New Directions Workshops: Community Assessment Series
Workshop 2:
Identification and Evaluation of
Community Assessment Tools
Summary Report
Prepared for'.
Office of Science Policy
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
August 31, 1999
-------
This report was prepared for the Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by S. Cohen & Associates, Inc., 1355 Beverly Road, Suite 250,
Mclean, VA 22101, and Environmental Management Support, Inc., 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 500,
Silver Spring, MD 20910, under contract number 68-D5-0132, work assignment 111-8. For further
information, please contact Gerardo Pascual at 202-564-2259.
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
Table of Contents
Preface v
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Welcome 1
1.2 Workshop Goals & Questions List 2
2.0 Practitioner's Panel Discussion - What Works? What Doesn't? 3
2.1 McFarland Community Environmental Assessment 3
2.2 Accessibility of Screening Tools and Data 5
2.3 Community Perception and the Environmental Health Paradigm 6
3.0 Developer's Panel Discussion - What Could or Should Work? 8
3.1 Variables for Exposure Assessment 8
3.2 Total Risk Integrated Methodology (TRIM) & Other Air Toxics Program Tools 8
3.3 Forest Fragmentation as an Economic Indicator: GIS for Landscapes 9
3.4 Overview of Exposure Databases and Tools 9
3.5 Health/Epidemiology Databases 11
4.0 Breakout Sessions 12
4.1 Day 1: Data and Tools Identified and Needed for Exposure, Stressors, Receptors, and
General Tool Categories 12
4.2 Day 2: General Tools Matrix and Gap Identification 16
5.0 Wrap-Up 25
5.1 Workshop Summary 25
5.2 Next Steps 25
Appendices
Appendix A. List of Participants
Appendix B. Agenda
Appendix C. Community Assessment Questions
Appendix D. Community Assessment Definitions
Appendix E. Data and Tools Table
Appendix F. Speaker Notes and Presentations
Appendix G. Breakout Group Handouts
Appendix H. Completed Breakout Group Handouts and Flipchart Transcriptions
Appendix I. Comments During Breakout Sessions
Page i
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’3 I / 99
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Environmental Health Paradigm 7
Exh3bit 2. Available Data and Tools 13
Exhibit 3. General Tool Matrix 18
Exhibit 4. Workshop Wrap-up 26
STATUS OF THIS REPORT
The objective of this workshop (or workshop series) was to bring together EPA scientists from
the regions, programs, and ORD labs and centers to discuss issues of common interest. The
focus of the meeting (or each meeting) was preliminary discussion among scientists and
managers from different parts of the Agency, each with their individual and office-specific
information and viewpoints.
As a result, it is important to understand that this report summarizes individual and program-
specific perspectives. References to pre-existing Agency information and policies should be
credited as such, but none of the Individual workshop statements or summaries in this report
should be credited or cited as Agency information or policies. Rather, this report is developed
exclusively for internal EPA use and distribution as a record of the meeting for participants in
each meeting, and for EPA’s use in planning future meetings and discussion. EPA staff will use
information from this report, as appropriate, to design and conduct workshops or other
activities for broader discussion both within EPA and with external participation, again as
appropriate . _________________
Page ii
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 83 F99
Executive Summary
The second New Directions workshop in the Community Assessment Series was held at the
Radisson Governors’ Inn in Research Triangle Park, NC on June 9-10, 1999. This workshop,
entitled “Community Assessment Workshop II: What Tools and Data are Available to Answer
Community Assessment Questions?,” focused on identifying and evaluating tools and data that
are available for use in assessing environmental impacts on a local environment. In addition, the
participants conducted a preliminary assessment of gaps in the tools. Relevant tools and data
were identified and discussed during both plenary presentations and breakout groups. The results
of the breakout groups are given in Exhibits 2 and 3. Exhibit 2 breaks tools and databases into
general, exposure, stressors, and receptors categories. Exhibit 3 matches tools and databases
with the appropriate community assessment question.
Tools and databases discussed included source-to-dose models, Total Risk Integrated
Methodology (TRIM), National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), the National Toxics Inventory,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools, the National Census, the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) data collection system, and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
database. Source-to-dose models, which are soon to be available, are intended for use with
pesticides, population exposure, and air toxins. TRIM, which is due for release in 2001 and
consists of four modules, assesses community risk through multi-pollutant, multimedia, and
multi-pathway assessments. NATA consists of emissions inventories; air quality, exposure and
risk modeling; an air monitoring network; and ongoing research on effects and assessment tools.
The National Toxics Inventory is a national-level model. GIS systems can be used to create a
database out of a map for analysis and modeling. National Census data can provide information
on receptor populations, although better, more often-updated sources are needed. CDC data from
its many agencies include information on vital statistics, population surveys, hospital discharge
data, disease reporting and case-finding, and surveillance systems. IRIS provides limited
information on environmental exposure, based on chemicals which have been assessed for
toxicological information.
Participants also evaluated the available tools, databases, and methods and discussed gaps
that must be addressed to answer community assessment questions. EPA must identify those
sources that will provide the best information with minimum resources, with consideration for
acceptable levels of uncertainty. The lower limits of information needed to answer community-
assessment questions should be determined, as well as the value added by increasing increments
of sophistication. Benchmarking and biomarkers should be developed to define reference
“healthy communities” so that these models can be used, through comparison, as a standardized
community screening tool. A separate “healthy community” model could prescribe steps that
could be taken by a community to become “healthy.” Data and tools regarding acute effects and
non-human and ecological factors, such as noise and odors, are necessary. Reliable sources of
data on the local level, including human health data, local emissions and community source
inventories, and local monitoring data, are needed. In addition, household-level data sources
would be useful.
In addition to creating new tools, gaps may be addressed by improving the use, consistency,
and quality of available data sets. Sources of surrogate information should be located and their
limitations addressed. An index of databases available for analysis is necessary to place the tools
Page iii
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
in the context of their use rather than simply list them. Case studies, developed according to a
standard methodology, can provide practitioners with guidance on applicable tools, databases.
and methods.
Finally, many of the databases and tools that exist today cannot be used or interpreted by the
community without technical support or direct assistance from EPA. Communities must either
be provided with training in using these tools or tools should be developed that are more
appropriate for laypeople.
The third workshop in the Community Assessment series will more thoroughly assess the
gaps in tools, databases, and methods and develop Agency strategies for addressing the them to
meet community-assessment needs. The tools matrix, begun in the second workshop and given
as Exhibit 3, will be completed.
Page iv
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8.’3 1’99
Preface
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD)
is currently pursuing new approaches for using science to address several topics of importance to
the Agency. These topics represent new directions for EPA in that they transcend the traditional
media- or pollutant-based boundaries and encompass a variety of disciplines and specialities.
ORD wishes to link EPA staff interested in these topics with the appropriate science staff in
ORD to identify areas for collaboration. To accomplish this goal, ORD’s Office of Science
Policy (OSP) is hosting a series of New Directions workshops between March 1999 and Spring
2000. The workshops will provide a forum to present information and discuss current and future
issues on new topics of interest. There are four topic series being presented under the auspices of
New Directions: community assessment, reinvention, risk management, and regional science.
Each topic series will consist of three or four workshops designed to bring interested staff
together to develop a set of action items that will be completed over the course of the series. The
Community Assessment Workshops are designed to improve EPA’s ability to provide the tools
and information necessary to. assess and understand the environmental impacts in a community
setting.
The first workshop, held March 3-4, 1999, in Washington, D.C., examined Agency
experiences in identifying and clarifying community-assessment needs and developed a list of
questions asked by communities. These questions were divided into the following four major
categories:
• Is there a threat to our health or our local environment (are we safe)?
• How can we characterize the risks within our community?
• How do the risks in our community compare to other communities?
• How can we improve our environmental quality of life?
The second workshop was held at the Radisson Governors’ Inn in Research Triangle Park,
NC on June 9-10, 1999. This workshop, entitled “Community Assessment Workshop II: What
Tools and Data are Available to Answer Community Assessment Questions?,” focused on tools
and information available to understand and address the basic questions concerning
environmental impacts on a local environment, including both the human and ecosystem aspects
of the environment. The workshop was designed as a dialogue between the practitioners of
community assessment and the developers of tools. In the first part of the workshop, practition-
ers described what tools they found to be helpful, and which they did not, in conducting their
assessments. The second part of the workshop focused on categories of tools (data, models, and
methods) which can, in the developer’s view, be used to address the community-assessment
questions. In addition, the participants conducted a preliminary assessment of where gaps are in
the tools. The third workshop will assess the gaps in tools and develop Agency strategies for
filling the gaps to meet community-assessment needs.
This report summarizes the information that was presented and exchanged during the
workshop. The organization of the report follows the agenda of the workshop. Approximately
38 senior EPA staff, representing EPA program offices, ORD, and several Regions, participated;
Appendix A provides a complete list of participants. The two-day workshop was designed to
maximize participant input and collaboration; Appendix B provides a copy of the final agenda.
Page v
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summaiy Report FINAL 8’3 1/99
Appendix C is a draft of the full list of questions prepared following the first workshop. Appen-
dix D provides a table of definitions related to community assessment that was prepared
following the first workshop. Appendix E is a table of data and tools that was developed during
the first workshop. Appendix F includes copies of the speaker notes and presentations.
Appendix G provides copies of the matrices provided to groups of participants during their
breakout discussions. Appendix H contains transcripts of the flipcharts and other materials
prepared by workshop participants. Appendix I gives a list of comments made during breakout
sessions.
Page vi
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31 ‘ 99
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Welcome (Hal Zenick - National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory (NHEERL))
The Community Assessment Series of the New Directions workshops is intended to bring
EPA scientists, analysts, and managers together to discuss how new approaches to environmental
protection are being addressed across agencies. The series is visionary in its development,
targeting new ways of doing business within EPA. The nature of this initiative shifts from
traditional EPA programs aimed at regulatory relief to increasing delegation to the states and
clients. Community involvement must be integrated into the risk assessment process.
Community Based Environmental Assessment (CBEP) theory allows risk assessment to be
evaluated on a community level rather than a national level.
The community can be defined on a geographic basis, such as a watershed, or on a political
basis, such as a township. Assessing community risk by utilizing resources available both at the
community level and the national level, as well as through decisions made in the field, allows for
increased accountability of data for the assessment. By shifting the paradigm of risk assessment
from a national to a community level, case-by-case scenarios are examined revealing local
knowledge, site-specific indicators of change, and other valuable resources that further develop
an understanding of the complexities of a community’s health. Defining assessment areas
through geographic or political boundaries may not allow for the best use of ORD resources.
ORD products must be more broadly applicable.
From a community sense, ORD’s primary clients are the EPA Regions. However, many of
ORD’s products require specific technical expertise in their application. Examination of pilot
projects that currently utilize the conceptual model for community risk assessment, as well as
discussion and priority-setting by clients, allows ORD to plan and develop a tool box for use by
the Regions in addressing reoccurring needs for specific community-level solutions. This
community-based tool box will assist the Regions and the community in determining the
significance of an issue within the defmed community.
ORD has established a community science team to develop a decision-tree framework that
will contribute to defining and prioritizing research needs. By understanding the commonalities
and differences identified through examination of existing pilot projects, ORD’s ability to plan
and respond to communities will become more applicable and clearly-defined. Through the
implementation of a community-based paradigm, uncertainties in risk assessment can be
reduced. Accountability of assessment results increases with increasing amounts of available
research and site-specific knowledge examined at a community rather than a national level.
EPA’s Framework for Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) (EPA 23 7-K-
99-001) examines steps for applying and assessing the success of the CBEP process, EPA’s role
in CBEP efforts, and implementation strategies of this initiative. This document is highly
recommended for further explanation of the concepts and implementation of this initiative. This
document is available on the Internet through EPA’s home page.
Page 1
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31199
1.2 Workshop Goals & Questions List (Claudia Walters - ORD, OSP)
The purpose of the Community Assessment Workshops is to bring together various EPA
scientists, community practitioners, and risk assessors to discuss different directions of
community environmental protection. The workshops are designed to encourage these diverse
EPA personnel to identify and share scientific tools and strategies, and to develop links among
the different program offices, Regional offices, and ORD. The most important goal of this
workshop is to understand how this approach differs from others and how it will affect the
development of tools. Workshop participants will also develop a greater understanding of
communities and science.
This series of workshops is designed around the belief that the use of scientific tools can link
community questions to answers. To accomplish this link, the three workshops scheduled for
FY99 address the various steps. The first workshop, held March 3-4, 1999, worked to develop a
better understanding of what questions are asked by communities. The second workshop
identifies tools and gaps in making connections to the questions identified in March. In general,
the second workshop focuses on determining what works and what does not work in answering
community questions. In the third workshop, scheduled for late September, the gaps in technical
analysis will be determined and methods for addressing these gaps will be identified.
Meetings scheduled for fall and winter, FY00, will further this examination of community
communication and infrastructure capabilities and focus on the implementation of the tools
identified in FY99. EPA will integrate the results of the workshops into community partnerships
that embody a new geographic approach to environmental problem solving. Because communi-
ties understand risk differently and have different tools available to identify risk, EPA works
with stakeholders within certain geographic areas to solve their community’s environmental
problems. EPA believes this new approach integrates environmental, economic, and social
aspects in responding to environmental issues. These workshops help articulate a plan of
community-based environmental protection. In addition, these workshops further this goal by
categorizing available tools, identifying gaps in the tool register, determining why this approach
is special, understanding how this approach affects the future development of tools, and relating
communities to science.
This workshop identifies models and methods that can address the questions identified in
March and analyzes what tools are functional. Tools and databases will be linked to different
questions. The community-assessment practitioners are to critique the application of tools to
community assessments. This critique will improve EPA’s environmental protection programs,
and improve EPA’s inventory of tools and information required to evaluate and recognize
environmental impacts in a community setting.
The first part of the workshop focuses on the availability and expediency of tools for dealing
with community assessment. Participants share their experiences with the application of these
tools in answering community questions. Next, tools arc categorized in terms of data, models,
and methods. The results of this workshop will include an evaluation of the usefulness of
available Agency tools and an identification of any gaps in the availability of tools to answer
community questions
Page 2
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 831/99
2.0 Practitioner’s Panel Discussion - What Works? What Doesn’t?
2.1 McFarland Community Environmental Assessment (Gerald Hiatt - Region 9)
The Scenario
Kern County comprises 860,000 acres of agricultural land. The town of McFarland is sur-
rounded by agricultural fields, and its population is 95 percent Latino. This part of California is
one of the most heavily farmed areas in the United States. Between the years 1975 and 1989, 14
children were diagnosed with 11 types of cancers. These cancers included leukemia, brain
cancer, and liver cancer. Many of these children attended an elementary school located adjacent
to agriculture lands with restricted pesticide use. When evaluated against State cancer levels for
children, the rate of childhood cancer in McFarland was seven times greater than the expected
rate for California children.
The California Department of Health Services conducted an epidemiological study based on
data available between the years 1986 and 1990. Soil and drinking water sampling was carried
out, health examinations were performed on 1,700 children, and limited sampling and evaluation
of regional air data was conducted. The conclusion of the study found no pattern of cancers and
no environmental conditions related to cancer.
In 1996, seven additional children were diagnosed in McFarland and in adjacent areas. This
increase is twice the expected rate for childhood cancers in the State. Based on this finding, EPA
was petitioned under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili-
ties Act (CERCLA) and the Environmental Justice Order to further investigate the probable
cause of this childhood cancer cluster. A defined team, with representatives from the State,
ORD, and EPA Region 9, convened and reviewed the petition, evaluating the case to determine
new approaches to the investigation. Region 9 consulted with the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of Water (OW), the Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR), the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD), and decided to focus more attention oti air pathways and to
gain better data regarding pesticide usage in McFarland. Increased data availability, lower
analytical limits, and the implementation of a credible third party contributed to the decision to
pursue the investigation.
The Region 9 Project goal was to evaluate current environmental conditions and potential
chemical exposures via air, water, and soil. The Project was not intended to explain childhood
cancers or find the cause. The integration of community involvement through local area
knowledge was paramount to the Project. Assessment options included testing for restricted
pesticides, and comparing the McFarland community’s health to unaffected towns with lower
levels of toxins. A cumulative, multi-chemical, multi-pathway human health assessment
approach was implemented.
Results of pesticide reports from within a five-mile radius of McFarland were evaluated for
the period 1990 through 1997. Drinking water was sampled at weliheads and public buildings
were analyzed for 350 contaminants. Investigations of deep soils and surface soils were initiated
for more than 150 analytes. Ambient air sampling will be conducted to capture annual averages.
Page 3
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’3 1 ! 99
Indoor-air and dust levels from historical use of indoor pesticides and restricted pesticides are
planned for evaluation.
Community involvement was achieved through door-to-door visits by field researchers,
public meetings, and bilingual presentations and materials. These served to increase community
knowledge of environmental health issues. Consultations with State agencies, such as the
California Department of Health Services, and local agencies, such as the county agricultural
commission, were conducted to increase the availability of local and State data.
The cumulative, multi-chemical and multi-pathway risk assessment will be performed by
generally following the guidelines in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS),
EPAI54O/l -8 9/002.
Needs
Several issues were raised during the assessment process, including:
• What constitutes “acceptable risk” for a broad-based community assessment?
• Are high risk standards “safe?” (i.e., are standards set by one EPA program “safe,” even if
risk assessment performed under another program indicates a high risk potential at the
corresponding level of exposure?)
• How do we answer the above question for a community in which standards are met, but
risks remain high? (What do we tell a community if exposures to individual chemicals are
all low individually, and/or meet regulatory standards, but total risks as judged from a
cumulative risk assessment are “high”?)
What Was Learned
It is felt that heightened community involvement through door-to-door interviews, “backyard
meetings,” neighborhood walks, and public workshops has been an important factor in achieving
community acceptance of the project and its conclusions. Community members were often the
best sources of information on current and historical sources of environmental exposures, expo-
sure pathways for residents, and specifics of chemicals used in the community. It should be
recognized that this level of community involvement may necessitate significant resource alloca-
tion by the Agency. The community was also privy to, and given opportunities to comment on,
all sampling plans, results, and interpretations of data results.
