SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-11/120 | October 17, 2011 | www.epa.gov/ord
Application of Tools and
Databases to Community-Level
Assessments of Exposure, Health
and the Environment with Case
Study Examples
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
-------
Application of Tools and Databases to Community-Level Assessments
of Exposure, Health and the Environment with Case Study Examples
Developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
CONTRIBUTORS:
Timothy M. Barzyk (EPA/ORD/NERL)
Brandi White (EPA/ORD/Student Services)
Lars Perl mutt (EPA/ORD/Student Services)
Margaret Millard (EPA/Region 5/OECA)
Marilou Martin (EPA/Region 5/OECA)
Francenc Harris (EPA/Region 5/OECA)
Phuong Nguyen (EPA/Region 5/ARD)
Kathy Memmos (EPA/Region 5/OECA)
Fred Jenkins (EPA/OCSPP)
Davy da Hammond (EPA/ORD/NERL)
Alan Walts (EPA/Region 5/OECA)
Andrew Geller (EPA/ORD/NERL)
Valerie Zartarian (EPA/ORD/NERL)
Brad Schultz (EPA/ORD/NERL)
PRIMARY CONTACT
Timothy M. Bar/vk
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
109 T.W. Alexander Dr.
Durham, NC 27711-0001
Disclaimer: The information in this document has been subjected
to the Agency "s peer and administrative review and has been approved
for publication as an EPA document.
-------
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following people for their informative feedback and support: Anna Ciesielski. Nancy Tian.
the members of the EPA Communities and Cumulative Risk Research Program, U.S. EPA Regions 5 and 6, and the communi-
ties of Westlawn, Altgeld Gardens, Port Arthur and the 30th Street Corridor.
!!!
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ix
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CAKE) Roadmap 3
2.1 Overview 3
2.3 Step 2: Identify Community Concerns 7
2.8 Step 7: Rank Risks and Impacts 16
2.9 Step 8: Identify Potential Solutions 17
2.10 Step 9: Set Priorities for Action 17
2.11 Step 10: Evaluate Results 19
3.0 Environmental Justice (EJ) Toolkit 21
33.1 Overview 21
3.2 Phase 1: Problem Formulation 22
4.0 Summary and Conclusions 41
4.1 Summary 41
4.2 Conclusions 41
Appendix A: Acronyms A-1
Appendix B: C-FERST Exposure and Risk Maps B-l
Appendix C: Westlawn Socioeconomic Data C-l
Appendix D: Publicly Available Web-Based Sources, EJ Toolkit D-1
Appendix E: Environmental Indicators, EJ Toolkit E-1
Appendix F: Health Indicators, EJ Toolkit F-l
Appendix G: Social Indicators, EJ Toolkit G-1
Appendix H: Economic Indicators, EJ Toolkit H-l
Appendix I: Total Mass-Release Results, 1996-2002 1-1
Appendix J: Total Toxicity-Weighted Results, 1996-2002 J-l
-------
-------
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to assess the application of tools
to community-level assessments of exposure, health and the
environment. Various tools and datasets provided different
types of information, such a.s on health effects, chemical
types and volumes, facility locations and demographics, and
different formats, such as maps, graphs and tables. Each
community case study has a documented environmental or
public health concern. This report focuses primarily on the
identification of potential issues of concern and the collection
of information for them (and the tools and datasets available
for these tasks); in contrast, it docs not focus on risk rank-
ing or prioritization, which falls more into the category of a
formal risk assessment.
For each case study, we followed assessment steps outlined in
one of two documents intended for community assessments,
either the Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE) Roadmap or the Toolkit for Assessing Potential
Allegations of Environmental Injustice (hereafter, the EJ
Toolkit). Tools and datasets were identified that could provide
information for each step, which was then compiled and
evaluated with respect to its suitability for addressing the
assessment step.
Results draw from national and local sources of publicly
available information. In most cases, a certain level of techni-
cal aptitude is necessary to access the tools, compile and
analyze information. This report provides examples of which
tools and information can be used within the context of envi-
ronmental or public health assessment, and how the informa-
tion can be displayed and interpreted. Potential users may
be interested in currently available information that could
provide insight into environmental or health conditions prior
to a more rigorous assessment that may include measure-
ments or other types of in-field research. In this respect.
users may include community-based organizations, academic
researchers, local governments working with communities, or
federal agencies developing local-scale applications.
The report is divided into four sections and ten appendices.
The first section provides an introduction to available tools,
and an overview of health and environmental assessments
as related to the community case studies. The second section
describes the application of the CARE Roadmap to one
community. The third section describes the application of the
EJ Toolkit to three communities. The fourth section provides
suggestions on the use of these tools to collect, organize and
display health and environmental information. The appendi-
ces provide detailed and comprehensive examples of infor-
mation related to environmental, health, social and economic
data collected for the case study communities.
This report provides a screening-level approach to collect-
ing. organizing and interpreting available information. In
this respect, information in this report could provide a basis
for a more quantitative assessment that leverages expert
guidance to better understand and interpret causal relation-
ships between chemical concentrations, health effects, and
exposure.
This research resulted from a collaborative partnership
between scientists and personnel from the EPA Office of
Research and Development, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention. Region 5, and community stakeholders.
vli
-------
-------
1.0
Introduction
A number of tools have been developed that provide infor-
mation and guidance to assist communities, researchers,
government officials, academics and others with performing
assessments of environmental and public health conditions
for a defined population or location representing a commu-
nity. While the definition of community may include several
considerations, in the context of this research a community
is a subset of individuals living in a contiguous location that
share common traits or goals with respect to environmental
and public health issues.
Tools and information were applied to the steps outlined
in two guidance documents related to environmental and
health assessments for communities. One was the Community
Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Roadmap and the
other was the Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of
Environmental Injustice (hereafter the EJ Toolkit).
This report details the process and method of using tools to
collect information. It docs not focus on aspects of ranking
environmental issues. Instead, it is intended as a resource to
demonstrate which and how environmental and health data
could be accessed and displayed for use in community-based
environmental and health assessments. In this respect, the
report is written primarily for organizers, researchers or local
officials working towards community-based assessments with
the intention of gathering and presenting information in order
to make informed decisions regarding issue prioritization and
resource allocation.
A common theme in both of the guidance documents is
that of assessing cumulative impacts. Assessing cumula-
tive impacts at the local level with local participation and
knowledge is known as a community-based cumulative risk
assessment (CBCRA). for which this report provides screen-
ing-lcvcl information. A CBCR A provides a population-
based approach for identifying environmental, social, and
economic conditions that could potentially impact the health
of a community. CBCRAs can include a number of consider-
ations. such as the potential for combined effects from chemi-
cal mixtures and the exacerbation of health effects due to
socioeconomic factors. The culmination of these factors can
be described as cumulative impacts.
The Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Environmental
Justice of the California Environmental Protection Agency is
currently working to develop a method to screen for cumu-
lative impacts. The Group defines cumulative impacts as
follows:1
Cumulative impacts means exposures, public health or
environmental effects from the combined emissions and
discharges, in a geographic area, including environmental
pollution from all sources, whether single or multi-media,
routinely, accidentally, or otherwise released. Impacts
1 For more information on the Interagency Group, go to: http: /vvvvvv.calepa
ca.gov EnvJustice/Strategy Development.htm.
will take into account sensitive populations and socio-
economic factors, where applicable and to the extent data
arc available.
The National Research Council proposes defining cumulative
impact assessments as:2
Considering a wider array of end points, including effects
on historical resources, quality of life, community struc-
ture and cultural practices, some of which may not lend
themselves to quantification
Documents developed by the ERA concerning cumula-
tive assessments provide an abbreviated definition. The
Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2003) and
Concepts, Methods and Data Sources for Cumulative
Health Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, Exposures
and Effects: A Resource Document (2008) defines cumula-
tive risks as the combined risks from exposures to multiple
chemicals or stressors.3 The documents emphasize provid-
ing information on stressors in both the physical and social
environment.
For years, communities overburdened by environmental
stressors have acknowledged that their community faces
multiple challenges from both the physical and social envi-
ronment. Examining cumulative impacts in CBCR As can
help achieve environmental justice (EJ) by considering a
variety of stressors to provide a comprehensive description of
a community's physical and social conditions. Environmental
justice incorporates an understanding of vulnerability and
fairness. The ERA defines EJ as:4
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. Fair treatment means that no population, due to
policy or economic discinpoucrincnt. is forced to bear
a disproportionate share of the negative human health
or environmental impacts of pollution or environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and
commercial operations or the execution of federal, state,
local and tribal programs and policies.
Working for environmental justice is one of the seven priori-
ties declared by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson for the
Agency.5 Providing communities with the tools to conduct
2 The NRC's Science and Decision: Advancing Risk Assessment is available
at: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Science-Decisions-Advancing-Risk-
Assessment/12209.
3 For access to these documents and more information on CBCRA, go to:
http://www.epa.gov/ncer/cbra/about.html.
4 For more information on EJ, visit: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/
environmentaljustice/.
5 To read Administrator Jackson's seven priorities for the EPA, go to: http://
blog. epa.gov/administrator/2Q 10/01 /12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/.
It
-------
CBCRAs is one way to work towards environmental justice
and include communities in the environmental decision
making process.
EPA tools that provide information from publicly avail-
able sources, such as national databases of industrial emis-
sions. that could be used to inform the CBCRA process,
were summarized by scientists at the Office of Research
and Development's (ORD's) National Exposure Research
Laboratory (NERL)." NERL scientists have incorporated the
databases into a web-based tool, the Community-Focused
Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST).7 C-FERST
helps communities identify and prioriti/c environmental
health issues by using the latest innovations in estimating
human exposure to toxic chemicals in the physical envi-
ronment. The tool also helps communities make informed
decisions to improve environmental health and achieve
environmental justice.*
Results presented in this report draw from C-FERST and
publicly available sources to inform the steps of the CARE
Roadmap and the EJ Toolkit within a cumulative risk frame-
work, the former for one community, and the latter for three
communities. Much of section 2 of the report draws from
C-FERST. Section 2 was conducted in the early stages of
C-FERST development; thus, some of the figures were gener-
ated outside C-FERST, but can be generated in the current
and/or future versions of the tool. The other case studies
provide important material to inform C-FERST development
and future community applications.
6 Timothy M. Barzyk, Kathryn C. Conion, Teresa Chahine, Davvda M.
Hammond, Valerie G. Zartarian, and Brad D. Schultz. Tools available to
communities for conducting cumulative exposure and risk assessments.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9 (2009): 1-14.
7 V .G. Zartarian, B.D. Schultz, T.M. Barzyk, M. Smuts, D.M. Hammond,
A.M. Geller. The EPA's Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening
Tool (C-FERST) and its potential use for Environmental Justice efforts.
Accepted for publication by the .American Journal of Public Health.
8 Detailed information on C-FERST can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/
heasd c-ferst/
This report docs not include risk ranking and prioritization
steps or recommendations for specific actions within the
community case studies. Instead, it focuses on identifying
issues and collecting data and information. Procedures for
drawing specific conclusions or recommendations about
committing resources to risk mitigation actions are often
determined by the community itself, such as the individuals
involved and resources available.
The data presented in this report arc a product of a collabora-
tive partnership with scientists and personnel from NERL,
the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP). and EPA Region 5. Project Officers from the
C ARE program presented this data to community groups and
members to supplement information for their community
assessments.
The report is divided into four sections and ten appendices.
In the second section of the report, the CARE Roadmap is
applied to a community case study. References to C-FERST
arc made to assist users in collecting similar information for
community case studies. The third section applies the EJ
Toolkit to three communities. The fourth section provides a
summary and conclusions for community-based stakeholders
and groups. The appendices provide detailed information on
environmental, health, social, and economic data collected
for the case study communities to demonstrate examples of
how this information can be collected and displayed.
Much of the information provided in this report could be
used as a scrccning-lcvcl approach to environmental and
health assessments. However, it is possible to conduct a more
quantitative assessment based on chemical concentrations,
exposure and health effects; however, this is typically a fairly
complicated procedure, typically conducted by profession-
als familiar with the risk assessment process in more detail.
It is possible that this type of report could provide a basis
to launch a more rigorous assessment, which would then
supplement the scrccning-lcvcl assessment with quantitative
results.
-------
2.0
Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE) Roadmap
Developed by EPA's Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE) program, the CARE Roadmap provides
guidance to communities addressing environmental health
concerns. The CARE program assists communities in
addressing multiple sources of toxic pollutants in their envi-
ronment. The program also helps communities by awarding
partnership funds to tackle environmental risks. Funding is
available to support communities establishing partnerships,
identifying problems, and finding solutions (Level 1 grants).
To support the implementation of solutions and to promote
sustainability. Level 2 grants are available.9
2.1 Overview
2.1.1 Introduction to the CARE Roadmap
The CARE Roadmap outlines a ten-step process for commu-
nities to learn about environmental health issues, mobilize
community partners to reduce impacts and risks, and build
long-term capacity within the community. It presents a
method to identify, prioritize, and address environmental
health risks that draws perspectives from the Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment10 and recommendations from the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
in Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities With Multiple
Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/
ImpactsThe CARE Roadmap does not specify comparisons
between the community and reference areas such as the city
or state; however. Appendices E,F, G, and H provide data on
Milwaukee County and the State of Wisconsin for another
case study.
The ten steps of the Roadmap are:
1.
Build a partnership
2.
Identify community concerns
3.
Identify community vulnerabilities
4.
Identify community assets
5.
Identify concerns for immediate action
6.
Collect and organize information
7.
Rank risks and impacts
8.
Identify' potential solutions
9.
Set priorities for action and begin work
10.
Evaluate results and become self-sustaining
9 For more information on the CARE grant program, go to
http ://www. epa. gov/care/index.htm.
10 The Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment is available at: http://
www.epa.gov/raf/publications/framework-cra.htm.
11 For all NEJAC reports containing advice and recommendations to the EPA,
go to http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nejac/recommendations.html
The online tool developed by the National Exposure
Research Lab (NERL), C-FERST, is intended to assist
communities with the challenge of identifying and prioritiz-
ing enviromnental health issues.12 It contains a number of
sources that can be used to complete the steps of the CARE
Roadmap. Results presented here represent an exercise where
relevant information was downloaded and placed under
the appropriate Roadmap step for a CARE community in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (WI). In many cases, summary statis-
tics or graphics were produced from raw datasets.
2.1.2 Case Study Description: Westlawn, Milwaukee, WI
The Westlawn Community is located in the northwest corner
of Milwaukee, WI. In 2008, the Westlawn Partnership for a
Healthier Environment received a Level I CARE grant with
the Institute for Urban Health Partnerships of the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee as the lead partner. The partnership
includes community residents, community-based organiza-
tions, schools, and local, state, and federal agencies. The
enviromnental issues initially identified by the partnership
were poor water quality, toxic releases, exposures to lead
and copper in drinking water, pharmaceutical waste, sewer
overload, and asthma.
2.2 Step 1: Build a Partnership
Build a collaborative partnership that is able to identify envi-
ronmental risks and impacts, build consensus on priorities,
and mobilize all the resources necessary to achieve commu-
nity goals.
12 V.G. Zartarian, B.D. Schultz, T.M. Barzyk, M. Smuts, D.M. Hammond,
A.M. Geller. The EPA's Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening
Tool (C-FERST) and its potential use for Environmental Justice efforts.
Accepted for publication by the American Journal of Public Health.
v°/EPA
5*1 J3K12K 11.1
EjuuMiuinu* .VlkiWV) i.'W)
(PCS) ltd
fcm 1.ACK3I (l)
ENrn* IJWIl-J (M) IP)
R.«OVra 1.01
Figure 2-1. Map of Westlawn, Milwaukee, WI
(EnviroMapper)
3
-------
Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool
Add>nc-n» i -u.'. Search: OAIEPA ®ThisA/ea
*au >r« s«t«i EPA Hqma » C-FEUST > Vw. ExpoauWR«k-ft«lat*d Mm
"Jure
To ikW your local data lo the map, sw the "Add local (Wa" lab (o Ihe right of the map-
aanwte. UaaUIJ.ru I MwlroK In, I r*j* ruun,m
\ Find Loc*Ucw l*S3t W S*ar Spwng Or. Wwufc—, Wl 18311
I US Amiy
R«erve
Cwter
Menus Legend
» View Concentrations. Exposures. Bid Risks
Please select an environmental issue to map:
3 G> AIR
J>] D WATtR
ri CD fooo
•i D MULTIMCDIA
~ Lj CUMULATIVE HEALTH RISKS
" view Sources
Air Water Food Multim«h« [
U *¦ Hatsonal Emissions Inventory Points
N€1 Point* Filtered By Issue
& tur Quafctv Monitors (AQS)
^ AIRS Feolity 5it«* (AFS)
"«*• t*iat »cn« *ayo*» on*r W%«n mi to tfca
local We are working to improve the table of cont*n«» to let you
know how far wi imu harcw to eoom to ••• each laywr. For no* if you
turn an m laywr and tha ~i*p mnuint Manic, cry looming/ in. W«
apprweiata your (iwfewftea and undwutandiftg.
* View Oemoflraj>f»ic Data
» view H«Mh Data
» AM Local Data
Figure 2-2. Location of Facilities, Westlawn (C-FERST)
The first step of the CARE Roadmap involves building a
collaborative partnership representing a broad range of
interests that is able to identify environmental risks, build
consensus, and mobilize the resources necessary to achieve
community goals.
This includes:
V Including a broad cross-section of community partners
S Clarifying roles and expectations of partners
S Laying out clear plans for involving partners
S Providing the support partners need to participate
S Planning for ongoing partner recruitment
•/ Finding creative ways to fund the process
J Building a philosophy of self-sustainability
2.2.1 Community Profile
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 13,950
residents in the Westlawn Community. More than half the
residents were African-American (66%) and over one third
were under 15 years of age (34%). In addition, more than half
of the residents lived below the federal poverty line (FPL) in
1999 (59%).13 In C-FERST's maps, the user can obtain 2000
Census data at the census tract level by entering a zip code
or city.
2.2.2 Funding Opportunities
Funding opportunities promote the maintenance and sustain-
ability of a partnership, and address potential roadblocks
related to available resources. In C-FERST, the consider/
identify environmental issues for your community option links
to grant opportunities. Some funding options include federal
grants focused on community and public health activities.14
13 Census data is available at: factfinder2.census.gov.
14 For additional information on funding opportunities, go to http://www.epa.
gov/CARE/collaboration.htm.
2.2.3 Community Description
Identifying sources of pollution and risks can help identify
potential partners and stakeholders. Mapping features within
C-FERST can plot results from the 2002 National-Scale
Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), such as cumulative cancer
risk estimates and risk estimates for specific pollutants.15
C-FERST also offers the ability to plot facilities and areas
associated with air, water, food and multimedia concerns,
including facilities that report to the National Emission
Inventory (NEI),16 the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI),17 and
the Air Facility System (AFS) (see Figure 2-2).18 The option
to add demographic and housing characteristics at the census
tract level as a map layer is also available.
Within C-FERST one generates maps by selecting the visual-
izing exposure/risk-related maps option and typing a location
(an address, zip code, city, or county). To view the estimated
cumulative cancer risk from NATA, click on air, open the
cumulative cancer risk folder, and click on estimated cancer
risk. To overlay the location of facilities from NEI for air.
go to view sources and click on "All National Emissions
Inventory Points."
Maps with estimated cancer risks from NATA for zip code
53218, which includes the Westlawn Community, can be
found in Appendix B. Based on the risk estimates, Westlawn
has the greatest cumulative cancer risk, which is 54 out of
one million equally exposed people, while the rest of the area
has a risk of 25-50 per one-million people exposed.
C-FERST maps can also display non-cancer respiratory risk
estimates as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter
(PM). The hazard quotient for zip code 53218 ranges from
0.10 to 0.12, indicating that the risk at the upper bound is
approximately in the 60th percentile. Hazard maps
15 Assessment results from the 2002 NATA are available at http://www.epa.
gov/ttn/atw / nata2002/tables .html.
16 Access to NEI data is available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/
where.htm.
17 TRI data is available at: http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/.
18 AFS data is available on Envirofacts at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/
afs/index.html.
-------
EJView
nI rn EflMromwroi JufBa - EJW«. «n»y » EJrt*rE 1J9Q5 W4(W ntrt
Q
- F CPA ¦*>jfer mcrwto
b PlaCH (DWS)
e>0 Schools
- 5
wE Hosprtate
03
iB WbisTto PUces
a
- lleuH.lt Service Atms (I
Si Nondtttfwierkt Areas
• IteaRIt
• ttemogr apt ili ^
- BounchriM *td watw
Hi ~ YanrflStrw Topo'
> ~ 1 NdlHin.il I and Caw
<5
County and Slale Comparssor
Ttfal PWSME
25444 |
Land
100*
Housanokts c Ar«s:
8823
Fnrubrtyi
-•'¦t
061221 «q
00*
J 9300
mi |
Ogfrant
Mnorrrr
713%
tattis 0«km
favwty |.«y«h
0l5tt(24&%>
HOUMhoUioci Pubkc
Assstance:
527 |
Prott*
100%
Housrm Units tot
*3*
Houtna Unts Sui"
16* (
Urayi:
Kacn Breakdown
I'crnon
»CN>
Age Hreakxlown
t*erians(S|
Whte:
7567
(29.7*)
3196 (12.6*)
Afrrjn-Amfinran:
15234
I68 Mi)
Wmor* M wars am} vounoe-:
MCO 137 6*)
MtfflSPtC-GTHin;
719
(2.8*)
¦¦•3ur_j :9 ar-a
15385 162.4*)
{mUSx&MsOssi
1229
(4 8*)
scpjcfisfiiiMiysgm older:
19S1 (7.8*) ,
ir^Bru
165
(0.6*)
QitauJlOL
348
(14*1
7hi8 apace irtenlNOoaW;' otaik
Muligacgi
901
(3.5*)
r Columns thai aSd tip to 1U 0% ase highlignted]
& £>
A' K#inptan Avr
There was an approximate equal gender distribution of
Westlawn residents (55% are female) in the 2000 Census.
Most of the residents were non-white (75%) and more than
half of the population lived in housing built between 1940
and 1959 (62%).
2.2.4 Community Partners
The context of the CBCRA will help identify interested
partners from diverse backgrounds, including community-
based organizations, local and state agencies, healthcare and
cliildcare providers, community members, and local busi-
nesses. For example, the following groups are partners in the
Westlawn Partnership for a Healthier Environment:
Figure 2-3. Geographic Area and portion of EJ Report,
Westlawn (EJView)
The location of facilities can also be viewed in EPA's
Environmental Justice Viewer (EJView).19 Environmental,
health, social, and economic statistics are obtained by defin-
ing a geographic area and generating a report (see Figure
2-3). EJView is accessible through C-FERST under access
other community tools.
Detailed social, economic, and housing data is available
for download at multiple geographic levels, e.g. block, block
group, and census tract, from the 2000 Census.20 Data for
Westlawn was collected at the block group level
(see Table 2-1).
19 EJView is available at: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustiee/mapping.html.
20 Data from the 2000 US Census was downloaded for Summary File 3 at
the block group level available at: http://factfinder.eensus.gov/jsp/saff/
SAFFInfo.jsp?_lang=en&_sse=on&_content=sp4_decennial_sf3.html&
title=Summary+File+3+(SF+3)
Westlawn Residents
Growing Power
Fight Asthma Milwaukee
Havenwoods Economic
Development Corporation
Silver Spring Neighborhood
Center
City of Milwaukee
Milwaukee Public Schools
Milwaukee Health
Department
University of Wisconsin
- Milwaukee
Wisconsin Department
of Health
EPA Region 5
A user can upload local information on C-FERST's maps,
such as the location of community partners, as well as over-
lay social and economic information.
-------
SOCIAL
Total population
13,950
Gender
Male
44.8%
Female
55.2%
Race/Ethnicity
Black, alone
64.5%
White, alone
25.4%
Asian, alone
3.9%
Two or more races
4.0%
Hispanic/Latino
2.4%
Age Groups
Under 5 years
10.8%
5-9 years
11.2%
10-14 years
12.1%
15-17 years
6.0%
65 years and over
6.6%
Education 25 yrs or older
High school graduate
38.8%
Bachelor's degree or higher
6.2%
Table 2 1. Socioeconomic Characteristics, Westlawn
(2000 U.S. Census)
ECONOMIC
Median household income, 1999
$29,379.00
Per capital income, 1999
$12,577.00
Income below poverty level, 1999
59.0%
Households with public assistance, 1999
6.8%
HOUSING
Tenure
Owner-occupied
46.2%
Renter-occupied
53.8%
Year housing unit built
1939 or earlier
7.0%
1940 to 1959
62.4%
1960 to 1969
16.8%
1970 to 1979
8.5%
1980 to March 2000
5.3%
1939 or earlier
7.0%
Community
Partner
Roles &
Expectations
Plan for Involving
Members
Support Required
to Participate
Plan for Ongoing
Recruitment
Philosophy of
Self-Sustainability
University of
Wisconsin
Lead administrator
Fight Asthma
Milwaukee
Provide Westlawn
residents with
asthma information
Milwaukee Health
Department
Provide data on
health-related
concerns
Table 2 2. Partnership Considerations
(CARE Roadmap)
2.2.5 Organization
The CARE Roadmap offers recommendations for engag-
ing and retaining partners when establishing a partnership.
