk while avoiding the
trap of simply moving pollution around. It is with this goal in
mind that we release Unfinished Business in New England.
This report and the debate it will engender will, I hope, make us
better environmental managers and make our public better critics.
We would be delighted to hear your reactions to this report.
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator
-------
Transmittal Memo
This report was prepared by the Region I Comparative Risk Project (CRP). The Region I
CRP is a collaborative effort between Region I of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) at EPA's Headquarters in
Washington, D.C. EPA initiated the project as part of its pursuit of new approaches to
environmental management and policy-making. The purpose of the CRP is to use risk
information in an integrated approach to identify and assess environmental issues, to set
priorities among these issues, and to develop appropriate approaches to manage these
problems.
The Region I CRP is one of four CRPs begun in 1987 across the country (also in
Region ffl, Region X, and Pennsylvania). Region I participated because Regional officials
wanted to explore better ways to identify, assess, and manage the human health, ecological,
and economic risks from environmental problems in the area. OPPE is sponsoring new CRPs
in EPA Region IV and the states of Colorado, Vermont, and Washington.
The decision-making body of the Region I CRP consisted of a Steering Committee made
up of senior staff from the Region and OPPE from Headquarters. Three technical work
groups, consisting of professional staff from the Region, gathered and evaluated the risk
information and developed the initial rankings of issues. OPPE provided administrative,
technical, and analytical support
For further information on the Region I CRP, contact Region I. For further information
on other CRPs, please contact OPPE.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Policy Analysis (PM-220)
Regulatory Integration Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
PAG-2300
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
-------
Acknowledgments
Chief, Planning, Analysis and Grants Branch
Barbara McAllister
Project Manager
Sally Edwards
Assistant Project Manager
Mark Mahoney
Steering Committee
Paul G. Keough, Chair
John Bastey
Edward J.Conley
Brooke C. Cook
Stephen F. Ells
David A. Fierra
Louis F. Gitto
Merrill S. Hohman
Harley F. Laing
Pat Meaney
Ronald Poltak
Risk Management Work Group
Frank Ciavattieri, Chair
Clara Chow
Kate Connolly
Jerry Healey
Don Mackie
Steve Silva
Marcia Spink
Susan Studlien
Ann Walsh
Carol Wood
John Zipeto
-------
Ecological Risk Work Group
Larry Brill, Chair
Richard Burkhart
Kim Franz
Eric Hall
Michael Jasinski
David Lim
Patricia O'Leary
Douglas Thompson
Ray Thompson
Andrew Triolo
Public Health Risk Work Group
Stephen Perkins, Chair
Norman Beddows
Tom D'Avanzo
Sally Edwards
Kim Franz
Susan Green
Conine Kupstas
Sarah Levinson
Mark Mahoney
Jon Pollack
Pi-Yun Tsai
Headquarters Staff
Art Koines
Catherine Tunis
Judith Lomax
Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc.
Margo Levine
Julia Shepaid
Patricia Robertson
Laura Remmers
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Margaret Round
-------
Executive Summary
Newly "discovered" environmental problems or problems where past efforts are only
partially successful pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment in New
England. The technology to address most environment problems is generally available but it
will be very expensive to implement. At this time, Region I does not have the resources or in
some cases the legal authority to be successful in solving these problems. While the public is
very concerned about environmental issues, most people focus their attention on a few
problems that affect a relatively small number of people while problems that have a serious
impact on millions go unnoticed.
These are the major findings of Phase I of Region I's Unfinished Business in New
England: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. They are consistent with
the findings of the national report Unfinished Business and with similar pilot projects in
Regions III and X. The challenge to environmental managers in New England and elsewhere
is to focus their limited resources on strategies that have the greatest potential for risk
reduction.
The balance of this summary includes sections on the major results of the project,
important lessons learned in the implementation of the project, and a brief discussion of the
methodology.
Major Results
The major results from the project are the rankings of the 24 problem areas for human
health and ecological risk, and an evaluation of five risk management factors for each problem
area. Since the intent of the project was the identification of areas of unfinished business, we
assessed residual risks, i.e., the uncontrolled portion of environmental problems. Risks that
are currently abated were not considered. We found the following:
• The problem areas that rank highest for human health risk include criteria air pollutants
(ozone), lead, and radon.
• The highest ranking ecological risks are criteria air pollutants (ozone), acid deposition,
all discharges to surface waters, habitat loss, and accidental releases.
•
• Waste problem areas pose low residual public health risks and medium ecological risks
and may pose high welfare risks. This is a problem area that is perceived by the public
as posing a high level of risk.
• Ground water is an important environmental resource for the New England Region.
Although the current residual risks to public health and ecological receptors are
relatively low, ground water is a vital resource that must be protected for future
generations.
-------
The rankings by risk do not correspond closely with Region I's current program priorities.
Areas of relatively high risk but low Region I effort include indoor radon, lead, indoor air
pollution, acid deposition, industrial and nonpoint source discharges to surface waters, and
drinking water. Areas of high Region I effort but relatively medium or low risks include
Superfund waste sites and underground storage tanks.
This divergence between what we found in terms of relative risks and Region I's priorities
is not necessarily inappropriate. Some problems appear to pose relatively low risks precisely
because high levels of program effort have been devoted to controlling them. And these high
levels of attention may remain necessary in order to hold risks to current levels.
Overall, Region I's priorities reflect EPA's national priorities and appear more closely
aligned with public opinion than with our estimated risks.
General Lessons
• Interpretation and utilization of results must be done with caution. Evaluation of
residual risks only may miss important aspects of environmental problems such as use
and source trends and the beneficial impact of ongoing base programs. Also, problem
areas as defined in this report may be difficult to compare with standard EPA programs
(e.g., the exclusion of radon and lead from the drinking-water problem area).
• Regional data are often inaccessible. EPA and state agencies should put more effort
into developing and improving data management systems.
• High-ranking public health problems in general differ from high ranking
ecological problems. Ozone is the exception to this because it poses high residual risks
to environmental receptors and humans.
• Rankings based solely on residual risk given present exposure patterns may
underestimate the importance of ground water as an environmental resource.
This resource is clearly being affected and could pose higher risks in the future if
alternative water supplies are not available and if contaminant discharges to sensitive
receptors are not controlled.
• The effectiveness of ongoing base programs has a great impact on the relative
ranking results. Problems ranking low may do so because a large part of the problem
is being controlled successfully.
• Risk Management Work Group results are the key elements linking the ecological
and public health rankings to the Region I planning process. The risk management
results summarize factors that influence the ability to control these various
environmental problems.
11
-------
Institutional barriers made it difficult to conduct this analysis in an objective
fashion and may affect the use of its results. The compartmentalization of
environmental problems has created a difficult climate for analyzing or resolving
complex multimedia issues at EPA.
The Risk Reduction Project is a first step toward developing a more analytical
approach to planning and priority setting in Region L Historically, many planning
decisions have been based on the professional judgment of senior agency managers.
We now have an analytical tool requiring data collection and analysis and the use of
best professional judgment. The analytical tool can be used in an ongoing way to help
us compare environmental problems.
Methodology
The method we used to compare environmental problem areas can best be described as
systematically generating informed judgments among Agency experts. The 35 people
involved in the project represented different environmental programs and scientific expertise.
We divided into three work groups, focusing on the public health risks, the ecological risks,
and the risk management factors. Existing data on pollutants, exposures, and effects were
assembled and analyzed, but ultimately we had to rely on our professional judgment to fill the
substantial data gaps. In this sense, the project represents expert opinion rather than
quantitative analysis. Despite the difficulties caused by lack of data and lack of accepted risk
assessment methods in some areas, the participants felt relatively confident in their final
rankings.
The regional staff analyzed problem areas defined to correspond with existing EPA
programs or statutes. We excluded certain problem areas that were felt to be beyond the
scope of EPA Region I, such as stratospheric ozone depletion and CO? and global wanning,
and added problems of particular interest to New England such as lead! The final list
consisted of 24 problems that were analyzed for this report.
For each problem area, two different types of risk were assessed: public health risks,
which included cancer and non-cancer risks; and ecological risks. We also analyzed risk
management factors, including public perception, available resources, legal authority,
available technology, and economic impact. Each type of risk was evaluated separately. We
did not judge whether one type of risk was more important than another, and we made no
attempt to add risks for a problem across the risk types.
111
-------
I. Introduction
' Comparative risk evaluation is a powerful analytical tool that can be used to identify areas
of environmental concern. We define comparative risk evaluation as an analytical process
that utilizes data and professional judgment to compare environmental problems. Unfinished
Business in New England: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems represents
the completion of Phase I of the Risk Reduction Project (RRP). It is a comparative risk
evaluation of 24 different environmental problems in New England. This project has been a
major effort in Fiscal Year 1988, involving the significant time and effort of approximately
35 people at EPA Region I. Knowledgeable staff have examined data on sources, pollutants,
ambient concentrations, and receptors (humans and ecosystems) to determine a relative
ranking of environmental problems. Risk management issues have also been considered for
each problem area. The RRP is designed to provide improved planning information for
environmental managers. It is not meant to provide state-of-the-art quantitative risk
assessment information for each problem area and should not be used as such.
The methodology and results presented in this Overview Report represent Phase I of this
effort and will be used to support planning and priority setting in the Region. The agenda for
Phase n, currently under development, may include refining Phase I results by doing a more
detailed evaluation within problem areas, addressing data gaps identified in Phase I, or other
types of initiatives not yet specified.
After briefly discussing the background and objectives of the RRP, this report describes
the study methodology used and summarizes the results. The three Work Group Reports
discuss each analysis and the results in more detail.
Background
In February 1987, the U.S. EPA Headquarters Office of Policy Analysis released the
results of a study entitled Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems. This study, referred to as the National Comparative Risk Project (NCRP), was an
evaluation of 31 environmental problems to determine the health, ecological, and welfare
risks they posed, given current levels of control. More than 75 senior scientists and managers
participated in this effort over a period of nine months. Reviewers commended this study as
an attempt by EPA to be self-critical, that is, to reflect on the workings of the agency as a
whole to determine if the current priorities of EPA were appropriate to an agency whose
mission is to protect public health and the environment. In many cases, the NCRP risk
rankings did not correspond well with EPA's current program priorities. For example, indoor
radon ranked high as a health risk but receives few resources, whereas the Superfund program
ranked relatively low but is a high EPA priority and receives large amounts of resources. This
divergence may be appropriate as some programs may rank low because a high level of effort
-------
has been put into controlling them in recent years. The report highlighted serious health and
environmental problems that are not being well controlled by EPA, and provided much food
for thought for individuals inside and outside the federal government
Following the release of the NCRP Report, three of the EPA Regional Offices (Regions I,
m, and X) agreed to conduct similar analyses. The national study had relied on national data*
and expert professional judgment to determine the rankings. We believed that an analysis
done on a smaller scale using regional data could help to calibrate the national study results,
as well as to provide a mechanism to improve the regional planning process. The Region I
comparative risk study, the RRP, began in May 1987.
Objectives
The Risk Reduction Project had two explicit goals at its outset:
• Develop a methodology for comparative risk evaluation to assist EPA and state
managers in effectively integrating information about health and environmental
risk into the Region I priority-setting process. This methodology should be usable
in an ongoing way and will build on previous planning work.
• Use this methodology to rank a series of environmental problems to provide
regional managers with an evaluation of the health and environmental problems
posing the highest residual risks in New England. These results are to be used to
help determine FY89 program grant, resource, and accountability system
Commitments.
We identified two other important goals of the Risk Reduction Project as the process evolved:
• Identify significant data gaps. Many data gaps remained even when doing this
analysis at the regional level. These gaps made it difficult or impossible to rank
certain problem areas.