Another strength was that most decisions regarding the project were made by a cross-
programmatic, inter-divisional Team within the Regional Office and with input from ORD and
various HQ Offices. It was felt that these decisions were strengthened by the diversity of
viewpoints represented on the Team and the (sometimes spirited) discussions arising from those
viewpoints.
A third “strength” of the project is that the Team has tried to be open about what the Agency
can and (potentially more important) what we can’t do in the course of the assessment. We have
tried diligently not to raise false expectations.
Page 4
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report RNAL 8 /3199
Many good ideas that the team had originally conceived for this project were not
incorporated into the risk-assessment process. Ideas that didn’t work out with the community
include the development of community advisory panels and independent technical assistance for
the community.
2.2 Accessibility of Screening Tools and Data (Hank Topper - Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT))
The tools and data available to answer community questions must be developed further
through scientific research to make the community risk assessment more complete. Available
tools allow us to begin working toward our goal of increased accountability in the results of
community assessments. The goal of community assessment is to improve community
environmental health. Currently, data and tools available to the community cannot be utilized
without direct involvement from EPA.
The Baltimore Assessment, a comprehensive community-assessment project, illustrates
needed improvements in the community-assessment process. This heavily-industrialized area
had requested cumulative exposure studies. The community wanted to know whether the
commercial and industrial facilities in the area have serious health impacts to the community.
Priorities for the community included illegal trash dumping, questionable air quality, and overall
general health of the community. A comprehensive study of 450 chemicals was conducted and
both mobile and industrial sources were evaluated. Available data and tools were implemented
for this assessment to provide valuable information to the community. However, accessibility of
these tools to the community became an issue in this assessment. Because data for community-
assessment analysis are often obtained through doctors, teachers, and university contacts,
information is not always shared between scientific groups and community stakeholders.
Needs
Ready-made materials for explaining environmental health issues to local communities need
to be developed. Gaps existed in the Baltimore Assessment, including air and particulate
analysis. Without an understanding of indoor air quality and particulate levels, the usefulness of
the results of community assessments decreases.
Communities must prioritize environmental issues into the political platform, as have
programs intended to reduce crime and drug use. Elevating the issue of environmental health
through educational materials will increase interest, knowledge, and accountability at the
community level.
There is also a need to perform more projects and partnerships with public health agencies to
identify what still must be learned. Tools, such as training materials, information templates, and
integrated information systems, must be developed.
What Was Learned
Much was learned regarding the usefulness and integration of existing tools available for
Page 5
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ! 3 1’99
community assessment. The use of these existing tools, as well as those tools to be developed.
will allow EPA less direct involvement in screening a community’s environmental issues of
concern. This is especially useful with monetary cutbacks and the focus on increased State and
community involvement at the local level. Currently, only limited tools are available that can be
used without EPA’s involvement. Development of a standardized community screening tool
with increased accessibility to the community is important. Coordinating the use of different
tools effectively (similar scale and units) and developing community training materials will
allow communities to determine where to put their resources to improve environmental health.
2.3 Community Perception and the Environmental Health Paradigm (Hal Zenick -
NHEERL)
Many communities perceive that environmental pollution has contributed to overall health
problems. By developing a consensus approach, environmental health problems can be
characterized, priorities in the community regarding environmental health can be established, and
options and actions will be more easily determined. Speculation and multiple hypotheses
regarding a community’s environmental health, coupled with limited data and limited resources,
make this task increasingly difficult. Typical questions that guide a community assessment
include: (1) How and where do exposures occur? (2) What are the sources of these exposures?
and (3) What is the potential harm to community health?
The environmental health paradigm illustrates linkage problems between source and outcome
pathways. There is a need to develop more tools and models to form linkages between the
various points of the environmental health paradigm (e.g., source, pathways, dose, effects,
outcome) (see Exhibit 1). It is necessary to recognize the limitations of the data sources
currenfly available. The Well Home study, for example, generated a large amount of measurable
data.
Interpreting these data accurately is the problem in risk assessment. There are no
benchmarks developed for analysis of these data. The data are there, but what are they telling
us? How do they compare with other studies? Because different populations are at higher risk
than others, we must develop biomarkers for alternate populations, such as infants, who are more
susceptible to certain toxins and do not reflect the standardized benchmark data of the adult
population.
The good news is that we can measure many things and are getting better at it. However,
there are limited funds for new sampling. In addition, the interpretation of data results is not
always straightforward, and it may be difficult to define acceptable uncertainty. Other research
realities include: (1) multi- versus single-pathway exposure; (2) mixtures versus single pollutant
exposure; (3) varying, concurrentloverlapping exposure scenarios; (4) short half-life versus
bioaccumulation; and (5) retrospective exposure-health linkage.
Needs
There is a need for the development of a Regional or Agency newsletter so that information
and experiences can be shared throughout EPA.
Page 6
-------
C)
I ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PARADIGM
0
00
? 9 9
S I
SOURCE -. PATHWAYS 4 DOSE 4 EFFECTS 4 OUTCOME m
(i)
2 *Environfacts *Monitoring data *NHAN 5 Health Records *Registries
Warehouse *NHEXAS * 5i rvejflaflee *Outbreak Reports
*GIS *Screening Tests *Data bases *Poisoning Reports
0
Inventories (e.g., IRIS) • o
U
Or)
REALITiES
—
Substantial experience in understanding Source-’ Pathway linkage
At the best, such data useful for hypothesis generation not l ypothesis testing
CHALLENGES
Understand predictive linkages starting at any point in the cascade
Design data collection (e.g., monitoring) to accommodate different needs 2
-Who
—.
-When
- Where
-What
0 -How
1
11
2
00
(-.3
‘C
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL S’3 1’99
3.0 Developer’s Panel Discussion - What Could or Should Work?
3.1 Variables for Exposure Assessment (Haluk Ozkaynak - ORD)
Community assessments present different exposure potentials. Each community assessment
presents its own unique concerns. This raises questions concerning potential exposures for
different geographic areas, different age groups, and the elderly. When we look at exposure
distributions and then compare these distributions to external sources, we must examine how the
available analytical models link together.
The source-to-dose models are intended for use with pesticides, population exposure, and air
toxins. Models are needed to incorporate uncertainty and variability encountered due to site-
specific conditions. This does not mean that we ignore or exclude other contributing factors that
may affect environmental health.
The emphasis in ORD is on eliminating uncertainty. By implementing benchmarking
strategies throughout varying community assessments, we can compare one community’s results
to another’s. Human exposure models for air, water, ground water, emissions, and dietary
concentrations are currently addressed individually. There is a great need for a multi-media,
multi-pathway exposure model that does not cumulatively increase the uncertainty of the
resultant data. There is limited guidance available on how available models can be linked
together for multiple-media characterization. Source-to-dose models can be used for research
purposes and will be available in the next two to six months.
3.2 Total Risk Integrated Methodology (FRIM) & Other Air Toxics Program Tools
(Deirdre Murphy - OAR)
The design features of the Total Risk Integrated Methodology (TRIM) include a
scientifically-defensible tool capable of assessing community risk through multi-pollutant,
multimedia, and multi-pathway assessments. TRIM has the ability to characterize uncertainty
and variability, and to perform both iterative and stochastic analyses.
The design features of TRIM make it flexible in temporal and spatial scale. It is able to
assess human and ecological endpoints. TRIM is designed to be used not only by the Office of
Air Quality Planning Standards (OAQPS) and the Regions, but also by community stakeholders.
It is user friendly, easily accessible, and well-documented.
TRIM consists of four modules: (I) Environmental Fate and Transport, (2) Exposure Event,
(3) Dosimetry and Response, and (4) Risk Characterization. Abiotic models include air, soil,
surface water, and sediment. Biotic components include both aquatic and terrestrial models.
Outputs of the Exposure Event module take input data from multiple sources, multiple
pathways, and multiple stressors. Outputs are defined for any exposure route for various
population groups, distribution of people, and occurrences of exposures at the appropriate
temporal scale, tracked with ventilation rate/intake dose.
TRIM is due for release in 2001. Currently, EPA is performing QA/QC work and refining
Page 8
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 83 ‘99
TRIM to prepare it for public use.
Other Air Toxics Program tools may be useful for community assessment. The National Air
Toxics Assessment (NATA) consists of emissions inventories; air quality, exposure and risk
modeling; an air monitoring network; and ongoing research on effects and assessment tools.
Assessment activities include the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy and residual risk
assessments. National-scale modeling tools also exist. These include the National Toxics
Inventory, the ASPEN air dispersion model, and the HAPEM inhalation exposure model. Urban
or neighborhood-scale modeling tools include local emissions inventories; air dispersion models,
such as ISC3 and AERMOD; inhalation exposure models, such as HAPEM. pNEM, and APEX;
and multi-media, multi-pathway models, such as TRIM.
3.3 Forest Fragmentation as an Economic Indicator: GIS for Landscapes (Jim Wickham -
ORD)
The main use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in risk assessment is to create a
database out of a map for analysis and modeling, which can then be used to answer specific
questions. GIS is a computer system capable of storing, manipulating, and displaying spatially-
referenced information. GIS is simultaneously the telescope, the microscope, the computer, and
the Xerox machine of regional analysis and spatial data.
GIS geographically defines an area for assessment. This may be a mountain range, a
watershed, or another defined geographic region. Variables for the area are defined for study;
limitations on the use of GIS are largely based on scale. There must be variance in the
geographic region to allow for valid comparisons and manipulated data. For example, if an
urban area is the defined area of concern, GIS may not be of use in characterizing risk because of
a lack of variability in measurement values. Air toxic values may be similar throughout a city.
Generating GIS data through modeling two areas of a city with relatively homogeneous
concentrations of air toxics is limiting in the information it will offer. On the other hand, GIS
can be used to determine forest fragmentation as an economic indicator. At this scale,
comparisons for data validity are appropriately defined.
GIS data on forest fragmentation as an economic indicator are available on the Internet for
the eastern half of the United States and should be completed for the entire United States by the
end of the calendar year. The Internet address to obtain data is http://edcftp.cr.usgsfgov .
3.4 Overview of Exposure Databases and Tools (Loren Hall - Office of Civil Rights (OCR),
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ))
The availability of resources for making a quantitative risk assessment is limited. Screening
is an important factor that is restricted by lack of reliable data. Risk-based decisions include
screening assessments and formal quantitative assessments. Screening assessments target
subcategories of facilities, chemicals, industries, geographic areas for inspection, and regulation.
They also establish priorities for follow-up investigations. Formal quantitative assessments
determine site remediation, or set permit limits and standards.
Screening tools used in community assessments are limited for several reasons. First, they
Page 9
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/3 1’99
are based on limited data and resources, which leads to over-simplified assumptions. Because of
this limitation, they are normally used only for relative comparison or in setting priorities.
Second, the technical approach and the intended use differ among the various databases
associated with the available screening tools.
There are three common forms of risk assessments used for screening purposes: simple
combination, weighted combination, and rough exposure estimates. Simple combinations
calculate the annual emission or emissions per unit area as an exposure representative. Weighted
combinations evaluate emissions by toxicity and/or fate criteria. Minimum-exposure weighted
combinations do not encompass ambient condition data because inadequate information is
available. Although they tend to be useful at larger scales, these assessments cannot be used on a
community basis. Rough exposure estimates apply models with generic release features and
environmental parameters.
Stressors, environmental characteristics, physical and chemical properties, and receptors are
data sources for exposure assessments. Stressor data vaiy with size and the particular
characteristics of the facilities. The issues limiting stressor data are sales volume, number of
employees, unpermitted activity, and missing latitude/longitude data. Even if the data are
suitable, they must pass a quality-assurance test. For these reasons, local data are difficult to
construct. Receptor population data also have complications. The last census, completed in
1990, had weaknesses. For example, the database for the non-residential population was
considered to be inaccurate. These problems hinder the accuracy and usefulness of data sources.
Availability of stressor data issues may vary with facility size or regulatory significance.
This results in unsuitable priority designations for releases of interest. Difficulty frequently
exists in geographic location of stressors, because often only priority facilities have specific
locations. This leads to imprecise documentation of numerous small sources. In addition,
databases often vary in nature with regard to the facility. Only a few databases (approximately
10 percent) have real-time data.
There are gaps in data available to assess community risk. In source location and chemical-
specific releases, emission factors and treatment efficiency data are often not current. The form
and frequency of releases are also undependable. Gaps in site characteristics occur in location
accuracy and site characteristics. There is no standard for how often to check the effects of
industrial, automotive, and other emission factors. It is unknown when the last comparative test
between cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles was performed to determine emissions from
mobile sources.
Data gaps associated with major environmental characteristics involve wind and water. For
instance, wind patterns are often incomplete or nonstandardized due to inadequate measurement
station density and lack of current data. There are also no standardized methods for recording
stream flows and aquifer characteristics. This presents problems in consolidating databases to
compare environmental effects related to stressors.
There are also gaps in receptor population data. Specifically, there is limited knowledge of
predictive factors for behavioral, vulnerability, and pre-existing exposure. Another issue
Page 10
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 31 ‘99
involves environmental justice and accessibility differences between communities. Overall.
there are several issues and gaps identified in the application and compatibility of databases.
These gaps cause problems in data comparisons and in accurately identifying exposure
considerations.
3.5 Health/Epidemiology Databases (Jane Gallagher - ORD)
How can environmental exposure databases be linked to health outcomes? What happens
when someone has continual exposure? These questions can only be answered currently by
comparing local community data to national statistics. Lack of reliable data is an issue at the
local level. Molecular epidemiology links environmental exposure to clinical disease by
evaluating internal dose, biologically-effective dose, early biological effects, altered structure,
malignant tumors, and DNA adducts. The status of a community’s environmental health can be
linked to health outcome by applying vital statistics, hospital admission data, hospital discharge
data, number and kind of birth defects, HMO information, and emergency room information.
The Centers for Disease Control have a data-collection system comprising data from the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), National Center for
Environmental Health (NCEI-I), Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS), National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID), and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). These agencies collect information on vital
statistics, population surveys, hospital discharge data, disease reporting and case-finding, and
surveillance systems. In so doing, data are compiled that can be utilized in determining the
outcomes of certain environmental exposure. In addition, these databases can be used to
characterize available data on a neighborhood level.
The process of evaluating exposure is a three-part system. At the starting point, alleged
exposure is assessed and alleged health effects are determined. Then, data are gathered to link
type, time, and degree of exposure to current or expected health effects. In determining expected
health effects, a comparison of data to the national or control group is necessary. This analysis
and decision-making is the third step. In this final step, citizens and agencies work together to
reach a conclusion.
Page 11
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8.’3 1.199
4.0 Breakout Sessions
A list of Community Assessment Questions was developed following the first workshop and
based on the results of the workshop as well as practitioner experience. These questions,
included in Appendix C of this document, were provided to participants to frame their
identification and evaluation of tools. Breakout groups were generally focused on the following
questions:
• To what extent did/could the tool address the community-assessment question, e.g., what
did/could it answer and what didn’t/won’t it answer?
• What were the strengths and weaknesses?
• How well (with what certainty) do/would they answer the questions being asked?
• How widely can they be used, i.e., are they practical tools for communities?
Each breakout group was provided with charts and matrices to complete. Copies of these
items provided to the breakout groups are included in this report as Appendix G.
4.1 Day 1: Data and Tools Identified and Needed for Exposure, Stressors, Receptors, and
General Tool Categories
The agenda for the workshop was altered to combine the two breakout sessions originally
scheduled for the afternoon of Day I into one breakout session. Workshop participants were
divided into three groups. All three groups focused on the same task: to identify data and tools
currently available that can be used to obtain general information for use in community
assessment, as well as information specific to stressors, exposures, and receptors. A table of
definitions related to community assessment was developed following the first workshop and
was provided to participants at the second workshop to provide a common starting ground for
those with varying experience in community assessment (see Appendix D). The Data and Tools
table, prepared during a breakout session in the first Community Assessment Workshop, was
provided to participants as examples of categories under which tools could be placed (see
Appendix E).
The division of available data and tools into these categories (general, exposure, stressors,
and receptors) offered information on what tools should be used to answer specific community-
assessment questions. Exhibit 2 combines the lists of all data and tools identified by the three
groups. Comments that were presented by the groups addressing the effectiveness of various
tools and identified needs are summarized below. Group flipcharts and completed handouts are
in Appendix H. Specific comments are given in Appendix I.
Page 12
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
Exhibit 2: Available Data and Tools
Categories
[
De
scriptions of Data and Tools
General
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets
Land use/land cover datasets
Geo-ease (kriging)
Global Positioning Systems
TIGER (Census)
Statistical Methods
CIMAS-type applications
REACH file (National Hydrogrophy Data Sets)
Available commercial databases (consumer use, income, city directories)
Meteorological data
Florida data sources references book (Deb Martin’s Group)
Case Studies Meta tool - methodologies used in CBEP type projects (gap); Chicago.
McFarland, Baltimore projects
CAMS
TRI
•
• PCS
• CERLIS
• AIRS Facility
• RAPIDS
• CHIEF
• AP-42
• California Agricultural Pesticide Applications Database
• FIRE
• BRS
• NTI-1996
• RCRIS (RCRA sites)
• State and local databases
• NEPA Documentation databases
• National Response Center data
• Mobile Sources
• Local checks (e-checks)
• Geology/radon
• Pesticide sales data (manufacturers)
• ROD DB (CERCA) RI fF5 etc.
• RCRIS
• RCRA permits
• NPDES (PCS)
• Dunn and Bradstreet
• Historical Data (library-yellow pages), planning maps, etc.
• Community members
• Industry
• Chamber of Commerce
• Risk Management Plan
• Community Right-to-Kirnw Information
• Hazardous Response Groups (Energy Response Planning Board, highway
information)
• Land Use Data Sets (eco risk)
• Eco Footprint (Methodology)
• EnviroMapper
Stressors
Page 13
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
Categories Descriptions of Data and Tools
Exposure • RSEI (16-bit)
• IEUBK
• Gravity
• CEP
• TRIM
• BASINS
• Local Databases
• PAMS
• Exposure Factors Handbook
• Air, Water, GW, MM, Models
• Non-occupational Pesticides Exposure Study
• PRIS
• FDA - Pesticide Monitoring Data
• EMPACT
• CSFII - Consumption Data
Receptors • RSEJ (16-bit)
• RSEI (32-bit)
• Gravity
• Census
• Native American Reservation Data
• National Wetlands Inventory
• NOAA
• FWS
• Fresh and Saltwater Study by NOAA
• EMAP
• Nature Conservancy T & C
• Christmas and Breeding Bird Counts
• Froglog
• PIUS - Population Risk Indexing system
Note: See Appendix F for notes made on handouts by Breakout Group 2 for this exercise.