The table below can be used as a template to document and
display partnership accountability standards as they apply to
each partner.
2.3 Step 2: Identify Community Concerns
Identify the environmental, health, and related social and
economic concerns of the community.
The second step of the CARE Roadmap entails identifying
community concerns. Community concerns were identified
by reviewing meeting minutes from the CARE partnership
meetings and through discussions with the EPA CARE
project officer from Region 5.21 C-FERST can be used to
gather additional information for these concerns or other
concerns the community might have missed.
2.3.1 Disease Incidence
Information on disease incidence is available from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's)
National Enviromnental Public Health Tracking Network
(NEPHTN)22 and local health departments. EPA provides
both air quality monitor data and air quality model data (via
EPA's Hierarchical Bayesian [Statistical] Model) to CDC
21 Meeting minutes were retrieved from the Westlawn Partnership CARE
website, available at: http://westlawncare.community.officelive.com/
default, aspx.
22 Information from the CDC's National Environmental Public Health
Tracking Network is available at: http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showHome.
action.
-------
VKTHtLOO
EHCGHA. i
Figure 2 5. Elevated Childhood Blood Lead Levels for
Wisconsin, 2004 (NEPHTP)
Figure 2 4. Asthma Hospitalization Rate for Wisconsin,
2004 (NEPHTN)
> = 3.3 - 4.8
>4.8 - 6.6
>6.6 - 7.7
>7.7 - 9.8
>9.8 - 24.0
Suppressed
UNSTABLE
duloti
WATERLOO
No Events
u
>=0.4% - 0.5%
u
>0.5% - 1.1%
~
>1.1% - 1.5%
u
>1.5% - 2.0%
¦
>2.0% - 3.7%
u
Suppressed
for the NEPHTN under a collaborative research program
begun in 2007. The CDC then determines the incidence of
cardiovascular and respiratory disease in different communi-
ties. A link to NEPHTN is available through C-FERST under
access other community tools. Data was collected on asthma
and childhood lead poisoning from the NEPHTN based on
concerns identified by the Westlawn CARE Partnership.
2.3.1.1 Asthma
Asthma information from the NEPHTN, such as hospitaliza-
tions for asthma, is available at the state and county level.
Figure 2-4 indicates that in 2004 Milwaukee County had one
of the highest age-adjusted hospitalization rates in Wisconsin
(19.4 per 10,000 residents; circled in red in the southeast
comer of Wisconsin).
2.3.1.2 Childhood lead poisoning
Childhood lead poisoning data is also available at the state
and county level from NEPHTN. Figure 2-5 indicates that in
2004, compared to all the counties in Wisconsin, Milwaukee
County had the highest percent of children born in the same
year and tested before age 3 with confirmed elevated blood
lead levels (3.7%).
2.3.2 Sources of Pollution
In reviewing environmental health questionnaire results from
the Westlawn Partnership, environmental concerns of resi-
dents were identified (see Figure 2-6)23.
Twenty-five residents participated in the survey with most
respondents identifying indoor and outdoor air quality as a
source of concern for health effects.
A number of pollution sources exist within and around the
community, including multiple NEI facilities (see Figure 2-7)
and two Superfund sites. Contaminants occur in a variety of
media. In air fugitive stack emissions, such as xylene, are
23 Survey data were retrieved from the Westlawn Partnership CARE website,
available at: http://westlawncare.community.officelive.com/default.aspx.
released from Hentzen Coating in 2008. Pollutants in water
may occur as a result of discharges into streams or water
bodies, like chromium ompounds released from Capital
Returns in 1999
In addition, mobile sources are a source of pollution caus-
ing concern for residents of Westlawn, especially those with
respiratory illnesses such as asthma. Exposure to mobile
sources can be measured by examining traffic count or
annual average daily traffic (AADT). Maps showing AADT
for Westlawn are available from Wisconsin's Department of
Transportation (DOT) (see Figure 2-8),24 In 2007, several
roadways with an AADT over 20,000 intersected the commu-
nity and Routes 41 and 45 are within 3 miles.
2.3.3 Economic and Social Conditions
Previously stated in Step 1 of the CARE Roadmap, econom-
ic and social data is available in EJView by defining a
geographic area and generating a report. EJView is acces-
sible through C-FERST under access other community tools.
These data are also available in the C-FERST maps and
community data table. Detailed data are available to down-
load from the 2000 Census.25 Economic and social data for
the Westlawn Community are presented in Appendix C.
2.3.4 Routes of Exposure
To identify routes of exposure for specific environmental
concerns in C-FERST, the access factsheets for issues of
concern option will provide information on specific toxic
substances, including concentration and exposure informa-
tion. For instance, lead is a concern for the Westlawn CARE
Partnership. Information on potential sources of lead poison-
ing is generated in C-FERST through the factsheet with
mapping features and links to concentration and exposure
information.
24 To download AADT maps for Wisconsin, go to: http://www.dot.Wisconsin,
gov/travel/counts/index.htm.
25 Economic and social data is available from the 2000 U.S. Census, available
at: factfinder2.census.gov.
7
-------
2.3.5 Environmental Issues
The user can get information on environmental issues catego-
rized by type, media and pathway in C-FERST by going to
learn about environmental issues, and then to consider/iden-
tify environmental issues for your community.
Figure 2-9 is a snapshot of the environmental issues avail-
able in C-FERST. This information is useful in identifying an
environmental issue, giving health endpoints of concern as
well as chemicals of concern associated with an issue.
2.3.6 Chemical Effects
In addition to providing information on routes of exposure,
factsheets for issues of concern in C-FERST provide hazard
information for several toxic substances. The following is
a list of specific toxic substances that the current C-FERST
version provides information on:
1,3 Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic
Asbestos
Benzene
Chromium
Diesel Exhaust
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Fine Particulates
(PM 2.5) Formaldehyde
Lead
Mercury
Mold
Naphthalene
Ozone
Polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs)
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Radon
Residential Pesticides
if-.: I.y
1111
Indoor teed Pollution from Pollution from Pollution In
levels iitanufactuiers vehicles rivers
Source of Concern
Figure 2 6. Environmental Sources of Concern of the
Westlawn Community
fclVv
' ? Ym
tfK)7
DETAIL I
City tif MILWAUKEE
Ylli.WAI "KEE Comity
Annitiil Average Dialjr TnfBr
Legend
999m- AADT - 2006 9999A - AADT - 2003
9999'- AADT - 2005 999*--AADT - 2002
9999££' • AADT ¦ 20M9999x- AADT - 2001 or older
¦ Character following AADT on map designates ye.—
¦ AADT for RAMPS lie parallel to road
- AADT tor Roads lie peipedicular lo toad
CTH
Local Baads
Rid road is
Figure 2 8. Traffic Counts - Westlawn, 2007 (WI DOT)
Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool
Wecont Addition I Contact ui Search: O Al EPA © Arfli
imm Expeftura.' A lak- a alatad Mapa
lo add your local data to the map, see tlw "Add l ocal Data" tab to the right of the map.
Example: Local Maw I Hemodi far M«a«umw Local Eamsutea
d Location: -331 ft Silver Spring Dr, Milwaukee, WI 53218
0.2 0.4 Cj Cumulative health risks
* via* Sources
Air
Water
^ All National Emissions Inventory Paints
HEI Ports filtered By Issue
Air Quality Monitors (Aqs)
AIRS FacMy S*ea zoommg m. W*
appreciate your pabaot» and undemanding.
» Via* Demography Oats
~ va» Health Data
* Add Local Data
Figure 2 7, Westlawn's Proximity to NEI Facilities(C-FERST)
8
-------
Environmental issues categorized by resource (partial table)
. ... dCARE EPA 1987 EPA 1990 EPA 1993 2002 2007
Environmenta Issues Grantee Program _ .o n matar ncn7
1 a. , Report3 Report4 Report5 NATA6 RSEI7
Directory1 Directory2 r r r
Accidental Releases — Oil Spills
26 of 26
Accidental Releases — Toxics
25 of 26
X
Air Quality
X
X
X
X
Air Quality — Mobile Source/Near Road
Pollution
X
X
X
Air Quality — Point Source Emissions
X
X
X
X
Ambient Air Pollutants
X
X
X
Arsenic in Soil
X
X
Asbestos
X
X
Asthma
X
X
X
Autobody Shops/Recyclers
X
X
1 Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. EPA-
300-R-06-002. June 2008.
2 2005-2009 CARE Projects. Draft, Sept 2009.
3 EPA. "Unfinished Business..." - Ranked from l(most concern) to 26
(least concern)
4 "Reducing risk..." Report of the Science Advisory Board to EPA
Administrator.
5 EPA. "Guidebook to comparing risks...." September 1993.
230-B-93-003.
6 2002 NATA
7 Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (RSEI)
Environmental issues categorized by type, media and pathway (partial table)
Environmental
Issues Affected or Influencing Media Exposure Pathways Health Endpoint(s)
Sources of Concern
Of Exposure AIR INDR SOIL WATR FOOD OTH IH IG DT DR
Chemical(s)
of Concern
Airport
•
•
hearing loss, asthma
VOCs PM
Air Quality
•
asthma, COPD, heart
disease
PM, 03
Air Quality —
Mobile Source/
Near Road
Pollution
•
asthma, respiratory
disorder
diesel exhaust,
PM.HAPs
Air Quality — Point
Source Emissions
•
asthma, respiratory
disorder
metals, SVOCs,
VOCs
Autobody Shops/
Recyclers
•
•
•
asthma, neurological
disorder
VOCs, metals
Brownfields
•
•
•
•
cancer
metals, PCBs
Contminanted
Land
•
•
•
•
•
cancer
metals
Contaminated
Sludge
•
•
cancer, immune
disorders
PCBs, plutonium,
etc.
Drinking Water
•
•
•
•
•
cancer, liver/kidney
disorder
pathogens, metals
Fish Consumption
•
¦
•
neurological
impairment
mercury
Ground-water
Contamination
•
•
•
•
cancer, liver/kidney
disorder
nirates, metals
Hazardous Waste/
Pharmaceuticals
•
•
¦
•
cancer
medications, acids,
mercury
Figure 2-9. Environmental Issues (C-FERST)
Source: Davy da M. Hammond et al. Community environmental issues: A
summary and analysis of local and federal government perspectives. Draft.
-------
Demographics
Pollution Sources
Existing Health Problems and Conditions
Overview:
Total persons: 13,950
Population density:
7004.07/sq mi
Occupied households: 4,737
Age Groups
Under 5 years: 11 %
Under 15 years: 34%
65 years and older: 7%
Race/Ethnicity:
African-American: 65%
White: 25%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4%
Hispanic/Latino: 2%
Unique Exposure Pathways
Air: Air fugitive stack emissions from
facilities, such as xylene released from
Hentzen Coating, Inc. in 2008
Water: Discharges to receiving
streams or water bodies; i.e. Chromium
Compounds released from Capital
Returns in 1999
Emissions of chemicals into the air and
water from a large number of facilities
in the area.
Two superfund sites within close proximity
to the community
Multiple sites reporting toxic releases
Several Brownfield properties
Near roadway exposure to Highway 145
Social/Cultural Conditions
Low economic conditions
Living below federal poverty line: 59%
Pharmaceutical waste
Sewer overload
Asthma
Social Capital
Substandard housing:
Housing Built < 1970: 86%
Lack of economic capital:
Households receiving public assistance: 7%
Renter-occupied units: 54%
Table 2 3. Potential Cumulative Risks and Impacts,
Westlawn (CARE Roadmap)
2.3.7 Community Environmental Health
After identifying community concerns, it is important to
understand the scope of issues affecting the community's
health. Using a template from the CARE Roadmap, Table
2-3 outlines potential cumulative risks and impacts for the
Westlawn Community. Demographic and social capital
information was obtained from EJView. Information on
pollution sources and unique exposure pathways is from
EnviroMapper.26 Information on a community's environ-
mental health is also available in C-FERST's exposure and
risk-related maps.
2.4 Step 3: Identify Community Vulnerabilities
Identify community vulnerabilities that may increase risks
from environmental stressors.
The next step in the CARE Roadmap is to identify vulnerabil-
ities that may increase risks from stressors. The community
may be vulnerable if it is more likely to be adversely affected
by poorer enviromnental conditions (physical and social)
than the general population.
Westlawn
(Zip code:
53218)
Milwaukee
County
Total number
848
15,368
of births
Number of low birth
109
1,375
weight births
Low birth weight
(less than 2,500
12.85%
8.95%
grams)
Number of infant
deaths (less than
8
145
28 days)
Neonatal mortality
rate per 1,000 live
9.43
9.44
births (<365 days)
Table 2 4. Birth Outcomes, 2008 (WISH)
5 EnviroMapper is available at: http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home.
10
-------
Employment
(16-64 years)
25%
Go-outside-home
(16 years and older]
22%
Sensory
Physical
20%
Mental
16%
If-care
8%
Figure 2 10. Age Groups, Westlawn
(2000 U.S. Census)
According to a NEJAC report on cumulative risks, vulnera-
bility acknowledges that exposures to environmental hazards
for certain subpopulations, such as socially and economi-
cally disadvantaged groups, may worsen health outcomes.27
Vulnerability consists of three concepts:
• Susceptibility and sensitivity
• Exposure conditions
• Preparedness/Ability to recover
2.4.1 Susceptibility and Sensitivity
According to the NEJAC report, susceptible and sensitive
subpopulations are defined as follows:
A subpopulation may be susceptible or sensitive to a
stressor if it faces an increased likelihood of sustaining
an adverse effect due to a life state (e.g.. pregnant, young,
old), an impaired immune system, or a pre-existing condi-
tion, such as asthma. A subpopulation could have been
previously sensitized to a compound, or have prior disease
or damage. In some cases, susceptibility also could arise
because of genetic polymorphisms, which are genetic
differences in a portion of a population.
Therefore, identifying susceptible and sensitive populations
includes obtaining information on age groups and preexisting
health conditions.
2.4,1.1 Age groups
Infants, children, people with pre-existing health conditions
and the elderly are sensitive subpopulations. As described
in the NEJAC report, for example, young children are more
susceptible to the impacts of lead poisoning and elderly
residents could be more vulnerable to extreme temperatures.
In C-FERST, maps can overlay demographic data from
the 2000 Census identify ing persons under 6 years old, 18
years old. and over 64 years old. Demographic data on age
groups is also available to download in the community data
table. For more detailed information, the consider/identify
emironmental issues for von community option links to the
Census. Figure 2-10 shows the distribution of age groups in
27 NEJAC's Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple
Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts,
December 2004 report, is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/
environmentalj ustice/nej ac/recommendations. html.
Figure 2-11. Type of Disability, Westlawn
(2000 U.S. Census)
the Westlawn Community from the 2000 Census. Almost one
quarter of the residents were under 10 years of age (22%) and
7% were over the age of 64.
For information on birth outcomes, the consider/identify
environmental issues for you community option links to the
CDC's NEPHTN. Detailed information on birth outcomes
is available at Wisconsin Department of Health Services'
interactive website, WISH (Wisconsin Interactive Statistics
on Health) (see Table 2-4). s
In 2008. almost 13% of infants in Westlawn's zip code
(53218) were considered low birth weight babies (less
than 2,500 grams), compared to less than 10% of infants in
Milwaukee County. The infant mortality rate for Westlawn
was 9.43 per 1,000 live births, slightly lower than the
county's rate of 9.44.
2.4.1.2 Pre-existing health conditions
The 2000 Census provides data on non-institutionalized
persons aged 5 years and older with a disability. The consider
social issues option in C-FERST links to Census data. Data
are available at multiple geographic levels, such as block,
block group, and census tract.
At the block group level, over one third of residents had a
disability in Westlawn (34%); Figure 2-11 below indicates
the employment and mobility status and the type of disability
for residents living with a disability.
2.4.2 Exposure Conditions
Several factors can increase a population's exposure to
pollution. Such factors include residential and occupational
conditions, such as proximity to pollution sources, employ-
ment in high-risk jobs, and multiple routes of exposure to one
chemical.
28 Local data is available from WISH at: http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/wish/.
-------
Legend
~ Westlawn
~ 1 km
~ 2 km
3 km
Environmental
Hazards
n Hazardous Wastes
(RCRA)
Toxic Releases
(TRI)
A Superfund Sites
(CERCLIS)
Figure 2 12. Facilities within 3 km, Westlawn
(EnviroMapper and Google Earth)
Rank
Chemical
Media
Risk-related Score
1
Chromium and chromium compounds
Fugitive Air
933.08
2
Chromium and chromium compounds
Stack Air
591.59
3
1.2.4-Trimethyibenzene
Stack Air
164.80
4
1.2.4-Trimethylbenzene
Fugitive Air
135.90
5
Glycol ethers
Stack Air
127.01
6
Glycol ethers
Fugitive Air
105.46
7
Copper and copper compounds
Fugitive Air
77.90
8
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Stack Air
43.54
9
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Fugitive Air
36.02
10
n-Butyl alcohol
Stack Air
6.08
11
Zinc and zinc compounds
Fugitive Air
5.16
12
n-Butyl alcohol
Fugitive Air
5.05
13
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Stack Air
1,37
14
Zinc and zinc compounds
Stack Air
1.29
15
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Fugitive Air
1.12
16
Ethyibenzene
Stack Air
0.78
17
Ethylbenzene
Fugitive Air
0.62
18
Toluene
Stack Air
0.35
19
Toluene
Fugitive Air
0.28
20
Methyl ethyl ketone
Stack Air
0.14
21
Methyl ethyl ketone
Fugitive Air
0.11
Table 2 5. Top Chemicals by Media, 1996-2002 (RSEI)
-------
20%
Figure 2 13. Industry of Employment, Westlawn
(2000 U.S. Census)
2.4.2.1 Proximity to pollution sources
In C-FERST, the location of facilities can be plotted for a
geographic area; however, the current version does not allow
the user to define an area and draw buffer zones to deter-
mine proximity. In Figure 2-12, the location of facilities was
downloaded from EnviroMapper and uploaded into Google
Earth.29 Several facilities are located within 3 kilometers (km)
of Westlawn. including toxic release, hazardous waste sites,
and Superfund sites.
2.4.2.2 Employment in high-risk jobs
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), high-risk
employment industries include: agriculture forestry; fish-
ing and hunting; mining; construction; manufacturing; and
transportation and warehousing.30 The consider social and
economic issues option in C-FERST links to Census data
which provides employment information. According to the
2000 Census, Westlawn residents worked in the manufactur-
ing (21%) or educational industries (25%) (see Figure 2-13).
2.4.2.3 Multiple routes of exposure
There are sources of emissions of one chemical that can lead
to higher levels of pollution than the general population. The
EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) can
provide the relative contribution of chemical-medium combi-
nations for communities. RSEI is accessible in C-FERST
through additional tools for communities. Table 2-5 shows
the risk-related score for the top chemicals released by media
for Westlawn's zip code (53218). Data was downloaded from
RSEI Version 2.2.O.31
29 EnviroMapper is available at: http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home;
Google Earth can be downloaded at: http://www.google.com/earlii/index.html.
30 Information from BLS, available at: http://www.bls.gov/home.htm.
31 RSEI is available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/.
Chromium and chromium compound air releases had the
highest risk-related score for Westlawn's zip code from 1996
to 2002.
2.4.3 Preparedness and Ability to Recover
Several conditions, such as poor housing conditions and
employment status, can make it difficult for a community
to recover from environmental stressors compared to the
general population. Currently, users can overlay information
on housing conditions (i.e. percent housing units built before
1950) in C-FERST's maps. For additional information on
housing conditions and employment status, going to consider
social and economic issues in C-FERST will link the user to
the U.S. Census American FactFinder. The information was
downloaded from the FactFinder,
2.4.3.1 Housing conditions
Based on the 2000 Census, 20% of housing units were built
before 1950 in the Westlawn Community, which can increase
the probability of lead poisoning (see Figure 2-14).32
2.4.3.2 Employment status
According to the 2000 Census, 11% of Westlawn residents
were unemployed, compared to 6% in Milwaukee and 5% in
Milwaukee County.
2.4.4 Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability characteristics are based on NEJAC
recommendations for the Environmental Justice Strategic
Enforcement Tool (EJSEAT), an environmental justice
screening method developed by the EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (0ECA).33 NEJAC
32 See the CDC's Screening Young Children for Lead Poisoning, available at:
http ://www.cdc. gov/nceh/lead/publications/screening.htm.
33 The NEJAC report, "Nationally Consistent Environmental Justice Screening
Approaches - May 2010," is available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/
resources/publications/nej ac/ej -screening-approaches-rpt-2010 .pdf.
-------
recommended the tool incorporate a social vulnerability
category to identify communities experiencing disproportion-
ate enviromnental and public health burdens.
The table below shows the social vulnerability indicators
suggested by NEJAC for Westlawn, which include demo-
graphic, economic, and health-related data from the 2000
Census and the state health department.34 This information
is also available in C-FERST Community Data Table in the
prioritize your community 's issues option.
Community
Assets
CARE
Overall
Partnership
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner
Special Skills
Detailed
Knowledge
Demographic
Non-white population
74.6%
Under 5 years old
10.8%
Linguistically isolated households
1.9%
Female-headed household with children
29.4%
under 18 years
Economic
Per capital income, 1999
$12,577
Unemployed (16 years and older)
59.0%
Income below poverty level, 1999
24.6%
No High School diploma
30.8%
(25 years and older)
Home ownership
46.2%
Health
Infant mortality rate
9.4
Low birth weight
12.9%
Ability and
Networks
Culture
Longevity
Neighborhood
Associations
Religious
Institutions
Table 2 7. Template to Identify Community Assets
(CARE Roadmap)
„. Immediate Actions Resources Timeline guccess
Stressor for risk , for ...
concern reduction rec*ulred completion metrlc
Lead
Table 2 6. Westlawn Social Vulnerability Characteristics
34 Local data is available from WISH at: http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/wish/.
Pesticides
Hazardous
household
waste
Table 2-8. Template for Immediate Concerns
Facility Name
CO
NO
X
VOC
so2
pm25
PMi„
Total CAPs
Emissions
Hentzen Coatings Inc.
0.4237
0.5053
12.6882
0.0030
0.1477
0.3397
13.9598
Kubin-Nicholson Corp.
18.9084
18.9084
Fredman Bag Co.
0.2779
0.3320
23.6327
0.0020
0.0116
0.0116
24.2562
Pechiney Plastic Packing
Inc.
0.5010
0.6136
15.2550
0.0036
0.0089
0.0089
16.3821
Nohl Electrical Products
Corp.
0.0756
0.0904
2.4113
0.0005
0.0032
0.0032
2.5810
CO: Carbon monoxide
NOx: Nitrogen oxides
VOC: Volatile organic compound
S02: Sulfur dioxide
PM: Particulate matter
Note: The six pollutants from the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) include 03 (ozone) and Pb (lead) in addition to CO, N02, S02, and PM.
VOCs can react with NOx and CO in the presence of sunlight to form ozone (03), a constituent of photochemical smog.
Table 2-9. CAPs for Westlawn, 2002 (AirData)
14
-------
2.5 Step 4: Identify Community Assets
Develop a list of community assets in order to build on the
existing strengths of the community.
The next step is to create a list of assets to build on exist-
ing community strengths. Community assets include (CARE
Roadmap, page 10):
• Special skills and capacities of community members
• Detailed knowledge of all aspects of community
• Ability and networks to communicate with community
members
• Culture
• Longevity
• Neighborhood associations
• Religious institutions
• Business and industry
• Civic and community leaders
• Political abilities
• Community building resources
• Human resources
• Outreach networks and skills
• Historical information
Chemical
Concentration
Rank
Census Tract 12
Census Tract 13
Census Tract 18
Census Tract 19
1
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
2
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
3
Xylenes
(mixed isomers)
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
4
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
5
Benzene
(including from gasoline)
Benzene
(including from gasoline)
Benzene
(including from gasoline)
Benzene
(including from gasoline)
6
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Methyl chloride
(chloromethane)
Methyl chloride
(chloromethane)
Methyl chloride
(chloromethane)
7
Methyl chloride
(chloromethane)
Diesel engine emissions
Diesel engine emissions
Diesel engine emissions
8
Diesel engine emissions
1,1,1-trichloroethane
2,2,4-trimethylpentane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
9
Methanol
1,1,1-trichloroethane
10
Methyl isobutyl ketone
(hexone)
Methanol
Methanol
2,2,4-trimethylpentane
Table 2-10. Modeled Ambient Concentrations by Census Tract, Westlawn, 2002 (NATA)
I Si::ii-1
I i
14-:
S 12000
I hi :: H:
o 8000
h:.n::
¦¦¦:. i.::.