• Educate EPA, state staff, and the public about the RRP and its results. The
NCRP found that EPA's current priorities match fairly closely with public
perception of health and environmental risks. In order for EPA to shift priorities
in coining years, it will be crucial to educate both environmental decision makers
and the public about the significance of existing and newly recognized
environmental problems.
1-2
-------
. Structure of Analyses
Types of Analyses and Project Structure
Three work groups conducted the comparative risk evaluation. The Public Health Risk
Work Group evaluated the public health risks of a series of environmental problems,
considering both cancer and non-cancer effects. The Ecological Risk Work Group evaluated
ecological risks posed by the same set of problems. The Risk Management Work Group
evaluated public perception, available resources, economic impact, effective technology, and
legal authority as the risk management factors affecting the Agency's ability to control these
problems. A Branch Chief chaired each work group of approximately 10 people. Division
Directors assigned staff members representing different environmental programs and scientific
expertise to each work group.
We also formed a Risk Reduction Project Steering Committee, composed of EPA
Region I senior staff, an EPA Headquarters representative, a state environmental manager, and
a representative of the Region's interstate groups. The Steering Committee provided overall
policy guidance and direction for the project. A project manager coordinated the efforts of the
three work groups and served as a liaison to the Steering Committee. The work groups,
formed during the summer of 1987, met on a monthly, semimonthly, or weekly basis over a
period of approximately nine months to conduct the analysis. Region I had contractor
assistance to conduct the evaluation, primarily from Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. (TBS) of
Lexington, Massachusetts.
Problem Area Definitions
The first major task of the work groups was to agree on a list of environmental problems
for analysis. The starting point for this discussion was the list of 31 problems evaluated by
the NCRP. The NCRP task force developed its list by considering all major environmental
programs in which EPA is involved. The NCRP list is not defined exclusively by sources,
pathways, or receptors, but rather is a mixture of these. The Headquarters study team chose to
divide the environmental pie in this way to reflect both how EPA is organized, and also how
they believed people categorize environmental problems. The regional staff expressed some
concern with the inconsistency of the problem definitions because we believed it could pose
difficulties in the analysis. We finally agreed to use a list similar to that developed by
Headquarters in order to facilitate comparisons with the NCRP and the other two regional
comparative risk studies.
-------
The work groups modified the NCRP list from 31 to 24 problems (Table 1). We omitted
problems such as stratospheric ozone depletion, COo and global wanning, biotechnology, and
new toxic chemicals that were considered to be problems on a national and international scale,
rather than regionally focused. We believe that stratospheric ozone depletion and increased
COo levels resulting in global warming are extremely serious environmental problems. The
NCRP ranked these two problems as posing the greatest ecological threats nationally.
Table 1
Environmental Problem Areas
(not In rank order)
Reforonco
Number
1. Criteria Air Pollutants
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
4. Radon
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon
(non-ionizing)
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to
Surface Waters
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface
Waters
10. Discharges to Estuaries. Coastal Waters.
and Oceans from All Sources
Reference
Number
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss
12. Drinking Water
13. RCRA Waste Sites
14. Superfund Waste Sites
15. Municipal Waste Sites
16. Industrial Waste Sites
17. Accidental Releases
18. Releases from Storage Tanks
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination
20. Pesticide Residues on Food
21. Pesticide Application
22. Lead
23. Asbestos
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments
We added several problem areas to the regional list for analysis, as follows:
• Lead exposure from all sources. The exposure is recognized as a significant
public health problem in New England.
• Asbestos exposure from all sources. Region I has an ongoing asbestos control
program that receives resources, and we believed it would be valuable to evaluate
this pollutant on its own.
• Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments. We added this problem area at the request of .
a New England state.
H-2
-------
Ground Rules for the Analyses
After developing a regional list of problem areas, the work groups formulated several
ground rules to be followed in the analyses.
Residual Risk. One of the most significant ground rules concerns the issue of residual
risk. The problems were analyzed considering the current level of control, that is, only the
uncontrolled portion—the residual risk-was evaluated. This type of analysis provides
decision makers with information on existing risks that is important for future resource
allocation. Several issues emerged in doing this type of analysis. First, it was difficult to
define residual risk consistently for all problem areas. Sometimes the existing control was a
temporary rather than permanent control, such as the provision of bottled water or a ban on
fishing. The work groups agreed that exposures could occur with temporary controls and
therefore did evaluate these exposures. For example, when evaluating waste sites, we
assumed that trespassing could occur even if a site was fenced; we also assumed that exposure
to contaminated ground water could occur, even if bottled water were provided, until the
contamination was cleaned up. Second, when evaluating only residual risks, programs that
have been successful will fall to the bottom of the list It may be misleading to assume that
resources can be removed from these programs, because the current level of resources may be
needed to maintain this low level of residual risk. It is important to be mindful of this
consideration when reviewing the results of our analysis.
Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses. Work group members agreed to gather data to
assist in providing some perspective on the relative health or environmental risks posed by
each problem area. We agreed to do a quantitative analysis where there were sufficient data
and an appropriate methodology (such as in calculating cancer risks). The work groups also
understood that much of the analysis would be qualitative because of both data and
methodology limitations. In these cases, the groups would reach consensus after detailed
discussion of each problem area and the use of best professional judgment by each member.
Data Gathered. We agreed to use existing data rather than collect new data for the
analyses. Where available and appropriate, we evaluated monitoring data from the previous
year (1987); otherwise we used die most current year of data available.
Exposure Estimates. In determining exposure concentrations from monitoring or
modeling data, we used typical or average concentrations rather than maximum
concentrations. Therefore, we evaluated the exposure scenario associated with the typical or
average situation rather than a worst-case scenario.
Time Period for Measuring Effects/Discounting. We evaluated present and future
health and environmental effects caused by current emissions. For example, cancer cases
resulting from current exposures, which may not appear for 20 years because of a latency
period, were included in this analysis and were not discounted.
E-3
-------
Uncertainty. For each problem area evaluated, we determined whether the uncertainty
was high, medium, or low. The level of uncertainty was determined by the group after
discussing the problem area. A high uncertainty usually did not cause a problem to be ranked
lower, but did highlight the possibility of significant data gaps.
Percentage of Problem Covered. For the public health and ecological risk evaluations,
we also determined whether the percentage of problem covered was high, medium, or low.
For some problem areas, it was fairly easy to extrapolate from limited data to the entire
problem area. For others, we felt that the evaluation included only a small portion of the
problem area.
Identification of Sources. Some members of the Steering Committee expressed interest
in understanding the structure of risk for each problem area, i.e., what are the most important
sources, pathways, and stressors? Although the analysis did not provide a comparative risk
evaluation within each problem area, we did identify, where possible, the sources of greatest
concern.
Summary of Work Group Approaches
The Ecological and Public Health Risk Work Groups followed the same general approach.
Members of these work groups were designated as problem area leads according to individual
areas of expertise. To develop the methodology for determining residual risk, both groups
reviewed the methodologies described in the appendices of the NCRP and modified them for
regional use. Work group members then prepared plans of analysis, which were proposed
plans for how each problem should be analyzed to determine the residual risk it posed. EPA
Headquarters staff and consultants prepared several plans of analysis to assist in developing
regional plans. All plans were presented to the group for discussion and critique. Following
discussion of the plans, we gave our contractor direction regarding data to be collected and
analyzed. Work group members worked directly with the consultants to see that appropriate
information was gathered for their problem areas. Work group members then presented the
results of their quantitative or qualitative analyses to the group, and the group determined the
relative ranking of the problem.
The Risk Management Work Group required a different approach because of the nature of
the analysis and the lack of a Headquarters model.
The following sections summarize the specific approaches of each work group. The
reader is referred to the individual Work Group Reports for a detailed discussion of each work
group analysis.
E-4
-------
Public Health Risk Work Group
Unlike the NCRP, which had separate work groups for the evaluation of cancer and
non-cancer effects, the Public Health Risk Work Group was charged with evaluating all
public health risks. The work group approached the analyses by evaluating cancer and
non-cancer effects separately and then combining the lists at the end of the analyses. For each
problem area, work group members evaluated the risk to an individual potentially exposed to
estimated concentrations. The work group also estimated the potentially exposed population
in Region I and developed population risk estimates where possible. This allowed the work
group to consider both individual and population risk in developing the ranking.
General and Cancer Methodology
The methodology used by the Public Health Risk Work Group was derived from the
NCRP. Work group members reviewed the NCRP appendices for cancer and non-cancer
analyses and made minor modifications to the approaches presented.
In our analyses we were able to follow roughly the standard components of risk
assessment: toxicity assessment (which includes hazard identification and dose-response
assessment), exposure assessment, and risk characterization.
Toxicity Assessment. We first identified a short list of chemicals associated with and
representative of each problem area. We then determined whether these chemicals posed
carcinogenic and/or non-carcinogenic risks and whether acute and/or chronic effects were of
concern. For the dose-response assessment, we determined the potency of each chemical,
using the cancer potency factors derived by the Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) in EPA
Headquarters for carcinogens and the NCRP approach to potency and severity for
non-carcinogens.
Exposure Assessment. We then determined which exposure pathways were of potential
concern for each problem area and focused on those likely to be most significant For
example, ingestion of contaminated fish was considered to be the pathway of most concern
for discharges to surface waters. We used the monitoring or modeling data available to
determine an average dose to an exposed individual. We also determined the population
potentially exposed to the contaminants for each problem area.
Risk Characterization. Using the information from the toxicity and exposure
assessments, we determined the residual risk posed by each problem area. For the
carcinogens, we were generally able to calculate a range for individual cancer risk by
multiplying the CAG potency factor by the dose. We then calculated an upper bound
population risk (i.e., number of cancer cases that would be expected) on an annual basis by
multiplying the individual risk by the exposed population and dividing by 70 years. This
provided us with a relative estimate of expected number of cancer cases across problem areas.
H-5
-------
Non-cancer Methodology
The non-cancer analysis was not as straightforward as the cancer analysis because a
variety of different health effects were considered, including cardiovascular, developmental,
hematopoietic, immunologic, kidney, liver, mutagenic, neurotoxic, reproductive, central
nervous system, gastrointestinal, and respiratory effects. Both acute and chronic effects were
considered, depending on the typical concentration of the pollutant being considered. The
NCRP developed a methodology for non-cancer analysis that took into account the severity of
the health effect and the probability that any adverse health effect would occur. We used the
severity index derived in the NCRP, which ranked more than 100 different health endpoints,
and then developed a severity scoring system of 1 to 4, with 1 reflecting mild health effects
and 4 reflecting severe health effects. The scoring reflected the extent to which the health
effect was life threatening and whether it was permanent, reversible, or manageable
therapeutically. The NCRP also developed a measure of potency, which was termed the
"individual exposure ratio." This ratio was the estimated exposure concentration divided by a
Reference Dose (RfD-the RfD is the dose below which it is unlikely that adverse effects to
humans will occur). The higher the concentration above the RfD, the higher the ratio. That
is, we expect the probability of adverse effects occurring to increase as the concentration
increases above the RfD. If no RfD was available, we chose another appropriate guideline.
This individual exposure ratio was also then scaled from 1 to 4.
Also, we estimated the exposed population on a scale of 1 to 4. The population size used
by the NCRP was reduced to reflect the smaller population of Region I.
As a result, for each problem area with non-cancer effects we were able to determine a
score for population exposed, for severity of effect, and for potency. We combined these
scores in various ways and discussed each problem area in detail to determine a relative
ranking for non-cancer effects.
After the work group came to consensus on the separate rankings for cancer and
non-cancer health effects, we combined the two lists into one ranking. This proved to be the
most difficult step of the analysis because it involved implicit weighing of cancer versus
non-cancer effects.
The reader is referred to the Public Health Risk Work Group Report and the NCRP
Cancer and Non-cancer appendices for a more in-depth discussion of the overall approach and
methodology.