Summary of Participant Comments
While gaps exist in data and tools that are useful for community assessment, it is also
necessary to remember that work is always done within the constraints of a budget. In addition
to noting fl the sources of information that may be useful, EPA must also identify those sources
that will provide, with minimum resources, the information. In addition, the lower limits of
information needed to answer community-assessment questions should be determined. In theory,
a community assessment could consider every possible source, stressor, or receptor. In reality,
this is not possible. Workable parameters for a community-assessment process must be
determined, as must the particular role of community assessment. For example, when assessing
potential problems in a community, particularly for environmental justice issues, there needs to
be a means of determining the level at which the community has exceeded its share of pollution.
Several gaps in data were identified based on the breakout exercise. Data and tools have not
yet been identified regarding non-human factors. It is also important to examine sources of
information on ecological factors, including noise and odors. Screening tools are also important
and should be included in any tool matrix or index. These include tools and databases for air
screening at the level of the neighborhood or metropolitan area, for example. Case studies could
Page 14
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
also be added as a tool. In general, local-level data are needed, including human health data,
local emissions inventories, and local monitoring data. Data on the household level would also
be required to perform a comprehensive assessment.
Gaps in data and tools that are identified can be addressed in different ways. One way is to
collect the information that is missing and create a new database or tool. Information on a local
level could be collected by using a mobile testing facility. It is also possible to facilitate data
collection by the communities themselves in cases in which this may be more effective or
efficient. This is often called a “bucket brigade” approach. However, the limitations on using
such data (for example, considerations for quality control) may make them unusable. In other
cases, gaps may be addressed by improving the use and quality of available data sets. When
possible, more limited databases could be linked together to provide comprehensive sources of
information. The question of mixing different levels of data quality and uncertainty becomes
very important when this is attempted. Finally, it is also possible to use surrogate information.
However, the quality, usefulness, and reliability of this information must be assessed. For
example, potential pesticide releases might be estimated using sales data, crop type, acreage, and
climate. However, the extent to which these estimates are accurate must be evaluated. Although
data are lacking for some factors, workshop participants noted that they actually do have a high
volume of data overall. However, the data are not necessarily useable, either because of data
quality issues or because the parameters used when data were collected are not consistent or
applicable to the problems at hand.
Participants also discussed the usefulness of identified tools and databases. There is a need
for more case studies in order to assist EPA staff in identifying the proper tool to use for the
specific type of analysis to be conducted. The large number of databases available makes it
difficult to know which are most applicable for a specific use. By providing community risk
assessors with case study information on a variety of different scenarios, varying by scale, level
of analysis, and variables, the researcher can identify the best tool for the job. A standard
methodology for case studies should be created to maximize their comparability and usefulness.
Participants were also concerned about the overall quality of data in available databases,
particularly the validity and timeliness of the data. The degree of uncertainty associated with a
particular database should be communicated to the user. It is also necessary to define the degree
of uncertainty that is acceptable when combining data from a variety of databases. When the risk
assessor makes assumptions based upon combining information from a variety of databases, each
with its own level of uncertainty, the cumulative levels of uncertainty increase dramatically.
Quantifying the acceptable level of uncertainty is a large but needed task. Creation of a standard
operating procedure or protocol for gathering data and entering it into EPA databases could help
resolve data quality issues.
It was suggested that ORD conduct a stability analysis of EPA databases to ensure that they
are consistent not only internally but also between databases. For example, the definitions of
parameters included in a particular database should remain the same over time. Consistency
among databases will allow for comparison studies. For example, the classification of a “large
facility” should be the same across Regions.
An index of databases available for analysis is necessary. It is important to place the tools in
Page 15
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 31/99
the context of their use rather than simply list them. A complete index should provide a
description of each database or tool that discusses the focus of the tool (ecological, human, etc.).
It should describe potential uses, the usage history, and the associated level of uncertainty. The
index should indicate how often the database is updated. The method of validating the data,
model, or tool, as well as the level of quality assurance/quality control, should be identified. The
scale of the data is also important to know. For example, does the database provide information
on an aggregate, country-wide level or by county, and are the data segmented according to
categories within the population? Potential users of each database or tool should be identified.
For example, does the tool require the expertise of a scientist or is it accessible to and useable by
members of the community? Is a tool meant for use within the context of a regulatory program at
EPA or at the state level, or would it also be useful for community groups? User notes can be
provided for each item. Finally, information on the accessibility of the database, tool, or model
should be given, including how, where, and from whom it can be obtained.
In the interim, the National Guidance for Conducting Environmental Justice Analyses, dated
October 1, 1998, discusses available tools and databases. It provides recommendations for using
available resources, methods, and tools for performing community assessments related to
environmental justice. This report, prepared by the Office of Environmental Justice, is available
in a peer-review version from Catherine Fox at 404-562-9634. It was produced in response to
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-
income Populations.
4.2 Day 2: General Tools Matrix and Gap Identification
On the second day, participants decided to use a different process to gather information than
that originally planned. As a result, only one breakout group session was conducted. Each of the
three designated breakout groups was given a particular set of questions to answer based on one
of three themes: (I) Is there a threat to our health or local environment? (2) How can we
characterize the risks in our community? and (3) How do our risks compare to other communi-
ties? Participants were charged with identifying and evaluating tools that could address these
questions, either in a screening mode or a full-fledged risk assessment. Groups were asked to
identify the basic information needed to answer the questions, assuming that there is no or
limited opportunity to gather new data. For each question within the set, participants were asked
to categorize the tools available for evaluating stressors (or sources), exposures (or pathway!
media concentration), receptors (or exposure), effects (or doses), and incidence (or outcomes).
Tools were to be evaluated as: (1) useable for screening; (2) scientific information available for
limited use; (3) not user friendly to local communities; or (4) suitable for risk assessment. Gaps
in tools for each question were also to be identified.
The output of each group has been fit into matrices as Exhibit 3. The issues identified with
regard to the questions provided during this session overlapped among the groups and with the
issues already raised during the first breakout session. Comments from all three groups have
been summarized together and are given below. Group flipcharts and completed handouts are
provided in Appendix H. Specific comments are given in Appendix I.
During the plenary discussion, each group presented their findings on the identification and
evaluation of tools. Specific tools are given in the matrices. As part of their evaluation of the
Page 16
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8131(99
tools, participants noted issues associated with their given set of questions. Key issues are
grouped below according to the following categories: general, incidence, stressors. receptors. and
exposure. Participants agreed that many of the issues that have been identified, such as necessary
guidance from EPA on performing community assessment and more and better data, are in the
process of being addressed by ongoing projects within the Agency.
Page 17
-------
Exhibit 3 - Day 2 Breakout Groups Answers to Questions
!A
U
(0
0
0
Is There A Threat to Our Health or Local Environment? (Group I, Da ’ 2)
)uestion ITools IGaps
I. What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
NERL tools; Tools for Schools (indoor air); “Checklists”
- llome A t Syst, asthma
Lack of toxicity data for children/sensitive populations:
information on outgassing from buildings, materials;
screening tool for individuals to know indoor air
exposure: cumulative risk from daily activities, chemical
mixtures; what does the reference does mean to a
particular group?
Is our poor health from environmental exposure”
Use tools to answer environmental questions (specific)
that we can answer, can assess current situation but not
reconstruct past; EPI - tools
Need broad-based approach from multiple agencies:
major effects on health, environmental issues, education;
EPI resources
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
AIRS
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
MM Exposure Models
Cumulative risk from daily activities in home, food,
environment, yard, work; cumulative effect of chemical
mixtures; source inventories and their significance
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Lack of toxicity data for children/sensitive populations:
predictive health effects of exposure beyond the
reference dose
,. Are we at risk from acute exposures, accidents, and episodic
eleases?
Risk Management Plans
Information on peak releases and/or exposures: guidance
for estimating intermittent releases
1. Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to
dversely impact our health?
Cumulative effect of chemical mixtures
I. Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if they are the
asis for my diet? What fish should I avoid and why? how much
iould be considered safe to eat?
Fish Advisories
10. Is the water from my well safe to drink?
II. Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Smart Growth Tools
2. Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
Alternatives for the Future - Corvallis lab: Sensitive
habitat ID tools - USGS GAP program; Greenness Index
(land cover) Jones LVLscape eco br
General: What is the scope of the assessment? Need access to reviewed toxicity data standards and a quick review process.
‘11
00
‘0
‘0
-------
Exhibit 3 - Day 2 Breakout Groups Answers to Questions (Continued)
Key:
S = Screening tool
X = Scientific information available, but limited use
Y = Not user friendly to local communities
R = Risk assessment
Flow Can We Characterize the Risks in Our Community? (Group 2, Day 2)
Question
Stressors
Tools to
Identify
Stressors
Exposure
Tools to Identify
Exposure
Receptor
Tools to Identify
Receptor
Effects
Tools to
Identify
Effects
Outcome
Tools to
Identify
Outcome
I. What environmental information
s available for my local community?
S
IRI, PCS,
I3RS, AFE.
SDWIS,
State! local
data
X
AQS, Models,
etc.
S (X)
Risk Screening,
Environ-mental
Indicators
(community)
Y
IRIS,
MSDS
S
Health Data
(cancer
rates,
mortality
data, lIMO
info.)
What are the potential impacts,
ncluding increases or decreases, of
ocal environmental pollutants?
GIVEN
Same as
Question I
X
Same as
Question I
S (X)
Same as Question
I
Y
Same as
Question I
S
Same as
Question I
What is the cumulative impact of
‘nvironmental exposure?
S
Gaps, same
as Question
I
(X)
Same as
Question I
S (X)
Same as Question
I
Y
Gaps, same
as Question
I
S
Same as
Question I
1. I-low do we get a complete
nventory of all the sources?
The group did not feel adequate information is available to determ ne tools most effective for an inventory of all the sources. Gaps
include information on stationary, mobile, point, area, NPS pollution, clandestine, non-permitted facilities, and atmospheric
deposition sources.
Flow can we assess the impact
hat our non-Toxic Release
nventory (TRI) reporters
businesses, households, and
chools) have on our environment?
Gap
X
X S
Y
S
,. What information do we need in
)rder to judge the impact of a new
acuity planning to open in our
ommunity?
Useful tool for all - provide grants
o communities to assist them in
sing existing scieni fIc data)
S
Permitting
X
Same as
Question I
X S
Same as Question
I
Y
Same as
Question I
S
Same as
Question I
I. Flow do we assess the potential
br accidents in our community?
Uow do we learn about the
mpact of synergy with mixtures?
S “Emergency X Accidental X S Evaluation Plans Y Same as S MSE)S,
Right to release models Question I NIOSII
Know” data
The group did not feel adequate information is available to evaluate the impact of synergy with mixtures 101 these categories.
‘I )
( ‘ I
In
m
-Il
00
-v
0)
( 1
-------
Exhibit 3 - Day 2 Breakout Groups Answers to Questions (Continued)
Gaps Identified in Evaluations (Group 2, Day 2)
1. IRIS - Limited database for environmental exposure, no cumulative infonnation. limited
number of chemicals assessed for toxicological information.
2. Stressors - Locational data is a large problem.
3. Basic Data - Not verified, reported loadings tend to be estimates.
4. Mortality Data - Accuracy of true diagnoses, cause of death may be secondary to primary
disease.
5. Many missing pieces of information for multiple stressors, accurate cumulative effect
difficult to assess (e.g. mobile sources, area sources, minor stationary sources).
6. Some stationary sources, mobile sources, point sources, area sources, non-point pollution
sources, clandestine sources, non-permitted facilities, atmospheric deposition.
7. Need to characterize dry cleaner output, home output, and schools output dependent on
location, uses, etc. to use for characterization; lack of area source models.
Page 20
-------
[ low Do Our Risks Compare to Other Communities? ( Group 3, Day 2 )
Question
Stressors
Tools to Identify Stressors
Exposure
Tools to
Identify
Exposure
Receptor
Tools to
Identify
Receptor
Effects
Tools to
Identify
Effects
Outcome
Tools to Identify
Outcome
I. Is there an unusually
high incidence of
disease?
American Indian Science
and Engineering Society
(AISES) - Federally-
recognized Tribes
,database under
construction), Nil, ORS.
PCS, AIRS, CERCLIS;
Transoortation j f 1
Chambers of Commerce,
residents, public health
data and blood levels.
housing data.
SIR
SIR
Risk Screening
Environ-mental
Indicators
S
Census data;
school
population data
S
( ‘DC - county
and larger scale.
local health
department
.
Residents,
public health
data and blood
levels, housing
data.
Do we have more than
our share of
environmental
stressors?
S
S
Same as
Question I
S
S
Are there dispropor-
tionate impacts within
or compared to the
community?
s
low Can We Improve Our
Overall Environmental Quality of Life?
how can we get an
overall picture to set
priorities?
S
Comparative Risk Lab
Manual
S
Guide to
Sustainable
Community
Indicators
S
Community
Input
S
S
Ilow does the
environment impact
our economic
situation? Group did
not easily find
answers. Genera!
tool: Community has
to make the value
judgements.
;. What information is
available regarding
traffic, noise, dust, bad
odors? General tool:
See Baltimore case
studies,
S (?)
S
Population growth data;
income change over time;
data associated with land
use; Department of
Commerce Data
Transportation data
(FAA); odors data,
including concentrated
animal feeding operations
(State and local); CAFO;
dust from Air Program
Monitors and local
regulators; Indoor Air
Program; OSHA; NOAA
meteorological data
S?
S
S?
S
S?
S
S?
S
Exhibit 3 - Day 2 Breakout Groups Answers to Questions (Continued)
C-)
0
C l )
m
00
‘C
‘0
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 3199
Summary of Participant Comments
General
Data that can be used to evaluate actions taken in response to a community assessment are
deficient due to a lack of measurable indicators. Many community health problems exist as a
result of long-term exposures. There is an absence of valid indicators of actual improvement in
health in the short term. Likewise, there is no standard definition of a healthy community. Two
types of community models would be useful. One model could describe the characteristics of a
“healthy community.” However, a variety of models would be necessary to represent different
types of communities, for example, a suburb in the Southwest and an urban center in the North.
In addition to the difficulty inherent in such an undertaking, it may also be politically untenable.
Another model could prescribe steps that could be taken by a community to become “healthy.”
The publication Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, 2 Ed., by M. Hart, 1999, is a
source of information on standards against which an actual community might be evaluated.
Smart Growth, urban sprawl, and Healthy Cities initiatives in part attempt to address model
community identification.
Another general gap is the need to accurately assess the cumulative effects in community
assessment. By trying to combine input data from a variety of database sources, incompatibility
between data sets can occur. For example, one set of data provides information on counties, while
another may provide information at a zip code level. These differences can make cumulative
analysis impossible. Can a tool be developed which will allow more streamlined integration of
data from a variety of sources?
Finally, community assessments can be performed with different levels of sophistication, and
tools exist that range themselves in the sophistication of their results and the level of expertise
necessary for their use. Resources and time available in real-world situations often drive the
sophistication of the assessment. Because of this, it is necessary to evaluate tools and models
based on their level of difficulty of use and sophistication of results. It is also useful to know the
value of incremental increases in the sophistication of assessments. —
Incidence
Data on the incidence of particular health outcomes are needed on a scale smaller than the zip-
code level. Data collected on a smaller scale can provide information on potential cluster or
neighborhood problems. This is particularly important with regard to environmental justice
issues. Therefore, it would be advantageous to integrate smaller-scale data, e.g., on the level of
township or latitude and longitude, particularly when using GJS capabilities. In addition, quality
assurance and quality control measures with regard to incidence data are also important. Many
forms of health incidence data that exist and would be useful in performing community assess-
ment, such as data from Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) or State or local health
departments, are simply not available. Such data might be accessible to EPA if the Agency
established a partnership with the entity that owned it. However, confidentiality issues must also
be addressed. Other sources for such information or data surrogates should be identified. The
possibility of establishing agreements that address these confidentiality issues should also be
considered.
Page 22
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
An accurate and consistent interpretation of the cause of death is needed for mortality data.
Currently, the available data used in analysis have taken into account only the primary cause of
death listed on the death certificates. This ignores the secondary and potentially more important
cause of death, such as a long-term condition which preceded and influenced the event causing
death.
Stressors
There are many missing pieces of information for multiple stressors, including mobile
sources, area sources, point sources, non-point sources, clandestine sources, non-permitted
facilities, minor stationary sources, and atmospheric deposition. When such information is
available, the context of the data is not always known, such as the location or circumstances under
which it was collected. As a result, cumulative effects are difficult to assess accurately. It is also
necessary to develop clearer, stronger connections between sources and stressors and the
particular health effects they cause.
General concerns about data on stressors involve the quality of the data. There is a large
concern that data available for analysis are not accurate. Of particular concern is the reliability of
data centered on location. The need for quality control to eliminate excessive uncertainty in data
was a key point throughout much of the discussion. In addition, data that are collected
infrequently become outdated and are less useable. Criteria for determining the validity and
usability of a data set should be developed. Community assessors should have access to a pool of
verified and timely data sets to use in their work.
Existing databases may give information on major sources, such as industrial facilities, but the
other smaller sources must be considered. Specific gaps in stressor data include information on
location data, such as mobile or area sources, and household-level information, such as diet,
indoor air quality, pesticide use, and personal activities. A screening tool for individuals to use to
estimate their indoor-air exposure would be useful. Data on outgassing from materials and
buildings are needed, as is a cumulative risk estimate from daily activities. In addition, improved
human health data are necessary, including indicators for exposure, such as blood lead levels.
Criteria standards for odors and other non-chemical specific stressors are needed. There is a lack
of quality-reviewed toxicity data for children and other sensitive populations.
In many cases, it is necessary to use surrogate data to supplement many data sources on
stressors. Sources for surrogate data include transportation information, which can be obtained
from license bureaus and local chambers of commerce. In addition, residents themselves can be
thought of as surrogates.
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, while useful, provides limited
information on environmental exposure. A limited number of chemicals have been assessed for
toxicological information. The utility of the database would be improved by including cumulative
and more current information.