,
-------
(littOQWOQOU
U WldHBIAW.'
n •onoo>rvwi
li.il
C*rwn Twi li
• 1,3-BuimImw
11 hrtwjiUfr". omp'Wls
• Ptfhpam
CcautT'*t It
• vlk
<*»*«•,Ml
¦ (Mphttulene
Figure 2-17. Estimated Cancer Risk, Westlawn, 2002 (NATA)
w iu
\
-1
nub.** wauwatosa * r^~ *¦»
¦% m
L5J Streets Satellite Hybrid Relief
X^Miwootk f
*
"* Mortal l>( /"**.
Glenjiale
Wl»«t IprnfEfc
i_i
\ i : h
1 I M 3 ilk*
„ ; • 3 ^
L^Lj
- Whitensh &ay
Pwll
a Srvorewc
Figure 2-18. AQS Monitor Locations, Milwaukee County
(C-FERST)
llllll.
Figure 2-19. Annual Average Concentration of HAPs,
Health Center Monitor, 2002 (AQS Data Mart)
U
Figure 2-20. Annual Average Concentration of HAPs,
WDNR Monitor, 2002 (AQS Data Mart)
Table 2-7 is an illustration of a way to identify
community assets. In C-FERST, other examples
of community assets can be identified by viewing
CARE community profiles in the consider/identify
environmental issues for your community option
2.6 Step 5: Identify Concerns for Immediate Action
Identify and begin to address immediate concerns and
vulnerabilities.
Step five involves identifying any concerns and vulnerabili-
ties that need immediate attention. The partnership should
agree on the high priority items and develop actions for
risk reduction. A template such as the one in Table 2-8 can
be used to identify high priority items and actions for risk
reduction.
In C-FERST the user can explore potential solutions for
selected environmental issues of concern, such as lead,
and view promising practices for solutions implemented by
communities.
2.7 Step 6: Collect and Organize Information
Collect and summarize information on environmental health
concerns (or stressors), taking into account the factors that
may make the community more vulnerable.
Step six encompasses gathering and summarizing informa-
tion on health concerns or stressors. Vulnerable popula-
tions identified in Step 3 of the Roadmap will be taken into
account.
In C-FERST, a user can plot pollution sources in the expo-
sure and risk-related maps for facilities reporting to NEI.
In AirData, one can identify facilities in a specific zip code
and determine the amount of Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs)
released from each NEI facility (see Table 2-9).35 Thus, a
project officer or community member could look at this
information and see if a disproportionate amount of emis-
sions comes from one facility. In 2002, the Fredman Bag
Company emitted the most CAPs: 24.25 tons per year.
At the county-level, NEI shows that the top two facilities
releasing CAPs were coal-fired power plants operated by
Wisconsin Electric Power in 2005 (see Figure 2-15).3® Of
the top 10 CAP emitters, releases from Wisconsin Electric
comprised 83% of emissions.
As with CAP emissions, Wisconsin Electric Power plants
were also the top two emitters of Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs) in 2005 (see Figure 2-16).35 Of the top 10 HAP emit-
ters, emissions from Wisconsin electric comprised 69% of
emissions
In NATA, one can generate a chemical list at the census tract
level.37 Westlawn covers four census tracts: census tracts
12, 13, 18 and 19. The top ten modeled ambient chemical
concentrations from NATA for each Westlawn census tract
were similar in 2002 (see Table 2-10). Toluene and formal-
dehyde had the highest modeled concentrations in each tract.
NATA is accessible in C-FERST through the additional tools
for communities option.
3J AirData is available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/
36 Data is from NEI 2005, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchiel/
net/2005inventory.html.
37 NATA 2002 data is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002.
-------
C-FERST | C ommiraitv Data Table FTpnrr to Ftcp\ J «="
Data Mefrin
Yobt Commnnirv
Milwaukee YVI
National Average
Standard1
Data Info/Notes1
Sources of Stress Placed on the Community (Vulnerability Indicators)
Proximity/density of regulated facilities {under development)
Traffic Density (under development)
# current and past permit exceedances by regulated facilities
(under development)
# or extent of non-point sources of pollution (under development)
% domestic well water use (under development)
Environmental Concentration Estimates
( )
Outdoor Air - Acetaldehyde
2.2
1.9
Outdoor Air - Acrolein'
0.07
0.05
Outdoor Air - Arsenic
0.0009
0.0006
Outdoor Air - Benzene
2.02
1.06
Outdoor Air - Butadiene
0.1
0.07
Outdoor Air - Chromium
0.003
0.0009
Outdoor Air - Diesel PM
2.03
0.9
Outdoor Air - Formaldehyde
2.4
2.09
Outdoor Air - Lead
0.009
0.002
1.5 pg/m3
(Quarterly
Avg)
Outdoor Air - Naphthalene
0.2
0.07
Outdoor Air - PAH
0.02
0.02
Outdoor Air - Fine Particulates (PM2.5) (under development)
Outdoor Air - Ozone (under development)
0.G75ppm
(2008 std)
o.oeppm
(1997 std)
Outdoor Air - Near-Roadway (EPA Research Underway)
Indoor Air - Radon (EPA Research Underway)
Indoor Air - ETS (EPA Research Underway)
Drinking Water - Arsenic (EPA Research Underway)
Food - Methyl Mercury in Fish Consumption (EPA Research Underway)
Human Exposure Estimates ( ug/m5 )
Outdoor Air - Acetaldehyde | 1.8
1-5
Outdoor Air - Acrolein4 I 0.05
0.03
Figure 2-21: Community Data Table, partial (C-FERST)
_ i | it . . - & Information used
Concern Level and type of risk Extent of impact ancl Qa^a QapS
High impact on children: Age-adjusted hospitalization
Asthma Respiratory: Affects airways that rate (per 10,000 resident), 2008 Data limited to
carry oxygen in and out of lungs Milwaukee County: 17.6 county level
Wisconsin: 9.2
Neurological/
Developmental: Brain, liver,
Lead and kidney damage; slowed
development; learning or behavior
problems
Year housing units built: Before 1970*: 86%
*prior to lead paint regulations Year housing built
at block group level;
Blood lead levels
Elevated childhood blood lead levels. 2004: limited to county level
Milwaukee County: 3.65% Wisconsin: 1.57%
Neurological/ Based on census
.. Cardiovascular/Immunological: Estimated neurological risk . .. . ,
Mercury u. , . . , , a , . ... „ n.n,o7C tract level modeling
High levels may harm brain, heart, Westlawn: 0.001876
kidneys, lungs, and immune system
Sewer overflow
Poor water quality:
Contaminated drinking water
Property damage:
Destructive to public and private
property; bad for recreation and
tourism
High impact on water quality:
More than 400,000 people affected (>100 deaths) when
Cryptosporidium parvum, a microscopic parasite, entered
Milwaukee's public water supply; Untreated wastewater
leaks may have discharged the parasite into the primary
drinking water source
Historical data
Pharmaceutical „. , , . .. , , . ,, . ^ More research
Waste uncertain May be ecological harm when certain drugs present eeded
Table 2-11. Summary of Environmental and Health
Concerns (CARE Roadmap)
17
-------
n
Near Road
® NEI facilities ®
Hazardous |
waste sites 1
Id
Sources
¦¦I
(RCRA) |f
Stressors
Pathways/Media
.n
Subpopulatioris
¦u
Endpoints
Measures
Brownfield
properties
Superfund I Drinking
sites I water
Nonpoint
sources*
*
i ii i »,*i >.t9I 1
Other Air
jroan .
t- CAPS) 1
1
Toxics
Outdoor
1 1
Indoor
Air
Air
Land Toxics
Copper
inhalation
Ingestion
Young
Children
(<5years)
Elderly
(<64 years)
Low-income
(Below FDL)
Less than HS
education
Single
mothers with
children
<18 yrs
Foreign born
Minority
(Non white)
A
Neurological
Respiratory
Reproductive
Mortality
*
I
I
4
I
NATA 2002
Noncancer
neurological
risk
Asthma
hospitalizations
NATA 2002
Noncancer
respiratory risk
Infant Mortality
Rate
(<365 days)
Low birth weith
(<2,500 grams)
Infant Mortality
Rate
Mortality Rate
Cancer
incidence
NATA 2002
Total Cancer
risk
Figure 2-22. Conceptual Model, Westlawn
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool
Search: *11 EPA ©This Area
a* • e-Ff*ST » ExpJer* SotuS»n«
IISF C FFRST
FOLLOWING
COMMUNITY
GUIDANCE
SELECT INDIVIDUAL
ONIONS.
Explore Potential Solutions
• Access Faa Streets on Exposure/Risk Reduction Actions
Promising Practices for Solutions Implemented by Communities
This is a partial list (not in any particular order) of links to solutions implemented toy communities.
• era CflffifTBfflBirai PriKttga :b Irnorayc Cammunfa PflfanMras and Suamnataftn iPSfl i*
¦ epa Utft level 2 Project Sqfcumna seanhabte issue
?:•••¦ prv*<6m
-------
The estimated cancer risk from exposure to air toxics is also
modeled at the census tract level in NATA (see Figure 2-17).
The greatest risk at each census tract were from benzene
(0.00001-0.000012), followed by carbon tetrachloride
(0.000007) in 2002.
Based on Air Quality System (AQS) data, two monitors
within Milwaukee County measure HAPs, the Health Center
Monitor and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) Service Headquarters Monitor.38 CAPs are
measured in seven locations, including the two monitors that
measure HAPs. In C-FERST, the location of AQS
monitors can be plotted in the exposure and risk-related
maps. The monitor locations were uploaded into Google
Earth in Figure 2-18.
The annual average concentrations of HAPs measured by the
Health Center Monitor indicate that toluene, acetaldehyde,
benzene, and dichloromethane had the greatest ambient
concentrations in 2002 (see Figure 2-19).
Toluene and 2,4,4-trimethylpentane had the highest ambient
concentrations of HAPs measured for the WDNR Monitor
(see Figure 2-20).
2.8 Step 7: Rank Risks and Impacts
Rank risks and impacts to identify the community s concerns.
The next step is to rank the risks and impacts affecting the
community's health. Ranking of the risks and impacts are
based on what is important to the health and quality of life
for the community and environment. In initial stages, the
focus should be on ranking the risks and impacts, instead of
identifying potential solutions.
When ranking risks/impacts, the severity of the risk/impact
must be considered. Community vulnerabilities identified
in Step 3, the number of people exposed, the extent of the
enviromnent affected, and cumulative effects should also be
considered when ranking risks/impacts.
Several risk ranking methods exist outside of a rigorous
toxicologically-based approach. One method is to create a
scale, numerical (e.g., 1 to 10) or categorical (e.g., high or
low), to rank risks/impacts. There are guidance documents
available to help communities during the ranking process.
PACE EH: Protocol for Assessing Community Excellence
in Environmental Health39 and Air Toxics Risk Assessment
Reference Library Volume 3: Community Scale Assessment10
provide quantitative methods to assist with ranking risks/
impacts and priority setting.
In C-FERST, users can prioritize their community's issues by
creating a community data table to help rank risks/impacts by
state, county, and zip code as seen in Figure 2-21.
38 Data is from AirData, available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/.
39PACE-EH is available at: http://www.naccho.org/pubs/product 1.
cfm?Product_ID=60.
40 PA CE-EH is available at: http: //www.naccho. org/pubs/product 1.
cfm?Product ID=60.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUE:
Evaluate the following criteria within the community as they relate
to the environmental health issue.
High Medium Low Comments
Political support to
address the issue
Public demand/
acceptability
Preventability
(through personal-
and community-
based action)
Effectiveness
of available
interventions
Table 2-12. Priority Setting Template (PACE EH, page 57)
When limited information exists for stressors of concern,
available information and best judgment should be used
to estimate the potential risks and impacts. In addition, the
partnership must determine if more information or analy-
ses is needed to estimate the potential harm of stressors. To
help summarize concerns and identify data gaps, the CARE
Roadmap provides a template for partnerships to use. Table
2-11 summarizes enviromnental and health concerns for the
Westlawn Community.
Another way to summarize information for risk ranking is to
create a conceptual model. The conceptual model will iden-
tify potential sources, enviromnental stressors, and exposure
pathways and routes (see Figure 2-22). The model should
also include vulnerable subpopulations and endpoints with
quantifiable measures, such as rates or percentages.
2.9 Step 8: Identify Potential Solutions
Identify and analyze options for reducing priority concerns
and vulnerabilities and for filling information gaps.
Identifying potential solutions is the next step in the CARE
Roadmap.
To do this, consider:
¦S Exploring risk reduction options for each concern
^ Identifying community assets and resources
¦S Compiling information into an informative format
¦S Balancing time and effort of collecting information with
time and effort available for risk-reduction actions
^ Considering entities outside of the partnership
In C-FERST, the user can select the explore potential solu-
tions option for several environmental issues (see Figure 2-23).
19
-------
2.10 Step 9: Set Priorities for Action
Decide on an action plan to address concerns, fill informa-
tion gaps, and mobilize the community and its partners to
carry out the plan.
The next step is to decide on a plan to address community
concerns and to fill information gaps. Mobilizing the commu-
nity and its partners to carry out the plan is the ultimate goal.
The partnership must determine which concerns to tackle first
and develop action plans. A short-term action plan can be
developed to address immediate concerns identified in Step
7 (Risk Ranking). Developing a long-term plan to address
concerns that may need additional information will also help
with priority setting. Factors to consider for setting priorities
include:
• Risk ranking (revisit step 7)
• Ability to a fleet outcomes
• Available resources
• Community values
• Community capacity to tackle an issue
The short-term action plan should allow for measurable,
short-term accomplishments to build community support
and capacity to address issues. During this step, priorities
may range from gathering more information, to confirming
risks, to building consensus. A priority may also focus on
risk reduction. In C-FERST, the user can explore guidance
developed by other groups for priority setting in the consider/
identify environmental issues for your community option.
PACE EH provides a template to help with priority setting
for individual concerns and to determine the feasibility to
tackling the issue (See Table 2-12).41 After completing the
template, the partnership can prioritize the community's
issues and develop action plans.
Several databases can also be used to help with priority
setting. This includes the Risk-Screening Environmental
Indicators (RSEI) and the National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA).42
41 PACE-EH is available at: http://www.naccho.org/pubs/productl.
cfm?Product ID=60.
42 RSEI is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/. NATA is available at:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/ atw/natamaiii/.
2.11 Step 10: Evaluate Results
Evaluate the results of community action, analyze new
information, and restart the process as needed to reestablish
priorities, develop new plans for action, and collect infor-
mation. Consider sources for financial and human capital
to restart the Roadmap process and make your partnership
self-sustaining.
The final step in the CARE Roadmap is to evaluate the results
of the partnership's actions and analyze new information. If
necessary, the partnership may need to restart the Roadmap
to reestablish priorities and develop new plans for action.
Additional information may need to be collected depending
on the identification of new concerns. The partnership may
need to consider sources for financial and human capital to
restart the Roadmap process and to make the partnership
self-sustaining.
In C-FERST, viewing guidance developed by other groups in
the consi der/i dentify environmental issues for your commu-
nity option may be useful when evaluating results.
A checklist to assist partnerships during this step includes:
^ Considering human and financial resources for continu-
ing assessment and action
^ Integrating the CARE Roadmap steps into ongoing
projects
^ Identifying additional planning and resources
¦/ Utilizing organization and capacity of community part-
nership to apply for partnership- and capacity-building
grants
¦/ Retaining cnlianced skills, capacity and knowledge
within community
-------
3.0
Environmental Justice (EJ) Toolkit
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 Introduction to the EJ Toolkit
The Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of
Environmental Injustice, referred to as the EJ Toolkit,
provides a systematic approach to examine potential cases
of environmental injustice.'*1 The EJ Toolkit uses several
EJ indicators to understand community conditions, specifi-
cally community vulnerabilities, to evaluate EJ concerns.
Results presented in this section draw from publicly available
sources. C-FERST was not used to download information
because at the time of data collection, the information was
not available. It is noted when information is currently avail-
able in C-FERST.
The Toolkit has four phases (see Figure 3-1):
1. Problem formulation
2. Data collection
3. Assessment of the potential for adverse environmental
and human health impacts
4. Assessment of the potential for disproportionately high
and adverse impacts
The four phases are incorporated within a two tiered
approach: the first tier, a screening-level assessment, and the
second tier, a refined assessment. The first tier recommends a
qualitative assessment of available information to determine
whether a more refined, quantitative assessment is needed.
For the purpose of this report, the focus is on presenting and
analyzing publicly available quantitative information from
national and local sources for the first tier. This report only
presents information from the first three phases and provides
suggestions for the fourth phase.
°For access to the EJ Toolkit, go to http://www.epa.gov/
environmental! usticeresourccs policy ej-toolkit.pdf.
Context Scope
Participants
Indicators
Inputs
Formulate
problem
Inputs
Endpoints
Community definitions
Conceptual model
Identify environmental
sources of stress and
likelihood of exposure
Collect data on
community of concern
and reference community
Assess potential for adverse environmental
and human health impacts
Determine whether impacts are disproportionate
Determine action
Figure 3-1. Phases of the EJ Toolkit
N
'V *
A
30'Yst, WI
Aiteddi IL
Wi'stside, TX
Figure 3-2. Location of Case Study Communities (ArcGIS)
3.1.2 Case Study Descriptions
Case study communities were chosen by researchers in
ORD and EPA Region 5 based on available data, commu-
nity needs, and environmental injustice concerns. Two EJ
Showcase communities were chosen: the 30th Street Corridor
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (WI) and the Westside Community
of Port Arthur, Texas (TX). Altgeld Gardens and Philip
Murray Homes, in Chicago, Illinois (IL) was selected as the
third case study community as previous environmental health
research had been conducted there by a researcher on the
team.
3.1.2.1 30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee, WI
The 30th Street Industrial Corridor is a 5.5 km2 [square
kilometers (km2) or 2.15 square miles] area with a history of
industrial development. At least ten major industrial facili-
ties were located in the community throughout the history of
its development. Some operators remain, but there are several
underused industrial sites. The Corridor is designated as
one of ten EJ Showcase Communities by the EPA to receive
funding and technical assistance during its redevelopment.44
The Corridor has also received funding for Brownfields
redevelopment.
14 For more information on the EPA's EJ Showcase Communities, go to:
http ://www. epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/grants/ej -showcase.html.
21
-------
Reference Areas
City: Milwaukee
County: Milwaukee
State: Wisconsin
Reference Areas
City: Chicago
County: Cook
State: Illinois
Reference Areas
City: Port Arthur
County: Jefferson
State: Texas
Community of Concern Community of Concern Community of Concern
30th Street Corridor, Wl Altgeld Gardens, IL Westside, TX
Figure 3-3. Reference Areas (Google Earth)
3.1.2.2 Altgeld Gardens and Philip Murray Homes,
Chicago, Illinois IL
Altgeld Gardens and Philip Murray Homes (referred to as
Altgeld Gardens) is a public housing development located
in the Calumet IL industrial region. The community is
surrounded by heavy manufacturing facilities, and closed and
active landfills. With nearly 1,200 units in a 0.6 km2 (0.25
square miles) area, it is the largest public housing develop-
ment of the Chicago Housing Authority.
3.1.2.3 Westside Community, Port Arthur, Texas TX
The Westside Community is another EJ Showcase
Community. Westside is approximately 4.9 km2 (1.9 square
miles). It is located in a heavily industrialized area with
refineries and chemical plants bordering the community. It
is also a major port town, which includes the potential of air
emissions and adverse health impacts associated with the
goods movement.
3.2 Phase 1: Problem Formulation
3.2.1 Assessment Level
The first phase of the EJ Toolkit is to determine the level
of the EJ assessment. This report will provide information
appropriate for a screening-level assessment.
The aims of these EJ assessments for the three case study
communities were:
To conduct a study of environmental inequity using the
EJ Toolkit
• To incorporate a systematic approach to determine envi-
ronmental inequity into C-FERST
• To provide useful information to Regions 5 and 6 of the
EPA
• To advance the field of environments! justice and environ-
mental health disparities
3.2.2 Context and Scope
Next, the context and scope must be determined. The scope of
these assessments included determining cases of environmental
inequity for specific communities associated with:
• Proximity to industrial facilities
• Exposures to non-point sources (e.g. roadways, railways)
• Cumulative exposures
• Environmental amenities (e.g. public transportation,
health care facilities), and
• Exposures that would exacerbate health conditions
(e.g. asthma)
22
-------
1 Toxic Releases
1 (TRI)
use/
Brownfield
properties
1 Superfund
1 sites
1 u 1 1
1
Pathways/Media
Subpopulations
T
Endpoints
Measures
Drinking
water
Nonpoint
sources*
I
Other Air
jman nHra _
t CAPS) 1
Toxics
Outdoor
1 1
Indoor
Air
Air
Land Toxics
Ingestion
Young
Children
(<5years)
Elderly
(<64 years)
Low-income
(Below FDL)
Less than HS
education
Single
mothers with
children
<18 yrs
Foreign-born
Minority
(Non-white)
Y
A.
Neurological
Respiratory
Reproductive
Cancer
Mortality
\
I
I
I
I
NATA 2002
Noncancer
neurological
risk
Asthma
hospitalizations
NATA 2002
Noncancer
respiratory risk
Infant Mortality
Rate
(<365 days
Low birth weith
(<2,500 grams)
Infant Mortality
Rate
Mortality Rate
Cancer
incidence
NATA 2002
Total cancer
risk
Figure 3-4. Conceptual Model
3.2.3 Stakeholders
Stakeholders included regional and program offices, and the
communities of interest. EPA Region 5 was directly involved
in monthly meetings to clarify research questions and to
identify community needs. The Exposure Modeling Research
Branch (EMRB) and Enviromnental Characterization and
Apportionment Branch (ECAB) of ORD's National Exposure
Research Laboratory (NERL) coordinated the research
aspects, in addition to the Cumulative/ Communities'
Program in ORD. The EJ Coordinator of OCSPP (Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention) also attended
meetings and provided valuable input.
3.2.4 Reference Areas
To determine if a community is disproportionately impacted,
the EJ Toolkit recommends identifying reference areas to
compare enviromnental and health conditions. The reference
areas used for this report were the communities' associated
city, county, and state (see Figure 3-3). C-FERST provides
the option to generate a table comparing quantitative data
across communities, such as reference communities
3.2.5 Assessment Endpoints
Assessment endpoints are the measures of the effects of
chemical and nonchemical stressors.45 Non chemical stress-
ors include noise pollution and socioeconomic factors. The
endpoints will be used to examine the potential of disparate
impact on environmental conditions, human health and
social and economic welfare.
3.2.6 Conceptual Model
A conceptual model helps to visualize sources, stressors,
exposure pathways and routes, sensitive populations, assess-
ment endpoints, and possible endpoint measures. A model
was developed for this assessment (see Figure 3-4) to assist
in identifying applicable measures for the EJ indicators in
the second phase and potential sources of pollution based on
community concerns.
3.2.7 Analysis Plan
The analysis plan developed for the assessments included
determining the EJ indicators to use for the data collection
phase (Phase 2). A contractor conducted a literature review
to determine the best variables for each indicator based on
45 US Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Cumulative Risk
Assessment. (2003). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/
pdfs/frmwrk_cum_risk_assmnt.pdf.
-------
reliable data sources and those recommended by the EJ
Toolkit. Data were then collected for each community of
concern and its reference areas. Information was downloaded
from the 2000 U.S. Census, local, state, and national health
departments, and EPA databases. Stakeholders provided
feedback on data sources, specific variables, and the data
collected.
3.3 Phase 2: Data Collection
The EJ indicators listed in the Toolkit arc categorized into
four broad areas:
• Environmental
• Health
• Social
• Economic
The indicators meet as many of the following selection
criteria as possible: policy relevance, analytical soundness,
and ineasurability. The EJ Toolkit includes suggested publicly
available data sources for each indicator variable. Appendix
D lists the publicly available web-based tools used for data
collection.
3.3.1 Environmental Indicators
Environmental indicators included information from
several EPA databases, such as My Environment. AirData.
Envirofacts. and NEI. Additional data was obtained from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA's) National Climatic Data Center and the CDC's
State Lead Surveillance Data. Information is listed under
the following subheadings: sources, potential exposures,
environmental conditions, and vulnerabilities. In C-FERST,
information on sources, potential exposures, and environ-
mental conditions arc available in the exposure and risk-
related maps. Community vulnerabilities can be identified in
the community data table under the prioritize your commu-
nity 's issues option. The following is a summary of the data
collected for each variable; detailed information is available
in Appendix E.