Ecological Risk Work Group
There is no generally accepted methodology for the evaluation of ecological risks. Many
ecological risk assessments are qualitative analyses, though methodology is currently being
developed to allow for a more quantitative assessment of ecological risk. The Ecological Risk
Work Group reviewed the methodology developed by the NCRP, and decided to do a
semiquantitative analysis, generally following the NCRP approach.
H-6
-------
The work group conducted the analysis in five major steps:
• Step 1: Identify problem areas for which ecological risk will be evaluated and
determine stressors associated with each area
• Step 2: Identify ecosystems of concern in the Region
• Step 3: Evaluate ecological risks for each stressor and ecosystem combination
• Step 4: Aggregate risk estimates across stressors within each problem
area/ecosystem combination
• Step 5: Aggregate risks for each problem area across ecosystems and rank
problem areas
These steps are discussed in more detail below.
Step 1: Identify problem areas for which ecological risk will be evaluated and
determine stressors associated with each area.
The Ecological Risk Work Group first reviewed the list of 24 environmental problems and
deleted those that did not have significant ecological effects, or were contained in the
ecosystem descriptions, or were evaluated as pan of another problem area. The following
problems were therefore eliminated from the analysis:
• Radon
• Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon
• Radiation from Sources Other than Radon
• Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans from All Sources (evaluated
as ecosystems)
• Drinking Water
• Asbestos
• Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments (evaluated as ecosystem)
• Lead (ecological impacts evaluated as part of surface water discharge problem
areas)
The work group leads for each problem area identified the major ecological stressors for
each problem area. Group members used information developed by the Cornell Ecosystems
Research Center for the NCRP to determine stressors. Examples of stressors are metals, toxic
organics, oil, nutrients, and nutrient growth.
H-7
-------
Step 2: Identify ecosystems of concern.
The work group began with a list of ecosystems from the Cornell study, modifying the list
to make it more relevant to New England. The ecosystem list was as follows:
• Marine
• Estuaries
• Tidal wetlands
• Streams
• Lakes
• Wetlands (freshwater)
• Terrestrial
• Agricultural
• Ground water
• Air
The last two categories, ground water and air, are not ecosystems, but the group considered
these because they are valuable environmental resources in Region I. As the analysis
progressed, it became clear that when evaluating impacts to ground water and air we were
actually doing a welfare analysis rather than strictly an ecological analysis. The value of this
analysis will be discussed in a later section.
Step 3: Evaluate the ecological risks for each stressor and ecosystem combination.
Work group members worked directly with the contractor to collect regional data to
determine impacts of stressors on each ecosystem for each problem area. The major sources
contributing to adverse ecological impacts were identified for each problem.
Step 4: Aggregate risk estimates across stressors within each problem
area/ecosystem combination.
The work group ranked the impact to each ecosystem from each problem area on a scale
of 1 (low impact) to 5 (high impact). Work group members provided an estimate of the
percentage of the problem covered, and the uncertainty, for each ecosystem impact
H-8
-------
Step 5: Aggregate risks for each problem area across ecosystems and rank problem
areas.
After evaluating each problem area for its impacts on each ecosystem of concern, the work
group members discussed the aggregation of these risks across ecosystems to rank problem
areas. The group was not comfortable taking this step as we believed it involved making
judgments about the value of various ecosystems. Still, the results of the ecosystem-specific
rankings allowed the problems to be divided into groups of relatively high risks and medium
risks. The problems initially eliminated from the analysis in Step 1 were considered to be of
low ecological risk. The reader is referred to the Ecological Risk Work Group Report for a
more complete discussion of this analysis.
Risk Management Work Group
This work group, unlike the Public Health and Ecological Risk Work Groups, had no
Headquarters model to follow, because Headquarters did not consider risk management
factors in the NCRP. Therefore, this group had to develop and apply its own methodology to
evaluate risk management issues. The group first determined which risk management factors
to evaluate. The factors chosen for evaluation were public perception, available resources,
economic impact, effective technology, and legal authority. The work group then divided into
teams of two to determine appropriate ranking criteria for each factor. Each team developed a
scale of 1 to 5 that gave an indication of whether a problem was relatively difficult (1) or
easy (5) to manage for that particular factor. Several groups also developed ways of adjusting
or modifying the scores. Each scoring system was presented to the group for discussion and
critique. Next, each group gathered information about each problem area in order to evaluate
it for the specific management factor. Information was gathered in a variety of ways, such as
sending questionnaires to staff people in each division who were knowledgeable about a
problem area, interviewing program managers, or surveying community environmental
groups. Each team developed a draft ranking paper for its risk management factor and
presented the draft paper to the work group for discussion. Rankings were modified and
finalized following the group discussion and agreement. Below are brief factor definitions
and a summary of each factor's rating scale. The reader is referred to the Risk Management
Work Group Report for a more complete discussion of this analysis.
Public Perception
The Public Perception Team evaluated how the public perceives the risks posed by each of
the 24 environmental problem areas. Depending on the characteristics of an environmental
problem, people may perceive it as more or less risky. For example, an involuntary,
unfamiliar risk is generally perceived as more risky than a voluntary, familiar risk. The team
developed a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating little or no public interest or awareness and 5
indicating a high level of public concern. The Risk Management Work Group assumed that a
high level of awareness would make a problem easier to manage in general, although in some
cases high awareness may make the situation more difficult to manage.
H-9
-------
Available Resources
The Available Resources Team assessed the amount of resources available to the Region
to address each of the 24 problem areas relative to the total resources needed to address the
problem area in Region L The focus was on work-years needed to cany out EPA programs
and/or functions. The team developed a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating a very low level of
resource allocation and 5 indicating that there were adequate work-years to address the
problem.
Economic Impact
The Economic Impact Team evaluated the cost of controlling each problem area by
determining the cost per unit to control a particular problem, and then estimating the number
of units in Region I to arrive at an estimated annual cost of control The team developed a
scale of 1 to S, with 5 indicating a cost of less than $1 million dollars and 1 indicating a cost
of $1 billion dollars or greater. A high score indicated a relatively low cost, making that
problem relatively easier to control.
Effective Technology
The Effective Technology Team identified and evaluated the existence of methods to
control the pollutants that cause the risk in each of the 24 problem areas. The methods
identified included pollution control equipment and technologies and/or imposition of
operation and maintenance (O&M) or management practices. The team developed a scale of
1 to 5, with 1 indicating that only experimental technology or no technology was available,
and 4 indicating that off-the-shelf technology was available. The initial ranking of 4 could be
adjusted up to a S if the size of the problem was large enough that the technology would have
great potential for risk reduction.
Legal Authority
The Legal Authority Team evaluated the existence of statutory and regulatory authority
for each problem area and also attempted to account for the adequacy of existing legislation.
The team developed a scale of 1 to S, with 1 indicating that there are no applicable laws, and 5
indicating that there is applicable federal and/or state law and case law supporting EPA or the
state.
n-io
-------
III. General Lessons Learned and Work Group Results
General Lessons
This section of the Overview Report makes some broad observations on the process and
results, followed by a summary of the results of each work group analysis. Below are key
observations:
• The process of this project is as valuable as the results. Although not an
explicit goal at the outset of this project, involvement in the work group process
was of great value to group members and to chairs. Many work group members
were unfamiliar with environmental problems outside their area of expertise
when they joined the group, but by the end of the process had considerably
broadened their knowledge of these other areas. Also, work group members
received hands-on training in risk assessment, an area unfamiliar to many when
they joined the groups. This education was of personal and professional value to
work group members, as well as to the agency as a whole. As EPA continues to
move toward a cross-media approach to evaluating and controlling environmental
problems, it is essential that EPA staff understand the "big picture." Many work
group members commented about new perspectives gained as a result of
interaction with people from many different programs. It may be difficult to
measure the value of the process but it should not be underestimated.
• The Risk Reduction Project is a first step toward developing a more
analytical approach to planning and priority setting in Region I.
Historically, many planning decisions have been based on the professional
judgment of senior agency managers. Over the past several years, we have been
working to improve our planning process, with projects such as the Investment/
Disinvestment Project (for Fiscal Year 1988, Division Directors in Region I
worked with states to propose regional initiatives as well as to specify
disinvestments). The RRP was the first time that a methodology for assessing the
risks posed by environmental problems was developed as a planning tool in
Region I. We took the methodology developed by EPA Headquarters for the
NCRP and modified it for regional use. We now have an analytical tool
requiring data collection and analysis as well as the use of best professional
judgment, and the tool can be used in an ongoing way to help us compare
environmental problems. We also can use this process to help us go one step
further, that is, to conduct a more narrow comparative risk evaluation of
particular environmental problems and determine which sources or sites pose the
greatest risks. With this information, we will be better equipped to shift
resources within and between environmental programs.
• The inconsistency of problem definitions complicated the analysis. We
agreed to use a list similar to the NCRP list for reasons discussed in Chapter n.
Yet it was difficult to compare sources (such as Superfund sites) with receptors
(such as Estuaries), with individual pollutants (such as Lead or Asbestos), or with
-------
programs (such as Drinking Water). We frequently needed to revisit the
definitions we had developed for each problem area to determine what to include.
In addition, the definition of a problem area had a great impact on its ultimate
ranking. For example, we did not include two significant contributors to
drinking-water contamination, lead and radon, in the drinking-water analysis
because they were part of pollutant-specific analyses. We attempted to avoid
double-counting of health or ecological risks, by ensuring that a pollutant, source,
or pathway that was included in a problem area definition was clearly excluded
from other problem areas. We recommend that the Agency think very carefully
about developing a more consistent means of dividing up the environmental pie
when undertaking similar analyses in the future.
Regional data are often inaccessible. Large amounts of data are located in
government offices throughout the region, but this information is often poorly
organized, not computerized, and therefore difficult to utilize. EPA and state
agencies should put more effort into developing and improving data management
systems.
Ranking is easiest when there are good supporting data, more difficult when
we had to rely on best professional judgment, and most difficult when values
and personal judgment entered into the ranking. For example, the Public
Health Risk Work Group had little difficulty ranking Radon, which was clearly a
high-ranking problem, based on relatively good data. The work group had most
difficulty determining a combined cancer/non-cancer list because it involved
making implicit or explicit value judgments about the harm of cancer versus
other health effects. Similarly, the Ecological Risk Work Group had little
difficulty in ranking Industrial Discharges to lakes as being of low ecological
risk, based on good regional data. Ecological Work Group members were able to
identify which problem areas had high impacts on each ecosystem, but they were
unable to prioritize these further because each of the ecosystems evaluated are
considered to be of great value in Region I. The discussions involving judgment
and values were often the most difficult pan of the process, but ultimately the
most valuable, because we learned from each other while working toward group
consensus.