Receptors
At this time, information on receptor populations is gathered primarily from the national
Page 23
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
census, which occurs every ten years. Sources of data that are more regularly updated are
necessary so that current data can be used in assessments. In addition, improved data on
communities, such as income and land use, are necessary. Availability of such data may be
conditioned by the confidentiality of the information.
One of the questions asked during a community assessment concerns whether the community
is receiving more than its “fair share” of a pollutant or health effect. However, there is no
particular definition for this term.
Exposure
Across the Agency, tools to address gaps in exposure information on both the screening and
risk assessment levels are currently under development. These include screening tools and tools
for risk assessment. In addition, information on pollutant levels alone will not help show where it
occurs. Pockets of pollution should be considered. As with other categories, cumulative data and
more current data are necessary.
Specific gaps include the need for data on the cumulative effects of chemical mixtures, effects
from peak releases vs. ongoing releases, acute vs. chronic outcomes, and guidance for estimating
intermittent releases. The difficulties of documenting episodic releases should be addressed, as
well as the probability of the occurrence of accidental releases.
Page 24
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 31/99
5.0 Wrap-Up
5.1 Workshop Summary
The second Community Assessment Workshop was targeted to scientists involved with the
development of data and tools used to answer questions commonly associated with community
assessments. The Workshop was intended to evaluate the current tools available, critique these
tools, and identify future research needs.
The first day of the Workshop focused on the presentation of tools used for community
assessments. Breakout groups identified the tools currently available. In order for these tools to
be usable, it is necessary to define the degree of uncertainty acceptable from available data. In
addition, an index listing the available tools and databases, complete with descriptions, uses, and
intended users, is required. Finally, case studies must continue to be identified to aid community
assessors in identifying appropriate tools to use in specific situations.
The second day of the Workshop focused on matching the tools to the community-assessment
questions they answer. Categories of tools were considered with regard to their usefulness as a
screening tool or for in-depth analysis.
The workshop concluded with a plenary discussion in which major themes and gaps were
identified, as well as contacts regarding some general categories of available tools. Group
comments were captured on flipcharts and are given in Exhibit 4.
5.2 Next Steps
The next Community Assessment Workshop is anticipated for late September 1999. An
agenda for the third workshop is in development. This workshop will assess the gaps in tools and
develop Agency strategies for addressing the gaps to meet community-assessment needs.
Participants will complete the tools matrix developed during the second workshop.
This will begin Phase II of the Community Assessment Series, which will focus on the
community setting. EPA will integrate the results of the previous workshops into an evaluation of
community partnerships and a new, geographical approach to environmental problem-solving.
Because communities understand risk differently and have different tools available to identify
risk, EPA works with stakeholders within certain geographic areas to solve their communities’
environmental problems. EPA believes this new approach integrates the environmental,
economic, and social aspects of responding to environmental issues. These workshops help
achieve a plan of community-based environmental protection.
Page 25
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
Exhibit 4: Workshop Wrap-up
Themes and Gaps
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control of available data
• Processed data: Large amounts of data are available but not useable in current form.
• Concise statement about databases/models.
• Healthy community model - big conceptual baseline, what is acceptable, “norm”
- benchmark or comparison values, e.g., national or baseline values.
• Background health or exposure levels.
- susceptible populations (children, elderly)
- health effects, e.g., tox data - relative values, “predictive safe ranges,” common chemicals
- IRIS; necessary to have an interim number before IRIS
• Acute effects.
• Community source inventory (mobile, indoor air, NPS) - “Where should we look?”
• Communication - interpret information.
• Make tools more useable - communities can use more directly.
• Develop better connections between sources and health effects (how to interpret information - our best
scientific)
• How good are simple methodologies and the value in increments of sophistication in assessments?
• Va lidationJresearch/scjentific evaluation of methods used in case studies.
• Grants to communities to apply models/method s/components (decision tree) that can be validated by ORD.
• Assess the effect of input data quality.
• What does it mean to be above Reference Dose?
People/Places to Contact - current tools
• Regions - Carole Braverman
• 01-briefing
• ORD/NERL - ORD
• Centers/OW for comparative risk - Deb Martin, Lawrence Martin, Carole Braverman
• Smart Growth - H. Tregoning
• Land use - ORD
• Reinvention
• Air office - urban (Jenny and Victor McMahon)
Page 26
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report
FINAL 8’31’99
Appendix A. List of Participants
Research Triangle Park, NC
June 9-10, 1999
Andy Avel
EPA ORD/NRMRL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
MS-235
Cincinnati, OH 45268
tel. 513-569-7951
fax 513-569-7680
avel.andy@epa.gov
Michelle Baker
EPA OAQPS
MD-li
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-1950
fax 919-541-7925
baker.michelie epa.gov
Dr. Nicolaas Bouwes
EPA OPPTS/OPPT/EETD/EPAB
401 M Street, SW (7406)
Washington, DC 20460
tel. 202-260-1622
fax 202-260-0981
bouwes.nick epa.gov
Carole Braverman
EPA Region 5, Office of Strategic
Environmental Analysis
77 W. Jackson (B-i 9J)
Chicago, IL 60604
tel. 312-886-2910
fax 312-353-5374
braverman.carole epa.gov
Michael Callahan
EPA ORD/NCEA
401 M Street, SW (8623D)
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel. 202-564-3201
fax 202-565-0077
callahan.michael epa.gov
Robin Clarke
EPA ORD/OSP
401 M Street, SW (8103R)
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel. 202-564-6493
fax 202-565-2825
ciarke.robin epa.gov
Dr. LanyClaxton
EPA ORD/NHEERL/Environmental
Carcinogenesis Division
MD-68
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-2329
fax 919-541-0694
c1axton.larry epa.gov
Lynn Delpire
EPA OPPT
401 M Street, SW (7406)
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel. 202-260-3928
fax 202-260-0981
delpire.lynn epa.gov
Maria Downing
EPA Region 7 ENSV/DISO
726 Minnesota (until 6/21)
901 North 5th Street (after 6/21)
Kansas City, KS 66101
tel. 913-551-7362
fax 913-551-7863
downing.marla epa.gov
Gary Evans
EPA ORD/NERL
MD-76
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-3124
fax 919-541-4046
evans.gary epa.gov
A-I
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summa p Report
FINAL 8131/99
Catherine Fox
EPA Region 4 EAD
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8909
tel. 404-562-9634
fax 404-562-9598
fox.catherine epa.gov
Jane Gallagher (speaker)
EPA NHEERLIHSD
MD-58C
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-966-0638
fax 919-966-6367
ga1lagher.jane epa.gov
George M. Goldstein, Ph.D.
EPA ORDINHEERL/ADH
MD-51
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-4903
fax 919-541-1831
goldstein.george epa.gov
Loren Hall (speaker)
EPA Office of Civil Rights (1201)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
tel. 202-260-3931
fax 202-260-4580
hal1.1oren epa.gov
Martin Halper
EPA OECA/OEJ
401 M Street, SW (2201A)
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel. 202-564-2601
fax 202-501-0936
halper.marty epa.gov
Dr. Steven Hassur
EPA OPPTS/OPPTIEETDIICB
401 M Street, SW (7406)
Washington, DC 20460
tel. 202-260-1735
fax 202-260-0981
hassur.steven epa.gov
Dr. Gerald Hiatt (speaker)
EPA Region 9, Superfund Division
75 Hawthorne Street (SFD-8B)
San Francisco, CA 94105
tel. 415-744-2319
fax 415-744-1916
hiatt.gera1d epa.gov
Dr. Elaine Kenyon
EPA ORD/NHEERL
MD-74
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-0043
fax 919-541-4017
kenyon.elaine epa.gov
Steven Knott
EPA ORDINCEAIRisk Assessment Forum
401 M Street, SW (8601D)
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel. 202-564-3359
fax 202-565-0059
knott.steven epa.gov
Rashmi Lal
EPA Office of Policy, CEIS
401 M Street, SW (2152)
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel. 202-260-3007
fax 202-260-4968
lal.rashmi@epa.gov
Christopher Lau
EPA NHEERL
MD-67
Research Triangle Park, NC 27713
tel. 919-541-5097
fax 919-541-4017
lau.christopher epa.gov
Chris Luft
EPA N1-IEERL
MD-72
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-0579
fax 919-541-4017
luft.chris epa.gov
A -2
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 31/99
Lawrence Martin Nancy B. Pate, DVM
EPA ORD OSP EPA OAQPS/ITPID/ITG
401 M Street, SW (8103R) MD-12
Washington, DC 20460 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 202-564-6497 tel. 919-541-5347
fax 202-565-2926 fax 919-541-0242
martin.1awrence epa.gov pate.nancy@epa.gov
Robert MacPhail Heidi Paulsen
EPA NHEERL/NTD EPA OPP
MD-74 401 M Street, SW (7506C)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Washington, DC 20460
tel. 919-541-7833 tel. 703-305-5251
fax 919-541-4017 fax 703-308-3259
macphail.robert epa.gov paulsen.heidi epa.gov
Deirdre Murphy (speaker) Dr. Solomon Pollard, Jr.
EPA OAR/OAQPS/ESD EPA Region 410PM, Planning and Analysis
MD-13 Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 61 Forsyth Street, SW
tel. 919-541-0729 Atlanta, GA 30303
fax 919-541-0237 tel. 404-562-8293
murphy.deirdre epa.gov fax 404-562-8269
pollard.solomon@epa.gov
David Otto
EPA Human Studies Division Ronald Shafer
MD-58B EPA Office of Policy, CEIS
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 401 M Street, SW (2152)
tel. 919-966-9226 Washington, D.C. 20460
fax 919-966-6367 tel. 202-260-6966
otto.david epa.gov fax 202-260-4968
shafer.ronald epa.gov
Haluk Ozkaynak (speaker)
EPA ORD/NERL Van Shrieves
MD-56 EPA OPPT/EAD
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 401 M Street, SW (7408)
tel. 919-541-5172 Washington, D.C. 20460
fax tel. 202-260-1018
ozkaynak.ha1uk epa.gov fax 202-260-2219
shrieves.van epa.gov
Ted Palma
EPA OAQPS/ESD Ralph Smialowicz
MD-13 EPA NHEERL/ETD (MD-92)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-5470 tel. 919-541-5776
fax 919-541-0237 fax 919-541-5394
palma.ted epa.gov smialowicz.ra1ph epa.gov
A-3
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summ y Report
FINAL 8’31’99
Hank Topper (speaker)
EPA OPPTS/OPPT/Exposure Analysis
Branch
401 M Street, SW (7408)
Washington, DC 20460
tel. 202-260-6750
fax 202-260-6619
topper.henry epa.gov
Claudia Walters (speaker)
EPA ORD
401 M Street, SW (8104R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel. 202-564-6762
fax 202-565-2917
walters.claudia epa.gov
Jim Wickham
EPA ORD/NERL/ESD/LCB
MD-56
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-3077
fax
wickham.james epa.gov
Hal Zenick (speaker)
EPA NHEERL
MD-87
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel. 919-541-2283
fax 919-541-4201
zenick.hal epa.gov
A-4
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 831 ! 99
Appendix B
Community Assessment Workshop II:
What Tools and Data are Available to Answer Comm unity
Assessment Questions?
June 9-10, 1999
Radisson Governor’s Inn
Research Triangle Park, NC
Session Theme :
The goal of the second workshop in the Community Assessment Series is to provide a
dialogue — focused around a series of questions commonly encountered in community
assessments — between the practitioners of community assessment and the developers of tools
(e.g., data, models, methods) to determine which tools might be used to address those
questions that were identified at the first workshop held in March. Practitioners will describe
what tools they found helpful — and which tools were not helpful — in their assessments.
Developers will focus on categories of tools, e.g., data, models, and methods, which can be
used to address the community assessment questions. The overall output of the workshop will
be an evaluation of what tools the Agency has available to address the community assessment
questions developed in the first workshop, which ones seem to be the most useful, and which
tools might have promise in the near future. The questions which cannot be addressed now or
in the near future, and other gaps in our knowledge, will be evaluated in the third workshop.
DAYJ: June 9 Agenda
8:30 - 9:00 Arrival & Sign-in
9:00 - 9:30 Introduction - Plenary Session:
Welcome Hal Zenick
Workshop Goals & “Questions” list Claudia Walters
9:30 - 10:30 Practitioners’ Panel Discussion -
“What Works? What Doesn’t?”
Invited panel critiques availability and usefulness of tools for addressing community
assessment. Panelists will be assigned specific areas to discuss and will provide an
overview from their own and other practitioners’ experience.
Panelists: Gerald Hiatt (R9), Hal Zenick (ORD), Hank Topper (OPPTS)
10:30-10:45 BREAK
10:45 - 12:05 Developers’ Panel Discussion -
“What Could or Should Work? How?”
Invited panel discusses applicability and usefulness of tools for addressing community
assessment. Panelists will be assigned specific areas to discuss and will provide a brief
overview of state of the science. Panelists:
B-I
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
Exposure Assessment: Haluk Ozkaynak, ORD
TRIM: Deirdre Murphy, OAR
GIS: Jim Wickharn, ORD
Exposure Databases: Loren Hall, OEJ
Health/Epidemiology Databases: Jane Gallagher, ORD
12:05 - 1:00 LUNCH
1:00 - 2:30 Break-out Groups - “Stressors” & “General” Tool Categories:
Each group will focus the two categories of tools. Each group will:
Discuss their own experiences in applying/designing tools in trying to address community
assessment questions;
‘ Identify tools that could used to address community questions;
‘ Evaluate tools for possible effectiveness in addressing various questions - specific
experiences on how effective various tools being considered turned out to be in addressing
questions, including tools not selected to use (see questions below);
‘ Determine where there are few or no tools to answer certain questions. Discuss
possibilities for types of tools needed in these areas;
Offer ideas as to what tools in the specific area might work to address community
assessment questions, and specifically how.
2:30 - 4:00 Break-out Groups - “Exposure” & “Receptors” Tool Categories:
Each group will focus the two categories of tools. Each group will repeat the process used
during the previous break-out session.
4:00 - 4:15 BREAK
4:15 - 5:3OPlenary Report & Discussion on four Tool Categories
Each break-out group will report out and participants will discuss.
B-2
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’3 ‘99
DAY2: June 10
8:30 - 8:45 Review Day’s Activities & Goals
8:45 - 10:15 Break-out Groups - “Effects” & “Incidents” Tool Categories: Each group
will focus the two categories of tools. Each group will repeat the process used
during the previous break-out session.
10:15-10:30 BREAK
10:30 - 11:15 Plenary Report & Discussion - “Effects” & “Incidents” Tools:
Each break-out group will re port out and all participants will discuss.
11:15 - 12:00 Plenary Session: Summary of Tools Inventory & Evaluation
Participants discuss and prepare a summary of issues and questions that cannot be
satisfactorily answered now or in the near future, to be used in the next session.
12:00-1:30 LUNCH
1:30 - 1:45 Plenary Session - The Challenge (preliminary gap analysis)
Review summary prepared from previous sessions.
1:45 - 2:30 Break-out sessions.
Brainstorming sessions on how, and by whom, the “unanswered” issues can be
addressed successfully. “Outside the box” thinking should include such issues as
ORD future research, inter-Agency cooperation, possible expansion of EPA role,
novel approaches.
2:30 - 3:15 Summarize the meeting outcome
3:15 - 4:00 Wrap-up Day’s activities and Next Steps
Identify the action items from this workshop - what and who will work on them, e.g.,
identify any additional tools
‘ Use “The Challenge” Break-out results to develop agenda for Workshop #3 and identify
any additional activities in preparation for the next meeting
Questions during Break-out sessions:
1. To what extent didicould the tool address the community assessment question, e.g., what
did/could it answer and what didn’t/won’t it answer?
2. What were the strengths and weaknesses?
3. How well (what certainty) do/would they answer the questions being asked?
4. How widely can they be used, i.e., are they practical tools for communities?
B-3
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 31 /99
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
B-4
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 31 ‘99
Appendix C. Community Assessment Questions
(Draft - 4/28/99)
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the first Community Assessment Workshop was to identify: “What are the
environmental assessment questions communities are asking EPA to address?” A working list of
these questions is presented below for discussion, and for use in the second Community
Assessment Workshop as we look into which of these questions we currently have means to
address.
In general, there are still large gaps in the kinds of tools and infonnation available to
communities to help them answer these questions (in whole or in part), and thereby move more in
the direction of sustainability. Our work is part of a long term attempt to develop and provide the
tools and information that will be needed to support sustainable development at the community
level. The six Community Assessment Workshops will, as a whole, look into the challenges that
face EPA in trying to work with communities to address community assessment questions. The
focus for the second workshop will be on the tools and information available to understand and
address the basic questions concerning environmental impacts on a local environment, including
impacts on both the human and ecosystem aspects of the environment.
The second Workshop’s focus on the tools that the Agency and communities will need to
assess the environmental impacts and risk questions means that not all issues raised in the context
of Community Assessment will be dealt with directly in this Workshop. Issues such as where
communities will get the resources to do assessments, what the best way is to get community
participation, how the assessments can be used to make improvements, and how governments can
work together to help communities, are important to the community but they will be addressed
later in our Workshop series.
Finally, the scope of the issues that communities raise and the way environmental concerns
are understood in communities often includes areas that are beyond the scope of EPA capacity or
authority. Rather than eliminate community questions to fit our purpose, we will keep the
community perspective and determine which questions our tools can help answer. This approach
will make us cognizant of the limits of our abilities and encourage us to seek partnerships with
other organizations or governments. Ultimately, our capabilities can be fit into a larger effort
(with other organizations) that can begin to answer community questions.
SUMMARY OF “QUESTIONS”
As developed and discussed in our first Workshop, here are some questions that communities
have asked the Agency. This list of questions is a starting point for discussion purposes, not an
all-inclusive list. The questions can be broken out into four major categories, with some overlap.
These categories are as follows: (1) Is there a threat to our health or our local environment?; (2)
How can we characterize the risks within our community?; (3) How do the risks in our
community compare to other communities?; and (4) How can we improve our environmental
quality of life?
c-I
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’3 I’99
1. Is there a tlz real to our health or our local environment (“Are we
Saft?”)
1) What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
2) Does the poor health in our community, e.g. child birth defects, have anything to do with
environmental exposures?
3) Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year, such as during summer heat inversions?
4) Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources adversely impacting our health and the
health of the ecosystem?
5) Are the exposures to the pollutants released from all the industrial and commercial facilities in
and around our community affecting our health?
6) Are the permitted levels safe for children and other sensitive populations?
7) Are we at risk from acute exposures, accidents and episodic releases?
8) Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our health?
9) Is it safe for my children to swim or wade in the local pond or river?
10) Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if there are the basis for my diet? What
fish should I avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
11) Is the water from my well safe to drink?
12) Will the creation of this new highway adversely affect our environment or is there a better
location to build it?
13) Are there areas that we protect, i.e., either have no development or limit our use?
2. How .can we characterize the risks within our community?
I) What environmental information is available for my local community (including information
on EPA-regulated and permitted sources)?
2) What are the potential impacts of local environmental pollutants and how can we know if
environmental impacts are increasing or decreasing in our community?
3) What is the cumulative impact of total andlor permitted environmental exposures in my
community, including “background exposure?”
4) How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources of environmental impacts on our
community?
C-2
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 31’99
5) How can we assess the impact that our businesses. community households and schools have
on our environment?
6) How can we be sure that facilities are not exceeding their permitted releases?
7) What can we use to directly measure our exposure to toxics so we can test the adequacy of the
permitting process?
8) What information do we need in order to judge if the pollutants from a new facility planning
to open in our community will have an adverse impact on us?
9) How do we assess the potential for accidents in the facilities in and around our community?
10) How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures of chemicals or the impact of
endocrine disruptors, and how can obtain an adequate assessment of such issues?
11) What is the relationship of toxic pollutants to disease clusters in my community and how do I
focus on these health outcomes to understand what is causing them?
12) What information is available that is specifically related to subpopulations of concern, e.g.,
children, and will risk assessment adequately address these sensitive subpopulations?
3. How do the risks in our community compare to other communities?
I) Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters, asthma,
adverse reproductive outcomes, etc.), and might it be the result of environmental exposures?
2) Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses in our community?
3) Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children, etc.) within my community or
compared to other communities?
4. How can we improve our environmental quality of life?
1) How can we get an overall picture of all of our environmental impacts so we can set priorities
for making improvements?
2) What is the condition of my community’s natural resources (parks, surface waters, wildlife,
etc.)? What are the sources of the impacts on these resources?
3) What information is available that can improve the economic situation in my community and
its quality of life?
4) What information is available regarding traffic, general safety, noise, dust, bad odors, etc.?
5) How do we track our progress so that we know how to proceed in the future?
C-3
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’3 I ‘ 99
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
C-4
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 31 ‘99
Appendix D. Community Assessment Definitions
(Draft 6/3/99)
Categories of Community Assessment Data and Tools for Comparison and Identification of Gaps
Category
Description
Stressors
Databases include known and potential sources of pollution or other
environmental agents of concern, such as chemical releases (routine or
accidental, stationary or mobile), noise, etc. and their characteristics.
Tools include methodologies and emissions estimation models to allow
prediction of the amount of an agent from specific or generic source
categories.
Exposure/Conditions
Databases include monitoring data concerning the agents of concern (in
various environmental and biological media), and the results of the
application of tools (e.g. modeled concentrations). Related data
include environmental conditions which affect dispersion and fate of
agents (e.g. wind patterns, stream flow, pH). Tools include models to
estimate levels in the ambient environment, plants/animals and humans.
Receptors
Databases include the geographic distribution and behavioral
characteristics of human, plant and animal populations which may be
affected by agents of concern (including sensitive subpopulations), as
well as anthropomorphic or non-living receptors (e.g. historical sites,
aesthetic vistas, etc). Tools include models or methods to identify and
estimate the number of receptors which are potentially exposed to
measured or predicted conditions (e.g. population estimation)
Effects
Databases and tools for estimating health and environmental effects of
agents of concern. Databases range from collections of raw toxicity test
results to organized sets for specific groups of chemicals with an
evaluation by weight of evidence or other quality assessment criteria.
Tools (while rarely used in community assessments) allow prediction of
the likelihood of an effect occurring in the absence of test data,.
Incidence
Observed rates of health endpoints of concern in receptor populations,
e.g. cancer morbidity/mortality, aquatic species disease rates, etc.
Databases would include national, state, and local health department
records.
General
Fundamental data and tools useful in a variety of assessment steps, such
as road and stream networks, land use/land cover and spatial and
statistical analysis methods.
D- I
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report
FINAL 8’31’99
Appendix E. Data and Tools Table
(modified 6/3/99)
Issue ( Data
Tools
Stressors
National Data:
IDEA. Envirofacts Data
• Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
• PCS
• AIRS Facility
• RCRIS
• CERCLIS
Other
• Nil (on-going)
• RMP
• Census of businesses
State, Local, and Regional Data:
• RAPIDS (Great Lakes PBT air toxics)
• State air toxics inventories (e.g., LA ’s TEDI)
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) reports
• Socio-Economic Data
• Dun & Bradstreet
• Tax parcel data
• Default emission factors and
stack parameters (e.g. CHIEF.
AP-42. RAPIDS)
• Mobile source emissions
predictive models
Exposure/Conditions
National Data:
• AIRS monitors
• STORET
• Drinking water contaminant reports
• Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP) air
concentrations
• Remote Sensing data
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) Ecosystem data
• NFIANES
State, Local, and Regional Data:
• Ambient monitoring
• Blood lead levels
• EMPACT
• ISC and other air models
• RSEI
• BASINS
• IELJBK
• ASPEN (CEP)
• MMEM
• IRAP-h
Receptors
• Census of population
• Socioeconomic/Demographic data (e.g.,
Community 2020 updated pop estimates)
• NOAA and FWS Ecosystem data
• State Endangered Species data
• Historical Sites Information
• SDWIS
• Exposure factors data
• Sensitive subpopulation exposure factors
• PECT (proximity analysis)
• RSEI (proximity analysis and
levels of exposure)
• IEUBK
• “Gravity and other models for
predicting diurnal population
movements
Effects
• IRIS
• HEAST
• OPPT RSEI Toxicity Data
• CEP/OAQPS toxicity data
• ATSDR Tox profiles
S Quantitative structure activity
relationship (QSAR) models
Incidence
S NCHS Cancer Mortality (county data)
• Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (e.g.,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Regisuy (ATSDR), STARS)
• State/Local/Regional Health Records
General
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
• Global Positioning System (GPS)
• TIGER (Census)
• Land use/land covet
• Statistical Analysis
• CIMAS-Type Applications
• Kriging (e.g., Geo.-ease)
E- I
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/3 I’99
Appendix F
Speaker Notes and Presentations
-------
_______ N o tw -frr
ORD COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP II;
WhAT TOOLS AND DATA ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
Opening Remarks -
Increasing empowerment in direction of states and communities
CBEP Framework - ORD CST and Agency CSW
Changing landscape as to
- Nature of client
- Nature of product
- Accessibility of product
- Accountability
• Recognize that risk assessment/risk management decisions in the field are a different
creature than those derived by a national program office
Understanding those commonalities and differences and priorities will facilitate ORD
planning and responsiveness
Similar appreciation by clients for the power and limitations of research tools is essential
Realities:
*ORD s primary client from a community “sense” is the regions since much of ORD’s
activities and products will require technical expertise for application
*Community implies a geographic.focus which may not be the best use of ORD who
must develop more broadly applicable products
*Discussions and priority setting by clients (i.e., regions) will help ORD planning
Parallel exercise is development of a decision tree whose very application will contribute
to defining and prioritizing research needs.
-------
t • 3
p
S S
• .•.
‘ I ’
S .
i ‘ps ’
/
Community
Assessment
Series
-------
“New Directions” Workshops
- Focused on new directions of environmental
protection,
- Designed to promote the identification and
sharing of
f.
,•t__
science tools and strategies;
,:;
I
F
g scientists 1 analysts, arid managers
-------
4
Description of Corn m unity Assessment
i :i Community
(New Dfrection)
A broad definition
A various types of communities
Assessment
I
( 1e? )
A. The identif1catir’ 4 ‘tentia1 adverse effects to
humans or
na ement
-------
Frocess
Phase II
Phas,e Ill
“Set The Stage”
“Community Setting”
“Implementation”
Identify
Community
larch Jyr1e
Analysis &
Determine.how
to address :.
- 1 . . .
i & 29
11
Capacity
Tools Package/
Disseminatihn
Strategy
Communication
& infrastrücture : :
Future Research
tate early:
Sept 99 winter
F’ ’ 00
/ /
Phase
I
Identify
Assessment TooIs &
-
Assess Gaps:
Technical
.Questions:
Issues
• :.Gaps
Building:
S S S..
-------
- a• - -• - -
Toots & Data
Cumulative Health Risk.. .
Comparative Relative Risk..
Landscape Ecology Approach
I
I
S
I
S
I
I
I
S
S
Tool
Tool
Tool
Models-3
(Air Multi-scale)...
I II
I
I
S
I S
Model
Guidance
Community
I I U I I S I S U I
Ma
F I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E ata b as e
St . Database
nual.
U
I
I
..Guidance
I
I
I I II
-------
4
Anaiys s
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Tool
1
Tool 2
odel
I
MOdel 2
Ques.t o 5.
Question 6
V • ; ;;; .
, . ...
(,.
Guidance I
uidance2
Y ft •j. ;:
-------
I
What do we hope to accomplish?
L 1 Categorize existing tools
1 Identify what fools are needed or improvement
1 Understand how this
appr o .a ch
does it affect thi tools we develop.
. , . , . , , ,.-
tT12DeveIop st 11 uiiig of communities
, : ;
is different; how
-------
Pa rad:igrn
El.
Community
7—
“Questions”
cientific
Tools
Answers
-------
McFarland
McFarlcrnd Community
Environmental
Assessment
G(’rald F.S. iIiatt, Ph.D
U.S. EPA, Region 9
(415) 744.2319
hia’l ger td ep gUy
Central Valley of
860,000 acres of
agriculture
1975 - 1989: 14 Children with Cancer
11 different types
leukemia, brain, liver and bone
7x expected rate for Calif children
1996: 7 Additional Childr’en with Cancer
5 cases in McFarland, 2 adjacent
California
0
Kern County
McFarland
Population “ 8000
95% Latino
Surrounded by ag
fields (“a residential
island in a sea of
agricultur&’)
Childhood Cancer Cluster
2x expected
-------
Childhood Cancer Cases
bHS Study
Childhood Cancer
Cases in McFarland
Between 1975 - 1995.
6 of 21 total cases
occurred in the NE
section of town
1984 - 1990: California DHS Investigation:
• Epidemiology study
• Soil & drinking water sampling
• Review of regional air data (÷ limited sa ’ pling)
Health exams in 1700 children
Focus on homes of cancer cases
L
“No pattern of cancers and no environmental
conditions related to cancer”
aHand - What Can EPA Add?
Region 9 consulted with OSWER, OV ’, OAR
OPPTS, ORb and EJAC:
Focus on air pathway
Better info voilable rc: pesticide usage
Lower analytical limits now available
Credible “third party”
EPA Petitioned
1995: EPA Petitioned Under CERCLA and the
Environmental Just ice Order
Team Convened & Reviewed Petition:
Petition granted on a selective basis
some items identified “doable”
some items not “doable”
Team: “Fully implemented project or nothing”
-------
Region 9 McFarlcrnd Project
Pesticide Use Reports
Region 9 Project Goal:
“Evaluate Current Environmental Conditions
and Potential Chemical Exposures via Air,
Water and Soil.”
on attempt to “explain” childhood
cancers or find their cause.
Community involvement “integral” to project.
Assessment Options / Approaches
1. Test for Restricted Use Pesticides (only) in
residential environments.
2. Compare McFarland to “unaffected” towns.
3. Compare McFarland levels to “safe” levels.
4. Cumulative multi-chemical, multi-pathway
human health risk•assessment
Superfund RAGS paradigm
brinking Water
Two Phases:
brinking water wells & storage tank
5 wells sampled at wellheod (+1- nftrate
treatment system)
DW wells & homes/buildings
wells re-sampled
homes
public buildings (schools, parks, gym)
Over 350 analytes
California requires reporting for all agricultural
pesticide applications.
1990-1997 pesticide use reports
Within 5 mile radius of McFarland:
2000 tons of pesticide products per year
product - j active ingredient
300 pesticides, formulation agents &/or
breakdown products id’d for analysis
-------
Soils Investigation
Ambient Air
Intent of Ambient Air Sampling:
Annual average air concentrations
“Capture” some pesticide spraying evcnts
3 to 4 “seasons” per year
Analytes:
Pesticides in current use
Surface soil constituents
Status: Planning stage with OAR and ORD
McFarland Process
Superfund project manager (petition)
Region-wide, cross-programmatic Team
Superfund Division
Community Tnvolvement
Water Division
Air Division
QA/QC representative
Senior Staff “Champion”
ATSbR regional representative
Two Phases:
“Deep” soils:
sampling for traditional Superfund hazardous
waste: historical and/or illegal waste disposal
Surface soils:
sampling for constituents to which people may
be directly exposed
analytes for airborne fugitive dust sampling
Over 150 ancilytes
Indoor Air and bust
Questions:
Indoor levels of ambient “contaminants”?
“Historical” pesticides indoors?
aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachior?
Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) indoors?
Status: Planning stage with OAR and ORb
-------
McFarland Process
Consult wI state agencies:
Calif EPA
Calif bept of Health Services
Consult wi local agencies & entities:
County bept of Health
County Ag Commission
McFarland City Manager (& Council)
McFarland Muni Water Company
School Board
Risk Assessment
Superfund Paradigm
Cumulative risk assessment
multi-chemical
• multi-pathway
• Focus on community-wide exposures which
are j. controlled by individuals
McFarland Process
beveloped options/approaches w/in Team
HQ briefings & consults:
Superfund
O5WE Ombudsman
Office of Water
Office of Air & Padiation
OPPTS
ORb
ORb Las Vegas & RTP consults re:
ambient/indoor air & household dust phase
McFarland Process
Consult wi community (& petitioners):
Problem formulation
history of agricultural & industrial practices
sampling plans (esp. locations)
neighborhood walks
boor-to-door, backyard “picnics”
Open Houses (vs. “public meetings”)
Bilingual presentations & materials
-------
Risk Assessment 5cenarios
“Stay at home’
resident —
Central and SW
uctions of town
thers?:
“work away
from home”
rc sident
“high
activity”
adolescent
1 isk Assessment Scenarios
Stay at home”
resident — NE
section of town
r
What’s Worked (So Far)
Strong Community Relations/Involvement
Neighborhood walks (door-to-door)
In-home meetings
Frequent public meetings (Open House format)
Shore ii (including drafts):
Sampling plans
What Hasn’t Worked (So Far)
Good Ideas That We Haven’t Been Able
to Implement
Community Advisory Panel
Independent technical assistance for
petitioners
IAL
V.,,, - — —
C,—. .‘o
cl,_,,a I. ,..
C’..—D ‘. .,D
r
Risk Tabtel
[ isk Table j
.1
Results & interpretations
-------
Issues - Acceptable Risk?
What constituents “acceptable risk for a
broad-based community assessment?
Superfund range of 10’ to 10 ?
cumulative risk assessment paradigm, b t
single facilities (& usually 10 chemicals)
106 per chemical? (per pathway?)
ignores cumulative risk issues
Meets “standards” or “non-detect”?
standard /n.d.’s> 10.6 risk level
McFarland Team
5uperfund bivision
Keith Takata - $F birector & “Charnpion
Elizabeth Adams - Section Chief & original
Team Leader
Mark Calhoon - Team Leader
Angeles Herrera - Community Involvement
Gerry Hiatt - Risk Assessment
ATSDR - Bill Nelson
McFarland Team
Cross-bivisonal Representatives
Barry Pollock - Water
Pay Chavira - Cross Media (Pesticides)
Manny Aquitania - Air
Mike Mahoney - QA/QC
Jeannie Cervera - Regional Counsel
Katy Wilcoxen - Environmental Justice
Arnold ben - Air + Risk Asscssmcnt
Issues - Are High Risk Standards “Safe”?
Communities ask “Is it safe”?
How do we answer when standards are met
j risks are “high”?
Arsenic MCL exceeds the Superfund
acceptable range of 10.6 to 10
Cumulative risks from bW that meets
individual MCLs can be “high”
Cumulative risk from background
inorganics can be “high”
-------
McFcirkrnd isk Assessment
Exposures jn the risk assessment:
esidenticl - adults & children at home
Children at school
Adolescents at high school (& track/gym?)
Exposures j in the risk assessment:
Agricultural fields
Other workplaces
Cars
-------
ORB COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP II;
WHAT TOOLS AND DATA ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
PRACTITIONERS’ PANEL DISCUSSION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
JUNE 9-10, 1999
-------
!7 p
COMMUNITY PERCEPTION
Environmental pollution has contributed to community health problem(s)
THE PROBLEM
Mulfiple Speculations and Hypotheses
Limited Data for Confirmation
Limited Resources for Exploration
THE SOLUTION
Develop a Consensus Approach That Will Better:
• Identify/Characterize Problems
• Establish Priorities
• Guide Options and Actions
-------
ligI t 0
‘Oted
I
Ot i
7
est
p
eStiG
S
efl
If
r
\
-------
-
-------
&
1. * L L’
5; 4. 5 . 1 .- . . S
Emission Environmental Biological Adverse
Exposure .... Dose
Source(s) oncentrations . Effects Outcomes
.4 1
1! 1 11
- ••.: .:.:
t, .5
S . .4 . 5’, . . ..
4 4. fl
- I \.
— 5 S “F •
S 55
Source . • Blo-
• . Fate • Proximity • . Biologicat’j-
Characterization availability Mechanisms
and to Source Based Door’-
and Pollution . . • Pharmaco- • Damage
• Transport • Activity • . Response
Prevention kinetics • Repair
Profiles t.loclets
Risk Exposure Hazard Identification
i?1anagernent F Assessment I Dose-Response Assessment
Risk
I Characterization
- --- --- - --- ---—----- — - . _ w _ --
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PARADIGM
? ? ? ?