3.3.1.1 Sources
There arc several ways to determine the sources of environ-
mental stressors in a community. The EJ Toolkit suggests
calculating the community's proximity to regulated facilities
and determining the extent of non-point sources of pollu-
tion, such as proximity to highways. The Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code, a three- or four-digit code, can
be used to determine the facility's industry. Environmental
stressors also include sources of noise pollution, including
noise from nearby roadways, airports, manufacturing opera-
tions. and trains. Regulated facilities may not be the only
source of potential pollution in a community; therefore, it
is useful to research historical land uses that could or could
have affected the community.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
In 2005, there were 10 facilities reporting to NEI within the
boundaries of the community and 54 reporting within 3 km.
Iron and steel foundries were the most common industry
(SIC code: 332). In 2009, the most recent available data for
TRI, 53 facilities reported toxic releases within 3 km of the
community. Non-point sources for the Corridor include bus
route stops, railways, roadways, and previous land use. All of
the sources arc potential noise and pollution sources.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
While t lie re were no facilities reporting to NEI in 2005
within the community, 51 facilities reported to NEI that were
located within 3 km. Refuse systems, that is waste treat-
ment plants and landfills, were the most prevalent facilities
operating within 3 km (SIC code: 4953). Twenty-seven (27)
facilities reported to TRI in 2009 that were within 3 km and
four Superfund sites reporting to CERCLIS (Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability
Information System). Non-point sources for Altgeld Gardens
include bus stops, railways, and roadways. Illegal dump-
ing and land contamination arc also major environmental
concerns. For an estimated 20 years, a yard storing decom-
missioned electrical transformers leaked polvchlorinatcd
biphcnvls (PCBs). contaminating the soil in the community.
In 1999, residents received $10.5 million and local officials
cleaned up the area."' All of the sources arc potential noise
and pollution sources.
West side, Port Arthur
One facility located within the community reported to NEI
in 2005 and 17 were listed in the inventory within 3 km.
Petroleum refining facilities were the most common within
3 km (SIC code: 2911). Fifteen sites reported to TRI in 2009
that were within 3 km. Non-point sources for the Wcstsidc
include railways and activities related to petrochemical refin-
eries and the movement of goods. On January 23, 2010 at a
port in Port Arthur, t lie re was a collision between two barges
and a tank ship loaded with crude oil. The estimate of spilled
oil was 450,000 gallons.1" All of the sources arc potential
noise or pollution sources.
3.3.1.2 Potential exposure
Residents of all the case study communities can be exposed
to environmental hazards at home, school, and work.
Housing units built before 1950 increase the risk of child-
hood lead poisoning.48 Bioniarkcrs. such as childhood blood
lead levels, can be used to determine potential exposures to
chemical stressors. For exposure to occupational hazards,
information from the BLS is useful.'" For instance, those
employed in industries with the highest incidence rates of
nonfatal occupational illnesses (e.g. respiratory conditions,
skin diseases, and hearing loss) include the manufacturing
and mining industry. High-risk industries of employment
include: agriculture forestry; fishing and hunting; mining;
construction; manufacturing; and transportation and ware-
housing. This information is available to download from the
2000 Census at the block group level.
46 Nonpoint sources were based on focus groups conducted with residents
and community leaders in March, 2009 regarding environmental hazards.
47 For more information on the spill, go to: http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media main.
php?g2_itemld=761823.
48 See the CDC's Screening Young Children for Lead Poisoning, available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/screening.htm.
49 Information from the BLS is available at: http://www.bls.gov/home.htm.
-------
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
Based on the 2000 Census, more than half (58%) of the hous-
ing units were built before 1950. A report from the CDC's
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
found elevated childhood blood lead levels compared to the
reference areas in 2005 (data for the reference areas is from
the state health department and CDC).50 In addition, about
27% of residents worked in the construction, manufacturing,
or transportation and warehousing industry in 2000.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Over half (60%) of the housing units were built before 1950.
Most primary school children attend school in the commu-
nity. Most high schools students take public transportation to
a school about 3 miles outside the community. Information
from the state health department indicates childhood blood
lead levels were also elevated in the community compared
to the county and state in 2005. In addition, about 23% of
residents worked in the manufacturing, or transportation and
warehousing industry in 2000.
Westside, Port Arthur
Almost a third (28%) of the housing units were built before
1950. In addition, there arc three schools located within the
community. Data on childhood lead poisoning was not avail-
able at the community or city level. However, based on CDC
data, the prevalence of children with elevated blood lead
levels was higher at the county level than the state level in
2005. In addition, almost a third of residents (29%) worked
in the mining, construction, manufacturing, or transportation
and warehousing industry in 2000.
3.3.1.3 Environmental conditions
Several data sources can be used to determine the qual-
ity of a community's environment, which includes air.
water, and land quality. One can download data on H AP
estimated concentrations from NATA to examine air qual-
ity. Information on the quality of water is from the EPA's
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) and
local drinking water reports. Only data on land quality was
available for Altgeld Gardens from ATSDR's Public Health
Assessments and Health Consultation in 1999.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
For air quality, the top three estimated H AP concentrations
in the Corridor in 2002 were toluene, formaldehyde, and
xylenes (mixed isomers). Milwaukee Water Works provides
drinking water to the community and most of the city.
Standards for water quality arc based on federal and state
regulations. The 2009 Safe Drinking Water Report did not
indicate any contaminants exceeding the MCL (Maximum
Contaminant Level).M The median value for lead was 5.3
Hg/L (microgram per liter or parts per billion) (highest
level allowed: 15 jig/L) and 0.056 mg/L (milligram per
liter or parts per million) for copper (highest level allowed:
1.3 mg/L). In 1993, Milwaukee had a Cryptosporidium
50 Data from the report on the Corridor includes two additional zip codes.
The report is available at: http://www.atsdrcdc.gov/sites/brownfields/docs
/3GTHStreetCorridorReportAUG2GG8.pdf.
51 Information on the quality of drinking water from Milwaukee Water Works
is available at: http://city.milwaukee.gov/water
outbreak caused by a contaminated water treatment plant
(Howard Avenue Water Purification Plant) that serves the
city. Cryptosporidium is a parasite that is transmitted through
drinking water, as well as recreational water activities, and
causes Cryptosporidiosis. a diarrheal disease." It is estimated
that one quarter of the residents became ill because of the
outbreak; over 60 deaths were attributed to the outbreak."
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
The top three estimated H AP concentrations in the commu-
nity were chlorobenzilatc. chloroacetic acid, and chloro-
form. For drinking water, Chicago Water Department serves
almost 3 million people, including Altgeld Gardens. The
2009 Annual Consumer Confidence Report did not indicate
any contaminants exceeding the MCL.54 The highest levels
measured for lead and copper respectively (90th percentile)
were 6.07 ppb (parts per billion) and 0.0323 ppni (parts per
million). The action level for lead is 15 ppb and 1.3 ppni for
copper. In 1999, the Illinois Department of Public Health
collected ten surface soil samples in the community from
grassy areas near housing units, schools, and a clinic. The
state found elevated levels of dichlorodiphcnyltrichloro-
ctliane (DDT) (31.4 ppni). dichlorodiphcnyldichlorocthanc
(DDD) (5.8 ppni). and dichlorodiplienyldichloroethylene
(DDE) (31.6 ppni). all pesticides or its byproduct."
Westside, Port Arthur
The top three estimated H AP concentrations in the Westside
Community were benzene. including benzene from gasoline,
hexane. and diesel engine emissions. The City of Port Arthur
provides drinking water to the community and serves almost
60,000 residents. The 2009 Water Quality Report did not
indicate any contaminants exceeding the MCL.56 The high-
est levels measured for lead and copper respectively (90th
percentile) were 2.2 ppb and 0.136 ppni.
3.3.1.4 Vulnerability
Information on the community's physical environment is
important to determine potential vulnerabilities that could
impact air. water, or land quality. Information on the climate,
geoniorphic features, and the presence of ecologically sensi-
tive areas, e.g. wetlands and rivers, is important to incor-
porate into assessments to understand how it influences the
communities' health. Data on storm events and the location
of flood zones were collected from NOAA's Storm Events
Database" andFEMA(Federal Emergency Management
Agency).58
52 For more information on Cryptosporidiosis, go to: http://www.ede.gov/
p aras ites/crypto/.
53 For more information, go to: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/
vol9no4/02-0417.htm.
54 Information on water quality for community water systems in Illinois is
available at: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/drinking-water-watch/.
55 For access to the report, go to: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PHA.
asp?docid=513&pg=0.
56 Information on water quality for the City of Port Arthur is available at:
http://www.portarthur.net/.
57 NOAA's database is available at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win
wwcgi.dH?wwEvent—Storms.
58 FEMA's flood zone information is at: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/
floodplain/nfipkeywords/floodzones.shtm.
-------
30 th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
The Corridor is susceptible to tornadoes, thunderstorm winds,
temperature extremes, and Hoods based on data from NO A A.
In addition, part of the community is in a Hood zone.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
The community is susceptible to tornadoes, thunderstorm
winds, and temperature extremes. The community is located
in Lake Calumet's wetland area and the Little Calumet River
runs along the southern border.
Westside, Port Arthur
The community is susceptible to hurricanes and tropical
storms, tornadoes, thunderstorm winds, and Hoods. The city
is on the western bank of Sabine Lake.
3.3.2 Health Indicators
Health statistics provide an overview of a community's
health For this report, variables on infant mortality and low
birth weight were available from local health departments,
and the remaining indicators on sensitive populations were
housed in national databases. Disease incidence data was also
available from local health agencies. Information is provided
under the following subheadings: existing conditions,
impacts from environmental stressors, and sensitive popula-
tions. In C-FERST, information on existing health conditions,
potential impacts from environmental stressors, and sensi-
tive populations is available in the community data table.
The exposure and risk maps can identify sensitive popula-
tions. Data collected for the health indicators is available in
Appendix F.
3.3.2.1 Existing conditions
Information on existing health conditions can identify
potential vulnerable subpopulations or impacts from previ-
ous exposures to environmental stressors. Infant health data
provides information on the most vulnerable subpopulations
- pregnant women and newborn infants. Infant health data
collected for this report was primarily available from local
health departments. Examining mortality data, such as deaths
due to cancer and respiratory illnesses, is useful to determine
if a community is exposed to increased levels of environmen-
tal hazards. In general, mortality and disease data were not
available at the community level.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
In 2000 and 2001, the Corridor had the highest infant mortal-
ity rate compared to its reference areas. For every 1,000 live
births, the infant mortality rate for the Corridor was 12.9,
compared to 11.5 for the city, 10.1 for the county, and 6.9 for
the state. The percentage of low birth weight was also higher
in the Corridor compared to its reference areas. In 2000,
12.2% of infants were born low birth weight (less than 2,500
grams or five pounds), compared to 10.2% for the city, 9.1%
for the county, and 6.5% for the state.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
In 2000, the community had the highest infant mortality rate
compared to its reference areas. For every 1,000 live births,
the infant mortality rate for Altgeld was 33.7, compared to
10.5 for the city, 9.6 for the county, and 8.3 for the state.
The percentage of low birth weight was also higher in the
community compared to its reference areas. In 2000, 16.3%
of infants were born low birth weight (less than 2,500 grams
or 5 pounds), compared to 9.7% for the city, 8.9% for the
county, and 8.0% for the state.
Westside, Port Arthur
Data at the community level was not available for the
Westside. but it was available for Port Arthur. In 2006, Port
Arthur had a higher infant mortality rate (6.4) compared to
the state (6.2), but it was lower than the county rate (7.6).
Low birth weight data was not available for the community
or city. For the county. 10.0% of infants were born low birth
weight and 8.5% of infants were born low birth weight for
the state.
3.3.2.2 Health impacts from environmental stressors
Health information that may indicate exposures to envi-
ronmental stressors also identifies possible vulnerable and
sensitive subpopulations. Data on different types of cancer,
diseases attributable to pathogens, and cardiovascular and
respiratory infections is presented in this report. Data was
generally limited to county and state data, and available from
local databases.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
Cancer mortality data was not available for the community
or city; however, Milwaukee County did have a higher death
rate (per 100,000 people) for all cancers than the state of
Wisconsin from 2002 to 2006. The highest death rate for
the county was for cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung
(54.3 per 100,000); slightly higlier than the state's rate (50.1
per 100,000). Cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung has a
strong link to chemical agents associated with environmental
and occupational exposures."' The Cryptosporidium outbreak
in 1993 caused over 60 deaths.'""' For respiratory infec-
tions. the community had the highest asthma hospitalization
discharges for children less than 5 years of age compared to
its reference areas in 2004.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Cancer incidence data was available for the community
(zip code), county and state. For the community, the high-
est incidence of cancer was prostate cancer from 2002-
2006. In 2003, there were nine reported cases of food borne
outbreaks in the City of Chicago and 186 reported cases of
Cryptosporidiosis. Emergency department hospitalizations
were highest for acute myocardial infarctions and asthma for
the community, city, county, and state.
59 For a summary of environmental and occupational links with cancer, see
the 2008-2009 report on Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, available
at: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/
PCP Report 08-09 508.pdf
60 For more information, go to: http://wvvvv.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/
vol9no4/02-0417.htm.
-------
Westside, Port Arthur
Cancer mortality data was not available for the commu-
nity or city. The age-adjusted death rate for all cancers (per
100,000 people) for Jefferson County (206.3) was higher
than the state's rate (192.6) in 2007. The highest type of
cancer incidence for the county was of the trachea, lung, and
bronchus. Information on diseases attributable to pathogens
was limited to the county and state. There were nine deaths
due to Salmonella infections in Texas from 2000 to 2002, but
none in the county. The age-adjusted death rate for cardiovas-
cular diseases was higher in the county (321.9) than the state
(270.3) in 2006.
3.3.2.3 Sensitive populations
Identifying sensitive populations in a community is important
because environmental stressors may pose a greater risk to
subpopulations with inherent health sensitivities. Specific
age groups, such as children and the elderly, arc considered
a sensitive subset of the population. While characterizing a
community by age group is included as a social indicator in
the EJ Toolkit, it is reported in this report as a health indicator
because children (5 years of age and younger) and older indi-
viduals (65 years and older) may be more sensitive to chemi-
cal contaminants than the general population. Identifying
those with disabilities (e.g. physical, mental, or employment
disabilities) from the 2000 Census can also identify sensitive
subpopulations."1 Information on individual behavior, such
as alcohol and tobacco use. can also make individuals more
susceptible to environmental hazards. The CDC's BRFSS
(Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) provides
information on alcohol and tobacco use for Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs), some counties, and states.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
According to the 2000 Census, the Corridor had a higher
percentage of children under 5 years of age (10%) and a
lower percentage of adults over 65 years than the reference
areas (6%), i.e. city, county, and state levels. The popula-
tion 5 years and older with a disability was the highest in
the Corridor compared to the reference areas. Of those with
a disability, almost a quarter had a physical disability (22%)
and an employment disability (21% of residents 18 to 64
years of age). In 2002, almost 20% of adults in Milwaukee's
MSA surveyed for the BRFSS reported binge drinking, that
is having five or more drinks on one occasion, compared to
22% for the state. Almost a quarter of adults were current
smokers in Milwaukee's MSA (23.7%), similar to the state's
percentage (25.7%).
61 According to the 2000 US Census, people 5 years old and over are
considered to have a disability if they have one or more of the following:
(a) blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment; (b) a
substantial limitation in the ability to perform basic physical activities; (c)
difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating; or (d) difficulty
dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home. People 16 years old
and over are considered to have a disability if they have difficulty going
outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office, and people 16-64
years old are considered to have a disability if they have difficulty working
at a job or business.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Altgeld had a higher percentage of children under 5 years of
age (13%) and a lower percentage of residents 65 years and
older (3%) than the reference areas in 2000. The community
had the highest percentage of residents with a disability in
comparison to the reference areas, with the highest disability
being those with an employment disability (30%). Adults
reporting binge drinking in 2002 on the BRFSS were similar
for Chicago. Cook County, and Illinois (17%, 17%, and 18%
respectively). More adults reported being current smokers in
Chicago than the other reference areas (23%).
Westside, Port Arthur
The percentage of children under 5 years of age in the
Westside Community was similar to the reference areas (7%).
The community had a higher percentage of elderly residents
(19% of residents 65 years and older) than its reference areas.
The community also had the highest percentage of those with
a disability compared to the reference areas. Of the residents
with a disability, over a quarter had a physical disability
(27%). Data from the BRFSS was only available for the state
of the reference areas. Almost 18% of adults reported binge
drinking in 2002 and 23% were current smokers in Texas.
3.3.3 Social Indicators
Research has shown that some communities arc dispropor-
tionately exposed to environmental hazards based on social
characteristics, such as demographics and political power.
Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to iden-
tify communities based on social characteristics. The order
calls upon federal agencies to achieve environmental justice
by identifying and addressing their programs, policies and
activities that create disproportionately high adverse health
and environmental conditions in low-income and minority
populations.62
Social indicators presented in this report were available
through the 2000 Census Summary Files 1 and 3 at the block
group level. In C-FERST, demographic data are available in
the community data tables and maps. Information on commu-
nity amenities and political power is available through the
consider/identify environmental issues for your community
option for social and economic issues. Detailed data collected
for the social indicators arc available in Appendix G.
3.3.3.1 Demographic
Demographic variables presented in this report arc from the
2000 Census and include: race/ethnicity,63 age. gender, place
of birth, linguistic isolation,64 educational attainment."' and
family structure."
62 To access Executive Order 12898, go to: http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/
eol2898.htm.
63 Race (American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or .African
American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and White) and
ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino) is categorized as white and non-white
(minority). Non-white includes anyone who did not self-identify as White
on the 2000 Census.
64 Linguistic isolation is defined as a household in which all members of the
household 14 years old and over have some difficulty speaking English.
65 Educational attainment is the highest degree or level of school completed.
66 Family structure focuses on the head of the household, specifically, single-
parent, female households where no husband is present.
-------
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
According to the 2000 Census, most residents of the Corridor
were non-white (94%) and African-American (80%). The
average median age was 23 years and 54% of residents were
female. Almost all of the residents were born in the U.S.
(94%) and few households were linguistically isolated (3%).
Compared to the reference areas (city, county, and state
values), more residents 25 years and older in the Corridor
do not have a high school diploma (29%). One-fourth of the
households were single-female households with children
under 18 years of age (25%).
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Almost all of the residents were African-American (99%)
in 2000. The median average age was 19 years and 58% of
residents were female. Almost all of the residents were born
in the U.S. (99%) and very few households were linguisti-
cally isolated (0.3%). More than a quarter of the residents did
not have a high school diploma (31%), a higher percentage
compared to the reference areas. Almost half of the house-
holds were single-female households with children (49%).
Westside, Port Arthur
Most of the residents were non-white (97%) and African-
American (94%). The average median age was 38 years and
54% of residents were female. Most residents were born
in the U.S. (98%) and few households were linguistically
isolated (2%). Compared to the reference areas, a higher
percentage of residents in the community did not have a high
school diploma (19%). Less than a quarter of the households
were single-female households with children (20%), higher
than the reference areas.
3.3.3.2 Vulnerability to exposure
Some communities may be vulnerable to environmental
hazards because of limited access to amenities, such as public
transportation and health care facilities. Limited access to
public transportation can prevent residents from access-
ing essential amenities, including health care facilities and
healthy, affordable food, all of which impacts a community's
quality of life. Google Earth provides a transportation layer
that locates railways, subways, and bus stops. The 2000
Census provides information on households' accessibility
to a vehicle. In addition, the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) identifies Health Professional
Shortage Areas (HPSAs), which means the area has a
shortage of primary medical care, dental or mental health
providers. All of these indicators demonstrate a community's
vulnerability to environmental exposures due to limited
access to amenities.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
According to Google Earth, Milwaukee County Transit
bus stops arc located throughout the community. The 2000
Census indicates that almost half of the housing units in
the community do not have access to a vehicle (43%). The
community is also located in a HPS A for primary care.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
There arc several bus stops operated by the Chicago Transit
Authority in the community. More than half of households do
not have access to a vehicle (67%). The community has also
been identified as a HPS A for primary care.
Westside, Port Arthur
Port Arthur Transit System offers bus services and special
paratransit door-to-door services for the elderly and disabled.
Most housing units in the community have access to a vehicle
(75%). The area is also a primary care HPS A.
3.3.3.3 Community participation
Often, socially disadvantaged communities, i.e. low-income
and/or minority communities, do not have access to informa-
tion on their environment and arc not able to meaningfully
participate in the decision making process. To measure a
community's ability to meaningfully participate in the deci-
sion making process, two researchers created a community
power score.67 The score uses data from the 2000 Census at
the block group level. The measure is the sum of the stan-
dardized score for median household income and the percent-
age of the population that is White. According to the method,
the scores in the bottom 10% are the least empowered
communities.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
Community power scores for block groups in the Corridor
were in the bottom quartile for scores in Milwaukee County,
with almost 70% of the block groups being in the bottom
10% of all scores in the county
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Community power scores for block groups in Altgeld
Gardens were in the bottom quartile for scores in Cook
County, with all of the block groups being in the bottom 10%
of all scores in the county.
Westside, Port Arthur
Community power scores for block groups on the Westside of
Port Arthur were in the bottom quartile for scores in Jefferson
County, with 7 out of 11 of the block groups being in the
bottom 10% of all scores in the county.
3.3.4 Economic Indicators
Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to also
examine economic conditions in communities to prevent
instances of environmental injustice. The order specifically
identifies low-income communities as being potentially
vulnerable to disproportionate exposures to environmental
stressors. The EJ Toolkit defines low-income communities
as households where the median income is below the federal
poverty line. Economic indicators included in this report arc
employment status, income level, housing tenure, industry
of employment, and the presence of Brownficld properties.
67 Eric J. Krieg and Daniel R. Faber. Not so black and white: Environmental
justice and cumulative impact assessments. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 24 (2004): 667-694.
-------
All economic data was downloaded from the 2000 Census.
In C-FERST, this information is available in the commu-
nity data tables and maps. Additional information can be
found under the consider/identify environmental issues for
your community option for social and economic issues.
Data collected for the Economic Indicators is available in
Appendix H.
3.3.4.1 Unemployment
The unemployment rate indicates the economic opportunities
available in a community. In addition, the rate demonstrates
if community members arc able to meet basic needs, such as
purchasing healthy foods.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
Compared to the reference areas, i.e. city, county, and state,
the Corridor had a higher percentage of unemployed residents
16 years and older (11%) in 2000.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Almost 20% of residents were unemployed, compared to 6%
for the city, 5% for the county and state.
Westside, Port Arthur
The percentage of unemployed residents for the Westside
Community was over half the city level (18% vs. 7%), and
almost four times the county and state level (5% and 4%
respectively).
3.3.4.2 Income (1999)
Information on income also indicates whether community
members arc able to meet basic needs. Information on medi-
an household income,68 families receiving public assistance.""
and families living below the federal poverty line arc provid-
ed for the case study communities and associated reference
areas. All information is from the 2000 Census.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
According to the Census, the median household income for
the Corridor was below the median income for the city of
Milwaukee ($20,000 and $32,216, respectively) in 1999.
More families received public assistance income compared
to the reference areas (10%). The percent of families living
in poverty was also higher than the city (40% vs. 17%) and
higher than the county and state values (12% and 6%).
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Altgeld had the lowest median household income than
the median values for the city, county, and state in 1999
($11,933; $38,625; $45,922; and $46,590 respectively). More
than a quarter of families received public assistance income
(36%). Almost three quarters of the families lived in poverty
in 1999, also higher than its reference areas (71%).
68 Median household income includes the income of the householder and all
other individuals 15 years old and over in the household, whether they are
related to the householder or not.
69 Families receiving public assistance income includes general assistance
and temporary assistance to needy families.
Westside, Port Arthur
The median household income for the Westside Community
was below the median income for its reference areas
($16,170; $26,455 for the city; $34,706 for the county;
and $45,861 for the state). More families received public
assistance than the reference areas (7%). The percentage of
families living in poverty was also higher than the reference
areas (40%).
3.3.4.3 Housing tenure
The percent of homeowners in a community is important
because it may indicate how invested community members
arc in the decision making process regarding environmen-
tal hazards. The 2000 Census provides information on the
number of occupied housing units and the housing tenure of
the occupants, i.e. owner or renter occupied units.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
Based on the Census, most housing units in the community
were occupied (86%); however, there were more occupied
housing units in the city and county. More than half of the
housing units were renter occupied (67%), higher than the
reference areas.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Most housing units in Altgeld Gardens were occupied (87%)
in 2000. While Altgeld Gardens is a public housing develop-
ment. according to the 2000 Census almost 90% were renter
occupied, higher than all the reference area values.
Westside, Port Arthur
Most housing units in the community were occupied (81%)
in 2000; however, compared to the reference areas, Westside
had more unoccupied units. More than half of the housing
units in the community were owner occupied (63%), which
was similar to values for the reference areas.
3.3.4.4 Occupation
The dominant occupation of residents in a community is
also an economic indicator. Information for employment in
white collar70 and blue collar"1 jobs is available from the 2000
Census.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
In 2000 , most residents in the Corridor were employed
in blue-collar jobs (32%), compared to 27% for the city,
25% for the county, and 29% in the state. Only 18% were
employed in white collar jobs, compared to 28% for the city
and 32% for the county.