High ranking public health problems in general differ from high ranking
ecological problems. Ozone is the exception to this because it poses high
residual risks to environmental receptors and to humans. The problem areas
involving discharges to surface waters (industrial discharges to streams, POTW
discharges to estuaries and streams, nonpoint source discharges to lakes) were all
considered to pose high residual ecological risks but ranked from medium-high to
medium-low as residual public health risks. Other high public health risks
(radon, lead) were not high ecological risks and vice versa (see Table 2).
m-2
-------
Region I Comparative Risk Project
Summary of Results
(unranked within boxes1)
Human
Health
Risk
• Criteria Air
Pollutants
(ozone)
• Radon
• Lead
• Acid Deposition
and Visibility
partleulates)
• indoor Air
Pollutants Other
than Radon
• Industrial Point
Source
Discharges to
Surface Waters
• Drinking Water
• Other
Ground-Water
Contamination
• Pesticide
Residues on
Food
Higher
e^st • • •
• Hazardous/
Toxic Air
Pollutants2
• Asbestos
• Discharges to
Estuaries,
Coastal
Waters, and
Oceans from All
Sources
• Nonpolnt
Source
Discharges to
Surface Waters
• POTW
Discharges to
Surface Waters
• Accidental
Releases
• Releases from
Storage Tanks
• Pesticide
Application
• Radiation from
Sources Other
than Radon
(ncn-lonlzlng)
• RCRA Waste
Sites
• Superfund
Waste Sites
• Municipal
Waste Sites
• Industrial Waste
Sites
Risk
Ecological
Risk
• Criteria Air
Pollutants
• Acid Deposition
and Visibility
• Habitat Loss
• Industrial Point
Source
Discharges to
Surface Waters
• POTW
Discharges to
Surface Waters
• Nonpolnt
Source
Discharges to
Surface Waters
• Accidental
Releases
• Superfund
Waste Sites
• Municipal
Waste Sites
• Industrial Waste
Sites
• Other
Ground-Water
Contamination
• Pesticide
Residues on
Food
• Pesticide
Application
• RCRA Waste
Sites
B Releases from
Storage Tanks
• Radon
• Indoor Air
Pollutants Other
than Radon
• Drinking Water
• Lead3
• Asbestos
• Radiation from
Sources Other
than Radon
(non-Ionizing)
Notes:
Lower
Residual
Risk
1 Boxes represent categories of environmental
problems which were Judged to pose relatively similar
risks.
' Ecological risks of lead were evaluated as part of
Surface Water Discharge problem areas.
3 Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants were not ranked for
ecological risk because of Insufficient data.
III-3
-------
Rankings based solely on residual risk given present exposure patterns may
underestimate the importance of ground water as an environmental
resource. Problems primarily affecting ground water ranked medium in the
ecological risk evaluation and low in the public health risk evaluation, primarily
because the exposures measured to date are, in most cases, relatively low.
However, it is evident that a number of the environmental problem areas we
evaluated-such as RCRA sites, Superfund sites, and municipal landfills-are
contaminating ground-water aquifers that may be future drinking-water supplies
and that may discharge contaminants into sensitive ecosystems. So, although the
residual risks to public health and ecological receptors are not high relative to the
other problem areas, this resource is clearly being affected and could pose higher
risks in the future if alternative water supplies are not available and if
contaminant discharges to sensitive receptors are not controlled. A key finding of
the NCRP was that ground-water risks ranked consistently low. We find this
conclusion shortsighted. Ground water is clearly a vital resource that must be
protected for future generations, whether or not exposure is occurring at the
present time. The Ecological Risk Work Group did a limited welfare analysis of
ground water as a resource to highlight this concern.
The effectiveness of ongoing base programs has a great impact on the
relative ranking results. Problems ranking low may do so because a large part
of the problem is being controlled successfully. Before shifting resources from
these problem areas, we must determine the impacts of such shifts relative to the
risks posed.
The results of the NCRP and the Risk Reduction Project are similar, except
for the treatment of ground water. The Region I study ranked problems such as
radon, criteria air pollutants, and pesticide residues relatively high, as did the
NCRP. We believe it is important to highlight the issue of ground water as a
critical environmental resource in Region I, although it falls outside the scope of
a narrow public health risk and ecological risk evaluation. Also, lead ranked high
as a public health problem in Region I. This problem area was not evaluated on
its own in the NCRP. We defined it as a problem area because our professional
judgment recognized lead as a potentially significant problem in Region L The
results bore out that judgment.
Risk Management Work Group results are the key elements linking the
ecological and public health rankings to the Regional planning process. The
risk management results summarize factors which influence the ability to control
these various environmental problems and should be referred to as this project
proceeds to Phase H The economic impact analysis is of limited value at this
point because little data were available for a comparative analysis.
ffl-4
-------
Institutional barriers made it difficult to conduct this analysis in an objective
fashion, and may affect the use of its results. The structure of EPA reflects
most of our major environmental statutes, which are generally media or problem
specific, i.e., air, water, waste, pesticides. This compartmentalization of
environmental problems has created a difficult climate for analyzing or resolving
complex multimedia issues at EPA, and has also resulted in a work force that is
encouraged to be narrowly focused and may be resistant to change.
The comparative risk evaluation project was a massive undertaking,
requiring the significant time and energy of approximately 35 individuals in
Region I over a nine month period. In order for an effort like this to succeed, it
is crucial that there be management support for the project at all levels. Staff
persons assigned to a project of this magnitude should be relieved of some of
their other duties so that they can devote sufficient attention to the analysis.
Region I should think carefully about the resources needed to conduct this type of
analysis and weigh the value of it prior to committing to the project.
Interpretation and utilization of results must be done with caution. As
discussed above, there are two key points to bear in mind. First, evaluation of
residual risks only may miss important aspects of environmental problems such
as use and source trends and the beneficial impact of ongoing base programs. For
example, the waste problem areas, such as Superfund sites, may rank bw because
large resources are allocated to controlling the problem and because ground-water
exposures at the present time are relatively low. Second, problem areas as
defined in this report may be difficult to compare to standard EPA programs
(e.g., the exclusion of radon and lead from the drinking-water problem area).
Public Health Risk Work Group
The results of the analysis performed by the Public Health Risk Work Group are presented
in Table 3. This table combines the results of the cancer and non-cancer analyses, done
separately by the work group, to arrive at a list of environmental problems posing residual
public health risks of concern in Region I. The environmental problem areas are ranked in
five categories, with category 5 posing the highest residual public health risk and category 1
posing the least residual risk. Within each category the problem areas are listed in the order
they were originally developed for the project. No relative ranking within categories was
performed and none should be inferred. The cancer and non-cancer rankings are presented
separately in the Public Health Risk Work Group Report The work group had a very difficult
time determining the combined list, because of the implicit value judgments which were made
in merging the cancer/non-cancer lists. The group considered both cancer and non-cancer
effects when placing a problem area in the combined list. We used the results of data
collection and analysis as much as possible in developing the ranking, along with our best
judgment as environmental professionals. The list, which provides a relative ranking of
ffl-5
-------
Tables
Relative Residual Public Health Risk Ranking
(unranked within categories)
Problem Area
Substances/Exposures
Investigated
Comments
Category 5
Criteria Air Pollutants
Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
Paniculate Matter
Radon
Lead
Lead
Category 4
Acid Deposition and
Visibility
Indoor Air Pollutants Other
than Radon
Industrial Point Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters
DrinKing Water
Acid Aerosols-Sulfates
and Nitrates
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Paniculate Matter
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Phthalate Esters
Chtordane
Heptachtor
Tobacco Smoke
Triehloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
PCBs. Dioxin. Mercury
Total Trihalomethanes
(TTHM), Arsenic,
Radtenudides. Nitrates.
Bacteria. Pathogens
Cancer: Category 1-Assumed no cancer risk since all
criteria air pollutants are currently considered non-
carcinogenic
Non-cancer: Category 5-Driven by large-scale exposure to
high ozone levels across the region
Cancer Category 5-Up to 1,500 excess cancers predicted
annually from exposure in homes
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Assumed low. Some non-cancer
effects likely
Cancer: Category 1-Assumed no cancer risk since chemical
is not currently considered carcinogenic
Non-cancer Category 5-Driven by ingestion of soil or
inhalation of lead-contaminated dust by children, resulting in
lead poisoning and learning disabilities
Cancer: Category 1-Assumed no cancer risk since
substances are not currently considered carcinogenic
Non-cancer Category 4-lnfluenced by widespread
respiratory symptoms and hospital admissions due to
inhalation of elevated acid aerosol levels
Cancer: Category 3-Estimated 1 to 50 excess annual
cancers from inhalation of a mixture of pollutants; high
individual risk
Non-cancer Category 3-Driven by carbon monoxide
exposures, aggravating angina for chronic effects and
causing acute cardiac impairment
Cancer: Category 3-Estimated 15 to 30 excess annual
cancers from ingestion of fish contaminated with PCBs
Non-cancer Category 4-lnfluenced by ingestion of mercury
contaminated fish at up to 25 times the Rf D
3-Estimated 20 excess annual cancers
and arsenic
Cancer: Category 3-Et
from ingestion of TTHM
Non-cancer Category 4-Driven by outbreaks of
Giardia-related gastrointestinal disease
(continued)
m-6
Page 1of4
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
Relative Residual Public Health Risk Ranking
(unranked within categories)
Problem Area
Substances/Exposures
Investigated
Comments
Category 4 (continued)
Other Ground-Water
Contamination
Pesticide Residues on
Food
Category 3
Hazardous/Toxic Air
Pollutants
Asbestos
Discharges to Estuaries,
Coastal Waters, and
Oceans from All Sources
Pathogenic Microorganisms,
Sodium. Nitrates. Pesticides.
Solvents, and Petroleum
Products
1 Herbicide
2 Fungicides
11nsecticide
1 Growth Regulator
TCE
Carbon Tetrachloride
Asbestos
Heptachlor
PCBs
DDT
HCB
Cancer Category 2-Estimated 1 excess annual cancer from
ingestion of dichloromethane from septic tanks/cesspools
Non-cancer: Category 4-Driven by outbreaks of hepatitis
and gastrointestinal disease caused by septic tank
contamination of drinking water wells
Cancer Category 4-Estimated up to 320 excess annual
cancers by scaling NCRP data down to region, a method that
may overestimate the regional impact
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Assumed low non-cancer risk
because of lack of evidence that exposures exceed allowable
levels
Cancer: Category 3-Estunated 10 excess annual cancers
based on monitored background concentrations of urban
toxic soup; may underestimate effect because of low percent-
of problem covered
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Quantitative risk not estimated
because of lack of Inhalation reference doses to evaluate
systemic effects from these pollutants
Cancer Category 3-Estimated 185 excess annual cancers;
work group felt estimate was conservative
Non-cancer. Category 2/1-Assumed tow non-cancer risk
Cancer: Category 3-Estimated 90 excess annual cancers
from ingestion of contaminated fish
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Estimated low risk since
exposures do not exceed RfDs
Nonpoint Source PCBs
Discharges to Surface Dioxin
Waters Mercury
Cancer: Category 3-Estimated less than 30 excess annual
cancers from ingestion of fish contaminated by PCBs; not
judged as significant a contributor as industrial point sources
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Qualitatively estimated as smaller
contributor to surface waters than industrial point sources
(continued)
Page 2 of 4
m-7
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
Relative Residual Public Health Risk Ranking
(unranked within categories)
Problem Aroa
Substances/Exposures
Investigated
Comments
Category 2
POTW Discharges to
Surface Waters
Releases from Storage
Tanks
Pesticide Application
Category 1
Radiation from Sou
Other than Radon
(non-Ionizing)
PCBs
Dioxin
Mercury
Chlorine
Mineral Acids
Ammonia
Organic Solvents
Organic Toxics
Gasoline
Home Heating Oil
Diesel Fuel
Herbicides
Fungicides
Insecticides
Extremely Low Frequency
(ELF) Radiation
Cancer: Category 2-Estimated less than 10 excess annual
cancers from ingestion of fish contaminated with PCBs;
judged a smaller contributor than nonpoint or industrial point
sources
Non-cancer: Category 2/1-Qualitatively estimated as a
smaller contributor to surface waters than nonpoint or
industrial point sources
Cancer: Category 1-Assumed low cancer risk
Non-cancer Category ^-Influenced by respiratory problems
as severe as respiratory pneumonia; estimates based on
reported accident data
Cancer Category 2-Qualitative ranking based on best
judgment of risk relative to problem areas with more data;
judged similar to hazardous waste risks
Non-cancer: Category 3-Qualitative ranking based on best
judgment of risks relative to other problem areas; high
number of tanks drives higher rating
Cancer: Category 2-Estimated less than 1 excess annual
cancer derived from scaling down national figures
Non-cancer Category 3-Qualitative ranking based on best
judgment of risks relative to other problem areas
Cancer Category 2-Qualitativa ranking based on best
judgment of risks relative to other problem areas; high degree
of uncertainty in available data
Non-cancer Category 2/1-QuaGtative ranking based on best
judgment of risks relative to other problem areas
(continued)
Page 3 of 4
m-8
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
Relative Residual Public Health Risk Ranking
(unranked within categories)
Problem Ana
Substances/Exposures
Investigated
Comments
Category 1 (continued)
RCRA Waste Sites
Superfund Waste Sites
Municipal Waste Sites
Industrial Waste Sites
18 Typical Compounds in
Waste Stream
PCBs, Arsenic,
TetracNoroelhylene.