SOURCE PATHWAYS DOSE EFFECTS OUTCOME
* Environfacts *Monitoring data *NHANES *Health Records *Registries
Warehouse *NHEXAS *SurvejlIance *Outbreak Reports
*GIS Tests *Data bases *Poisoning Reports
*State Inventories (e.g., IRIS)
REALITIES
Substantial experience in understanding Source— Pathway linkage
At the best, such data useful for hypothesis generation not hypothesis testing
CHALLENGES
Understand predictive linkages starting at any point in the cascade
Design data collection (e.g., monitoring) to accommodate different needs
- Who
- \Vhen
- Where
- What
- How
-------
Intake and
Uptake
Processes
Environmental
Health
Paradigm
Important
Determinants
(Mechanisms)
Sexton et al., 1995
-------
VALIDATED, PREDICTIVE BIOMARKERS - SOLVING
THE LINKAGE PROBLEM
ROOD NEWS
Can measure a lot of things and ar getting better at it
Affordability becoming a reality
REALITIES
Less certain about what should be measured
Often appear to be measuring for the sake of measuring
Interpretation is not straightforward
-------
Resutts of 9—Home Pilot
Løwer Rio Grande Valley EnvironmentaJ Study
— I
1
— I
Summary
L
Lead
Thc
Metals 1
F
ICompound Name
% (S)
Dthected
J
,
Higheat
Value
Env ronmenta1 Highest Value
Standard in Reference Population
Cadmium
Mercury
Chromium
Arsenic
A urninum
Volatile Orqanic Compounds
1.1.1 Trichloro hane
Tetrach loroethytene
. m.p—Dichlorobenzene
O—Xylene
m.p—Xylene
Benzerie
Chloroform
Stvrene
Butanone
Acetone
Propane
Butane
Butadiene
tolulene
Bromoform
Nitrophenol
I___________________
Trichlorophenol
Naphthalene
Dibromochloromethane
Diazinon
Pesticides
Chiorodane
Propoxur
PcB -
Permethrjn
DDE
DDT
2.40
Malathion
Atrazine
Aroclor 1260
POlVchlorjnated Biphenyl
-
?c ycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Total PAH s
Benzo (a) ovre ne
Microbiologicais
Coliform
-------
VALIDATED, PREDICTIVE-BIOMARKERS - SOLVING
THE LINKAGE PROBLEM
Exposure Biomarkers
*Different goals = different designs
- Linkage back to source?
- Linkage to effects?
*Design issues - who, when, what, etc.
*Basjc metric - time and concentration
*Reference data
Effects Biomarkers
*Relationship of test species data to human
*Re1ationsI ip of low dose, measurable events to outcome
*Relationship of exposure scenario to outcome - acute—’ chronic
*Design issues - who, when, what, etc.
*Abiljty to assess biomarker/outcome
-------
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH REALITIES
Multi- Versus Single Pathway Exposure
Mixtures versus Single Pollutant Exposure
Varying, Concurrent/Overlapping Exposure Scenarios
Short Half-Life Versus Bioaccumulation
Retrospective Exposure-Health Linkage
-------
• L r r - - q ti2O c flC1rU4’S j 1 L)c JJJ A-t4fr--
K1 pper oPPT5)
( )
‘ a L & ii c . td
t -
/ r.4 -L a( 4Efril /
i ) / a d Z h i i
0) Z 7 c iz2 t z i
%‘ b tn J •.•
e o ç eLt / .
& . z Z( z ( . _-
t k &a?f h
(T) L 7 J 74:
a .
. L i4 1tI . th A J
,
4.. -4
17’ -fV24 rt. t ’)14XSi4ZZ ,( t (
(5) qc &d 4
a- t I
(1)) •Ii M
(0) Z
() rAT 4 i 1?d{ t Z
h t cc
(0) , u-? c.t TZ , t 6 4zL. L •
i cid .
/ / I I
(r , i ;:z
-------
‘5(,t s 1 LzL4J: r i - ’4
I ‘S C _ 4
ZD &ic4
)
: L
‘7 c
(2 / J ( t
( ) >
4 1 ç 17
C 7
j Zi f,
-
, ‘ Y ‘14d IiJ,-a - - j. R 3
‘f&k I ... L ; k/V1 8
(q) ô-
Ez dU a 4 , j,- , z J
, L z±
2 fi fr. .4
4’,”—
CJ/At I
!+ .
1.t aL .-
r 1
/
((a) j L
d-
i: ) 41( -/.‘ iy ‘4 i -r L’ L(( h 4 :y
tr In,, / ,,J,, ,. ‘ .i:. ..
(c5
( L
/ — --r
-------
(cj ictc 1 4 La L t
. ‘
4 L
(D) b
& ° - ‘ f ’
/%.( Z& 4 $ f ? 1 ,2.
-r.z,ic -ZZ ti Li-c t
h UJ ‘ 6 &
tdu
- t 1. LS j J L t4’ i- c44 z d & -
-. ( 3 , -c L L t - a&
(1) 1 ç - L h .. __
L t tA ( L
- I”. ); 4.:;ç L i 4 ’1 dT..
t4Lh
, ,&c” c-
4 9 j€ 4 a,t C€d /
I
t r ’ / ‘ “
t L
A f
(-7)
-------
• Both Chemicals at Toxic Levels
— Synergism Joint toxicity is more than predicted by dose addition
— Antagonism Joint toxicity is less than predicted by dose addition
• One Chemical Not at a Toxic Level
— Potentiation Joint toxicity is more than predicted by dose addition
— Inhibition Joint toxicity is less than predicted by dose addition
• Dose Addition
— All chemicals in the mixture are toxicologically similar.
— DoseM X = EqDose 1 = sum( dl*T1 + d2*T2 + ...)
— Joint toxicity estimated for the equiv. dose of chem 1.
• Response Addition
— Special case where the chemicals act independently
-------
Fraction of studies showing an interaction
• “Positive” includes synergism and other enhanced toxicity
• “Positive” only in 26% of the chemical pairs studied
• Same chemical pair can show multiple interactions
— Source: EPA review of 1465 chemical pairs, 1990.
Negative
Other
Positive Unknown
-------
• Most environmental chemical interactions at the more common
lower levels in the environment show less than 10-fold interaction.
— interaction = change in minimum toxic dose
• Very few studies allow interaction to be quantified.
Most mixture health risks are dominated by one or two chemicals
— clean up those few chemicals and the rest are at safe levels
-------
Total Risk Integrated
Methodology (TRIM) & other
Air Toxics Program Tools
St ç 3
Deirdre Murphy
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
June 9, 1999
National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA)
• Emissions inventories
• Air quality, exposure & risk modeling
• Air monitoring network
• Ongoing research on
effects & assessment tools
-------
Air Toxics Program
Assessment Activities
• Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
National scale
Urban/Neighborhood scale
• Residual Risk Assessments
Source-oriented scale
National Scale Modeling Tools
• National Toxics Inventory (NIl)
- 1996 modeling inventory by 9/99
• Air dispersion model (ASPEN)
• Inhalation exposure model (HAPEM)
• [ multi-media, multi-pathway as
feasible/appropriate]
-------
Urban/Neighborhood Scale
Modeling Tools
• Local emissions inventories
• Air dispersion model (e.g., ISC3, AERMOD)
o Inhalation exposure model
(e.g., HAPEM, pNEM, APEX)
o Multi-media, multi-pathway (e.g., TRIM)
Total Risk Integrated Methodology
• Human Health & Ecological Risks
posed by
• Multipathway Exposures
resulting from
• Multimedia Fate & Transport
of Air Pollutants
-------
The NEED for TRIM
To support the CAA programs
• Residual Risk Program
• Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
• Pollutant / Source Category Petitions
• Special Studies (e.g., Hg, Great Waters)
• Setting National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)
• Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA)
DESIGN FEATURES OF TRIM
ScientificaUy Defensible
• capable of multipollutant, multimedia,
multipathway assessments
• mass-conseMng
• stochastic
• able to characterize uncertainty and
variability
• able to perform iterative analyses
-------
DESIGN FEATURES OF TRIM (Cont’d)
Flexible
• modular in design
• flexible in temporal and spatial scale
• able to assess human and ecological
endpoints
• Usable by OAQPS, Regions, &
Stakeholders
• easily accessible
• well-documented
• clear and transparent
COMPONENTS OF TRiM
• Four modules:
• Environmental Fate and Transport
• Exposure Event
• Dosimetry and Response
• Risk Characterization
-------
Tin port.
I and En 4 nm.nuI
E powre Mod ,
i) r’ —
Conceptual OvsMsw of TRIM
I—
-------
Abiotic Compartment Types
Modeled
• Air: upper and lower air layers
• Soil:
surface soil
root zone
vadose zone
groundwater
• Surface Water
upper and lower take layers
river segments
• Sediment
. interstitial water
sediment
Biotic Compartment Types
Modeled
• AQUATIC
Wetland plant leaves, roots, xylem, and stem
Macrophytes & Mayfly (benthic herbivores)
Bluegill (as herbivore), Channel catfish (omnivore), Bass (carnivore)
Mallard (herbivore), Raccoon (omnivore), Tree Swallow (insectivore)
• TERRESTRIAL
Plant leaves, roots, xylem, and stem
Insects, Earthworm (soil detritivore)
Black-capped chickadee (insectivore), Red-tailed hawk (predator),
Belted kingfisher (piscivore)
. While-footed mouse (omnivore). Long-tailed weasel
(predator), Black-tailed deer (herbivore), Long-tailed vole (herbivore),
Mink (piscivore). Trowbridge shrew (ground invertebrate feeder)
13-14
-------
Exposure-Event Module
SCHEDULE -- Timeline
r. . ., tip.. .. . . £ 0
— —p. y . ..
d .t i* . .4p..p’p md
•p. p.p. . •g
• I’ .t pptp. .rçp
.m .. PmUd.m. pp. ... ..
nWk k. ..
Outputs
friput O.ta
- _
p.m.. ..
Model Components
• I4 . ..n
p. . . . .
. -
S.et 4
Water
- R.... . . . (.4.. i mg)
• U. .
P
•mm . .. (. i p. .u)
-— -. ..mt (pd .. .p . . .)
• md (.d. ...
• m w
- .‘-‘Q . d
• . . — p..
-_,c P- e
.mp.i p .. . . p.t
--a
• —p.
•
Food
—p.
• .
•p.a.. ..’. •Pp..i.
• -
MtM . *y •0áp
- -h.- .
• p.—’
gTRIM • TE
ki A .axpo prototype
: De eIopmeflt
,nceptI des(gn for TRIM.RIsk
15-16
-------
WHO IS INVOLVED IN TRIM
DEVELOPMENT?
Cooperative effort between EPA’s
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards and:
• Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
• Oak Ridge National Lab
•ICF
• MCNC
•EC/R
• Coordination with EPA’s Office of
Research and Devetopment
Upp.f A. ’ A4 Uppir A
I.. Ak
FOR SVURBANI
$o. _______________________
R.. i...
S.fae. W W ,
V .4 ... Zo.. - -
L....r $...1 c. V41..
Typical Land Parcel Typical River Parcel Typical Lake Parcel
17-18
-------
-
Forest
as an EconomkTlidieafGr
• J. Wickliam
U.S. EPA .
Research Triangle Park, N
R.V. O’Neill
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OakR dge, IN
KB. Jones
U.S. EPA
Las Vegas, NV
-------
.
- .;- ç c’
-.. -
- . - - - 7
-
— I
I
:
‘ —
&
Li
cLs er1
cluster 2
duster 3
U ciuszerh
uster5
cn r
0 -
D clus:cr E
I cIus: -9
Not included
Fig Cluster An ysis o1M,d-At! ntiC V tershedS
-------
01501
O.12$
cm-
0100-
S
U
øc 0 .087
t O .075
I.
}&oso
S
S
0.023”
0.013
•1 I I I I I I I I
475 550 (25 700 775 &50 925 iooo 1O7 1150 U25 i oo
Mean o( Land Value Surface Zones
-------
-------
0.200
0.175
S
S
0.150-
0.125 -
.
DIJ0O
S
g2
1.075- S
0.050-
S
0.025 -
I I I I I I
475 550 625 700 775 8.50 925 1000 1075 1150 U2.S 1300 1375
Mean Value of Land Surfz Zoecs
-------
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
1:
11:
U:
13:
14:
439
522
592
662
735
869
93
iei 1
1071
1144
1214
12S3
134.6
m
I
I
0
0
Figure 2
-------
164
Richmond
Lyndibi
tgur
-------
Change in NDVI by Standard Deviation Classes (1976-1991), Raleigh, NC
x < .4 &d.
-(5 -—4.SStd.
1ACKGROL D. b t es the maA d D er e Ve tat4on 1nck x (NDVI) re
c p u1 usiag caily fafl Laa&iac MSS ia ea fr W? d 1991. MDVI Is a
r*a of frared (W) ke i red div k by I X pè xtd i:i - red I II + redi.
adore c pmr MDVI k *grs, t d .a were cw tM ta M -.
r kdaact, aad regrc o. w ed t. adj the W?6 d Ma Ia the 1991 dM .a .
MDVI w caL nI e foe each alter tM a4j e
D(ffrnxiices La NDV1 b wer the t ei were cakL ed by ract the
MDV1 ima e (or 1 1 tr tkM tar 197 . p ad a of a
typk.afly res In a r rw .aI di r M of v . L
Is trpicafly caçiurul i the tath of thM cr aee L c e
M.aiGrIsig a d Asmeaw R carch Plan, EI’A - , 1994). The picture
shown here cokn-cedes the d1ffcrences according to t rdllstancc for the
C of the
SPATIAL PATTERN. There are a couple of patterus to the change lathe picture.
Pb -st. there w no signlflcw( change In MDVI ov the majority of the scene.
The cLass closest to the cei ter of the histogram (blue-gray) comprises 78
percci of the im e , and the 3 daises closest to the center of the hIstogram
tom petse 92 percent Second, those dasses more likely represeilting actual land
cover change (greeiu, bi-uwns, and reds) are not dbtribtzted uniformly throuj hout
the image. Moat of the change Is concentrated in the southeastern corner of
the im e, In the Upper Cape Fear, Black and lower half of the Upper Neusc
Watersheds. In contrast, there appears to have been relatively little change
hi the Upper Dan Watershed. Third, the mnostdrzina&Change LnNDVI was from
the creation of reservoirs after 1976. These rtservülii nppearth red.
LCk
I
I
I
I
a
I
*ndscape Ass ent Teen,
SEPA, Las Vegas & TVA, Norris)
-------
Blah...
Blah.
Blah...
Blah...
Blah..
Blah...
Blah...
Blah.
Blah...
BIah.
E3I h.
-------
A “L [ alo’ of Change Around R2Jeigti, NC (IYI&-IYYZ)
I z<-4_5&zi.
I
I -3S=’-z<-2.. S1.4i
I -23=
-------
Definitions of GIS
S A system of hardware, software, and procedures designed to
support capture, management, manipulation, analysis, modeling
and di play of spatially-referenced data for solving complex
plarming and management problems.
• In the strictest sense, a GIS is a computer system capable of
storing, manipulating, and displaying spatially-referenced
information, i.e., data identified according to their locations.
Practitioners regard the total GIS as including operation persoimel
and the data that go into the system.
• GIS are simultaneously the telescope, the microscope, the
computer, and the xerox machine of regional analysis and spatial
data.
• Automated systems for capture, storage, retrieval, analysis, and
display of spatial data.
-------
How ‘bout
GIS: to make a database out of a map.
Why:
To analyze and model .. so we can ask (and answer questions.
-------
Community Risk Assessment Workshop
Overview of Exposure Data Bases & Tools
June 9, 1999
Loren Hall
Office of Civil Rights
(202) 260-3931
Email: hail. loren epamai1. epa. gov
Page 1
-------
Goals of Presentation
I. Provide participants with background, and a framework for
categorizing data and tools
II. Highlight data gaps and issues in developing exposure components of
risk-based systems
Page 2
-------
Examples of Risk-Based Decisions
Screening assessments:
+ Targeting subcategories of facilities, chemicals, industries,
geographic areas for inspection, regulation or voluntary reduction
efforts
+ To establish priorities for follow up investigations
Formal (Quantitative) assessments:
+ Determine site remediation clean up levels
+ Set permit limits or ambient concentration standards
Page 3
-------
Common Forms of Risk Screening Assessments
+ Simple
Combinations: Sum of annual emissions or emissions per unit
area (as exposure surrogate)
+ Weighted
Combinations: Emissions weighted by toxicity and/or fate
criteria
4 Rough Exposure
Estimates: Use models with mostly generic release
characteristics:,and environmental parameters
Page 6
-------
Major Stressor Data Gaps
+ Source location and chemical-specific releases
-- Currency of releases, emission factors, treatment efficiencies
-- Comprehensiveness: sectors/types, chemicals, sizes
-- Mixtures
-- Permitted limits vs. estimated actual
-- Mobile sources geographic distribution and emissions
4 Release characteristics
-- Form (e.g. particle size distribution)
-- Frequency/duration
4 Site characteristics
-- Location accuracy
-- Site characteristics, e.g. stack info, local environment
Page 9
-------
Major Environmental Characteristics Data Gaps
+ Air
-- Wind patterns
- Density of measurement stations
- Currency, especially for ISCST requirements
+ Water
-- Stream flows
-- Updated coding of release and receptor locations by Reach ID
- - Aquifers
- location, depth, subsurface conditions, flow direction and
velocity
Page 10
-------
Receptoi’ Population Data Issues/Gaps
4 Data currency (since 1990 Census)
4 Non-residential populations, e.g. schools, hospitals
4 Knowledge and Availability of predictive factors
-- behavioral
-- vulnerability
-- pre-existing exposure
+ Environmental justice issues, e.g., access to health care
Page 11
-------
HEALTH! EPIDATA BASES
Jane Gallagher
Epidemiology & Biomarkers Branch
Human Studies Division
National Health’& Environmental Effects Laboratory
US Environmental Protection Agency
Community Assessment Workshop
June 9, 10, 1999
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED DISEASES
Asthma hospitalizations (per 100,000) (1994) 174
Lung Cancer Dealths(age adjusted per 100,000) (1993) 39.3
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(age adjusted per 100,000) (1994) 20.0
Motor Vehicle crash deaths (per 100,000) (1994) 15 .G
Infertility (married couples 15-44) (1988) 7.9%
Neural tube defects (per 10,000 live births) (1993) 7
Foodborne Salmonella species
(Cases per 100,000) (1994) 15
Salmonella enteriditis outbreaks (1994) 44
Hepatitis A (cases per 100,000) (1994) 30.9
International Travel illness (number of cases)
Typhoid fever (1992) 351
Hepatitis A (1994) 5,681
Infectious diarrhea among children in
childcare centers age 0-5 (1991) 32%
Waterborne Outbreak Cases (1995-96)
microbial 2,477
chemical 90
Proportion of people in counties that have
exceeded standards for air (1994) 24.9%
Proportion of people receiving water from community systems that
exceeds I or more MCL (1996) 14%
-------
C iiI k!t I 13Z II i( 1 ?F tIii L t v NiIWit (
k 1 iL LECUL/kR LEI’1L LEWjIL LOGY
Environmental
I
t L L
-------
????