70 White collar jobs are defined as employment in management, professional
and related occupations (two subcategories: management, business and
financial operations; and professional and related occupations).
71 Blue collar jobs are defined as employment in two occupational categories:
(1) construction, extraction, and maintenance; and (2) production,
transportation and material moving.
29
-------
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
The percentage of residents with blue collar jobs in the
community was similar for the city, county and state percent-
ages (21%, 23%, 22%, and 24% respectively); however,
fewer residents had a white collar job compared to the refer-
ence areas (10%, 34%, 35%, and 44% respectively).
Westside, Port Arthur
Almost one-third of residents had a blue collar job (29%)
in the community, compared to 31% for Port Arthur. Fewer
residents in the community had a white collar job (16%),
compared to 21% for the city, 29% for the county, and 33%
in the state
3.3.4.5 Brownfield properties
The presence of Brownfield properties indicates increased
economic development and urban revitalization. Brownfield
properties also indicate greater job opportunities for
residents.
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
The Corridor has almost half of the city's Brownfield proper-
ties within 3 km of the community.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
There is one Brownfield property located within 3 km of
Altgeld Gardens.
Westside, Port Arthur
All of Port Arthur's Brownfield properties are within 3 km of
the Westside Community.
3.4 Phase 3: Assessment of Potential Adverse Impacts
Pliase 3 of the EJ Toolkit examines if there is potential for
adverse environmental and human health effects or impacts.
This assessment focuses on adverse human liealtli effects
by using information from RSEI." RSEI is a screening
tool developed by the EPA that provides data on chemical
releases from TRI. The model is useful to obtain total-niass-
rclease data, in addition to a toxicity-weighted stressor score.
Table 3-1 shows how the scores arc calculated in RSEI. The
information presented in this report is from version 2.2.0;
however, version 2.3.0 was released in June 2010.
There arc limitations to using RSEI. The model only provides
data for facilities reporting to TRI and docs not consider
ecological effects. In addition, the model docs not evaluate
all toxic chemicals or pathways, nor docs it consider area
sources or mobile sources.
3.4.1 Total Mass-Release Analysis
The follow ing is a summary of information downloaded
from RSEI for 1996 to 2002 for the case study communities
and the associated reference areas. The data is from TRI.
Information is organized by an overall assessment, the media
of emission (e.g., stake air releases, transfer releases, and
landfill releases), the chemicals released, and the top indus-
tries and facilities releasing chemicals. Similar data can also
be obtained from NEI. Detailed information is available in
Appendix I.
72 RSEI is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/.
Risk Indicator Method
. . , , Surrogate Dose x Toxicity Weight x
Risk-related results ^ r.. ' a
copulation
Hazard-based results Pounds x Toxicity Weight
Pounds-based results TRI Pounds
Table 3-1. Risk Indicator Calculation (RSEI)
3.4.1.1 30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
Overall
• Milwaukee County ranked the highest in TRI pounds
released and made up 20% of Wisconsin's releases.
• All zip codes covering the Corridor accounted for 11%
of releases in Milw aukee County and 13% in the City of
Milwaukee.
• Zip code 53210 accounted for 40% of releases covering
the Corridor's four zip codes.
Media
• Stack air releases made up most emissions for Wisconsin
(17%).
• Stack air releases accounted for 10% of TRI emissions in
Milwaukee County.
• Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) transfer
releases accounted for 10% emissions in Milwaukee and
11% of for zip codes covering the Corridor.
Chemical
• Copper was the top chemical emitted for Wisconsin
(12%).
• The top chemical for TRI releases was lead for
Milwaukee County (23%) and Milwaukee (31%).
• Copper was the top chemical emitted for the Corridor
(37%).
Industry
• The top industry in Wisconsin emitting releases was
Industrial Organic Chemicals (SIC Code: 286) (8%).
• Miscellaneous Electrical Machinery (SIC Code: 369)
accounted for 21% of Milw aukee County and 29% of
Milwaukee's industry emissions.
• Cutlery and General Hardware (SIC Code: 342) account-
ed for 54% of TRI emissions for 30th St. Corridor.
Facility
• Stora Pulp Mill (Wood County) released 7% of total TRI
emissions for Wisconsin.
• C&D Technologies (Zip code: 53212) emitted 20% of
total TRI emissions for Milwaukee County and 27% for
Milwaukee.
• Master Lock (Zip code: 53210) emitted 41% of total TRI
releases for the Corridor.
-------
3.4.1.2 Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Overall
• Cook County ranked the highest in TRI pounds released
in Illinois (25% of total releases).
• Zip code 60131 accounted for 10% of releases in Cook
County and 60827 (Altgeld Gardens) made up 3% of total
emissions.
• Altgeld accounted for less than 1% of Chicago's total
emissions.
Note: A portion of zip code 60827 is not within Chicago's
city boundaries, thus the entire area is not included in the
city's total
Media
• Stack air releases made up most emissions for Illinois
(19%).
• Stack air releases accounted for 8% of emissions in Cook
County.
• OITsite Recycling (metal recovery) made up 29% of TRI
emissions for Chicago.
• OITsite Landfill releases accounted for 80% emissions in
Altgeld.
Chemical
• Zinc was the top chemical emitted for Illinois (17%).
• The top chemical for TRI releases was copper for Cook
County (21%).
• Zinc was the top chemical emitted for Chicago (29%)
and Altgeld (60%).
Industry
• Blast Furnace/Basic Steel Products (SIC Code: 331)
(12%) was the top industry in Illinois emitting releases.
• Sanitary Services (SIC Code: 495) made up 13% of Cook
County and Secondary Nonferrous Metals (SIC Code:
334) topped Chicago's emissions (28%).
• Blast Furnace/Basic Steel Products made up 83% of emis-
sions for Altgeld.
Facility
• Peoria Disposal (Peoria County ) released 5% of total
Illinois emissions.
• Safety-Kleen Systems (Zip code: 60419) emitted 8% of
otal emissions for Cook County .
• H. Kramer & County (Zip code: 60608) released 16% of
total emissions for Chicago.
• Mittal Steel emitted 83% of total releases for Altgeld
Gardens.
3.4.1.3 Westside, Port Arthur
Overall
• Harris County ranked the highest in TRI releases in Texas
(31% of total); Jefferson County released 7% of the state's
emissions.
• Zip code 77705 accounted for most of releases in
Jefferson County (36%) and the Westside of Port Arthur
(Zip code: 77640) made up 26% of releases in the county .
• The Westside accounted for 74% of emissions for Port
Arthur.
Media
• OITsite Energy Recovery releases made up most emis-
sions for Texas (17%).
• Underground Injections (Class 1) accounted for 22% of
releases in Jefferson County .
• OITsite Recycling (Solvcnts/Organics Recovery) made up
51% of TRI emissions for Port Arthur and 69% for the
Westside.
Chemical
• Nitrate compounds were the top chemicals emitted for
Texas (7%).
• The top chemicals for TRI releases were also nitrate
compounds for Jefferson County (12%).
• Naphthalene was the top chemical emitted for Port Arthur
(30%) and the Westside (41%).
Industry
• The top industry in Texas emitting releases was Industrial
Organic Chemicals (SIC Code: 286) (39%).
• Industrial Organic Chemicals also accounted for 71%,
80%, and 86% of Jefferson County , Port Arthur, and the
Westside"s score respectively.
Facility
• Celanese Clear Lake Plan (Harris Co) released 3% of total
emissions for Texas.
• DuPont Beaumont Plant (Zip code: 77705) emitted 29%
of total emissions for Jefferson County .
• Chevron Phillips Chemical in the Westside released
64% of total emissions for Port Arthur and 86% for the
Westside.
3.4.2 Total Toxicity-WeightedAnalysis
Risk-related score data is weighted and can be used for
comparative purposes only within RSEI. Detailed informa-
tion on the results is available in Appendix J.
-------
3.4.2.1 30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee
Overall
• Kenosha County had the highest risk-related score in WI
(32% of state score), followed by Milwaukee County
(21%).
• All zip codes covering the Corridor accounted for 28% of
the risk-related scores in Milwaukee County and 38% in
the City of Milwaukee.
• Zip code 53208 accounted for 54% of the total risk-relat-
ed score for the Corridor's zip codes.
Media
• Fugitive air releases accounted for 39% of risk-related
impact emissions for Wisconsin.
• Fugitive air releases accounted for 65% of the risk-related
scores in Milwaukee County and 61% in Milwaukee.
• Fugitive air releases made up 64% of the risk-related
score for the Corridor.
Chemical
• Manganese accounted for 32% of the risk-related score
for Wisconsin.
• Manganese also accounted for 60% of the risk-related
scores for Milwaukee County. 56% for Milwaukee, and
57% for the Corridor.
Industry
• The industry with the highest risk-related score in
Wisconsin was Electric Services (SIC Code: 491) (33% of
state score).
• Iron and Steel Foundries (SIC Code: 332) accounted for
44% of Milwaukee County and 46% of Milwaukee's
scores.
• Industrial Machinery Equipment (SIC Code: 356)
accounted for 37% of the score for the Corridor.
Facility
• Pleasant Prairie (Kenosha County) made up 32% of the
risk-related score for Wisconsin.
• Maynard Steel Casting (Zip code: 53215) made up
14% of the scores for Milw aukee County and 20% for
Milwaukee.
• Rexnord Industries (Zip code: 53208) accounted for 37%
of the score for 30th St. Corridor.
3.4.2.2 Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
Overall
• Cook County had the highest risk-related score in Illinois
(50% of state score).
• Zip code 60804 made up 27% of Cook County's risk
score and Altgeld Gardens made up 8%
• Zip code 60614 accounted for 28% of the score for
Chicago and Altgeld made up 2%.
Note: A portion of zip code 60827 is not within Chicago's
city boundaries, thus the entire area is not included in the
city's total
Media
• Fugitive air releases accounted for 49% of risk-related
score for Illinois.
• Fugitive air releases accounted for 50% of the risk-related
scores in Cook County. 54% in Chicago, and 70% in
Altgeld.
Chemical
• Manganese accounted for 39% of the risk-related score
for Illinois.
• Manganese also accounted for 51% of the risk-related
scores for Cook County, 28% for Chicago, and 70% for
Altgeld.
Industry
• Iron/Steel Foundries (SIC Code: 332) were 23% of
lllinois's score.
• Iron/Steel Foundries accounted for 36% of Cook County's
score.
• Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services (SIC Code: 347)
made up 25% of Chicago's score.
• Blast Furnace/Basic Steel Products (SIC Code: 331)
accounted for 85% of the score for Altgeld.
Facility
• Chicago Castings (Cook County) accounted for 11% of
the risk score for Illinois and 22% for Cook County.
• A. Finkl & Sons (Zip code:60614) made up 20% of
the score for Chicago and Hickman Williams & Co. in
Altgeld made up 2%.
• Mittal Steel accounted for 80% of the score for Altgeld
Gardens and Hickman Williams & Co made up 10%.
3.4.2.3 Westside, Port Arthur
Overall
• Harris County (38%) and Jefferson County (30%) had the
highest risk-related scores in Texas.
• Zip code 77643 made up 88% of Jefferson County "s risk
score and the Westside made up less than 1% (Zip code:
77640).
• Zip code 77643 accounted for 98% of the score for Port
Arthur and the Westside made up about 1%.
Media
• Direct water releases accounted for 35% of risk-related
score for Texas and 88% for Jefferson County.
• Direct water releases also made up 98% of the risk-related
score in Port Arthur.
• Stack air releases accounted for 79% of the risk-related
score for the Westside.
-------
Chemical
' PCBs accounted for 25% of the risk-related score for
Texas, 82% for Jefferson County, and 92% for Port
Arthur.
• Sulfuric acid made up 61% of the risk-related scores for
the Westside.
Industry
• Sanitary Services (SIC Code: 495) were 27% of the state's
risk score and 88% of Jefferson County's score.
• Sanitary Services also made up 98% of Port Arthur's
score.
• Petroleum Refining (SIC Code: 291) accounted for 86%
of the score for the Westside.
Facility
• Veolia Technical Solutions (Jefferson County) made up
27% of the risk-related score for Texas, 88% for Jefferson
County, and 98% for Port Arthur.
• Motiva Enterprises on the Westside accounted for 0.3%
of the risk score for Jefferson County and 49% for the
Westside.
3.5 Phase 4: Assessment of Potential Disproportionate
Cumulative Impacts
The final phase of the EJ Toolkit determines if a commu-
nity is experiencing disproportionate cumulative impacts.
Disproportionately high impacts are defined in the toolkit as
adverse effects that (page 71):
1. are predominately borne by any segment of the popula-
tion, including a minority population and/or a low-
income population; or
2. will be suffered by a minority population and/or low-
income population and are appreciably more severe or
greater in magnitude than the adverse effect or impact
that will be suffered by a non-minority population and/
or non-low-income population
The reference areas are used to determine disproportionality.
For a screening-level assessment, the toolkit recommends
using a more qualitative based analysis to determine dispro-
portionate impacts and using a quantitative analysis for a
refined assessment. While this report focuses on screening-
level assessments for the case study communities, this section
will provide options to quantitatively assess disproportionate
cumulative impacts.
Quantifying disproportionate cumulative impacts is challeng-
ing and there is currently no agreement on how to measure
cumulative impacts.'73 Several methods have been suggested
5 Ken Sexton and Stephen H. Linder. The role of cumulative risk assessment
in decisions about environmental justice. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 7 (2010): 4037-4049.
t ? t
1 1
,
' * ~
EJSEAT
EJ_RANK
¦¦ 1
2
Hi 3
¦¦ 4
M5
6
1 1
8
Hi 9
10
Figure 3-5. EJSEAT Score, 30th Street Corridor
Region 5 EJ Assist Analysis
Map
Area of digitized polygon
Eco
Within Great Lakes Area of concern?
Within a NWI Wetland?
Demog
2.29 sq.mi
No
No
Within 1 miles of Census Tracts designated as a high-priority aria of potential environmental justice concern? Yes
Within Tribal land?
No
Facility
Within .25 miles of RCRA 2020 facility?
Yes
Within 1 mile of a Nuclear Power Plant
No
Within 1 mile of a Electric Power Plant
No
-------
by EPA and the environmental justice research community.
Methods to examine cumulative or disproportionate impacts
have included calculating proximity to regulated facilities,74
estimating cancer risks,75 and creating a score compiled from
enviromnental stressors and socioeconomic factors.76
This report does not specifically determine if one of the case
study communities is disproportionately exposed to cumula-
tive impacts, but rather provides examples for project officers
and communities conducting an EJ assessment. Different
methods developed by EPA and the research community are
presented for the three case studies. These methods are for
demonstration purposes only and not for interpretation. This
report does not endorse any one method over another.
There are several different ways to examine disproportion-
ate impacts. The NEJAC report on cumulative risks outlines
primary methods for analyzing cumulative effects, and identi-
fies strengths and weaknesses of each method.77 An index can
be created that incorporates several different indicators, or
information can be examined qualitatively by displaying it on
a map or Geographic Information System (GIS). Trends can
be analyzed over a period in time and compared to reference
areas. Modeling can also be used to estimate enviromnental
conditions resulting from stressors.
3.5.1 Indices
An index integrates multiple indicators into one composite
score. Data sources for the indicators should be reliable and
available for all reference areas. The index should also be
easy to calculate and interpret for all audiences. According to
the NEJAC report, this method can provide a comprehensive
overview of conditions, in addition to addressing multiple
indicators, such as enviromnental, health, social, and/or
health conditions. However, an index may not link environ-
mental information to adverse health impacts, or it may not
incorporate time or geographic information into the compos-
ite score.
74 Robert D. Bullard, Paul Mohai, Robin Saha, and Beverly Wright. Toxic
Waste and Race at Twenty 1987—2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle
Environmental Racism in the US, Cleveland, Ohio: United Church of
Christ, 2007.
75 Rachel Morello-Frosch and Bill M. Jesdale. Separate and unequal:
Residential segregation and estimated cancer risks associated with ambient
air toxics in US metropolitan areas. Environmental Health Perspective 114
2006): 386-393.
76 E. J. Krieg and D. R. Faber. Not so black and white: Environmental justice
and cumulative impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 24 (2004): 667-694.
77 NEJAC's Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple
Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts,
December 2004 report, is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/
environmentaljustice/nejac/recommendations.html.
Illinois
10,588,994
Cook County
5,323,861
Chicago
1,787,959
Rank
Top Zip Codes for Cook County
(% of County score)
1
60804 1,581,143(26.7%)
2
60160 732,190 (13.8%)
3
60614 495,607 (9.3%)
A
60827 435,808 (8.2%)
H
(Altgeld Gardens)
5
60501 269,373 (5.1%)
6
60608 240,662 (4.5%)
7
60623 193,484(3.6%)
8 60644 179,084(3.4%)
9
60617 128,480 (2.4%)
10
60107 81,273 (1.5%)
Table 3-2. RSEI Score, Altgeld Gardens (1996-2002)
Several cumulative index methods are currently in develop-
ment by EPA, university scientists and state agencies. Indices
that could be used to assess disproportionate cumulative
impacts and that are not included in this report include:
• Cumulative Risk Index Analysis - Region 6, EPA
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ospinter/presenta-
tions/cumrisk/carney.pdf
• Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Region 9, EPA
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/region9/enforcement/
results/10/highlights.html
• Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation -
California Enviromnental Protection Agency
» Web address: http://oelilia.ca.gov/ej/pdf/
CIReportl23110.pdf
• Cumulative Impacts Screening Method - University of
Southern California, Occidental College, and University
of California, Berkeley
» Web address: http://college.usc.edu/pere/projects/
cumulativeimpacts.cfm
• Social Vulnerability Index for Enviromnental Hazards
(SoVI) - Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute,
University of South Carolina
» Web address: http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/
sovi.aspx
-------
Type of Hazardous Facility or Site
SIC Code
Points for
Rating Severity
Source
EPASuperfund National Priority List (NPL) Site
n/a
25
National Priorities List
EPA Superfund site (not on NPL)
n/a
5
EPASuperfund
State-regulated abandoned contaminated waste site
n/a
5
Local databases
Large power plant (top 5 polluter based
on pounds released)
491,493
[4911,4931,4939]
25
My Environment,
Emissions Inventories
Small power plant
491,493
[4911,4931,4939]
10
My Environment,
Emissions Inventories
Proposed power plant
n/a
5
Local databases
TRI facility
n/a
5
TRI Explorer
Commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facility
495 [4953, 4959]
5
My Environment,
Emissions Inventories
Municipal solid waste landfill (nonhazardous waste)
495 [4953]
5
My Environment,
Emissions Inventories
Municipal incinerator (nonhazardous waste)
495 [4953]
20
My Environment,
Emissions Inventories
Large sewage treatment plant or sludge
management facility
495 [4952]
5
My Environment,
Emissions Inventories
Trash transfer station (hazardous
and nonhazardous waste)
n/a
5
My Environment,
Emissions Inventories
Waste tire pile
n/a
5
Local databases
Table 3-3. Environmental Hazard Point System
This section focuses on three additional index methods: (1)
Environmental Justice Strategic; Enforcement Assessment
Tool (EJSEAT); (2) RSEI; and (3) the Cumulative
Environmental Justice Impact Assessment. RSEI is accessible
through C-FERST under the additional tools for communities
option. Each method is applied to one case study community
and is for demonstration purposes. Again, this report does not
endorse any one method over another.
3.5.1.1 Environmental Justice Strategic
Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) for 30th Street
Corridor, WI
EPA's enviromnental justice screening tool, EJAssist,
provides a cumulative community assessment by examining
demographic, enviromnental, health, and compliance infor-
mation at the census tract level. The tool calculates an index
comprised of 18 indicators and combined into a component
score for each census tract, called the EJSEAT score.78
Census tracts are ranked according to the decile it falls in
within a state. The score ranges from one to ten, with a score
of one indicating a value at the highest decile (top 1-10%)
and a census tract with potential EJ concerns.
The EJSEAT score is displayed over a map within the
EJ Assist application. EJ Assist allows users to define a
geographic area and generate a report. The method can be
applied at a national level and uses publicly available data-
bases; however, the score can only be compared to scores
within one state and in one year.
78 For detailed information on how the score is calculated, go to:
http ://www. epa- otis. gov/otis/ej/.
Application: 30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee, WI
When EJSEAT is applied to the Corridor, the E J Assist
analysis indicates the community is within one mile of census
tracts "designated as a high-priority area of potential environ-
mental justice concern" (see Figure 3-5). The map generated
in EJAssist shows the EJSEAT scores for all the census tracts
in the Corridor as ranking in the highest decile in the state.
The EJSEAT scores indicate this is a community of potential
EJ concern.
3.5.1.2 Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI)
for Altgeld Gardens, IL
RSEI is a screening tool by the EPA that provides infor-
mation on toxic releases from TRI. The model provides a
risk-related score (RSEI score) that multiplies surrogate dose,
the toxicity of a chemical release, and the potential exposed
population. The tool calculates risk-related scores for specific
facilities, industry groups, zip codes, cities, tribal lands,
counties, states, or EPA regions. Information can also be
organized in several ways, including pathway of exposure or
chemical data. Version 2.2.0 of RSEI reports on TRI releases
from 1996-2006.79
RSEI results do not evaluate individual risk. The RSEI score
can be used for comparative purposes only within RSEI;
however, it only provides information for facilities reporting
to TRI and does not incorporate area sources, mobile sources,
acute toxicity or ecological effects. In addition, RSEI does
not assess all toxic chemicals or pathways, such as food
ingestion, dermal, or indirect contact.
79 Version 2.3.0 is now available for download and reports on releases from
1996-2007 at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/.
-------
Application: Altgeld Gardens, Chicago, IL
Of all the zip codes in Cook County, the RSEI score for
Altgeld's zip code ranked fourth (see Table 3-2). The score
accounted for almost one-tenth of the total RSEI score for the
county.
3.5.1.3 Cumulative Environmental Justice Impact
Assessment for Westside, TX
The Cumulative Enviromnental Justice Impact Assessment
was developed by Krieg and Faber, and has been applied
to several communities.80-81 Krieg and Faber rate regulated
and unregulated sites on a hazard point scale, called the
Enviromnental Hazard Point System. The system can be
modified to include hazardous sites not listed (see Table 3-3).
Points for the sites are added for each geographic area (e.g.
census block group or census tract) and divided by the total
area to obtain an enviromnental hazard density score. Next,
geographic areas are assigned a score based on the quartile
it falls in and can be classified as "extensively burdened,"
"moderately burdened," or "least burdened."
While the score is relatively simple to calculate, the method
of rating the severity of hazardous facilities or sites is not
clear. In addition, the score only focuses on sources within
the geographic area of concern. Therefore, a hazard may be
located in an adjacent area and pose a threat to the commu-
nity of concern; however, it is not included in the calculation.
Displaying the environmental hazard density scores for a
larger geographic area on a map can help identify surround-
ing hazards.
Application: Westside, TX
Enviromnental hazard density scores were calculated for
the census tracts in Jefferson County (see Table 3-4). Based
on information from EnviroMapper in 2009, two Superfund
NPL sites and three TRI facilities, including one petroleum
refinery, were located in the census tracts covering the
Westside Community. The total enviromnental hazard point
score was 65 points.
Once the environmental hazard density scores were calcu-
lated, two census tracts scored in the top quartile for density
scores in the county and classified extensively burdened (top
10%). This information was displayed on a map in ArcGIS
with population data from the 2000 Census in Figure 3-6.
According to the Cumulative EJ Impact Assessment, the
Westside Community is surrounded by extensively and
moderately burdened tracts in a populated area.
3.5.2 Overlay Mapping and Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)
Overlay mapping and GIS (Geographic Information Systems)
can be used to identify communities environmentally
overburdened by mapping regulated facilities and socioeco-
80 E. J. Krieg and D. R. Faber. Not so black and white: Environmental justice
and cumulative impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 24 (2004): 667-694.
81 Diane Sicotte. Some more polluted than others: Unequal cumulative
industrial hazard burdens in the Philadelphia MSA, USA. Local
Environment 15 (2010): 761-774.
Type of Hazardous
Facility or Site
Total
Sites
Total Points
for Severity
EPA Superfund NPL site
2
50
EPA Superfund site (not on NPL)
0
0
TRI facility
3
15
Petroleum Refineries
1
TOTAL
65
Table 3-4. Environmental Hazard Points, Westside
Census Tracts
nomic characteristics.82 The ability to define a geographic
area is useful to generate specific reports on a community of
concern. According to the NEJAC report on cumulative risks,
this method can provide a visual presentation of enviromnen-
tal, health, social, and economic information that is useful
when communicating with community members. On the
other hand, this approach is limited to a specific location and
may not address indirect impacts of enviromnental stressors.