Benzene. Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic
TetracMoroethylene
Dichlorernetnane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic
Tetracrdoroethylene
DicMoromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cancer. Category 2-Estimated 1 to 10 excess annual
cancers influenced most heavily by modeled hazardous
waste incineration impacts; high degree of uncertainty
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Estimated low risk since
exposures do not exceed RfDs
Cancer Category 2-Estimated about one excess annual
cancer
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Estimated low risk since
exposures generally do not exceed RfDs
Cancer Category 2-Qualitatively estimated a few excess
annual cancers due to contamination of ground-water wells;
limited available date
Non-cancer: Category 2/1-Estimated low risk since
exposures do not exceed RfDs
Cancer: Category 2-Qualitatively estimated a few excess
annual cancers due to contamination of wells; limited
available date
Non-cancer Category 2/1-Estimated tow risk since
exposures do not exceed RfDs
Page 4 of 4
m-9
-------
residual public health risks, was the consensus of the work group. We believe that a different
group evaluating the same data might move some problem areas up or down one category,
especially in the middle of the range, but it is unlikely that they would move them up or down
two categories. Some of the major conclusions of the Public Health Risk Work Group are as
follows:
• Indoor radon exposure, which is associated with lung cancer, poses a significant
potential health threat in Region I. The cancer cases associated with this problem
area may be up to an order of magnitude greater than other problem areas that
pose a cancer risk.
• Lead exposure from all sources poses a significant public health threat in New
England, particularly to young children who may be learning-disabled as a result
of mild to severe lead poisoning.
• Exposure to ozone above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards occurs
frequently in Region I and is associated with respiratory ailments that may affect
large populations in New England.
• Separating the residual public health risks posed by the three types of discharges
to surface water is difficult. After much group discussion and input from the
Water Division staff, we agreed to rank these problems as follows:
- Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters-category 4
- Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters-category 3
- POTW Discharges to Surface Waters-category 2
We ranked the problem areas in the above order because we evaluated fish
consumption as the pathway of greatest concern, considering chemicals such as
PCBs and metals that are most likely to be associated with industrial discharges.
• Pesticide Residues on Food is a significant public health concern in Region L
We did not have regional data that justified placing it in the highest category but,
based on a scaling down of national data, pesticide residues on food consumed in
New England was placed in category 4.
• The waste problem areas, including Superfund Waste Sites, RCRA Waste Sites,
Municipal Waste Sites, and Industrial Waste Sites, pose low residual public
health risks. These are primarily ground-water contamination problems and may
or may not be affecting drinking-water supplies at the present time. These
sources are contaminating aquifers that may be valuable future sources of
drinking water, but present exposures are generally low. The contamination of
ground water as a resource is of great concern in Region I and was evaluated in
more detail by the Ecological Risk Work Group. When focusing only on residual
m-io
-------
public health risks, the public health impact of this ground-water contamination is
relatively low. Other pathways of exposure from these problem areas include
direct contact with contaminated soils and water and inhalation of contaminated
air. Although from our analysis it appears that municipal landfills pose risks
similar to those from Superfund sites, the work group agreed that there is great
uncertainty in this area, which suggests that a more in-depth analysis would be
useful. .
Ecological Risk Work Group
The Ecological Risk Work Group evaluated IS environmental problems thought to pose
adverse ecological effects. We considered the impact of each problem area on each of eight
ecosystems and two environmental resources (ground water and air).. From this process, the
work group identified the ecosystems that were under the greatest stress from each problem
area. We separated the problem areas into groupings of high, medium, and low residual
ecological risk based on die level of stress to the ecosystems. We also evaluated the
cumulative impact of various problem areas on each ecosystem. The results of the Ecological
Risk Work Group analysis are presented in Table 4. Some of the major conclusions are as
follows:
High Residual Ecological Risk
Seven problem areas clearly pose significant ecological risks in Region I:
• Ozone, a Criteria Air Pollutant, has adverse impacts on forests and may affect
crop yields.
• Acid deposition has adverse impacts on lakes in New England and also
contributes to forest decline.
• All discharges to surface waters have adverse impacts on aquatic life in streams,
lakes, ponds, impoundments, and estuaries. This includes three problem areas:
Industrial Point Source Discharges, POTW Discharges (including combined
sewer overflows and storm-water discharges), and Nonpoint Source Discharges.
• Habitat loss-significant loss of uplands and wetlands, which are important areas
for spawning and breeding-is occurring in New England.
• Accidental Releases are a significant concern. Although catastrophic accidental
releases are not common, this problem area was highlighted as significant
because major oil spills in the estuarine, tidal wetlands, and/or marine ecosystems
would be likely to have drastic environmental impacts.
m-n
-------
Table 4
Ecological Problem Area Ranking
(unranked within categories)
Environmental Problem
Sources and Stresses
Ecosystems Host Significantly Attaetad
CatogoryS
1. Criteria Air Pollutants
2. Aad Deposition and
Visibility
7. Industrial Point Source
Discharges to Surface
Ozone is the most significant
B. POTW Discharges to
Surface Waters
(includes Combined
Sewer Overflows
(CSOs) and
stormwater dicharges)
9. Nonpoint Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters
11. Habitat Loss
17. Accidental Releases
Category 4
14. Superfund Waste Sites
IS. IB. Municipal and
Industrial Waste
10. Olher Ground-Water
GontBininstion
20.21. Pesticide Residues
on Food/Pesnddo
Application
Category 3
13. RCRA Waste Sites
18. Releases from Storage
Tanks
Unknown
3. Hazardous/Tone Air
Pollutants
Lowering of pH and buffering
Discharge of toxics, especially
in water with low dilution ratios
Discharge from CSOs and
stormwater of nutrients and
toxics; POTW discharge of
chlorine, nutrients, and
Industrial waste to water
quality limited streams
Runoff of nutrients and toxic
chemicals into lakes and
streams
Conversion of undeveloped
land ID residential and
commercial property
Oil spills from shipping and
drilling
Discharges of toxics from
Discharges of toxics from
leachate
Septic tank discharges of
nutrients
Residual runoff from
application
Discharge of toxics from
leachate
Discharges of toxics horn
Terrestrial-Ozone is considered to cause the decline of forests,
especially at higher elevations. Agriculture-Several crops have
shown decreases In yield due to ozone.
Lakes-New England lakes are expenenong significant acidification
due to aad deposition, which affects aquatic distribution.
Terrestnal-Aod deposition contributes to decline of forests.
particularly at higher elevations.
Streams-Toxic plants affect sediments and aquatic life.
Estuaries—Toxics and nutrients affect plants, sediments, and
aquatic fife"
Streams-These discharges are toxic to aquatic organisms.
Lakes, Ponds, Impoundments-Nutrients and toxics build up in
Lakes-Nonpoim source runoff causes eutrophlcation.
Streams-Runoff of toxics, including pesticides, has significant
impact on aquatic life.
Terrestrial-Significant toss of land to development affects the
habitat environment and breeding areas.
Wetlands (freshwater)-Signiflcant toss of land as a habitat breeding
and spawning area occurs.
Agriculture-Significant toss of habitat environment and breeding
area occurs.
Estuaries and tidal wetlands-Major oil spill could destroy habitat
and spawning area and other uses.
Manne-The drilling at Georges Bank could destroy habitat
spawning.
Wetlands (fresnwater)-Apnroxirnately 50% of the sites are adjacent
to streams or freshwater wetiands. Toxics affect plants, sediments,
and aquatic life.
Wetiands (freshwaterj-similartoa
Lakes-Nutrients contribute to eutrophicatian of New England lakes.
Lakes—Pesticide use has significant UHIMMH on aquatic life,
particularly when directly applied.
Wetlands-Use in mosquito control can affect aquatic life and
vegetation.
Terrestrial-Spraying can affect habitat
Streams and wetiands (freshwater)! Toxics affects plants and
sediments.
Streams and wetiands (freshwater): Toxics affect plants and
sediments.
Unknown.
Note: Toxics includes organic chemicals, metals, and pesticides.
Problem areas considered to pose low ecological risk (Category 2/1) were not evaluated by the work group, and were rat included In this table.
m-i2
-------
Medium Residual Ecological Risks
The environmental problem areas which primarily affect the ground-water resource appear
to pose medium to medium-high residual ecological risks. These problems include Superfund
Waste Sites, RCRA Waste Sites, Municipal Waste Sites, Industrial Waste Sites, Releases from
Storage Tanks, Other Ground-Water Contamination, and impacts from Pesticide Application.
Generally, contaminants from sources related to these problem areas are in highest
concentrations in ground water, and may be discharging or running off into surface waters and
wetlands, threatening these ecosystems. An ecological risk evaluation, which looks strictly at
ecological receptors, will find that these problems have relatively less ecological impact than
sources directly discharging to water and air. The Ecological Risk Work Group included
ground water as an "ecosystem" category precisely so that the serious problem of
ground-water contamination would not get lost in the overall analysis. In many ways, the
contamination of ground water poses primarily a welfare risk because it affects present and
future drinking water supplies. The work group agreed that ground-water quality in New
England is seriously threatened by the problem areas listed above.
Low Ecological Risks
All of the problem areas not evaluated were considered to pose low ecological risks.
These problems include Radon, Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon, Drinking Water,
Lead (ecological impacts evaluated under discharges to surface waters), Asbestos, and
Radiation from Sources Other than Radon.
Unknown
Impacts from Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants were ranked as unknown because very little
data are available to evaluate this problem, although there is concern regarding potential
environmental impacts. It may be valuable to look more closely at this problem area in
Phase n.
Risk Management Work Group
The Risk Management Work Group evaluated different factors that affect how easy (5) or
difficult (1) it is to control an environmental problem. The factors evaluated were public
perception, available resources, economic impact, effective technology, and legal authority.
Table 5 presents results of the Risk Management Work Group analysis. Some general
conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis are as follows:
• Overall observation—No problem area is uniformly "easy" to manage. Each of
the problem areas scored relatively high for certain factors and relatively low for
others. However, a certain group of problems do appear to be more difficult to
control overall, including Acid Deposition, Radon, Indoor Air Pollution,
Wetlands/Habitat Loss, Industrial Waste Sites, Municipal Waste Sites, Other
Ground-Water Contamination, and Lead.
m-ia
-------
Tables
Risk Management Work Group
Summary Ranking
Public
Problem Area Perception
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Acid Deposition and Visibility
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
Radon
Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon
Radiation from Sources Other than Radon
Industrial Point Source Discharges to
Surface Waters
POTW Discharges to Surface Waters
Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface
Waters
Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters,
and Oceans from All Sources
Wetlands/Habitat Loss
Drinking Water
RCRA Waste Sites
Superfund Waste Sites
Municipal Waste Sites
Industrial Waste Sites
Accidental Releases
Releases from Storage Tanks
Other Ground-Water Contamination
Pesticide Residues on Food
Pesticide Application
Lead
Asbestos
Lakes, Ponds, and impoundments
3
3
4
3
3
1
4
3
2
3
2
5
4
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
Available
Resources
4
2
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
2
2
2
4
1
1
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
Economic
Impact ,
1
3
1
3
..
5
3
2
2
2
-
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
—
4
4
1
2
""
Legal Effective
Authority Technology
5
1
3
1
1
1
5
5
3
4
2
3
4
3
2
2
5
3
3
4
4
3
5
3
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
- a NO cost data available.