I
-------
1.
S.”.
-
:: • ..
.
—. 5
umaft eXpQ. Ure. .. •.: :
s’essment survey
as
; ,
-------
CDC
I
N1OSH NEH NCHS
DATA Collection System
Vital statistics
Population Surveys
Hospital discharge Data systems
Disease reporting and Case -Finding
Surveillance Svtem s
EIS
NCID ASDTR
-------
PROCESS
DIAGRAM
AUeged Exposure
£\Ileged Health effect
starting point
analysis and decision
EVALUATION
data gathering
-------
Table of Contents 0
INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
Spothght on State Health Profiles .. v
Health Status Indicators vi
States and CDC in Partnership vii
Sample of Services Provided by CDC Throughout the United States viii
CDC Funds for States x i
Selected Demographic Information x li
Local Health Departments by Jurisdiction xiii
MORTALITY
Leading Causes of Death 2
Years of Potential Life Lost 6
ill. CHILDHOOD HEALTH CONCERNS
Birth Defects 10
Births to 15-to 19-Year-Old Females 11
Infant Mortality 12
Measles 14
Prenatal Care 15
IV. DEATHS FROM INJURIES
Homicide 18
Suicide 19
Motor Vehicle-Related Deaths 20
V. ,.ENVIftONMENTALLY RELATED HEALTH CONCERNS AND DiSABILITIES
( Asthm 22
Health Conditions Secondary to Disabilities 23
Lead Poisoning Prevention 24
VI. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CONCERNS
Occupational Lung Disease Fatalities and Traumatic Occupational Fatalities: All Categories 26
Occupational Fatalities: Construction and Mining Industhes 27
Occupational Fatalities: Agriculture Industry and Occupational Fatalities by State of Death 28
Occupational Illnesses 29
Vii. INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) 32
Chlamydia and Gonorrhea 33
Malaria 34
Pneumonia and Influenza 35
Primary and Secondary Syphilis 36
Salmonella Typhimunum 37
Tuberculosis 38
VIII. CHRONIC DISEASES: CONDITIONS AND RISK FACTORS
Air Quality Standards 40
BreastCancerandMammography 41
Cardiovascular Disease, Total 42
Colorectal Cancer and Proctoscopy 43
Lung Cancer and Smoking 44
Prevalence of Diagnosed Diabetes 45
Prevalence of Physical Inactivity 46
Prevalence of Smoking 47
IX. HEALTH PROMOTION STRATEGIES
Distance-Based Learning Courses 50
Vaccination Coverage Rates 51
X. APPENDIX A-i
-------
STATE HEALTH PROFILES
Mortality
M Childhood health concerns
Deaths from injuries
Environmentally related Health Concerns
1 Occupational Health Concerns
Infectious diseases
I Chronic Diseases Conditions and Risk
-------
S
$
State Is
National
• .• . .
55
. .. S. .••• = — • • ••. 5• S • • . • •
• •
a
I
•..•‘ CommunUy
sip.
S
S
.4
S
S
S
I
a
S
S
S
S
S
S
/
S
a
a
S
a
a
a
/
I
a
I
I
I
I
p.
.4
4
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 31 99
Appendix G
Breakout Group Handouts
-------
Stressors - National Data
Is there a threat to our health or local environment?
H
LID
LID
—
<
LID
L)
U
U
Z
.E
c
—
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
Is our poor health from environmental exposures?
Is the air safe on the most polluted day’s of the ‘ear?
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Are we at risk from acute exposures. accidents and episodic releases?
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our
health?
Is it safe for m ’ children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if they are the basis for my’ diet?
What fish should I avoid and why’? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from my’ well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely’ affect our environment?
Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
flow can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for my’ local communit?
What are the potential impacts. including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cumulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
.
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community?
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of s ’nerg\’ with mixtures?
flow do our risks compare to other communities?
Isthere an unusually’ high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters.
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
or compared to other communities?
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
flow can we improve our environmental quality of life?
How can we get an overall picture so we can set priorities for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation?
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
How do we track our progress?
-------
Stressors - Regional, State, Local Data
Is there a threat to our health or local environment?
c .
<
—
u
o
&)f•-
<
ç
c
.2
><
<
F—
—_____J
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools’
Is our poor health from environmental exposures?
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Are we at risk from acute exposures, accidents and episodic releases?
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our
health?
Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if they are the basis for my diet?
What fish should I avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from my well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
How can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for my local community?
What are the potential impacts, including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cumulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community?
.
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures?
How do our risks compare to other communities?
Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters,
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
or compared to other communities?
How can we improve our environmental quality of life?
How can we get an overall picture so we can set priorities for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation?
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
How do we track our progress?
-------
Stressors - Tools
local em’ironment? Default
factors
— —
-
0 .<
U <
Mobile
Source
emissions
predictive
models
homes and schools?
exposures?
the year?
sources?
populations?
and episodic releases?
combine together to adversely impact our
pond?
especially if they arc the basis for my diet?
much would be considered safe to eat?
environment?
our use?
risks in our community?
—
for my local community?
increases or decreases, of local
exposures?
the sources?
businesses, households, arid schools have on
judge the impact of a new facility
in our community?
—
with mixtures?
other communities?
in our community (cancer clusters,
stresses?
income, children) within my community
environmental quality of lj/’e?
—
set priorities for action? —
economic situation? —
noise, dust, bad odors? —
—
-------
Exposure/Conditions - National Data
Is there a threat to our health or local environment?
—
<
C
—
c/
e
,
.
‘-‘. :
e
u
L)
E
“
<
<
c
JJ
z
—
Z
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
Is our poor health from environmental exposures?
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Are we at risk from acute exposures. accidents and episodic releases?
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our
health?
Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if they are the basis for my diet?
What fish should I avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from my well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
—
—
—
—
—
—
How can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for m local community?
What are the potential impacts, including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cumulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community’
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures?
How do our risks compare to other communities?
Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters,
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
or compared to other communities?
—
—
How can we improve our environmental quality of life?
How can we get an overall picture so we can set pnonties for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation?
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
How do we track our progress?
-------
Exposure/Condition-
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
Is our poor health from environmental exposures?
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Are we at risk from acute exposures. accidents and episodic releases?
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our
health?
Is it safe for m children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that! catch. especially if they are the basis for my diet?
What fish should I avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from my well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
How can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for m ’ local communiw’?
What are the potential impacts. including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cumulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community?
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures?
How do our risks compare to other communities ?
Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters,
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Dowe have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
or compared to other communities?
How can we improve our environmental quality of lift?
Is there a threat to our health or local environment?
Local Data
How can we get an overall picture so we can set priorities for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation’
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
How do we track our progress?
-------
Exposure/Conditions - Tools
Is there a threat to our health or local environment?
—
LL
C/
z
<
-
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
Is our poor health from environmental exposures?
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Are we at risk from acute exposures, accidents and episodic releases?
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our
health?
Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if they are the basis for my diet?
What fish should I avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from my well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
—
—
—
—
How can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for my local community?
What are the potential impacts, including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cumulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community?
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures?
How do our risks compare to other communities?
Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters,
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
or compared to other communities’
—
—
—
—
—
—
How can we improve our environmental quality of life?
How can we get an overall picture so we can set priorities for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation?
—
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
—
How do we track our progress?
-------
General -Data & Tools
environment?
homes and schools?
exposures?
the year?
all sources?
populations?
and episodic releases?
combine together to adversely impact our
pond?
especially if they are the basis for my diet?
much would be considered safe to eat?
environment?
limit our use?
in our community?
for my local community?
increases or decreases, of local
exposures?
the sources?
businesses, households, and schools have on
judge the impact of a new facility
in our community?
with mixtures?
communities?
disease in our community (cancer clusters.
environmental stresses?
income, children) within my community
quality of l fe?
can set priorities for action?
economic situation?
traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
-------
Incidence -Data & Tools
Is there a threat to our health or local environment?
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
Is our poor health from environmental exposures?
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Are we at risk from acute exposures. accidents and episodic releases?
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our
health?
Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that! catch, especially if they are the basis for my diet?
What fish should! avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from my well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
How can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for my local community?
What arc the potential impacts, including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cumulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community?
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures?
How do our risks compare to other communities?
Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters,
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
or compared to other communities?
How can we improve our environmental quality of l fe?
How can we get an overall picture so we can set priorities for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation?
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
How do we track our progress?
-------
Receptors -Data & Tools
environment?
homes and schools?
exposures?
the year?
all sources?
populations?
and episodic releases?
combine together to adversely impact our
pond?
especially if they are the basis for my diet?
much would be considered safe to eat?
environment?
limit our use?
in our community?
for my local community?
increases or decreases, of local
exposures?
the sources?
businesses, households, and schools have on
judge the impact of a new facility
in our community?
with mixtures? —
—
—
—
communities?
disease in our community (cancer clusters,
environmental stresses?
income, children) within my community
quality of ljfe?
can set priorities for action?
economic situation?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
traffic, noise, dust, bad odors? —
-------
Effects -Data & Tools
Is there a threat to our health or local environment?
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
Is our poor health from environmental exposures?
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources?
Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
Are we at risk from acute exposures, accidents and episodic releases?
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together 10 adversely impact our
health?
Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?
Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch. especially if they are the basis for my diet?
What fish should 1 avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from m ’ well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use 9
How can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for my local community?
What are the potential impacts, including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cwnulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community?
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures?
How do our risks compare to other communities?
Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters,
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
- or compared to other communities?
How can we improve our environmental quality of life?
How can we get an overall picture so we can se priorities for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation?
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
How do we track our progress?
-------
rre ateg ry IViatri x
- Data and Tools -
Description of Category: Databases include known and potential sources of pollution or other environmental agents of concern, such as chemical
releases (routine or accidental, stationary or mobile), noise, etc, and their characteristics. Tools include methodologies and emissions estimation models to
allow prediction of the amount of an agent from specific or generic source categories.
Database or
Tool
Data
Source
Time
Period
Geograp
hic Area
Measurement
Type
Pollutant
Units
Environmental
Media
TRI
(measured/estimated)
PCS
CERCLIS
AIRS Facility
RAPIDS
CHIEF
AP-42
-------
Exposure Category Matrix
- Tools -
Description of Category: Databases include monitoring data concerning the agents of concern (in various environmental and biological media), and the results
of the application of tools (e.g. modeled concentrations). Related data include environmental conditions which affect dispersion and fate of agents (e.g. wind
patterns, stream flow, pH). Tools include models to estimate levels in the ambient environment, plants/animals and humans.
Tools
Data
Source
Units
Exposure
measurement
(e.g.measured,
estimated)
Route of Exposure
(oral, inhalation,
dermal)
Population
Effected
Pathway
Health Impacted
(e.g., human
or ecology)
Geographic
scale
Pollutant Source
(e.g., point, area,
mobile)
RSEI
(16-bit)
pounds
estimated .
Oral
Inhalation
general
air, water, land
human
km 2 , ziPs city, cty,
St.
point, area
PECT
IEIJBK
Gravity
CEP
I
census tract
-------
eiref-äI Category Matrix
- Data and Tools -
Description of Category: Fundamental data and tools useful in a variety of assessment steps, such as road and stream networks, land us/land cover
and spatial and statistical analysis methods.
Database Name
Source of Data
Time Period
Geographic
Area
Scale
Other
Information
User notes
Geographic
Information
System (GIS)
datasets
Land uselland
cover datasets
Geo-ease
(kriging)
Global
Positioning
Systems
TIGER (Census)
.
Statistical
methods
CIMAS-type
applications
I
-------
Incidence Category Matrix
- Data and Tools -
Description of Category: Observed rates of health endpoints of concern in receptor populations, e.g., cancer morbidity/mortality, aquatic species
disease rates, etc. Databases would include national, state, and local health department records.
Database Name
Source of Data
Health
Endpoints
Geographic
Area
Scale
Other
Information
Timeframe/
User notes
Illinois Hospital
Admission Data
Patient
Admissions
IDPH/Il linois
Hospitalization
Cost
Containment
Council
(IHCCC)
Primary and
Secondary
diagnosis
ICD-9 codes.
(asthma,
COPD, etc)
Illinois
Zip
Code
(patient
residen
Ce)
Includes
patient date of
birth and sex.
Does not
include patient
name
Annual 1987-1996
Tape or CD format
Purchase from
IHCCC or by
arrangement
National Center
for Health
Statistics
Cancer Mortality
ATSOR Disease
Registry
NHANES
Acute pesticide
poisoning
database
-------
Receptors Category Matrix
- Data or Tool Category -
Description of Category: Databases include the geographic distribution and behavioral characteristics of human, plant and animal populations (including
sensitive subpopulations) which may be affected by agents of concern, as well as anthropomorphic or non-living receptors (e.g. historical sites, aesthetic vistas,
etc). Tools include models or methods to identify and estimate the number of receptors which are potentially exposed to measured or predicted conditions (e.g.
population estimation).
Tools
Time
Period
Geographical area
Data Type
(Socioeconomic/Demographic/
Ecosystem)
Data Source
SDWIS
Population Effected
6 it)
1990
block level & group
human race, age (crude)
general population
RSEI
(32-bit)
block level & group
human race, income, age
(refined)
.
..
general, sensitive
PECT
IEUBK
Gravity
CEP
census tract
-------
Effects Category Matrix
- Database & Tool -
Description of Category: Databases and tools for estimating health and environmental effects of agents of concern. Databases
range from collections of raw toxicity text results to organized sets of specific groups of chemicals with an evaluation by weight of
evidence or other quality assessment criteria. Tools allow prediction of the likelihood of an effect occurring in the absence of test data.
Database or Tool
Source of data and
compilation
process
Effects covered
Number of
chemicals covered
Update process
User notes
IRIS
U.S. EPA
consensus review of
available peer
reviewed studies
cancer inhalation
and oral slope
factors as available,
chronic and
subchronic non-
cancer RfDs, RfCs,
as available
536
Age of files varies
HEAST
RSEI toxicity
weights
ATSDR Toxicity
profiles
Quantitative
structure activity
relationship
(QSAR) models
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 31 ‘ 99
Appendix H. Completed Breakout Group Handouts
and Flipchart Transcriptions
Group 1 Day 1:
Stressors
Focus: (Eco-human) Database description
Usage history, user notes, QAIQC, accessability (new columns)
NEPA documentation, DBs
RAPIDS
National Response Center Data
State and Local Databases (lead)
Mobile Sources
Local Checks (E-check)
Geology/Radon
Pesticide sales data (manufacturer)
ROD D13 (CERCLA) RI/FS, etc.
RCRIS
RCRA Permits
NPDES (PCS)
Dunn and Bradstreet
Historical Data (library - Yellow Pages), planning maps, etc.
Community members
Industry
Chamber of Commerce
Risk management plan
Community Right-to-Know Act
Hazardous Response Groups (Emergency Response Planning Board)
Roads/highway information (location)
Land use data sets (EcoRisk)
Eco footprint (methodology)
General Category
Expand GIS data category
Add GIS as a tool
REACH file - national hydrography data sets
Available commercial databases
Consumer use
Income
City directories
Meteorological data
Florida data sources reference book (Deb Martin’s group)
*C e studies meta tool - methodologies utilized in CBEP-type projects (TBD) Chicago,
McFarland, Baltimore projects
Exposure (add Validation column)
Exposure Factors Handbook
H-I
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8 ‘ 31 ‘ 99
View Graph (Haluk’s)
Air models
Water models
GW models
MM models
Non-occupational pesticide exposure study (NOPE NEXAS Team)
PRIS
FDA - Pesticide monitoring data
CSFII Consumption data
EMPACT
Receptors
Fresh and saltwater study by NOAA
EMAP
Nature Conservancy T&C
Xmas and breeding bird counts
FrogLog
PRIS - Population Risk Indexing System (?)
Columns to Add
Focus of tool - ceo. human, etc.
Usage history
User notes
Point of contact
Validation of models/tools
QA/QC
Accessability
How
Where http://www.???
Whom
Group 2 Day 1
One member of this group marked a few of the handouts. We have transcribed here what is
legible; the original handouts are appended in hard copy. General notes are transcribed below
and typed-up handouts follow.
Stressors
Where is quantitative database - county level (confidentiality)
Local emissions inventories, local monitoring data
Biological (portion?) To explain results of relevant research in communities
Media Approach #1
1) Relevancy of (?7?) results to local scale - risk factors for home and schools
2) Difference between screening (uncertainty (???) high) and comprehensive assessment
(resource intensive) - what drives uncertainty the most?
H-2
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’3 1(99
Multiple chemical sensitivity - relationship of formaldehyde
Limited to criteria air pollutants, water quality
Lots of data missing from site-specific work (local (???))
Boundary info for Indian Reservations - control of local facilities
Use local communities to help correct data errors (lat/longs)
11-3
-------
Stressors - Data & Tools
Is (here a threat to our health or local environment?
•
(Good for criteria pollutants - air toxics are much weaker)
(Air - primary (???) significant (???) in quality of data - point better
than mobile)
Default factors
— —
/)
U
Mobile
Source
emissions
.
predictive
models
What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools? All - indoor air
(Texas will help)
is our poor health from environmental exposures? All
I
Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year? All - air only
monitoring and modeling
needed
Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources? Exp
Are the levels safe for children and other populations? All
Are we at risk from acute exposures. accidents and episodic releases? All
Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our
health? All
is it sale for my children to swim in the local pond? All - water
Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if they are the basis for my diet?