Several overlay mapping and GIS methods are available or
in development by EPA and state agencies. GIS applications
that could be used to assess disproportionate cumulative
impacts and that are not included in this report include:
• NEPAssist - EPA
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/region02/spmm/pdf/
NEPAssist_Factsheet.pdf
• Census Tract Ranking Tool for Enviromnental Justice
(CenRank) - EPA
In development
• Potential Enviromnental Justice Areas (PEJAs) - New
York Department of Environmental Conservation
» Web address: http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/899.html
Several cumulative index methods mentioned in the previous
section also display their scores using GIS and they include:
• Cumulative Risk Index Analysis - EPA Region 6
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ospinter/presenta-
tions/cumrisk/carney.pdf
• Cumulative Impacts Screening Method - University of
Southern California, Occidental College, and University
of California, Berkeley
» Web address: http://college.usc.edu/pere/projects/
cumulativeimpacts.cfm
• Social Vulnerability Index for Enviromnental Hazards
(SoVI) - Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute,
University of South Carolina
» Web address: http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/
sovi.aspx
82 Juliana Maantay. Mapping environmental injustices: Pitfalls and potential
of Geographic Information Systems in assessing environmental health and
equity. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 supp 2 (2002): 161-171.
-------
,lj
^ i ^
Legend
1 1 Westside
Census Tracts
Hazard Density Score
o.ooa
0.001-1.116
¦i 1.117-2.632
¦1 2.633-4.429
H 4 430-34 091
1 Do4-50
Population
-1-1
EJ RANK
Figure 3-6. Environmental Hazard Density Scores,
Jefferson County (ArcGIS)
Figure 3-7. EJAssist, Altgeld Gardens
B 0 by Blockgroup 1J
Figure 3-8. EJView, 30th Street Corridor (Minority and Below poverty)
Below Poverty (%)
B 0 by Blockgroup @
0-10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 " 100
This section focuses on two GIS tools, EJAssist and EJView,
which map regulated facilities and provide the option to over-
lay U.S. Census data. Regulated facilities and Census data
can also be overlaid in C-FERST's exposure and risk-related
maps. Each method is applied to one case study community
and is for demonstration purposes. Again, this report does not
endorse any one method over another.
3.5.2.1 EJAssist for Altgeld Gardens, IL
This EJ screening tool developed by OECA provides an
assessment of demographic, environmental, health and
compliance information at the census tract level. The tool
calculates the EJSEAT score and identifies census tracts with
potential EJ concerns.83 The score is displayed over a map
within the EJAssist application and the user is able to identify
adjacent tracts with potential EJ concerns. The user is also
able to define the geographic area of concern.
83 For detailed information on how the EJSEAT score is calculated, go to:
http ://www. epa- otis. gov/otis/ej/.
Application: Altgeld Gardens, Chicago, IL
When EJAssist is applied to Altgeld Gardens, the map
displays the EJSEAT score for the census tract it lies and
classifies it as an area of potential EJ concern (a score of one
indicates a value at the top 1-10% for the state) (see Figure
3-7).
3.5.2.2 EJView for 30th Street Corridor, WI
EJView is a GIS tool that provides environmental, health,
social, and economic information.84 The tool maps regulated
facilities for several EPA programs, including CERCLIS.
AFS, and TRI facilities. In addition, it identifies where poten-
tial sensitive populations may be present, such as schools and
hospitals. The user is also able to define a geographic area
and generate an EJ report with specific indicator information.
84 EJView is available at: http://epamapl4.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html.
37
-------
Application: 30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee, WI
When EJView is applied to the Corridor, the user is able to
define the geographic area of interest and display indicator
information. Regulated facilities were plotted for the area
for several EPA programs, such as AFS, TRI, and CERCLIS.
Nonattaimnent areas for 8-hour ozone were also added as
an overlay. Nonattaimnent areas are areas with air quality
that violates the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
as defined in the Clean Air Act.85 Schools, hospitals, and
worship places were also added as an overlay on the map.
Two maps were generated for the Corridor with social
information from the 2000 Census at the block group level,
percent minority and percent living below poverty, in Figure
3-8. According to the map, the Corridor has several EPA
regulated facilities in and around its boundaries, in addition
to schools. The area is a nonattaimnent area for 8-hour ozone.
The area in and around the community is 40-100% minority
with 40-100% of residents living below the poverty line.
3.5.3 Trends Analysis
Trends analyses examine indicators over a period of time
and provide information on historical enviromnental,
health social, and economic information. According to the
NEJAC report on cumulative risks, this method incorpo-
rates the accumulation or worsening of specific indicators
over time. Determining a baseline for the analysis also helps
assess changes over time. Depending on the period of time
analyzed, this method can be time consuming.
Trends analysis can be conducted independently for envi-
romnental, health, social, and economic indicators. Possible
databases that can be accessed for a trends analysis, but are
not included in this section, are outlined below:
• AirData [National Emissions Inventory (NEI)] - EPA
Indicator: Environment
Years available: 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/
• Chronic Disease Indicators - CDC
Indicators: Health
Years available: Multiple years
» Web address: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/cdi/default.aspx
• American Factfinder - US Census
Indicators: Social and Economic
Years available: Multiple years
» Web address: www.factfinder.census.gov/
This section focuses on two databases that can be used for
a trends analysis: RSEI and TRI. Both databases are avail-
able in C-FERST under the additional tools for communities
option. These databases provide enviromnental information
by accessing data on toxic releases. Again, each method is
applied to a case study community and is for demonstration
purposes. This report does not endorse any one method over
another.
85 For more information on National Ambient Air Quality Standards, go to:
http ://www. epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
7,000
6,000
a>
s
¦S)
•a
3,000
a=
2,000
1,000
2001
Figure 3-9. RSEI Score, Westside (1996-2002)
3.5.3.1 Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI)
for Westside, TX
RSEI is a screening tool developed by the EPA that provides
a toxicity-weighted score for chemical releases from TRI.
The risk-related score, or RSEI score, is calculated in the
model by multiplying surrogate dose by the toxicity of a
chemical release and the potentially exposed population.
Information for this report is from version 2.2.0.86
Application: Westside, Port Arthur, TX
Information was downloaded by zip code for the Westside
Community (Zip code: 77640). The RSEI scores and TRI
releases are displayed in a line graph and table for 1996 to
2002 (see Figure 3-9 and Table 3-5). Information from RSEI
shows a slight decline in toxicity-weighted releases from
1996 to 1997, mirrored by the decrease in actual chemical
releases in pounds. There was a sharp increase in the RSEI
score from 1997 to 1998; however, there was not such an
increase in the pounds released. From 1998 to 2000, the RSEI
score declined; however, the total pounds released increased
from 1999 to 2000. The RSEI score increased again from
2000 to 2002, with a sharp increase in the risk-related score
and total pounds released from 2001 to 2002.
A further trends analysis of enviromnental information from
RSEI could organize the data by specific facility releases or
chemical releases to explain reductions or increases in the
RSEI score.
3.5.3.2 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for 30th Street
Corridor, WI
TRI provides data on chemical releases and waste manage-
ment activities for facilities regulated by the EPA. Facilities
are required to report their emissions annually for specific
chemicals and chemical categories (currently 593 chemicals
and 30 categories). TRI data is accessible through several
tools, including TRI Explorer, TRI.NET, and Envirofacts.
In C-FERST, TRI data is accessible under the access other
community tools option and the exposure and risk-related
maps. Users are able to download data by facility, zip code,
city, county, state, or EPA Region.87
86 Version 2.3.0 is now available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/.
87 For more information on TRI and access to data, go to: http://www.epa
. gov/tri/index.htm.
-------
Year
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Number of Facilities 9 9 9 8 7 8 7
Pounds Released 4,799,580 3,830,282 7,414,730 3,290,889 14,808,480 17,815,422 33,679,150
RSE Score 2,590 2,015 6,768 4,731 930 1,871 6,767
Table 3-5. RSEI Score and Pounds Released, Westside (1996-2002)
Nontancer Respiratory Risk
6060000
5000000
a 4 000000
I
S 3.000000
tkj
i 2.000000
1.000000
0.000000
Altgeld Gardens Cook County
Illinois
Nonfancer Neurological Risk
0.2SOOOO
0 200000
O.ISOOOO
0.100000
oosoooo
0.000000
I
Alijjrld Gardem Cook County
Illinois
Total Cancer Risk
0,000060
0.000050
3 0,00004-0
£
HI 0.0OO0J0
ui
a 0,000020
0.00001(1
o.oooooo
Altgeld Gardens Cook County
Illinois
3£00000
3000000
,. 2500000
S 2000000
J* 1.500000
S 1000000
o^ooooo
ooooooo
0.090000
0.080000
0.070000
S 0.060000
Jj 0.050000
" 0.040000
| 0.030000
0.020000
o.oioooo
O.OCQOOO
0.000050
0.000045
0.000040
a 0.000035
| 0.000030
S 0.000025
2 0.000020
s 0.000015
0.000010
Noncamer Respiratory Risk
I
Weitside Jefferson County
Noncancer Neurological Risk
I
Wemlde Jefferson County
Texas
Total Cancer Risk
Westside
Jefferson County
Texas
Figure 3-11. NATA Estimated Risks, Altgeld Gardens (2002) Figure 3-12. NATA Estimated Risks, Westside (2002)
There are several limitations to using TRI data. First, the data
does not include information on actual chemical exposures,
nor does it assess the toxicity of the chemicals released.
Facilities are also not required to report all chemical releases
that could impact communities. In addition, facilities self-
report their releases to TRI, which may be underreported if
they are not monitoring their emissions.
Application: 30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee, WI
Releases from TRI in pounds are shown in the line graph and
table for the four zip codes covering the Corridor (see Figure
3-10 and Table 3-6). Overall, there was an increase in chemi-
cal releases for all the zip codes. Zip code 53216 had the
highest pounds released every year from 1996 to 2002. There
was a slight decrease in releases from 1997 to 1998; however,
the overall trend of releases increases from 1998 to 2002.
39
-------
3.5.4 Modeling
Modeling can provide detailed information on the relative
impacts of enviromnental stressors. Modeling can link expo-
sure to health impacts and calculate cumulative risks; howev-
er, most require large datasets and can be time consuming.
The EPA has developed several complex models that can be
used to assess disproportionate impacts for a more refined EJ
assessment at the community-level. Data from these models
are not included in this report, but include:
• Air Pollutants Exposure Model (APEX) - EPA
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/human_apex.
html
• Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure Model (HAPEM) - EPA
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/liuman_
hapem.html
• Human Exposure Model (HEM) - EPA
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/human_hem.
html
• SHEDS-Multimedia-EPA
» Web address: http://www.epa.gov/lieasd/products
shedsmultimedia/shedsinm.html
While many models are developed for researchers and are
difficult to interpret, there are databases based on models
that non-technical users can apply to community case stud-
ies. The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is a
database derived from NEI data and models that include the
Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide
(ASPEN), the Human Exposure Model-3 (HEM-3) and
the Community Multiscale Air Quality Monitoring System
(CMAQ). NATA provides estimates on chemical concentra-
tions and exposures, in addition to calculating cumulative
cancer risk estimates and risk estimates for specific pollut-
ants.88 2005 NATA evaluated 177 of the 187 air toxics, plus
diesel PM, at the census tract level. NATA risk estimates can
provide information on enviromnental health disparities and
identify communities with potential concerns.89
!8 Information on NATA is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natamain/
index.html.
!9 Benjamin J. Apelberg, Timothy J. Buckley, and Ronald H. White.
Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in
Maryland. Environmental Health Perspective 113 (2005): 693-699.
Figure 3-10. TRI Emissions, 30th Street Corridor
(1996-2002)
There are limitations to using information from NATA.
NATA does not provide information on all chemical expo-
sures and some chemical concentration information may be
underestimated. In addition, there is some uncertainty for the
risk estimates calculated in the database.
In C-FERST, models developed by EPA are available under
the additional tools for communities option. This section
provides risk estimates from NATA for two case study
communities and their associated reference areas
(county and state).
3.5.4.1 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) for
Altgeld Gardens, IL and Westside, TX
Application: Altgeld Gardens, Chicago, IL
NATA risk estimates for 2002 are displayed in Figure 3-11
for Altgeld Gardens (Census tract: 5401), Cook County,
and Illinois. The county had a higher noncancer respiratory
risk estimate than the community and state. The noncancer
neurological risk for the community was over twice that of
the county and state. The total cancer risk was slightly higher
for Altgeld than the reference areas.
Application: Westside, Port Arthur, TX
NATA risk estimates for 2002 are also displayed in Figure
3-12 for the Westside Community (Census tracts: 53, 59, 61,
62), Jefferson County, and Texas. The county had a higher
noncancer respiratory risk than the community and state; the
community had the lowest risk. The noncancer neurological
risk for the county was higher than the community and state
estimates. The total cancer risk for the Westside and county
were similar, and higher than the state estimate.
Year
53208
30th Street Corridor Zip Codes
53209 53210
53216
1996
586,347
468,303
1,131,358
458,333
1997
764,759
462,478
1,612,873
548,598
1998
491,895
334,089
1,598,530
512,767
1999
485,674
400,092
1,663,815
538,034
2000
531,683
674,222
1,393,849
334,505
2001
375,287
962,292
1,270,351
119,336
2002
347,571
1,744,995
1,376,222
239,477
3,000,000
2,500,000
500,000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
53208
53209
53210
53216
Table 3-6. TRI Emissions by Zip Code, 30th Street Corridor (1996-2002)
-------
Summary and Conclusions
4.1 Summary
The purpose of this report is to assess the application of tools
to community-level assessments of exposure, health and the
environment. Various tools and datasets provided different
types of information, such as on health effects, chemical types
and volumes, facility locations and demographics, and different
formats, such as maps, graphs and tables. Each community case
study has a documented environmental or public health concern.
This report focuses primarily on the identification of potential
issues of concern and the collection of information for them (and
the tools and datasets available for these tasks); in contrast, it
docs not focus on risk ranking or prioritization, which falls more
into the category of a formal risk assessment.
All tools and datasets in this report are publicly available, either
through national or local sources. The information provides a
screening-level approach to conduct community-based cumula-
tive risk assessments (CBCRAs) by compiling information on
multiple sources, stressors and health effects and with consider-
ations for non-chemical stressors and population vulnerabilities.
In general, a certain level of technical aptitude is required to use
the tools and to download and analyze the various data types.
Information for CBCRAs is available; however, it is typically
located in a number of different sources and formats. Challenges
include locating appropriate data sources, downloading and
lion, either through maps, graphs, tables or other formats. This
report provides context for which and how tools and datasets
could be accessed and analyzed to inform steps of environ-
mental and health-related assessments. Tools that organize and
compile various sources of information, such as C-FERST,
provide a central resource and facilitate CBCRA research and
implementation.
4.2 Conclusions
A number of conclusions can be drawn from this research,
including (1) useful methods do exist; (2) appropriate data are
available in many cases; (3) there is a need to decide up front on
the important question(s) to be addressed/evaluated; (4) focus
should be on analyzing data to derive scientific findings not on
selecting data and methods to justify a preconceived notion.
Useful tools, methods and data sources do exist to inform envi-
ronmental and health-related assessments at the community
level. While challenges remain in gathering and analyzing the
information, appropriate data are available in main cases. This
information can aid with decision-making processes for human
and financial resource allocation, or determining next steps for a
more rigorous assessment.
There is a need up front to determine the important questions
that are going to be addressed or evaluated in order to focus
the scope of the data gathering and analysis. This will also
determine which tools arc most relevant, and provide a context
for presenting the information. Conversely, a broad compilation
of data and information without context may prove to be coun-
ter-productive in an assessment because the breadth of informa-
tion may make it difficult to focus on a particular issue or set of
issues. However, although questions and goals may be formulat-
ed initially, the data acquisition process should focus on analyz-
ing data that will derive scientific findings (and stakeholders should
be prepared if results are not consistent with what they were
expecting), and not on selecting data and methods tliat justify a
preconceived notion in isolation of alternative possibilities.
Community knowledge and participation is another impor-
tant point to consider. Local residents often have knowledge
of potential stressors that are not available through publicly
available datasets. such as illegal dumping or previous land
contamination.
Nonclieniical stressors, such as noise pollution and odor, can
also affect a community's overall quality of life. A recent report
from the World Health Organization (WHO) found that noise
pollution is associated with adverse cardiovascular effects,
including high blood pressure and lieart attacks.90 Thus, it is
essential to engage community members in the CBCR A process
to identify nonclieniical stressors that outside parties would not
be able to identify if they did not reside in the community.
Several national databases exist tliat provide information on
environmental, health, social and economic conditions at a
geographic scale relevant for community assessments. However,
most health information is not available at the community
level. For that reason, it is important to use state, county, or city
databases to obtain community-level data. For example, for the
Westlawn Community and 30th Street Corridor in Milwaukee,
the Wisconsin Interactive Statistics on Health (WISH) provid-
ed liealth data for zip codes, as well as cities and codes, allow-
ing for a more accurate description of the community's health
status. The Illinois Project for Local Assessment of Needs
(IPLAN) also provided community-level health statistics for
Altgeld Gardens.
This report provides examples of which tools and information
can be used within the context of environmental or public health
assessment, and how the information can be displayed and inter-
preted. Potential users may be interested in currently available
information tliat could provide insight into environmental or
health conditions prior to a more rigorous assessment tliat may
include measurements or other types of in-field research. In this
respect, users may include community-based organizations,
academic rescareliers. local governments working with commu-
nities. or federal agencies developing local-scale applications.
90 The 2011 WHO report on noise pollution is available at: http: /www.
euro. who.int/en/what-we-publishabstracts/burden-of-disease-from-
environmental-noise.-quantification-of-healthy-life-years-lost-in-europe
-------
-------
Appendixes
Appendix A: Acronyms A-1
Appendix B: C-FERST Exposure and Risk Maps B-l
Appendix C: Westlawn Socioeconomic Data C-l
Appendix D: Publicly Available Web-Based Sources, EJ Toolkit D-1
Appendix E: Environmental Indicators, EJ Toolkit E-l
Appendix F: Health Indicators, EJ Toolkit F-l
Appendix G: Social Indicators, EJ Toolkit G-1
Appendix H: Economic Indicators, EJ Toolkit H-l
Appendix I: Total Mass-Release Results, 1996-2002 1-1
Appendix J: Total Toxicity-Weighted Results, 1996-2002 J-l
-------
-------
Appendix A
Acronyms
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
ARD Air and Radiation Division
AFS Air Facility System
AQS Air Quality System
AADT Annual average daily traffic
BRFSS Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CARE Community Action for a Renewed Environment
CBCRA Community-based cumulative risk assessment
C-FERSI Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening
Tool
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
CAPs Criteria Air Pollutants
DOT Department of Transportation
DDD Dichlorodlphenyldichloroethane
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichioroethane
EJ Environmental Justice
ECAB Environmental Characterization and Apportionment
Branch
EJSEAT Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Too!
EJ View Environmental Justice Viewer
EMRB Exposure Modeling Research Branch
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FPL Federal Poverty Line
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants
HPSA Health Professional Shortage Area
HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration
km kilometer
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
jjg/L microgram per liter or parts per billion
|jg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
mg/L milligram per liter or parts per million
NEI National Emission Inventory
NEJAC National Environmental Justice Advisor/ Council
NEPHTN National Environmental Public Health Tracking
Network
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priority List
NRC National Research Council
NATA National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
ORD Office of Research and Development
PM Particulate Matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PCBs Polychlorinated blphenyls
PAHs Poiycyciic aromatic hydrocarbons
PACE EH Protocol for Assessing Community Excellence
in Environmental Health
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RSEI Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
S/O Solvents/Organic
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WISH Wisconsin Interactive Statistics on Health
WHO World Health Organization
A-l
-------
-------
Appendix B
C-FERST Exposure and Risk Maps
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), 2002
to add your local dot# to itw imp. soe tfw» "Add I oral Data" tab to the right of the map
Example; loiaLMJCi I
», find Location: Wl
^¦i TraftMrtoei w
4^ Hap Help
Mreeti %«t?IU(e Kytind Relief
Wcstlavvn
Manual 4-egand
Cumulative Cancer Risk
Estimated Total Cancer
Risk per Million
<1
1-25
25-50
50-75
| 75-100
B >100
esri
Cumulative Estimated Cancer Risk, Zip Code: 53218
«M rM total data to Ow m«i w Km 'AM I «
-------
¥©
ywr fiocjl 4#t* to tl» owp sw tHe 'AM Local Ml' t*b to ri(M e# tHe
I I MirbH 1 i?M
Westlawn
-M»r-k#t Legend
Benzene
Estimated Exposure Concentration
(mlm 3)
0.000000-0.642425
(0-20th Percentile)
0.642425-1.048075
(20-40th Percentile)
1,048076-1.403130
(40-60th Percentile)
1,403130-1.892406
(60-80th Percentile)
1.892406-36.941725
(80-100th Percentile)
Benzene - Estimated Exposure Concentration, Zip Code: 53218
It «N ynr lot jl Mi to m*
, FMMl
HW Uw M taul Mti' lab In lb* rtqfM at Ikt ma#
w»fc«4 ] *****
W est awn
Diesel PM
Estimated Non-Cancer
Respiratory Risk
Hazard Quotient
0,000000-0.048652
(0-20th Percentile)
0.048652-0.079036
(20-40th Percentile)
0.079036-0.110624
(40-60th Percentile)
0.110624-0.161302
(60-80th Percentile)
0.161302-7.511101
(80-100th Percentile)
Diesel PM - Estimated Non-Cancer Respiratory Risk, Zip Code: 53218
B-2
-------
Appendix C
Westlawn Socioeconomic Data
Household Income, 1999
$50,000 to
$74,999
14%
$75,000 to
$99,999
4%
$100,000 or more
3%
$40,000 to
$49,999
10%
$30,000 to $39,999
14%
Educational Attainment (25 years and older)
Richtlor'ti
decree or higher
6%
l.tssth.tn 9tli
fcr.uk-
*th-12tli grade
(No ili|>l»m.vi
23%
Economic Information (2000 US Census)
-------
American
Indian/ Alaska.
Nattv*
1%
Race
Two or more
Asian°rhet ^ 1:1 ct*
4% 1% / 4%
Age Groups
75 year*, and
¦older
3*.
65-74vears__
4%
Social Information (2000 US Census)
C-2
-------
Appendix D
Publicly Available Web-Based Sources, EJ Toolkit
INDICATOR
DATABASE
WEB ADDRESS
TYPE OF DATA
Envirofacts (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
EnviroMapper (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/
em4ef.home
Flood Mapping (FEMA)
http://www.fema.gov/hazard/map/
flood.shtm
My Environment (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/myenvironment/
Sources
NEI (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/
Toxic Release Inventory Explorer (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/
Illinois - Getting Around: Average daily traffic counts
http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/
£=
Brownfield / Land Reuse Initiative (ATSDR)
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/
brownfields/docs/30THStreetCorrido
rReportAUG2008.pdf
CD
E
a
2
>
c
Decennial Census (U.S. Census)
http://www.factfinder.census.gov/
home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
Potential exposure
LU
State Lead Surveillance Data (CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/
state.htm
Illinois - Department of Health Statistics
http://www.idph.state.il.us/
Public Health Assessments & Health Consultations
(ATSDR)
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/
index.asp
Safe Drinking Water Information System (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/
sdwis/i ndex.html
Illinois EPA- Drinking Water Watch: Chicago
http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/
drinking-water-watch/
Environmental
conditions
Texas - Water Quality Report: Port Arthur
http://www.portarthur.net/
Wisconsin - Water Quality Report: Milwaukee
http://city.milwaukee.gov/home
National Climatic Data Center (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.
html
Vulnerability
-------
INDICATOR
DATABASE
WEB ADDRESS
TYPE OF DATA
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/
Sensitive populations
Decennial Census (US Census)
www.factfinder.census.gov/
Health
Illinois - Department of Health Statistics
http://www.idph.state.il.us/
Illinois - Illinois Project for Local Assessment of Needs
(IPLAN)
http://app.idph.state.il.us/
Existing conditions;
Health impacts
from environmental
stressors
Texas - Department of State Health Services
www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/
Wisconsin Interactive Statistics on Health (WISH)
www.dhfs.state.wi.us/wish/
Decennial Census (US Census)
www.factfinder.census.gov/
Demographic;
Community
"o
o
CO
Google Earth
www.google.com/earth/
participation
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
http://www.hrsa.gov/
Vulnerability to
exposure
Economic
Decennial Census (US Census)
www.factfinder.census.gov/
Unemployment;
Income;
Housing tenure;
Industry of
employment
EnviroMapper (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/
em4ef.home
Brownfield properties
Google Earth
www.google.com/earth/
Mapping
Census 2000 TIGER/Line Data
National Geospatial Program - National Map Viewer
(US Geological Survey)
www.esri.com/data/download/
census2000-tigerline/index.html
http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/
viewer/
Adverse Effects
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model
(RSEI) (EPA)
www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/
-------
Appendix E
Environmental Indicators, EJ Toolkit
30th Street Corridor, Milwaukee, Wl
Altged Gardens, Chicago, IL
¦5
s;
£
r
J 1
8 Kilometers
0 1 25 2.5 5 Kilometers
1 I I I I I I I I
Westside, Port Arthur, TX
*
0 15 3 6 Kilometers
1 I I I I I I 1 I
Site Types and Locations
1 |( awslmlt cnmniuDil>
• TRI fuciUli
1 11 km buffer
t Mii/ardoti* wast* rucilily
1 j 2 km buffer
a Superfund Mir
1 I i km huffier
• NE1 facility
a Itr<>» nflilil
• AQS monilur
N
A
\vi j
AltSridj II.