Note: 1 a Most difficult to control; 5 « easiest to control.
m-14
-------
• Public Perception-A problem that ranked high on the public perception scale
indicated that this area was of great concern to the public in Region I. Unlike the
other risk management factors, which are easier to manage as they rank higher, a
problem that ranks "high" in public perception may be either easier or more
difficult to manage. It may be easier to manage a problem if the public is
informed, concerned, and cooperative in finding a solution. It may also be more
difficult to control an environmental problem if the public is concerned but views
the government as unresponsive and untrustworthy. Superfund Waste Sites and
Drinking Water are the two problem areas which ranked highest in public
perception of risk.
• Resources-Almost all programs are underfunded, with committed resources
averaging about SO percent of total need. Problems with little regulatory
authority have minimal resources. The differences in workload models among
programs may be having a great influence on these results, because the
completeness and accuracy of the models varies widely.
• Economic Impact-This proved to be the most difficult factor to evaluate because
there were little comparable cost data available to evaluate problem areas against
each other. More data gathering and analysis are necessary to make this
information useful and comparable.
• Effective Technology~The work group found that there were no problem areas
without any effective control technologies, and that most of the available
technology was proven rather than experimental.
• Legal Authorities-As expected, the older, more established programs have more
adequate legal authority as well as case law supporting them. Newer programs
such as Superfund appear to have adequate authority, but the law has not been
implemented for a long enough period to determine its effectiveness. Some of
the problem areas-such as Acid Deposition, Radon, Indoor Air Pollution, and
Radiation Other than Radon-have little or no legal authority.
The reader is referred to the three Work Group Reports for more detailed discussions of
the results.
m-is
-------
IV. Summary of Ranking Information for
Each Environmental Problem Area
The summary evaluations for each environmental problem area include the problem area
definition, the risks evaluated and the rankings assigned by the Public Health Risk Work
Group (Residual Public Health Risk) and the Ecological Risk Work Group (Residual
Ecological Risk), and the factors ranked by the Risk Management Work Group (Risk
Management Factors). For the latter, refer to the Risk Management Key on page IV-26. For
detailed information on the problem areas and estimates of the portion of the problem
examined and the uncertainty of the risk estimates, refer to the appendices in the Public
Health Risk and the Ecological Risk reports, and the chapters on evaluation factors in the
Risk Management report
-------
1. Criteria Air Pollutants
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes exposure to criteria air pollutants, particularly through exceedances of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated under the Clean Air Act to
protect human health and welfare. The criteria air pollutants currently regulated are sulfur dioxide,
particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and lead. Lead is not included in this problem
area because it is evaluated separately as problem area #22. Major sources of these pollutants are
motor vehicles, industrial and commercial facilities, and residential fuel burning.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated ozone and carbon monoxide-These pollutants currently exceed NAAQS in
Region I. Pollutants below NAAQS were not evaluated. Paniculate matter was
considered as pan of Acid Deposition and Visibility (problem area #2).
• Evaluated increased risk of asthma attacks, restricted activity, aggravated angina, and
death.
• Ranked in highest category (5) for overall residual public health risk.
— Ranked in category 1 for cancer risk because pollutants are not carcinogens
~ Ranked in category S for non-cancer risk because large populations are exposed to
relatively high levels of ozone
Residual Ecological Risk
• Focused on effects of ozone NAAQS exceedances. The most significant impacts were
on terrestrial and agricultural ecosystems (i.e., forest growth damage and reduced crop
yields).
• Ranked in highest category for ecological risk because of impacts on terrestrial and
agricultural ecosystems. Adverse effects on wetlands are probable.
Risk Management Factors
m Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about these
pollutants.
• Available Resources-Ranked 4 because Region I is funded at approximately 60 percent
to 65 percent of the workload model resource level.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 1 because control costs are estimated at $1.4 billion per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because off-the-shelf technology is available.
• Legal Authority-Ranked S because laws are considered adequate and are enforced.
IV-2
-------
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes both wet and dry acid deposition. Some gases emitted into the
atmosphere react with sunlight, water vapor, and oxygen to form acid compounds. When these
compounds are suspended in the atmosphere, they are referred to as acidic aerosols. Wet deposition
occurs when the acidic compounds fall as acid rain or snow. These acidic compounds may also
combine with dust or other dry particles and fall as dry deposition. The pollutants that contribute to
acid deposition are already regulated under the dean Air Act; however, deposition can occur even
when emissions of these compounds meet EPA standards. Visibility was also included in the
definition, although it was not explicitly addressed by all work groups.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated inhalation exposures that may lead to respiratory ailments, increased hospital
admissions, and death for children and adults. Paniculate matter was also considered in
this problem area. Acid aerosols are a portion of the paniculate matter exposure.
• Ranked in medium-high category (4) for overall public health risk.
- Ranked in category 1 for cancer risk because pollutants are not carcinogens
- Ranked in category 4 for non-cancer risk
Residual Ecological Risk
m Effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems included decrease in pH of surface waters.
destruction of flora and forest canopy, disruption of life-cycle processes, leaching of
toxic metals from soils, and destruction of the acid neutralizing capacity of soils.
• Ranked in the highest category for ecological risk because of the impacts of acid
deposition on lakes. Terrestrial ecosystems are also impacted significantly.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about the
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 2 because regional funding (60 percent of the workload
model) is considered inadequate by the Regional Program Manager and the work group.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 3 because costs of clean coal technology are estimated at
$60 million per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 5 because off-the-shelf technology could greatly reduce
the problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 1 because there are no laws to control acid deposition. (Acid
deposition occurs even when pollutants meet Clean Air Act standards).
IV-3
-------
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes exposure to airborne toxic and hazardous air pollutants from routine
or continuous emissions by outdoor point and nonpoint sources. Typical pollutants include
formaldehyde, benzene, chromium, gasoline vapors, incomplete combustion products, airborne
pathogens, and a variety of other toxic compounds. Major sources include large industrial facilities;
clusters of small commercial facilities; waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; motor
vehicles; commercial solvent users; and cooling towers.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated monitoring data for chromium, arsenic, benzene, perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride and extrapolated concentrations for an
additional 22 pollutants.
• Ranked in the medium category (3) for overall residual public health risk.
- Ranked in category 3 for cancer risk
- Non-cancer effects not evaluated
Residual Ecological Risk
• Risks were characterized as unknown because of the lack of data on ecological effects of
hazardous air pollutants.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 4 because the public has relatively high concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because regional funding (between 33 percent and
70 percent of die workload model) is considered inadequate by the Regional Program
Manager, particularly in air toxics support for Superfund.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 1 because control costs are estimated at $1.5 billion per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 5 because off-the-shelf technology could greatly reduce
the problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws exist, although they nave not been fully
implemented.
IV-4
-------
4. Radon
Problem Area Definition
Radon is a radioactive gas produced by the decay of radium, which occurs naturally in soil and
rock. This problem area evaluates exposure to radon, which can occur when radon migrates through
soil and rock into basements or is released indoors through domestic water use. This category covers
indoor radon only, because outdoor concentrations are much lower.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated risks from direct inhalation of radon and exposure to radon through domestic
water use.
• Ranked in highest category (5) for overall residual public health risk.
-- Ranked in category 5 for cancer risk because of large expected incidence of lung
cancer cases
•
- Ranked in category 2/1 for non-cancer risk
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked. Considered to be primarily a public health risk.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about radon.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because funding is at approximately SO percent of the
workload model resource level.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 3 because costs are estimated at $69 million per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because proven technology could greatly reduce the
problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 1 because there are currently no laws applicable to radon.
IV-5
-------
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon
Problem Ana Definition
This problem area includes exposure to accumulated indoor air pollutants from sources in
buildings. These sources include unvented space heaters and gas ranges, foam insulation, pesticides,
tobacco (passive smoking), wood preservatives, fireplaces, cleaning solvents, and paints. The
pollutants include tobacco smoke, carbon dioxide, pesticides, and numerous volatile organic
chemicals, such as benzene and formaldehyde.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Carcinogens evaluated included tobacco smoke, chlordane, phtnalate esters,
formaldehyde, and heptachlor.
• Non-carcinogens evaluated included carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, respirable
participates, and formaldehyde.
• Acute and chronic non-cancer health effects evaluated included cardiac impairment and
lung damage.
• Ranked in medium high category (4) for overall residual public health risk. Ranked in
category 3 for both cancer risk and non-cancer risk.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked. Considered to be primarily a public health risk.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because regional funding (60 percent of the woikload
model) is considered inadequate by the Regional Program Manager.
• Economic Impact-Not ranked because sufficient cost information was not available.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because proven technology could greatly reduce the
problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 1 because there are currently no laws applicable to indoor air
pollutants.
IV-6
-------
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon (Non-Ionizing)
Problem Area Definition
Nonoccupational exposure to non-ionizing radiation (beyond natural background) is included
here. Non-ionizing radiation sources include high-voltage power lines, broadcast towers, and
microwave and radar transmission. Recent evidence indicates possible association of such exposure
with childhood leukemia, among other potential health effects. The work group considered only
extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation and not radio-frequency radiation.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated the risks of ELF radiation exposure (radiation found in the vicinity of 60 Hz
power sources) based on a study by Savitz, which demonstrates a possible association
between electromagnetic fields and the incidence of childhood leukemia.
• Ranked in lowest category (1) for overall residual public health risk. Ranked in category
2 for cancer risk and category 2/1 for non-cancer risk based on a qualitative analysis and
best professional judgment of the work group.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked. Considered to be primarily a public health risk.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 1 because the public is not concerned about this problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 5 because program funding is considered adequate.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 5 because costs are estimated at $700,000 per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because off-the-shelf technology is available.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 1 because there are currently no laws applicable to mis
problem.
IV-7
-------
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters
Problem Area Definition
"Point sources are sources of pollution that discharge effluents into surface waters through
discrete conveyances such as pipes or outfalls. Discharges result in contamination of surface waters
and subsequent injury or harm to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans. Point sources have been
divided for this project into industrial (this category) and POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works)
sources (#8). Pollutants of concern include total suspended solids, BOD (Biological Oxygen
Demand), toxic organics (e.g., phthalates and phenols), toxic inorganics (e.g., metals) and thermal
pollution. Typical sources of discharge include chemical manufacturing, metal finishing, pulp and
paper processing, and iron and steel production.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated with problem areas #8 and #9 (POTW and Nonpoint Source Discharges to
Surface Waters). Evaluated exposure to PCBs, dioxin, lead, and mercury from ingestion
of contaminated freshwater fish.
• Industrial point sources were considered to be the major contributor of contamination
and were judged to pose higher risks than POTWs and Nonpoint Sources.
• Ranked in medium high category (4) for overall residual public health risk. Ranked in
category 3 for cancer risk and category 4 for non-cancer risk.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Most significant sources of pollutants included metal finishers, pulp and paper
processing, and textile dying operations.
• Ranked in highest category for ecological risk because of impacts on streams.
Freshwater wetlands and estuaries are affected to a lesser extent
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 4 because the public has relatively high concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because regional funding (SO percent to 75 percent of
the workload model) is considered inadequate by the Regional Program Manager.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 3 because control costs are estimated at $24.1 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 5 because off-the-shelf technology could greatly reduce
the problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 5 because laws are considered adequate and enforced.
IV-8
-------
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes impacts from discharges to surface waters from municipal sewage
treatment systems (Publicly Owned Treatment Works, or POTWs). These include industrial "indirect
dischargers" connected to POTWs. Discharges result in contamination of surface waters and
subsequent injury or harm to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans. Combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) and stormwaters are included here also.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated with problem areas #7 and #9 (Industrial Point Source and Nonpoint Source
Discharges to Surface Waters).