What fish should I avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
Is the water from m ’ well safe to drink?
Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
Are there areas thai we should protect or limit our use?
How can we characterize the risks in our community?
What environmental information is available for m local community?
What are the potential impacts, including increases or decreases, of local
environmental pollutants?
What is the cumulative impact of environmental exposures?
How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources?
How can we assess the impact that our businesses, households, and schools have on
our environment?
What information do we need in order to judge the impact of a new facility
planning to open in our community?
How do we assess the potential for accidents in our community?
How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures?
How do our risks compare to other communities?
Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters,
asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes)?
Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses?
Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children) within my community
or compared to other communities?
How can we improve our environmental quality of! fe?
How can we get an overall picture so we can set priorities for action?
How does the environment impact our economic situation?
What information is available regarding traffic, noise, dust, bad odors?
How do we track our progress?
-------
Stressors Category Matrix
- Data and Tools -
Description of Category: Databases include known and potential sources of pollution or other environmental agents of concern, such as chemical
releases (routine or accidental, stationary or mobile), noise, etc, and their characteristics. Tools include methodologies and emissions estimation models to
allow prediction of the amount of an agent from specific or generic source categories.
Database or
Tool
Data
Source
Time
Period
Geograp
hic Area
Measurement
Type
(measuredfestimated)
Pollutant
Units
Environmental
Media
Limitations
TRI
Self-reporting
1 year
nationwide
(facilities)
estimated
606 chemicals
and chemicals
category
lbs
1-
100,000,000
multi-media
Point sources
PCS (permit
compliance system)
States and
Federal
monitored
quarterly
(variable)
nationwide
(by facility)
measured (effluent)
hundreds
lbs
(conc. x ???)
Surface
water/POTWs
data gaps (??? not
included)
(Lat/longs 10%
definitely off)
CERCLIS
(Superfund)
NPL sites
ppm, ppb
AIRS Facility (3
d tab AQS
a ases -
most reliable)
3 subsets
quarterly
(variable)
monitored
(???)(???)
Criteria
pollutants
many
mobile sources
point sources
some are very old
(??? & emissions)
RAPIDS
Reg 5
mobile, area,
and major for
‘96
air sources
CHIEF
(Emission
factors)
?
AP-42
one-time
characteri
zation
individual states test
data
many
air
NTI - 1996
States,
industry
every 3
years
national
modeling, emission
estimates
188 HAPs
lbs
air
RCRIS RCRA
sites
EPA
variable
national
calculated data
lbs
land only
State and local
data
may not release their
data
-------
Exposure Category Matrix
- Tools -
Description of Category: Databases include monitoring data concerning the agents of concern (in various environmental and biological
media), and the results of the application of tools (e.g. modeled concentrations). Related data include environmental conditions which
affect dispersion and fate of agents (e.g. wind patterns, stream flow, pH). Tools include models to estimate levels in the ambient
environment, plants/animals and humans.
Tools
Data
Source
Units
Exposure
measurement
(e.g.,measured,
estimated)
Route of Exposure
(oral, Inhalation,
dermal)
Population
Effected
Pathway
Health
Impacted
(e.g., human
or ecology)
Geographic
scale
Pollutant Source
(e.g., point, area,
mobile)
RSEI
(16-bit)
pounds
estimated
Oral
Inhalation
general
air, water, land
human
km 2 , zip, city, cty,
st,
point, area
ECT
obsolete
IEUBK
blood lead
Gravity
CEP
census tract
ISC
Marion
Olson, Day
2
(?7?)
inventories
are county
level
yearly
average
estimated or
predicted
inhalation
census tract
(uncertainty)
air sources (Air quality
model)
TRIM
air
BASINS
ambient
(STORET)
TMDL
loadings
3 models
water
Local
databases
fish tissues
data
criteria pollutant
real-time data
PAMS
-------
General Category Matrix
- Data and Tools -
Description of Category: Fundamental data and tools useful in a variety of assessment steps, such as road and stream networks, land us/land cover
and spatial and statistical analysis methods.
Database Name
Source of Data
Time Period I Geographic
Area
Scale
1 Other
User notes
Geographic
Information
System (GIS)
datasets
Lots on the web
Few good ones
(QNQC)
How current?
Broad
Broad
Easy to find
good communication tool
Vital
Land use/land
cover datasets
older data
monthly 1980
broad
fine detail
MRKC - Eastern US.
Geo-ease
(kriging) tool
Estimates from
highest
concentration!
Interpolation of data
Global
Positioning
Systems
method is
important
Best for lat/long easy and
reliable
TIGER (Census)
Loren
Census bureau
Statistical
methods
CIMAS-type
applications
-------
Receptors Category Matrix
- Data or Tool Category -
Description of Category: Databases include the geographic distribution and behavioral characteristics of human, plant and animal
populations (including sensitive subpopulations) which may be affected by agents of concern, as well as anthropomorphic or non-living
receptors (e.g. historical sites, aesthetic vistas, etc). Tools include models or methods to identify and estimate the number of receptors
which are potentially exposed to measured or predicted conditions (e.g. population estimation).
1 Time
Period
Geographical area
Census Data
Data Type
(SocioeconomiclDemographic/
Ecosystem)
Data Source
SDWIS
Population Effected
4990
88-96
block level & group
human race, age (crude)
general population
88-97
block level & group
human race, income, a e
(refined)
general, sensitive
obsolete
OCfl3U3 tract
variable
all Federally and non-
Federally recognized
population
BIA
Piece them
together
Native American
.
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’31 ! 99
Group 3 Day 1:
Recommendations
• Develop predictive factors for pesticide releases - crops, climate, etc.
- generally, look for opportunities to fill exposure/stressor data gaps using surrogates
- evaluate degree of uncertainty (e.g., air toxics, arealmobile sources, predictive lead blood
levels)
• Research location method accuracy
Additional Evaluation Factors
• QA cross-checks, audits, enforcement
• Data completeness, consistency
• What uses in mind?
- community-based, neighborhood scale
- include “most significant” environmental impacts on residential population
- available/cheap
- what degree of uncertainty is acceptable
• Complementary data/tools
Group 1 Day 2
Tools
QI NERL Tools?
Tools for Schools (indoor air)
“Checklists” - Home*A*Syst, asthma
Q2 Use tools to answer specific environmental questions that we can answer - can assess
current situation but not reconstruct past
EPI - tools
Q3 AIRS
Q4 MM Exposure models
Q6 Risk management plans
Q9 Fish advisories
Qi 1 Smart Growth tools
H-9
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’31 ‘ 99
Q12 Alternatives for the future - Corvallis lab
Sensitive habitat ID tools - USGS GAP program
Greenness Index (land cover) Jones at LVLscape eco br
Gaps
QI, 5 Lack of toxicity data for childrenlsensitive populations
General Q Lack of access to reviewed tox data (standards) - (should prioritize chemicals most
seen) establish quick process; establish cross program group for establishing
provisional tox values
Q3,6.l Same as above for acute (benchmarks)
Q6 Info on peak releases +1- exposures; guidance for estimating intermittent releases
QI Info needed on outgassing from materials, building
Q 1 Need screening tool for individuals to know (measure) their indoor air exposure
Qi. 4 Cumulative risk from daily activities; house, eating, smoking, yard, activity (exercise)
Q7. 4, 1 Cumulative effect of chemical mixtures
Q2 “Can’t answer question.”
Broad base approach - from multiple agencies
major effort - education... + health + environmental issues
EPI resources
Q5 Exposure above the RID predictive health effects?
Q5, 1 “What does it mean to me and my kids, my elderly parents, etc.?” (RfD) (also cancer)
General Q Communication and interpretation materials What is the scope of the assessment?
Q4 Source inventories (mobile, stationary, etc.)
Summary info on potential sources and their relative significance
Q6 Probability of accidental releases actually occurring
Difficulty of documenting episodic releases
QI I Connection to Smart Growth, urban sprawl, Healthy Cities groups
Group 2 Day 2
Flow can we characterize the risks in our community?
H- 10
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’3 1’99
X = Scientific information available, but limited use
Y = Not user friendly to local community
S = Screening tool
Question
Stressors
Exposure
Receptor
Effects
Outcome
I
S
X
S(X)
Y
S
2
Given
X
S(X)
Y
S
3 Big gap: Bad models for cumulative effect.
Databases are difficult to use because we don’t
know effects
S
(X)
(X) S
Y
S
4
5
Gap
X
XS
Y
S
6
S
X
XS
Y
S
7 Available through Communit-v Right-to-Know
S
X
X S
Y
S
8
G
A
P
S
Tools
Question
S
E
R
E
0
I
TRI. PCS, AFE,
BRS. SDWIS.
State/local data
AQS models, etc.
Risk Screen
Environmental
Indicators
(community)
IRIS
MSDS
Health data
(cancer rates,
mortality data,
HMO info)
2
“ “
“
Risk Screen
Environmental
Indicators
IRIS
MSDS
3
Gaps “
“ “
RSEI
Gaps” “
“
4
(6) see gaps sheet
—---------------
—
---
—--
---
5
6
Perniitting
(Tool for all -
“ “
grant $ to assist
“ “
community to use
(from NIH -
“ ‘
available scientific
community-based
“
info)
research grants)
7
Emergency
Right-to-Know
data
Accidental
release models
Evacuation plans
IRIS
MSDS
MSDS
NIOSH
Gaps
H-Il
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report
FINAL 831 99
1. IRIS - Limited database for environmental exposure. No cumulative information. Limited
number of chemicals assessed for toxicological information.
2. Stressors - Reliability of locational data - large problem
3. Basic data - not verified (reported loadings tend to be estimates)
4. Mortality data - accuracy of true diagnosis. Cause of death may be secondary to primary
disease.
5. Many missing pieces of information for multiple stressors, accurate cumulative effect
difficult to assess (e.g., mobile sources, area sources, minor stationary sources)
6. See #4. Some stationary sources, mobile sources, point sources, area sources, n.p. sources
pollution, clandestine sources, unpermitted facilities, atmospheric deposition.
7. See #5. Need to characterize dry cleaner output, home output, schools output. Dependent
on location, use etc.. .to use for characterization. Lack of area source models.
8. See #8. Research needed.
Group 3 Day 2
Questions
Qi Incidence -
Receptors -
CDC - county and larger
Local health department can be source for some incidence data
CENSUS data can be useful
School population
Question
Source!
Stressors
Pathway/
Exposure
Exposure!
Receptors
Dose!
Effect
Outcome!
Incidence
1. Is there an unusually high incidence of disease?
S
S
2. Do we have more than our share of environmental
stresses?
S
S/R
3. Are there disproportionate impacts within or
compared corn?
S
S/R
S
S
S
4. How can we get an overall picture to set priorities?
S
S
S
S
S
5. How does the environment our economic
situation?
(S
?
)
6. What information is available regarding traffic,
noise. dust, bad odors? (contention)
S
S
S
S
S
7. How do we track our progress?
Tools
H- 12
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/3 1/99
Q2 Stressors - American Indian Science and Engineering Society (database under
construction) nationwide Federally recognized tribe
NTI, BRS (RCRA sites), PCS, AIRS, CERCLIS
Transportation info - as surrogate for mobile sources
Chamber of Commerce - as surrogate for area sources (license bureaus)
Residents - as surrogate for everything
Exposure - Risk Screening Environmental Indicator (RSEI)
Stressors - Public health data and blood lead levels
Housing data (age) census
Hair, shed teeth
Q3 Stressors (similar to 1 and 2)
Exposure (similar to I and 2)
Receptors (similar to I and 2)
Q4 Solicit input from community on important issues.
Stressors
Exposures - Comparative Risk Lab Manual
“Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators” second edition M. Hart 1999
Q5 Community has to make value judgements
“Smart Growth Tools” (Federal and State programs)
CERCLA process is tool for estimating cost of action
EPA can provide screening level information to inform pending community decisions.
Can use information from other environmental sites (econ. devel,)
We can use:
Stressors - Land use data, population growth data
Income change overtime (associate with land use)
Department of Commerce Data
Q6 See South Baltimore case studies
Stressors - Transportation data (FAA)
Odors (state and local) concentrated animal feeding operations
Dust from air program monitors and local regulators, Indoor Air Program,
OSHA
NOAA - meteorological data
Q7 Need to establish a baseline
Stressors - Bucket Brigades (actually a monitoring tool over time)
Consider use of environmental indicators
Gaps
H- 13
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8:3 i
QI Incidence - Data needs to be available at a smaller scale (e.g.. lat/long)
QA/QC of incidence data needed
Receptors - Problem with census data is decennial
Multiple Categories - Confidentiality concerns can be problematic
Q2 Stressors - Mobile sources, area sources
QA/QC of all info in all databases
Exposure - RSCEI = TRI only
Stressors - Dietary and indoor information (including indoor air)
Availability of pesticide use information
Personal activity information
More and better human health data (blood lead)
* Definition of “fair share”
Q3 Exposure - Both screening and RIA tools are under development. (NEED more
development)
Stressors
Receptors - Need more regular and current data; need QA/QC
Q4 Need to develop model community scenario.
2 options: descriptive, predictive
Q5 Jurisdictional issues are/can be problematic (recommend partnerships)
EPA has little experience
“Smart Growth” is still developing
EPA needs more guidance
Need more and better income, land use data, etc.
Q6 Stressors - Need more information on mobile source emissions
General - Need more and better information
Need criteria/standards (odor)
Q7 Need to develop a healthy community model.
Absence of valid indicators of actual improvement in health
H- 14
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8/31/99
Appendix I:
Comments During Breakout Sessions
In general, each group during each breakout concentrated on identifying tools (Day 1
breakout; see Exhibit 2) or identifying tools that could be used to answer particular questions
(Day 2 breakout; see Exhibit 3). During these discussions, the groups brought up gaps and issues
for consideration. These are summarized in the text of Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Other group comments are listed below:
Are there bounds on community assessment? Radon, for example, is a naturally occurring
gas. Low income/minorities could have high radon but may never be tested. The community
is probably oblivious to the problem.
• An index with database descriptions should be the main product of the workshop.
• Non-human factors, including ecological factors, noise, and others, should be included.
• A category should be created for screening tools, including tools for metropolitan area arid
neighborhood air pollutant levels.
• Case studies are useful tools.
• It is important to consider what a person with little expertise will be able to do with a
particular tool.
• A list of tools alone will not help; case studies should also include other steps that might have
been taken to improve the case. Other steps should include those that were possible with
existing tools and data as well as those that would have been done if appropriate tools and
data had existed. Case studies should be developed according to a particular methodology.
• Are tools being developed for use by communities, Regions, States, or others? Community
assessment most often involves partnership with communities. Sometimes communities join
with experts as universities who can help use tools. EPA is not developing tools for
“ordinary people.”
• Scale of databases is important.
• Information provided should be normalized by bringing together studies and linking
databases.
• There is a perceived need for standard operating procedures, including QA/QC in the SOPs.
• Is there a need to add more measurements as a solution, or should we just improve the use
and quality of available data sets?
• Can we get communities to perform measurement?
I— I
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 8’31 ‘ 99
Is there a need for a mobile testing facility? Enforcement activities have this capability but
the worth of this option depends upon the stated endpoint.
• Is surrogate information a good/reliable/useable alternative?
• It is necessary to integrate national-level and community-level tools and data.
• Data and methods gaps include small sources, health outcomes, and ambient conditions.
• It is important to enable better communication and coordination among data and tool
developers and users.
• The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) involves 24,000 facilities in the manufacturing sector,
with more to come. It involves 6540 chemicals. The figures reported reflect the companies’
own estimates. EPA has performed audits on the information but not to the level of QAJQC.
There is no TRI correlation to economic activity.
• Is it possible for communities to perform measurements in a “bucket brigade” style, as done
in Richmond, California and Lake Charles, Louisiana? These are generally used in response
to an acute exposure. Their sporadic use equates to non-scientific information since testing
does not occur at regular intervals.
• Should inquiries focus on air toxics or criteria pollutants?
• It is important for community assessments to consider the community’s needs. Different
endpoints require different foci. Current measurements are useful for short-term or acute
exposure problems such as asthma, but are not sufficient for long-term questions such as
environmental contributions to cancer cases. The problem should be identified prior to data
collection.
• PCS - list of permitted facilities with water discharges between 75,000 and 80,000. Oxygen
absorbers are often regulated.
• CERCLIS - list of 20,000 sites; 30,000 were recently dropped from the list.
• AIRS - covers major sources of criteria pollutants and includes others in response to State
regulations. Facilities report to the State, which reports to EPA. Used to identify
enforcement actions.
• RAPIDS - database and software package.
• CHIEF and AP 42 - collections of emissions records.
• Example of a multi-state model for pesticides along the Mexican border: Varying State
requirements for the reporting pesticide sales and usage make obtaining consistent data
difficult. It would be important to determine if sales correspond with yield in areas for which
1-2
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 831199
data exists, in order to determine validity of the surrogate and possible permit extrapolation
to areas where information is not complete.
• Reference databases should be considered.
• Quality assurance should consider cross-checks, audits, enforcement, and data completeness.
• Stability assessments for the twelve major EPA databases for consistency across time and
space should be conducted.
• Data collection should be based on a neighborhood scale (when appropriate). It may include
the ‘most significant’ environmental impacts on a residential population or it may be wider.
Availability of tools and data and their cost should be considered. The degree of uncertainty
in the data acceptable for the specific purpose at hand should be determined. Different levels
of certainty may be necessary for screening and risk assessments. Can standards be
developed regarding uncertainty?
• A data problem involves the differences in definitions across Regions to describe facility
types.
• The same question can be answered in conflicting or different ways by different databases.
Do complementary data/tools exist that can be combined to feed each others gaps?
• Some data problems are linked to the type of information required. For example, since lead
is in the environment for a long period of time, good measurements are possible. On the
other hand, some pesticides have a short half-life in the body, increasing the likelihood of bad
measurements.
• How can you take information from an information-rich environment and combine it with
surrogate data to learn about areas about which few data exist?
• It is important to be familiar with limitations in data.
• A reliable reference list of sources of health effects data is needed.
• Predictive factors for pesticide releases should be developed based on crops, climate, etc.
• Screening techniques should be provided to community members to point out cases where
further investigate is necessary
1-3
-------
Community Assessment Tools and Data Summary Report FINAL 83 ‘99
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1-4
------- |