Wqts^r. T.\
Sources
Proximity to Regulated Facilities (EnviroMapper and ArcGIS)
E-l
-------
Number of Regulated Facilities (My Environment, EnviroMapper, and AirData)
Site
Within
30th Street Corridor
3km
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
County
Wisconsin
boundary
NEI, 2005
10
18
32
54
201
306
2,609
TRI, 2009
14
19
31
53
86
128
881
Hazardous waste, 2009
97
251
421
680
Superfund, 2009
3
3
4
6
15
24
174
Brownfield properties, 2009
21
27
39
47
96
114
299
AQS monitor
0
0
0
0
19
20
90
Site
Within
Altgeld Gardens
3km
Chicago
Cook
County
Illinois
boundary
NEI, 2005
0
15
30
51
741
1,939
7,390
TRI, 2009
1
5
12
27
109
361
1,079
Hazardous waste, 2009
7
24
67
123
Superfund, 2009
0
1
2
4
103
158
481
Brownfield properties, 2009
0
0
0
1
31
88
328
AQS monitor
0
1
1
1
24
59
147
Site
Within
Westside
1 km
2 km
3km
Port Arthur
Jefferson
County
Texas
boundary
NEI, 2005
1
5
9
17
37
130
3,644
TRI, 2009
3
8
10
15
16
54
1,515
Hazardous waste, 2009
21
35
52
72
Superfund, 2009
0
0
0
1
4
9
545
Brownfield properties, 2009
8
13
13
13
13
15
370
AQS monitor
1
1
1
1
10
18
257
-------
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE
Exposures at home and school
(EnviroMapper, AirData, and ArcGIS)
JO"1 St reel Corridor, W1
Altgeld Gardens, II.
Westslde, TX
E-3
-------
Housing Characteristics-Year housing unit built (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Total housing units
7,903
249,215
400,093
2,321,144
Occupied housing units (%)
6,816(86.2)
232,188 (93.2)
377,729 (94.4)
2,084,544 (89.4)
Year housing unit built, Percent
Built 1980 to Present
4.5
6.7
11.7
27.6
Built 1950 to 1979
37.2
46.6
47.3
41.4
Built Before 1950
58.5
46.7
40.9
31.1
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Total housing units
2,232
1,152,871
2,096,121
4,885,615
Occupied housing units (%)
1,938 (86.8)
1,061,928 (92.1)
1,974,181 (94.2)
4,591,779 (94.0)
Year housing unit built, Percent
Built 1980 to Present
0.9
8.5
13.7
22.1
Built 1950 to 1979
38.7
39.2
48.1
46.0
Built Before 1950
60.4
52.3
38.2
31.8
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Total housing units
4,223
24,713
102,080
8,157,575
Occupied housing units (%)
3,402 (80.6)
21,839 (88.4)
92,880 (91.1)
7,393,354 (90.6)
Year housing unit built, Percent
Built 1980 to Present
4.0
16.5
22.7
43.3
Built 1950 to 1979
56.4
55.5
57.6
45.9
Built Before 1950
39.6
28.0
19.7
10.8
-------
Biomarkers of exposure-Childhood blood lead levels (ATSDR, State health department, and CDC)
Children <6 years
with Elevated Blood
Lead Levels, 2005
30th Street
Corridor*
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Prevalence
15.7 % > 10|jg/L
7.7 % > 10 [jg/dL
5.7 % > 10 [jg/dL
2.7 % > 10 [jg/dL
*Note: Blood lead data is from the ATSDR report on 30th Street Corridor which includes two additional zip codes and
32 census tracts
Children <6 years with Elevated
Blood Lead Levels, 2005
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Results > 10mcg/dL, Percent
All Chicago zip codes
considered high risk
4.4
3.8
3.0
Results > 15mcg/dL, Percent
for pediatric blood lead
poisoning
1.4
1.2
1.0
Children <6 years with
Elevated Blood Lead
Levels, 2005
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Percent prevalence
(> 10 |jg/dL)
1.3
0.7
-------
High-risk industries of employment (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Employed civilian population
>16 yrs
5,751
256,244
436,878
2,734,925
Persons 16 years and older high-risk industries of employment, Percent
Agriculture forestry; Fishing
and hunting; Mining
0.4
0.4
0.3
2.8
Construction
2.1
3.7
4.0
5.9
Manufacturing
19.6
18.5
18.5
22.2
Transportation and
warehousing
5.2
4.4
4.5
3.7
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Employed civilian population
>16 yrs
1,209
1,220,040
2,421,287
5,833,185
Persons 16 years and older high-risk industries of employment, Percent
Agriculture forestry; Fishing
and hunting; Mining
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.2
Construction
0.0
4.4
4.9
5.7
Manufacturing
11.1
13.1
14.1
16.0
Transportation and
warehousing
12.1
6.2
6.2
5.2
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Employed civilian population
>16 yrs
2,312
19,790
99,640
9,234,372
Persons 16 years and older high-risk industries of employment, Percent
Agriculture forestry; Fishing
and hunting; Mining
1.4
2.9
1.6
2.7
Construction
8.1
9.5
8.2
8.1
Manufacturing
10.6
13.1
13.8
11.8
Transportation and
warehousing
2.7
4.7
4.4
4.8
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Air Quality-Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) (NATA 2002)
HAP Concentration
(jjg/m3)
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Toluene
4.596
4.456(1)
2.576 (1)
Formaldehyde
2.115
2.118(2)
1.327 (2)
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
2.095
2.022 (3)
1.145 (4)
Acetaldehyde
1.973
1.920 (4)
1.133 (6)
Benzene (including from gas)
1.694
1.745 (5)
1.137 (5)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1.335
1.109 (8)
0.660 (8)
Methyl Chloride
1.207
1.202 (6)
1.191 (3)
Diesel Engine Emissions
1.169
1.163 (7)
0.772 (7)
Methanol
1.068
0.892 (10)
0.476 (11)
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
0.952
0.994 (9)
0.554(10)
HAP Concentration
(jjg/m3)
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Chlorobenzilate
2.930
9.0E-09 (120)
4.0E-09 (139)
Chloroacetic Acid
2.646
9.2E-07 (104)
4.2-E07(119)
Chloroform
2.178
0.139 (23)
0.108 (22)
Chlorobenzene
1.848
0.096 (27)
0.056 (28)
Coke Oven Emissions
1.797
0.003 (50)
0.003 (50)
Chloroprene
1.203
9.2E-06 (94)
7.1E-06 (98)
Chromium Compounds
1.200
0.002 (53)
0.001 (55)
Cobalt Compounds
0.907
2.4E-05 (90)
1.9E-05 (91)
Ethylene Dichloride
(1,2-dichloroethane)
0.662
0.004 (45)
0.004 (43)
Ethylene Glycol
0.635
0.590 (14)
0.366 (15)
HAP Concentration
(jjg/m3)
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Benzene (including from gas)
2.072
2.208 (4)
1.224 (4)
Hexane
2.046
5.018(1)
0.611 (10)
Diesel Engine Emissions
1.623
4.299 (2)
1.102 (7)
Formaldehyde
1.556
2.064 (5)
1.640 (2)
Toluene
1.542
2.369 (3)
2.305(1)
Methyl Chloride
1.204
1.206 (7)
1.209 (5)
Acetaldehyde
1.167
1.538 (6)
1.368 (3)
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
0.796
1.132 (8)
1.124 (6)
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.622
0.635 (9)
0.612 (9)
Methanol
0.299
0.461 (11)
0.357(13)
Note: Pollutants of concern are the top ten total concentrations for the community of concern. For the reference areas, the
pollutant rank is in parenthesis.
-------
Water Quality (Local water reports)
30th Street Corridor, Wl
Milwaukee Waterworks (System ID: WI2410100), 2009 Safe Drinking Water Report
Contaminant (Unit)
Median Value
Highest Detected
MCL
Potential Source(s)
Trihalomethanes (|jg/L)
3.6
10.4
80
By-product of disinfection
Copper (mg/L)
0.056
1.3
Corrosion of plumbing systems
Lead (|jg/L)
5.3
15
Corrosion of plumbing systems
Altgeld Gardens, IL
Chicago Water Department (System ID: IL0316000), 2009 Consumer Confidence Report
Contaminant (Unit)
Highest Detected
Range
MCL
Potential Source(s)
Trihalomethanes (ppb)
20
11.1-22.7
80
By-product chlorination
Copper (ppm)*
0.032
1.3
Natural erosion; Leaching;
Corrosion of plumbing systems
Lead*
6.07
0
Corrosion of plumbing systems;
Natural erosion
Westside, TX
City of Port Arthur (System ID: TX1230009), 2009 Water Quality Report
Contaminant (Unit)
Amount Detected
Range
MCL
Potential Source(s)
Chloramines (ppm)
3.0
1.2-3.5
4.0
Water additive used to control
microbes
Trihalomethanes (ppb)
25.7
15.8- 32.6
80
By-product disinfection
Copper Samples (ppm)*
0.136
1.3
Corrosion of plumbing systems;
Natural erosion; Leaching
Lead Samples (ppb)*
2.2
0
Corrosion of plumbing systems;
Natural erosion
*Note: Value is the 90th percentile
Land Quality (ATSDR)
Altgeld Gardens, IL Soil Sampling, 1999
Contaminant
Maximum level detected
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Normal range in urban area
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
Elevated (31.4 ppm)
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD)
Elevated (5.8 ppm)
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)
Elevated (31.6 ppm)
-------
VULNERABILITY
Hazard Frequency (NOAA's Storm Event Database)
Hazard event
30th St Corridor
(within 4 km)
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Tornado
3.3
25.0
1438.3
Flood
43.3
961.7
Thunderstorm winds
90.0
Hail
11.7
Drought
3.3
10.0
Snow and ice
1.7
25.0
Temperature extremes
33.3
70.0
Wild and forest fire
1.7
16.7
Lightning
38.3
Hazard event
Aitgeid Gardens
(within 4 km)
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Tornado
0
3.3
56.7
2075.0
Flood
36.7
903.3
Thunderstorm winds
131.7
Hail
8.3
Drought
0.0
6.7
Snow and ice
6.7
Temperature extremes
161.7
253.3
Wild and forest fire
1.7
3.3
Lightning
50.0
Hazard event
Westside n
(within 4 km) Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Tornado
15.0
120.0
Flood
96.7
6541.7
Thunderstorm winds
O
CD
73.3
4795.0
Hail
13.3
95.0
Drought
0.0
Snow and ice
0.0
153.3
Temperature extremes
1.7
328.3
Wild and forest fire
3.3
205.0
Lightning
0.0
195.0
Note: Hazard frequency = number of events / years in record
-------
-------
Appendix F
Health Indicators, EJ Toolkit
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) (<365 days) (Local health departments)
Infant Mortality, 2000-2001
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Live Births
5,440
22,351
29,573
138,301
Infant Deaths
70
256
299
948
IMR per 1,000 live births
12.9
11.5
10.1
6.9
Infant Mortality, 2000
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Live Births
178
50,885
85,503
185,003
Infant Deaths
6
532
819
1,528
IMR per 1,000 live births
33.7
10.5
9.6
8.3
Infant Mortality, 2006
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Live Births
932
3,556
399,309
Infant Deaths
6
27
2,476
IMR per 1,000 live births
6.4
7.6
6.2
Low Birth Weight (LBW) Rate (<2,500 Grams) (Local health departments)
Year: 2000
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Total Number of births
2,762
11,153
14,846
69,289
Number LBW births
338
1,135
1,350
4,526
LBW, Percent
12.2
10.2
9.1
6.5
Year: 2000
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Total Number of births
178
50,885
85,503
185,003
Number LBW births
29
4,957
7,644
14,747
LBW, Percent
16.3
9.7
8.9
8.0
Year: 2006
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Total Number of births
3,556
399,309
Number LBW births
356
33,749
LBW, Percent
10.0
8.5
-------
IMPACTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS
Cancer (Local health departments)
Cancer group, 2002-2006
Death rate per 100,000
population
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
All cancers
209.51
201.34
Stomach
4.60
3.39
Colon, Rectum, Anus
18.38
18.45
Liver and Intrahepatic bile
ducts
6.16
5.04
Pancreas
12.83
11.77
Trachea, Bronchus, Lung
54.29
50.97
Breast
14.23
13.99
Ovary
5.18
5.48
Prostate
10.33
11.48
Nervous System
4.53
4.79
Cancer group, 2002-2006
Incidence (Count)
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
All cancers
573
122,749
305,990
Colorectal (Colon & Rectum)
69
14,330
35,298
Lung & Bronchus
90
17,558
44,898
Breast - invasive
78
17,257
42,610
Breast - in situ
10
4,099
10,052
Cervix
5
1,363
2,943
Prostate
100
17,368
42,773
Nervous System
9
1,483
4,035
Leukemias & Lymphomas
32
8,686
22,395
All other cancers
127
32,591
79,961
Cancer group, 2007
Rate per 100,000 estimated
population
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Total cancers
540
33,437
Age-adjusted death rate (all cancers)
per 100,000 people
206.3
192.6
Stomach
7
830
Colon, Rectum, Anus
52
3,294
Pancreas
32
1,771
Trachea, Lung & Bronchus
164
9,386
Breast
31
2,497
Prostate
32
1,755
Leukemias & Lymphomas
34
6,331
F-2
-------
Diseases Attributable to Pathogens (Local health departments)
Age-adjusted mortality rate,
2000-2002
(Deaths per 100,000
population)
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
All causes
920.93
793.38
Salmonella Infections
0.08
Unspecified Infections and Parasitic
Diseases
2.67
1.79
Viral Hepatitis
0.94
0.64
Certain Other Intestinal Infections
0.73
Reported cases, 2003
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois I
Reported food borne outbreak
9
31
62
Pertussis
186
323
Cryptosporidiosis
102
Cause of Death - Cases
reported, 2000-2003
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
State of Texas
Salmonella Infections
0
9
Shigellosis & Amebiasis
0
1
Arthropod-Borne Viral Encephalitis
1 8
Viral Hepatitis (Age-adjusted rate
per 100,000)
28 (3.7)
1,279 (2.2)
-------
Cardiovascular and respiratory infections (ATSDR and Local health departments)
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Asthma hospitalization discharges per
10,000 children <5 years, 2004*
78
55
20.06
9.83
Age-Adjusted Mortality Rate, 2000-2002 (deaths per 100,000 population)
Diseases of heart
256.30
224.18
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
46.10
40.61
Acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis
0.27
0.11
*Note: Asthma data for the 30th St Corridor and Milwaukee
are from the ATSDR report on the Corridor; County and state
data are the age-adjusted rates
Emergency Department
Hospitalizations, 2000-2002*
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Asthma
677
22,406
31,481
45,343
Acute bronchitis
266
4,380
7,131
14,775
Acute myocardial infarction
632
12,078
25,874
56,594
Pulmonary heart disease
118
2,572
5,029
10,092
Other upper respiratory infections
125
2,047
3,346
6,318
*Note: Data for Atlgeld is for the 3-digit zip code tabulation
Mortality, 2006
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Cardiovascular disease
827
50,892
Age-adjusted rate
321.9
270.3
Heart disease
634
38,487
Age-adjusted rate
246.9
203.6
Stroke
156
9,332
Age-adjusted rate
60.7
50.2
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
97
7,599
Age-adjusted rate
38.0
40.9
-------
SENSITIVE POPULATIONS
Age Group - Children/Elderly (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Total population
17,423
596,974
940,164
5,363,675
% Under 5 years
10.3
8.0
7.1
6.4
% under 18 years
41.7
28.6
26.4
25.5
% 65-74 years
3.8
5.5
6.4
6.6
% 75 years and older
2.1
5.4
6.6
6.5
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Total population
5,780
2,896,016
5,376,741
12,419,293
% Under 5 years
13.0
7.5
7.2
7.1
% under 18 years
51.5
26.2
26.0
26.1
% 65-74 years
1.9
5.5
6.1
6.2
% 75 years and older
1.1
4.8
5.6
5.9
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Total population
8,402
57,755
252,051
20,851,820
% Under 5 years
7.1
7.8
6.7
7.8
% under 18 years
26.8
28.7
25.9
28.2
% 65-74 years
10.0
7.7
7.1
5.5
% 75 years and older
9.2
7.8
6.5
4.5
-------
Health Impairments - Disability status (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Total population 5 years and older with
any disability (%)
9,470 (49.2)
120,800 (22.0)
169,939 (19.5)
790,917 (15.7)
Sensory, %
6.2
Physical, %
21.6
Mental, %
18.6
Self-care, % 8.8
Go-outside-home disability
(16 years and older)<, %
23.8
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Total population 5 years and older with
any disability (%)
2,633 (43.0)
604,676 (22.6)
973,558(19.5)
1,999,717 (17.3)
Sensory, %
6.3
Physical, %
18.8
Mental, %
14.0
Self-care, %
9.6
Go-outside-home disability
(16 years and older)<, %
21.5
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Total population 5 years and older with
any disability (%)
4,628 (59.3)
23,822 (43.0)
48,472 (20.6)
3,605,542 (18.7)
Sensory, %
10.3
Physical, %
27.0
Mental, %
12.8
Self-care, %
9.4
Go-outside-home disability
(16 years and older)<, %
21.0
F-6
-------
Individual Behavior - Tobacco use/Alcohol use (CDC)
Variable, Percent
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Obesity
18.8
19.9
21.6
Binge drinking
(>5 drinks on one occasion)
20.8
23.0
24.9
Current smoker
23.7
25.7
23.3
Variable, Percent
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago MSA
Cook County
Illinois
Obesity
21.2
20.4
21.9
Binge drinking
(>5 drinks on one occasion)
16.8
16.5
17.8
Current smoker
23.2
21.4
22.8
Variable, Percent
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Obesity
25.5
Binge drinking
(>5 drinks on one occasion)
17.8
Current smoker
22.9
*Note: MSA estimate are geographically larger than county-
level estimates
F-7
-------
-------
Appendix G
Social Indicators, EJ Toolkit
DEMOGRAPHIC
Race/Ethnicity (2000 US Census)
Variable, Percent
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
White
6.1
50.0
65.6
88.9
Black
79.7
37.3
24.6
5.7
Asian
9.4
2.9
2.6
1.7
Other
4.8
9.8
7.2
3.7
Total minority
(non-white)
93.9
50.0
34.4
11.1
Hispanic/Latino (of any race)
3.3
12.0
OO
CO
3.6
Variable, Percent
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
White
0.3
42.0
56.3
73.5
Black
98.7
36.8
26.1
15.1
Asian
0.1
4.3
4.8
3.4
Other
0.9
16.9
12.8
8.0
Total minority
(non-white)
99.7
58.0
43.7
26.5
Hispanic/Latino (of any race)
0.3
26.0
19.9
12.3
Variable, Percent
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
White
3.4
39.0
57.2
71.0
Black
93.6
43.7
33.7
11.5
Asian
0
5.9
2.9
2.7
Other
3.0
11.4
6.2
14.8
Total minority
(non-white)
96.6
61
42.8
29
Hispanic/Latino (of any race)
3.2
17.5
10.5
32.0
-------
Age Groups (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
% under 5 years
10.3
8.0
7.1
6.4
% 5-9 years
12.5
8.5
7.6
7.1
% 10-14 years
12.3
7.8
7.4
7.5
% 15-17 years
6.6
4.4
4.3
4.5
% under 18 years
41.7
28.6
26.4
25.5
% 18-44 years
37.1
42.4
40.7
39.2
% 45-64 years
15.3
18.1
20.0
22.2
% 65-74 years
3.8
5.5
6.4
6.6
% 75 years and older
2.1
5.4
6.6
6.5
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
% under 5 years
13.0
7.5
7.2
7.1
% 5-9 years
17.5
7.7
7.6
7.5
% 10-14 years
14.2
6.9
7.1
7.3
% 15-17 years
6.9
4.0
4.1
4.3
% under 18 years
51.5
26.2
26.0
26.1
% 18-44 years
36.6
44.6
41.6
40.3
% 45-64 years
8.9
18.9
20.7
21.5
% 65-74 years
1.9
5.5
6.1
6.2
% 75 years and older
1.1
4.8
5.6
5.9
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
State of Texas
% under 5 years
7.1
7.8
6.7
7.8
% 5-9 years
7.5
8.1
7.2
7.9
% 10-14 years
7.1
7.9
7.3
7.8
% 15-17 years
5.2
4.8
4.7
4.7
% under 18 years
26.8
28.7
25.9
28.2
% 18-44 years
32.4
35.9
39.4
41.6
% 45-64 years
21.7
19.9
21.1
20.2
% 65-74 years
10.0
7.7
7.1
5.5
% 75 years and older
9.2
7.8
6.5
4.5
-------
Place of Birth - Foreign born (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Native, %
94.4
92.3
93.2
96.4
Born in Wl, %
54.4
65.2
69.4
73.4
Foreign born, %
5.6
7.7
6.8
3.6
Naturalized citizen, %
1.9
2.4
2.5
1.4
Not a citizen, %
3.7
5.3
4.2
2.2
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Native, %
99.8
78.3
80.2
87.7
Born in IL, %
85.3
57.7
61.6
67.1
Foreign born, %
0.2
21.7
19.8
12.3
Naturalized citizen, %
0.1
7.7
7.8
4.9
Not a citizen, %
0.1
14.0
12.0
7.5
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Native, %
97.8
87.6
93.8
86.1
Born in TX, %
68.6
64.4
71.1
62.2
Foreign born, %
2.2
12.4
6.2
13.9
Naturalized citizen, %
0.6
4.0
2.3
4.4
Not a citizen, %
1.6
8.4
3.9
9.5
Language Spoken at Home-Linguistic isolation (2000 US Census)
Variable, Percent
households
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Only English spoken
87.2
83.2
85.4
90.5
Linguistically isolated
3.0
4.0
3.0
1.4
Variable, Percent
households
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Only English spoken
95.6
65.9
69.8
80.3
Linguistically isolated
0.3
10.2
8.2
4.7
Variable, Percent
households
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Only English spoken
92.6
77.9
85.1
68.6
Linguistically isolated
1.5
6.7
2.8
7.2
-------
Educational Attainment-Literacy (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Population 25 years and older
10,392
353,305
594,387
3,475,878
Grades completed, Percent
Less than 9th grade
12.2
7.7
5.9
5.4
9th-12th grade, no diploma
28.6
17.4
13.8
9.6
High school graduate
29.3
30.2
29.4
34.6
(includes equivalency)
Some college, no degree
19.0
20.7
21.1
20.6
Associate degree
4.5
5.7
6.1
7.5
Bachelor's degree or more
6.5
18.3
23.6
22.4
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Population 25 years and older
2,773
1,815,896
3,454,738
7,973,671
Grades completed, Percent
Less than 9th grade
6.8
12.4
9.6
7.5
9th-12th grade, no diploma
30.9
15.8
12.7
11.1
High school graduate
31.9
23.0
24.2
27.7
(includes equivalency)
Some college, no degree
23.2
18.7
20.3
21.6
Associate degree
5.2
4.6
5.2
6.1
Bachelor's degree or more
2.1
25.5
28.0
26.0
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Population 25 years and older
5.326
35,576
161,261
12,790,893
Grades completed, Percent
Less than 9th grade
17.5
14.4
7.9
11.5
9th-12th grade, no diploma
19.2
15.9
13.6
12.9
High school graduate
34.6
34.7
33.1
24.8
(includes equivalency)
Some college, no degree
19.9
21.4
23.8
22.4
Associate degree
4.0
4.3
5.3
5.2
Bachelor's degree or more
4.9
9.4
16.3
23.2
-------
Family Structure-Single-mother households (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Total households
6,750
232,312
377,983
2,086,304
Single-mother with own children
under 18 years, %
25.3
13.8
10.2
5.9
Single-father with own children
under 18 years, %
3.6
2.3
2.0
2.0
Married-couple with own children
under 18 years, %
12.2
15.2
17.8
24.4
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Total households
1,936
1,061,964
1,974,408
4,592,740
Single-mother with own children
under 18 years, %
48.7
9.8
7.8
6.7
Single-father with own children
under 18 years, %
3.7
2.0
1.8
1.9
Married-couple with own children
under 18 years, %
6.8
17.8
21.9
25.1
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Total households
3,467
21,869
92,993
7,397,294
Single-mother with own children
under 18 years, %
18.8
11.9
9.7
7.4
Single-father with own children
under 18 years, %
1.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
Married-couple with own children
under 18 years, %
7.0
19.6
22.0
28.0
-------
VULNERABILITY TO EXPOSURE
Access to Public Transportation (2000 US Census)
Housing Units with No Vehicle Available
a
50%
=> 40%
M
•g 30%
O
20%
"S
a
3
&
10%
0%
43
21
8
i
r
i ^ 1 1
30th St Corridor Milwaukee
Milwaukee
County
Wisconsin
Housing Units with No Vehicle Available
£
c
3
U3
3
"O
*
a
I
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
67
29
19
12
'i'
1—
Altgeld Gardens Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Housing Units with No Vehicle Available
| 3°*
J 25%
u
| 20%
I 15%
'I 10%
s sw
* 0%
25
16
11
7
Westside
Port Arthur Jefferson County
Texas
G-6
-------
Access to Health Care Facilities (Local health departments and ArcGIS)
3§8 Health Care Service Delivery Sites + Hospices
Q Hospitals Ambulatory Surgical Centers
Health Insurance
Coverage
Uninsured
all year
Insured part
of year
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee 1
5%
8%
Milwaukee County 2
7%
7%
Wisconsin 1
4%
5%
W * y *
' ! ! />l
; ! Ji'.i
~ Z'SJf Q—.
x. \
'I
* *
I !i
; * «
; i *
i ~
'I :c
* I • • !