• Evaluated exposure to PCBs, dioxin, lead, and mercury from ingestion of contaminated
freshwater fish.
• POTWs were judged to be a smaller contributor of contamination than industrial or
nonpoint sources. Therefore, POTWs ranked relatively lower.
• Ranked medium low (2) for overall residual public health risk.
.. Ranked in category 2 for cancer risk
- Ranked hi category 2/1 for non-cancer risk
Residual Ecological Risk
• Considered die impacts of oxygen-demanding pollutants, toxics, and nutrients. Focused
on streams and estuaries because most POTWs discharge into these ecosystems.
• Effects include the loss of aquatic resources from damage to fish and shellfish, and the
reduced value of these waters as potential drinking water sources.
• Ranked in highest category for ecological risk because of impacts to estuaries and
streams. Lower impacts were noted for lakes.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 4 because regional funding is between SO percent to
70 percent of the workload model
• Economic Impact-Ranked 2 because control costs are estimated at $246 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 5 because off-the-shelf technology could greatly reduce
the size of the current problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked S because laws are considered adequate and enforced.
IV-9
-------
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes exposures to pollutants that reach surface waters from nonpoint
sources. These are sources other than discrete conveyances for effluents (such as in problem areas #7
and #8). This includes agricultural, urban, industrial, and silvicultural runoff, discharge of
contaminated ground water, releases from contaminated in-place sediments; and air pollutant
deposition into surface water. Discharges result in contamination of surface waters and subsequent
injury or harm to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated with problem areas #7 and #8 (Industrial Point Source and POTW Discharges
to Surface Waters). Evaluated exposure to PCBs, dioxin, lead, and mercury from
ingestion of contaminated freshwater fish.
• Nonpoint sources were judged to be a smaller contributor of contaminants than industrial
sources. Therefore, nonpoint sources ranked relatively lower than industrial discharges.
• Ranked in medium category (3) for overall residual public health risk. Ranked in
category 3 for cancer risk and category 2/1 for non-cancer risk.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Runoff from agriculture, urban areas, and land development are among the greatest
ecological concerns. (Excluded from the analysis were on-site disposal systems,
evaluated with Other Ground-Water Contamination, and hydro-modifications, evaluated
with Wetlands/Habitat Loss.) Nutrients and sediments are the most significant stressors.
• Ranked in highest category for ecological risk because of impacts on lakes and streams.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 2 because the public has little concern about risks from
nonpoint sources.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because regional funding (SO percent to 75 percent of
the workload model) is considered inadequate by the Regional Program Manager.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 2 because control costs are estimated at $600 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because off-the-shelf technology exists.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws exist, although they have not been fully
implemented,
IV-10
-------
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters,
and Oceans from All Sources
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes a wide variety of pollutants and sources that reach estuaries, coastal
waters, and oceans and may result in contamination of seafood and subsequent exposure of humans.
Specific sources can include ocean dumping of wastes, deposition of criteria and hazardous air
pollutants, nonpoint runoff, dredge spoil disposal, and offshore drilling.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated exposure to 18 pollutants through ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish.
• Ranked in medium category (3) for overall residual public health risk.
— Ranked in category 3 for cancer risk based on cancer risk from fish ingestion
(highest risks from PCBs and heptachlor)
- Ranked in category 2/1 for non-cancer risk because none of the exposures to the
pollutants evaluated exceeded RfDs
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked as a problem area. Discharges to estuaries, coastal areas, and oceans were
defined as two ecosystems (estuaries and marine) in the analysis.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 4 because funding is at approximately SO percent to
80 percent of the workload model
• Economic Impact-Ranked 2 because control costs are estimated at $211 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 5 because off-the-shelf technology could greatly reduce
the problem.
• Legal Authority—Ranked 4 because laws are considered adequate and implemented.
IV-11
-------
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes all risks from pollutants reaching wetlands and uplands and impacts
from physical alteration of wetlands and uplands. Activities that contribute to the problem include
agricultural modification; flood control channelization; filling for highways, housing, and landfills;
dredging for navigation channels, harbors, and marinas; mining and resource extraction; discharges
from point and nonpoint sources, and others, including contamination from hazardous waste sites.
Such activities alter the salinity and water level while contributing turbidity, sedimentation, and
numerous pollutants. The more significant overriding impact is the continued loss of habitat through
the elimination of bom wetlands and adjacent uplands.
. Residual Pubtic Health Risk
• Not ranked. Considered to be primarily an ecological risk.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Considered risks from destruction, conversion, and pollution of wetlands and habitat
areas. Highest risk is in rapidly growing areas of New England.
• Ranked hi highest category for ecological risk because of impacts associated with the
loss of upland areas, streams, freshwater wetlands, and agricultural areas as habitat
environments and breeding areas.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 2 because the public has little concern about this problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 2 because regional funding is approximately 20 percent of
the workload model, including resources shifted into the program.
• Economic Impact-Not ranked because sufficient cost information was not available.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 3 because off-the-shelf technology exists but is not fully
efficient
• Legal Authority-Ranked 2 because laws are considered inadequate.
IV-12
-------
12. Drinking Water
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes exposures to contaminants found in drinking water as it arrives at the
tap. These contaminants may derive from both natural and man-made sources. Surface and ground-
water drinking water supplies are included. Radon and lead are excluded from this analysis as they are
covered in problem areas #4 and #22. Pollutants of concern include pathogens, disinfectant
byproducts, and naturally occurring compounds such as fluoride, arsenic, and radium.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated ingesu'on of pollutants in drinking water based on monitoring data and
maximum contaminant level (MCL) violations. Also considered the effects of inhalation
and dermal absorption of pollutants.
• Ranked in medium high category (4) for overall residual public health risk. Ranked in
category 3 for both cancer and non-cancer risk, based on ingestion of carcinogens and
non-carcinogens.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked. Considered primarily a public health risk.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 5 because the public is very concerned about this problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 2 because regional funding is approximately 35 percent to
75 percent of the workload model, including resources shifted into this problem area.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 3 because control costs are estimated at $87.8 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because off-the-shelf technology exists.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws exist, although they are not fully implemented.
IV-13
-------
13. RCRA Waste Sites
Problem Area Definition
This category includes the risks posed by hazardous waste sites regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). More specifically, it includes operating and inactive RCRA
landfills and surface impoundments, hazardous waste storage tanks, hazardous waste burned in boilers
and furnaces, hazardous waste incinerators, and associated solid waste management units. Seepage
and routine releases from these sources contaminate soil, surface water, and ground water, and pollute
the air.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Estimated risks from treatment, storage, and disposal of RCRA wastes based on modeled
release and exposure pathways.
• Ranked in lowest category (1) for overall residual public health risk.
- Ranked in category 2 for cancer risk, primarily due to risks from hazardous waste
incinerators
-- Ranked in category 2/1 for non-cancer risk because exposures to all pollutants
evaluated were lower than the RfDs
• Ranking did not include risks from blending and burning of used oil. Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMUs) were considered, but more detailed information could
raise the risk estimate.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Evaluated modeled releases from RCRA units to air, ground water, and surface water.
• Greatest concern associated with the RCRA units were welfare impacts caused by
degradation of ground water.
• Ranked in medium category for ecological risks because of impacts on tidal wetlands,
freshwater wetlands, and streams.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 4 because the public has relatively high concern about RCRA
facilities.
• Available Resources-Ranked 2 because regional funding is approximately 10 percent of
the workload model.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 3 because control costs are estimated at $67.4 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because proven technology could greatly reduce the
problem.
• Legal Authority—Ranked 4 because laws are adequate and implemented.
IV-14
-------
14. Superfund Waste Sites
Problem Area Definition
This category includes hazardous waste disposal sites that are regulated by Superfund. Generally,
they are inactive and abandoned sites. They can include sites on the National Priorities List (NPL),
those deleted from the NPL, those that are candidates for the NPL, and any additional sites that states
may be addressing. Releases from these sites contaminate soil, surface water, ground water, and air.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated "Endangeiment Assessments" from 13 Superfund sites. Extrapolated data on
pollutants and average exposures to the Region as a whole.
• Ranked in lowest category (1) for overall residual public health risks.
- Ranked in category 2 for cancer risk, based on low exposures to carcinogens
- Ranked in category 2/1 for non-cancer risk because pollutants evaluated generally
did not exceed the RfDs
Residual Ecological Risk
• Qualitatively evaluated impacts based on proximity of Superfund sites to streams and
freshwater wetlands.
• Greatest concern associated with Superfund sites was welfare impacts caused by
degradation of ground water.
• Ranked in medium category for ecological risk because of impacts to streams and
freshwater wetlands.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 5 because the public is very concerned about this problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 4 because regional funding (90 percent of the workload
model) is considered inadequate by the Regional Program Manager.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 2 because control costs are estimated at $230 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 3 because proven technology exists.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws exist, although they have not been fully
implemented.
IV-15
-------
15. Municipal Waste Sites
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes exposures to releases from open and closed municipal landfills,
municipal sludge and waste incinerators, municipal surface impoundments, land application units, and
land treatment units. Impacts from the management (disposal, treatment, and reuse) of all household,
municipal, and other solid waste not regulated by RCRA are included here. Routine and non-routine
releases, soil migration, and runoff can contribute particulates, toxics, BOD, PCBs, and nutrients to air,
soil, and surface and ground water.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated exposure to drinking water contaminated by leachate from municipal landfills.
• Ranked in lowest category (1) for overall residual public health risk.
— Ranked in category 2 for cancer risk, based on low estimate of cancer incidence
— Ranked in category 2/1 for non-cancer risk because pollutants evaluated generally
did not exceed the RfDs
Residual Ecological Risk
• Evaluated with problem area #16 (Industrial Waste Sites). Sufficient data were not
available to evaluate all impacts. Greatest concern is potential contamination of ground
water by leachate and associated welfare impacts. Location of landfills in proximity to
wetlands may pose a risk.
• Ranked in medium category for ecological risk because of impacts of toxics discharged
from leachate to freshwater wetlands.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 1 because Region I has had little or no funding in the past
• Economic Impact-Ranked 2 because control costs are estimated at $133 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because proven technology could greatly reduce the
problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 2 because laws are considered inadequate.
IV-16
-------
16. Industrial Waste Sites
Problem Area Definition
This category includes industrial waste, including sludges handled in nonhazardous industrial
landfills, industrial surface impoundments, land application units, and land treatment units subject to
Subtitle D, along with numerous incinerators. Routine and nonroutine releases, soil migration, and
runoff may contribute particulates. toxics, BOD, PCBs, and nutrients to air, surface water, ground
water, and soil.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Risks from industrial waste sites were compared with those from municipal waste sites,
without additional data on industrial sites. Assumed contaminants are similar to those
released from municipal sites, but concentrations at industrial sites are presumed to be
higher.
• Ranked in lowest category (1) for residual public health risk. Ranked in category 2 for
cancer risk and category 2/1 for non-cancer risk.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Evaluated with problem area #15 (Municipal Waste Sites). Sufficient data were not
available to evaluate all impacts.
• Greatest concern is potential contamination of ground water by leachate and associated
welfare impacts. Location of sites in proximity to wetlands may pose a risk.
• Ranked in medium category for ecological risk because of impacts on freshwater
wetlands.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about this
problem area.
• Available Resources-Ranked 1 because Region I has had little or no funding in the past
• Economic Impact-Ranked 3 because control costs are estimated at $10 million per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because proven technology could greatly reduce the
problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 2 because laws are considered inadequate.
IV-17
-------
17. Accidental Releases
Problem Area Definition
Contaminants are accidentally released into the environment in a variety of ways during storage,
transport, or production. Damages to industrial property and personnel and releases to sewers, oceans,
air, soil, and water may occur from substantial, though short-term, releases of a variety of chemicals,
some highly toxic or flammable. Acids, PCBs, ammonia, and sodium hydroxide are examples of such
releases, with PCB accidents being the most frequent Catastrophic events requiring emergency
response are included here. Releases from oil spills are also included in this category, with a focus on
water releases where the impacts are often the most severe. Spilled products may include pesticides,
crude oil, gasoline, solvents, diesel oil. fuel oil, and other distillates. Spills from tanks are included in
problem area #18.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Used data from reported accidents. Focused on inhalation exposure routes; dermal and
ingestion routes were considered secondary. Risks are assumed to be primarily
non-cancer-related-because cancer risks associated with single-episode releases are
considered unlikely.
• Ranked in medium low category (2) for overall public health risk. Ranked in category 1
for cancer risk and ranked in category 3 for non-cancer risk.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Used data from reported accidents to estimate the total number of accidental releases.
Focused on releases affecting surface water because data on terrestrial impacts were not
available.
• Ranked in highest category for ecological risk based on potential impacts on estuaries,
tidal wetlands, and marine ecosystems from a major oil spill
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 4 because the public has relatively high concern about
accidental releases.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because regional funding is approximately SO percent of
the workload model
• Economic Impact-Ranked 4 because control costs are estimated at $4.5 million per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 3 because off-the-shelf technology exists, but is not fully
efficient
• Legal Authority-Ranked 5 because laws are adequate and enforced.
IV-18
-------
18. Releases from Storage Tanks
Problem Area Definition
This category includes releases of petroleum products or other chemicals from tanks that are
above, on, or underground; tanks owned by fanners; and the fuel oil tanks of homeowners. Stored
products include motor fuels, heating oils, solvents, pesticides, lubricants, and other chemical
compounds or miscellaneous substances that can contaminate ground water with such toxics as
benzene, toluene, and xylene. Storage of hazardous waste in tanks is included in problem area #13
(RCRA Waste Sites).
Residual Public Health Risk
• Focused on health effects from inhalation of pollutants from petroleum releases. Data
were insufficient to quantitatively evaluate the cancer or non-cancer risk. Estimated
numbers of contaminated wells and the subsequent number of people exposed through
inhalation to contaminants.
• Ranked in medium low category (2) for overall public health risk. Ranked in category 2
for cancer risk and category 3 for non-cancer risk based on qualitative judgment of risks
relative to other problem areas.
Residual Ecological Risk
• Primary concerns associated with releases from storage tanks include contamination of
surface waters from runoff, contaminated ground water and its discharge to surface
water, contamination of soil, and evaporation of pollutants into the air.
• Ranked in medium category for ecological risk based on impacts to fresh water wetlands.
Degradation of ground water may have welfare impacts.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 4 because funding is considered adequate by the Regional
Program Manager.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 2 because control costs are estimated at $520 million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because off-the-shelf technology exists.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws exist, although they are not fully applicable.
IV-19
-------
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination
Problem Area Definition . '
A variety of point and nonpoint sources of pollution not counted in other categories for this
analysis also contaminate ground water. These include leaching of fertilizers, pesticides, septic
systems, road salt, class V injection wells, nonwaste material stockpiles, pipelines, and irrigation
practices. This category excludes impacts from tanks and hazardous waste sites. The list of possible
contaminants is extensive and includes nitrates, microbes, sodium, chloride, pesticides, toxic organics
and inorganics, oil and petroleum products.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Considered risks associated with contamination from septic systems, road de-icing salts,
class V underground injection wells, and leaching of agricultural pesticides and
fertilizers. Evaluated ingestion of contaminated ground water from private drinking
water supplies. (Public water supply contamination was evaluated under the Drinking
Water problem area.)
• Greatest risk was associated with bacterial and viral contamination from septic tanks and
cesspools.
• Ranked in medium high category (4) for overall residual public health risk.
- Ranked in category 2 for cancer risk
-- Ranked in category 4 for non-cancer risk, based on estimates of risk of hepatitis and
gastrointestinal disease from ground-water contamination of drinking water
Residual Ecological Risk
• Greatest ecological risk associated with ground-water contamination is through discharge
to surface waters. Primary concern with contamination of ground water is the potential
loss of drinking water resources for humans.
• Ranked medium for ecological risk because of impacts on lakes, estuaries, streams, and
freshwater wetlands.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 3 because the public has moderate concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 2 because regional funding is approximately 28 percent to
45 percent of the workload model, including resource shifts into the program.
• Economic Impact-Not ranked because no cost data were identified.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 3 because proven technology is available.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws exist, although they are not fully adequate in
areas such as nonpoint source contamination.
IV-20
-------
20. Pesticide Residues on Foods
Problem Area Definition
Humans, wildlife, and other animals are directly exposed to pesticides through residues on or in
food (e.g., plants, meat, seeds, and insects). Pesticides are defined to include insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and rodenticides. Certain pesticides bioaccumulate and enter food chains. Residues from
proper as well as improper application are included. Exposure to residues on foods imported into
Region I, as well as on foods grown in the Region, are included. Risks from pesticides prior to
exposure through food are included in problem area #21.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Apportioned the national risk estimated in NCRP to Region I based on the Regional
population. Considered ingestion of food both locally grown and imported into the
region.
• Ranked in medium high category (4) for residual public health risk, based on the high
estimate of expected cancer cases.
-• Ranked in category 4 for cancer risk
- Ranked in category 2/1 for non-cancer risk, because non-cancer estimate was low
Residual Ecological Risk
• Evaluated with Problem Area 421 (Pesticide Application). Considered risks from direct
application of pesticides to ecosystems and resultant residues on foods consumed by
wildlife.
• Lakes, freshwater wetlands, terrestrial ecosystems considered at risk through direct
applications and through infiltration from other locations as a result of drift and runoff.
• Ranked in medium category for ecological risk because of risks to lakes, fresh water
wetlands, and terrestrial ecosystems. Agricultural risks were not evaluated. Potential for
ground-water contamination was considered high.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 2 because the public has little concern about this problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because funding for all pesticide problems (pesticide
application and residues) is estimated at 25 percent to SO percent of the workload model
• Economic Impact-Ranked 4 because control costs are estimated at $2.6 million to
$4.3 million per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because off-the-shelf technology exists.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 4 because laws considered adequate and implemented.
IV-21
-------
21. Pesticide Application
Problem Area Definition
This category includes exposure of commercial and private pesticide applicators, including farm
workers who mix. load, and apply pesticides. Risk from proper and improper application are included.
Risks from accidental exposure of people and wildlife during application and impacts on ecosystems
are also included.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Apportioned the national risk estimate from NCRP to Region I based on regional
pesticide use. Non-cancer risk assessment focused on inhalation and direct contact for
applicators and farm workers. Considered hospital admissions and respiratory problems
using a national pesticide poisoning incidence rate.
• Ranked in medium low category (2) for overall residual public health risk.
— Ranked in category 2 for cancer risk, based on low estimate of cancer cases in the
region
- Ranked in category 3 for non-cancer risk based on qualitative assessment
Residual Ecological Risk
• Evaluated with Problem Area #20 (Pesticide Residues on Food). Considered risks from
direct application of pesticides to ecosystems and resultant residues on foods consumed
by wildlife.
• Lakes, freshwater wetlands, terrestrial ecosystems considered at risk from direct
applications and through infiltration from other locations as result of drift and runoff.
• Ranked in medium category for ecological risk because of risks to lakes, fresh water
wetlands, and terrestrial ecosystems. Agricultural risks were not evaluated. Potential for
ground-water contamination was considered high.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 2 because the public has little concern about this problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because funding for all pesticide problems (pesticide
application and residues) is estimated at 25 percent to SO percent of the workload model
• Economic Impact-Ranked 4 because control costs are estimated at $125 million to
500 million per year. (This may overestimate costs based on the amount of agricultural
areas in the Region.)
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because proven technology could greatly reduce the
problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 4 because laws are considered adequate and implemented.
IV-22
-------
22. Lead
Problem Area Definition
This category includes the risks from exposure to lead in soil, drinking water, and air.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated exposure from ingestion of paint, soil, and drinking water, and exposure from
inhalation of contaminated air and dust. Used data on lead poisoning in children under
six years of age. Lead poisoning was defined as a blood lead level greater than 25 ug/dL
Learning disabilities were the driving health endpoint Cancer risks were not evaluated,
because lead is not currently considered a carcinogen.
• Ranked in highest category (5) for overall residual public health risk.
-- Ranked in category 1 for cancer risk
« Ranked in category 5 for non-cancer risk due to large number of children estimated
to have lead poisoning
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked. Lead exposure to ecosystems was included in problem areas addressing
point and non-point source discharges to surface waters (#7, #8, and #9).
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked in category 3 because the public has moderate concern about
lead poisoning.
• Available Resources-Ranked in category 3 because average value for funding of lead in
soil, drinking water, and air programs is less than SO percent of the workload model.
• Economic Impact-Ranked in category 1 because costs to control lead in all media are
estimated at $1.26 billion per year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 4 because off-the-shelf technology is available to control
lead in the air, and proven technology could greatly reduce lead in water and soil
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws to control lead in air and water exist, although
authority to control lead in soil is not considered adequate.
IV-23
-------
23. Asbestos
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes risks from inhalation of asbestos in ambient air.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Evaluated non-occupational exposures and rural and urban ambient exposures.
Considered inhalation of asbestos and the associated risks of lung cancer, mesothelioma,
and gastrointestinal cancer. Non-cancer health effects (asbestosis and lung damage) were
not estimated.
• Ranked in medium category (3) for residual public health risk.
-- Ranked in category 3 for cancer risk
- Ranked in category 2/1 for non-cancer risk
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked. Considered primarily a public health risk.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 4 because the public has relatively high concern about this
problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because regional funding (SO percent to 75 percent of
the workload model) is considered inadequate by the Regional Program Manager.
• Economic Impact-Ranked 2 because control costs are estimated at $1 IS million per
year.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 5 because off-the-shelf technology could greatly reduce
the problem of asbestos in air and water.
• Legal Authority—Ranked S because laws are adequate and enforced.
IV-24
-------
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments
Problem Area Definition
Lakes, ponds, and impoundments are recipients of the same variety and sources of pollutants as
surface waters and estuaries, but react more acutely to very low level contamination. Pollution of lakes
may result in injury or contamination of aquatic life, as well as subsequent exposure to wildlife and
human consumers. Eutrophication and/or dominance of nuisance aquatic organisms are sometimes
dealt with through the application of herbicides or larvicides that add to a lake's chemical
contamination. If left unchecked, dominance of nuisance plants or animals will severely restrict the
recreational benefits of these water bodies.
Residual Public Health Risk
• Not ranked. Health risks were evaluated under problem areas addressing discharges to
surface waters (#7, #8, and #9).
Residual Ecological Risk
• Not ranked. Defined as an ecosystem in the work group analysis.
Risk Management Factors
• Public Perception-Ranked 2 because the public has little concern about this problem.
• Available Resources-Ranked 3 because regional funding is considered to be
approximately SO percent of the workload model.
• Economic Impact-Not ranked because cost data were unavailable. Costs are estimated
to be low.
• Effective Technology-Ranked 5 because off-the-shelf technology exists and could
greatly reduce the problem.
• Legal Authority-Ranked 3 because laws exist, although they are not fully implemented.
IV-25
-------
Key
Risk Management Factors
Public Perception
Public does not Public perceives
perceive problem problem as serious
1 5
Available Resources
No EPA resources Adequate EPA
to address resources to address
problem area problem area
1 5
Economic Impact
High economic impact Low economic impact
1 5
Effective Technology
No available, Easily available,
effective technology effective technology
1 5
Legal Authority
No applicable Applicable federal,
federal, state, or state, and local
local statutes statutes and case law
1 5
IV-26
------- |