.. f 1! f
' !| i. " i£\
AL!
T -TP—t-
i' i
*
L
:* * -
Health Insurance No health Without health
Coverage 2002 plan plan > 1 year
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago 23% 42%
Cook County 18%
Illinois 14% 50%
y
» 1 .... * / —'
1 ! -V- Im.
?Ji'i
\' i i
" +"f~m T.'/ v
.\$L
\ !
\ / v.--- | ,
VL ^ VT i.
•
" ll /• ,1 f.
L'dj !! '~v ¦£.
\ Hjii
9
y » »
j in .
1 ! 1 J ; '1. 1| l]j
' «MU ii«i
Health Insurance No. Acute No. Nursing
Coverage 2002 Care Hospitals Homes
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County 8
Texas 470 1,143
G-7
-------
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Community Power (2000 US Census) ADD KRIEG AND FABER REF
Milwaukee County
Number
of Block groups
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Median household
income, 1999
880
$0
$200,001
$39,345.82
$19,190,093
Percent of population
that is White
880
0.0
100.0
63.240
35.4014
Milwaukee County -
Community power
880
-3.41
9.22
0.000
1.77964
30th Street Corridor
- Community power
26
-3.26
-1.68
-2.611
0.39722
Cook County
Number
of Block groups
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Median household
income, 1999
4,185
$2,499
$200,001
$48,766.53
$24,624,504
Percent of population
that is White
4,185
0.0
100.0
53.756
35.9897
Cook County -
Community power
4,185
-3.37
7.43
0.000
1.76457
Altgeld Gardens -
Community power
4
-3.12
-2.62
-2.968
0.2374
Jefferson County
Number
of Block groups
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Median household income,
1999
217
$0
$89,731
$34,341.86
$16,033,263
Percent of population that
is White
217
0.0
100.0
53.366
35.1015
Jefferson County -
Community power
217
-3.08
4.13
0.000
1.84573
Westside -
Community power
11
-3.05
-2.05
-2.522
0.31344
-------
Appendix H
Economic Indicators, EJ Toolkit
Unemployment (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Population 16 years and over
13,675
442,845
718,569
4,157,030
Total in labor force
7,205
283,052
469,688
2,872,104
Employment status for persons in labor force, Percent
Armed Forces
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
Employed civilians
42.1
57.9
60.8
65.8
Unemployed civilians
10.6
6.0
4.5
3.2
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Population 16 years and over
3,782
2,215,574
4,129,256
9,530,946
Total in labor force
1,933
1,358,054
2,620,175
6,230,617
Employment status for persons in labor force, Percent
Armed Forces
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
Employed civilians
32.0
55.1
58.6
61.2
Unemployed civilians
19.0
6.2
4.8
3.9
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Population 16 years and over
6,493
43,268
194,853
15,617,373
Total in labor force
2,823
22,857
108,633
9,937,150
Employment status for persons in labor force, Percent
Armed Forces
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.7
Employed civilians
81.9
45.7
51.1
59.1
Unemployed civilians
17.9
7.0
4.5
3.8
-------
Income (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Poverty status, 1999 (population for whom poverty status is determined)
Families
4,532
23,687
26,454
78,188
Below poverty, %
40.1
17.4
11.7
5.6
Households, 1999
Total households
6,750
232,312
377,983
2,086,304
Median income
$20,000
$32,216
$38,100
$43,791
Per capital income
$9,267
$16,181
$19,939
$21,271
Public assistance income, %
10.1
4.6
3.2
1.7
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Poverty status, 1999 (population for whom poverty status is determined)
Families
1,104
105,752
135,038
244,303
Below poverty, %
71.2
16.6
10.6
24.1
Households, 1999
Total households
1,936
1,061,964
1,974,408
4,592,740
Median income
$11,933
$38,625
$45,922
$46,590
Per capital income
$6,682
$20,175
$23,227
$23,104
Public assistance income, %
35.9
6.9
4.7
3.3
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Poverty status, 1999 (population for whom poverty status is determined)
Families
2,189
3,396
9,378
632,676
Below poverty, %
39.7
22.9
14.6
12.0
Households, 1999
Total households
3,476
21,869
92,993
7,397,294
Median income
$16,170
$26,455
$34,706
$45,861
Per capital income
$9,970
$14,183
$17,571
$19,617
Public assistance income, %
7.3
5.9
4.2
3.2
-------
Housing Tenure (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Total housing units
7,903
249,215
400,093
2,321,144
Occupied housing units (%)
6,816(86.2)
232,188 (93.2)
377,729 (94.4)
2,084,544 (89.4)
Owner occupied, %
32.8
45.3
52.6
68.4
Renter occupied, %
67.2
54.7
47.4
31.6
Variable
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Total housing units
2,232
1,152,871
2,096,121
4,885,615
Occupied housing units (%)
1,938 (86.8)
1,061,928 (92.1)
1,974,181 (94.2)
4,591,779 (94.0)
Owner occupied, %
11.4
43.8
57.9
67.3
Renter occupied, %
88.6
56.2
42.1
32.7
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Total housing units
4,223
24,713
102,080
8,157,575
Occupied housing units (%)
3,402 (80.6)
21,839 (88.4)
92,880 (91.1)
7,393,354 (90.6)
Owner occupied, %
62.8
62.2
66.0
63.8
Renter occupied, %
37.2
37.8
34.0
36.2
-------
Industry of Employment (2000 US Census)
Variable
30th St
Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
County
Wisconsin
Employed civilian population >16 yrs
5,751
256,244
436,878
2,734,925
Persons 16 years and older employed in
"White collar
' occupations, Percent
Management, business and financial operations
6.4
9.5
11.7
12.8
Professional and related
11.3
18.5
20.6
18.5
Persons 16 years and older employed in
"Blue collar"
occupations, Percent
Construction, extraction, and maintenance
3.7
6.0
6.4
8.7
Production, transportation and material moving
27.9
21.1
18.4
19.8
Variable
Altgeld
Gardens
Chicago Cook County
Illinois
Employed civilian population >16 yrs
1,209
1,220,040
2,421,287
5,833,185
Persons 16 years and older employed in
"White collar
' occupations, Percent
Management, business and financial operations
2.2
13.3
14.4
14.2
Professional and related
7.4
20.2
20.8
20.0
Persons 16 years and older employed in
"Blue collar"
occupations, Percent
Construction, extraction, and maintenance
0.7
6.6
7.1
8.2
Production, transportation and material moving
20.4
16.2
15.1
15.7
Variable
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson
County
Texas
Employed civilian population >16 yrs
2,312
19,790
99,640
9,234,372
Persons 16 years and older employed in
"White collar
' occupations, Percent
Management, business and financial operations
3.6
6.1
9.3
13.6
Professional and related
12.2
14.7
19.5
19.8
Persons 16 years and older employed in
"Blue collar"
occupations, Percent
Construction, extraction, and maintenance
10.5
12.2
11.4
10.9
Production, transportation and material moving
18.7
18.8
14.9
13.2
-------
Brownfield Properties (EnviroMapper)
1 Total Brownfields
30th St Corridor
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
Within geographic area
21
96
114
299
Within 1 km
27
Within 2 km
39
Within 3 km
47
1 Total Brownfields
Altgeld Gardens
Chicago
Cook County
Illinois
Within geographic area
0
31
88
328
Within 1 km
0
Within 2 km
0
Within 3 km
1
1 Total Brownfields
Westside
Port Arthur
Jefferson County
Texas
Within geographic area
8
13
15
370
Within 1 km
13
Within 2 km
13
Within 3 km
13
H-5
-------
-------
Appendix I
Total Mass-Release Results, 1996-2002
(RSEI, Version 2.2.0)
OVERALL
State of Wisconsin - Total Pounds Released
(% of total state releases)
WISCONSIN
1,055,837,310 (100)
Rank
County
1
Milwaukee*
217,257,679 (21)
2
Wood
96,786,382 (9)
3
Dane
84,541,113(8)
4
Waukesha
42,360,801 (4)
5
Racine
39,196,668 (4)
6
Sheboygan
37,094,953 (4)
7
Ozaukee
36,169,800 (3)
8
Manitowoc
35,166,905 (3)
9
Brown
31,919,890 (3)
10
Eau Claire
30,597,878 (3)
Milwaukee County - Total Pounds Released
(% of total county releases)
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY
217,257,679 (100)
Rank
Zip code
1
53212
47,416,379 (22)
2
53154
34,770,898 (16)
3
53204
25,843,850 (12)
4
53218
16,900,182 (8)
5
53214
10,232,310 (5)
6
53210*
10,046,998 (5)
7
53223
8,987,714(4)
8
53209*
8,232,516 (4)
9
53215
7,489,631 (4)
10
53207
6,302,895 (3)
City of Milwaukee - Total Pounds Released
(% of total city releases)
MILWAUKEE
159,349,427(100)
Rank
Zip code
1
53212
47,416,379 (30)
2
53204
25,843,850(16)
3
53218
16,900,182 (11)
4
53210*
10,046,998 (6)
5
53223
8,987,714(6)
6
53215
7,489,631 (5)
7
53214
6,916,160 (4)
8
53207
6,302,895 (4)
9
53233
5,704,104 (4)
10
53209*
5,046,472 (3)
30th Street Corridor ¦
¦ Total Pounds Released
MILWAUKEE
159,349,427
Zip Code
53208
3,583,216
53209
8,232,516
53210
10,046,998
53216
2,751,049
-------
MEDIA
State of Wisconsin
40,000,000
35,000,000
^ 30,000,000
OJ
ro 25,000,000
_QJ
oc 20,000,000
in
*o
§ 15,000,000
O
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
Fugitive air
I Stack air
Direct water
POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(Nofuel value)
Milwaukee County
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
S 5,000,000
_OJ
(T 4,000,000
t/1
•Q
| 3,000,000
o
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1
Ejfc
i
in
it:
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
i Fugitive air
i Stack air
Direct water
i POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(Nofuel value)
1-2
-------
MEDIA (continued)
City of Milwaukee
3,500,000
3,000,000
"g 2,500,000
i/i
ro
2,000,000
OJ
cc
-o 1,500,000
c
<£ 1,000,000
500,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
Fugitive air
i Stack air
Direct water
: POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(No fuel value)
30th Street Corridor
2,500,000
2,000,000
Fugitive air
-q | ¦ Stack air
CD
in
S 1,500,000
aj ¦ _ ¦ Direct water
cc
i/i
c 1,000,000
¦ POTW transfer
500,000 | | | | | ¦ Offsite incineration
¦ Offsite Incineration
53208 53209 53210 53216 (Nofuel value)
Zip Code
1-3
-------
CHEMICAL
State of Wisconsin
25,000,000
20,000,000
J 15,000,000
5,000,000
¦Chromium
Methanol
1996
1997 1998
-Copper
Nitrate
1999 2000 2001 2002
-Lead ^—Manganese
Toluene
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Milwaukee County
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
^—Chromium ^—Copper
Hydrochloric acid
¦Lead Manganese Nickel — Nitrate Zinc
1-4
-------
CHEMICAL (continued)
City of Milwaukee
TS
41
fn
ro
V
-------
INDUSTRY
State of Wisconsin
Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills
Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Products
Nonferrous Foundries (Castings)
Metal Forgings and Stampings
? Miscellaneous Electrical Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies
3
*-«
i/i
~u
c Paper Mills
Iron and Steel Foundries
Electric services
Pulp Mills
Industrial Organic Chemicals
C
20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000
Pounds Released
Milwaukee County
Lab Apparatus and Analytical, Optical, Measuring, and
Controlling Instruments
>•
u
~o
c
Iron and Steel Foundries |
Electric services
0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000
Pounds Released
1-6
Metal Forgings and Stampings
Construction, Mining, and Materials Handling Machinery and
Equipment
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Cutlery, Handtools, and General Hardware
Paper Mills
Nonferrous Foundries (Castings)
Electrical Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies
-------
INDUSTRY (continued)
City of Milwaukee
Lab Apparatus and Analytical, Optical, Measuring, and
Controlling Instruments
Fabricated Structural Metal Products
Construction, Mining, and Materials Handling Machinery and
Equipment
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
- Cutlery, Handtools, and General Hardware
1/>
"D
c Leather Tanning and Finishing
Nonferrous Foundries
ElectricalMachinery, Equipment, and Supplies
Iron and Steel Foundries
Electric services
0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000
Pounds Released
30th Street Corridor
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment
Metal Forgings and Stampings
Manufacturing Industries
ElectricalMachinery, Equipment, and Supplies
Cutlery, Handtools, and General Hardware
in
T3 _
c Rolling, Drawing, And Extruding Of Nonferrous
Electronic Components and Accessories
Industrial Machinery Equipment
Iron & Steel Foundries
Food Preparations and Kindred Products
0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,00010,000,00012,000,00014,000,000
Pounds Released
1-7
-------
FACILITY
State of Wisconsin - Total Pounds Released
(% of total state releases)
WISCONSIN
1,055,837,310
(100)
Rank
Facility (County)
1
Stora Enso Pulp Mill (Wood)
70,501,173 (7)
2
Hydrite Chemical Co. (Dane)
64,216,932 (6)
3
C&D Tech. Power Div* (Milwaukee)
43,304,354 (4)
4
WRR Env'tal Services(Eau Claire)
27,233,771 (3)
5
Brenntag Great Lakes (Waukesha)
23,673,569 (2)
6
Parker Hannifin Corp. (Burnett)
21,649,789 (2)
7
Regal Ware (Washington)
18,735,154 (2)
8
Charter Steel (Ozaukee)
18,446,037 (2)
9
PPG Industries Inc.* (Milwaukee)
17,512,629 (2)
10
ThyssenKrupp Plant (Waupaca)
17,445,610 (2)
Milwaukee County - Total Pounds Released
(% of total county releases)
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
217,257,679
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
C&D Tech. Power Div (53212)
43,304,354 (20)
2
PPG Industries Inc. (53154)
17,512,629 (8)
3
Oak Creek Power Plant (53154)
14,343,917 (7)
4
Starline Manufacturing (53218)
12,969,782 (6)
5 Wayne Pigment (53204) 10,615,697 (5)
City of Milwaukee - Total Pounds Released
(% of total city releases)
MILWAUKEE
159,349,427
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
C&D Technologies Power
Division-Keefe (53212)
43,304,354 (27)
2
Starline Manufacturing Co. Inc.
(53218)
12,969,782 (8)
3
Wayne Pigment Corp. (53204)
10,615,697 (7)
4
Master Lock Co (53210)*
10,045,599 (6)
5
Grede Foundries Inc Milwaukee
Alloy Foundry (53204)
7,527,578 (5)
6
Badger Meter Inc. (53223)
5,366,714(3)
7
P&H Mining Equipment Inc
National Ave (53214)
5,330,586 (3)
8
Maynard Steel Casting Co
(53215)
4,554,420 (3)
9
Valley Power Plant (53233)
4,197,277 (3)
10
Stroh Die Casting Co Inc (53222)
4,109,090 (3)
30th Street Corridor - Total Pounds Released
30th STREE CORRIDOR
24,613,779
Facility (Zip code)
Master Lock Co (53210)
10,045,599
Johnson Controls Inc (53209)
3,055,136
Lesaffre Yeast Corp (53208)
2,828,069
Tower Automotive Products
2,064,199
(53216)
Brady Worldwide Inc. (53209)
1,732,171
Master Lock Co.* (53210)
10,045,599 (5)
7
Grede Foundries Inc (53204)
7,527,578 (3)
8
Badger Meter (53223)
5,366,714 (2)
9
P&H Mining Equipment (53214)
5,330,586 (2)
10
Ladish Co. Inc. (53110)
4,594,268 (2)
Strattec Security Corp (53209)
1,428,128
Citation Corp. (53216)
607,229
Rexnord Industries (53208)
456,792
Stainless Foundry & Engineering
448,633
(53209)
Vulcan Lead Inc (53209)
348,204
-------
OVERALL
State of Illinois - Total Pounds Released
(% of total state releases)
ILLINOIS
2,180,597,569(100)
Rank
County
1
Cook*
550,303,655 (25)
2
Peoria
196,483,935 (9)
3
Madison
183,696,416 (8)
4
Macon
119,645,742 (6)
5
Lake
95,142,996 (4)
6
Kane
82,683,675 (4)
7
Will
80,337,704 (4)
8
Whiteside
68,051,113(3)
9
Kankakee
65,876,705 (3)
10
Winnebago
63,638,487 (3)
Cook County - Total Pounds Released
(% of total cook releases)
COOK
COUNTY
550,303,655 (100)
Rank
Zip code
1
60131
55,081,659 (10)
2
60419
42,850,950 (8)
3
60804
41,644,342 (8)
4
60608
26,861,652 (5)
5
60007
26,212,232 (5)
6
60501
24,833,378 (5)
7
60411
21,662,879 (4)
8
60617
20,159,977 (4)
9
60462
19,862,343 (4)
10
60827*
19,442,998 (4)
City of Chicago - Total Pounds Released
(% of total city releases)
CHICAGO
153,405,702(100)
Rank
Zip code
1
60608
26,861,652 (18)
2
60617
20,159,977 (13)
3
60628
19,124,906 (13)
4
60609
18,488,508(12)
5
60633
11,815,457 (8)
6
60626
10,151,394 (7)
7
60623
7,298,178 (5)
8
60632
7,238,175 (5)
9
60639
5,189,748 (3)
10
60616
4,152,481 (3)
Altgeld Gardens - Total Pounds Released
COOK COUNTY
550,303,655
60827
19,442,998
*Note: A portion of zip code 60827 (Altgeld Gardens) is not
within Chicago's city boundaries, thus the entire area is not
included in the city's total pounds released.
-------
MEDIA
State of Illinois
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
"D
8 60,000,000
-j; 50,000,000
oc
-g 40,000,000
c
g 30,000,000
Q.
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
Fugitive air
l Stack air
Direct water
I POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(Nofuel value)
Cook County
"D
QJ
-------
MEDIA (continued)
City of Chicago
3,500,000
3,000,000
¦? 2,500,000
ro
2,000,000
X!
C
3
O
Q-
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Years
1996
Fugitive air
Stack air
Direct water
POTW transfer
Offsite recycling
Offsite landfill
ill
-------
CHEMICAL
State of Illinois
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
^Zinc
1996
—Hydrochloric acid
1997 1998
-Copper
Manganese
1999 2000
=Toluene
Nitrate
2001
—Lead
2002
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Cook County
30,000,000
25,000,000
a» 20,000,000
-------
CHEMICAL (continued)
City of Chicago
T3
QJ
Ifl
ra
_0J
o
QC
J1
T>
C
3
O
D.
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2.000.000
1,000,000
¦Zinc
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
^—Copper ^—Xylene (mixed isomers) ^—Chromium
Nitrate
^Glycol ethers
Ammonia
Methyl ethyl ketone
Altgeld Gardens
"O
H)
w
ro
0J
V
cc
3
o
Cl
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-Zinc
1996 1997 1998
^—Manganese
1999 2000 2001 2002
^—Molybdenum trioxide ^—Chromium
Hydrocholoricacid —sec-Butyl alcohol Nickel
Methanol
1-13
-------
INDUSTRY
State of Illinois
Sanitary Services
Electric services
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Nonferrous Rolling and Drawing
£" Secondary Nonferrous Metals
fi
c Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Paints and Allied Products
Plastics Materials and Synthetic
Grain Mill Products
J 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000
Pounds Released
Cook County
Sanitary Services
Electronic Components and Accessories
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Nonferrous Rolling and Drawing
Secondary Nonferrous Metals
"O
_c Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Paints and Allied Products
Communications Equipment
Plumbing and Heating, Exc Electric
o 10,000,00(20,000,OOffiO,O0O,OO
-------
INDUSTRY (continued)
City of Chicago
Sanitary Services
Misc. Chemical Products
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Metal Cans and Shipping Containers
Secondary Nonferrous Metals
c Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Metal Forgings and Stampings
Paints and Allied Products
Electric Distribution Equipment
Motor Vehidesand Equipment
10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000
Pounds Released
40,000,000
Altgeld Gardens
Chemicalsand Allied Products
Misc. Fabricated Metal Products
Metal Services, Nec
?-
i-
3
IS)
TS
_C
' Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Misc. Nonmetallic Mineral Products
Misc. Chemical Products
14,120
| 3,119,264
J 144,855
1,973
11,711
0 4,000,000 8,000,000 12,000,000 16,000,000
Pounds Released
1-15
-------
FACILITY
State of Illinois -Total Pounds Released
(% of total state releases)
ILLINOIS
2,180,597,569
(100)
Rank
Facility (County)
City of Chicago - Total Pounds Released
(% of total city releases))
CHICAGO
153,405,702
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Peoria Disposal Co #1 (Peoria)
99,429,133 (5)
2
ADM (Macon)
76,113,382 (4)
3
Olin Corp Zone 17 Facility
(Madison)
74,865,241 (3)
A
Northwestern Steel & Wire Co
62,109,058 (3)
(Whiteside)
5
Keystone Steel & Wire Co
(Peoria)
50,724,641 (2)
a
Abbott Laboratories - North
45,518,088 (2)
0
Chicago Facility (Lake)
7
Safety-Kleen Systems Inc.
(Cook)*
44,194,753 (2)
1
H. Kramer & Co. (60608)
24,966,395 (16)
o
Clean Harbors Services Inc.
13,247,823 (9)
(60617)
3
Imperial Zinc Corp (60628)
11,994,863 (8)
4
Wheatland Tube Co Chicago Div
(60609)
11,617,499 (8)
5
Ford Motor Co Chicago Assembly
(60633)
11,027,872 (7)
6
S&C Electric Co (60626)
10,151,394 (7)
7
Sherwin-Williams Co (60628)
4,877,868 (3)
U.S. Steel Granite City Works
(Madison)
41,926,047 (2)
Sloan Valve Co (Cook)*
41,462,887 (2)
10
Nucor Steel Kankakee Inc.
(Kankakee)
34,138,560 (2)
LTV Steel Company (60617)
4,284,386 (3)
_ Able Electropolishing Co Inc
(60623)
3,774,007 (3)
10 Silgan Closures Lie #35 (60639)
3,387,289 (2)
Cook County -Total Pounds Released
(% of total county releases)
COOK COUNTY
550,303,655
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Safety-Kleen Systems Inc.
(60419)
44,194,753 (8)
2
Sloan Valve Co (60131)
41,462,887 (8)
3
H. Kramer & Co. (60608)
24,966,395 (5)
4
Andrew Corp (60462)
19,861,619(4)
5
Koppers Inc (60804)
19,543,548 (4)
6
Chicago Extruded Metals Co
(60804)
18,660,819 (3)
7
Mittal Steel USA - Riverdale Inc.
16,151,075 (3)
(60827)*
8
Corn Products Argo Plant
(60501)
13,670,557 (3)
Altgeld Gardens -Total Pounds Released
ALTGELD GARDENS
19,442,998
Facility
Mittal Steel USA - Riverdale Inc.
16,151,075
ACME Packaging Riverdale Facility
3,119,264
Riverdale Plating & HeatTre Ating Inc.
144,855
Airgas Specialty Products Riverdale II
14,120
Hickman Williams & Co
8,000
Riverdale Industries Lie Riverdale Facility
3,711
Harsco Co Multiserv Plant 27
1,973
9
NB Coatings Inc (60438)
13,284,880 (2)
10
Clean Harbors Services Inc.
(60617)
13,247,823 (2)
I -16
-------
OVERALL
State of Texas -Total Pounds Released
(% of total state releases)
TEXAS
4,515,104,877 (100)
Rank
County
1
Harris
1,394,076,260 (31)
2
Brazoria
352,848,657 (8)
3
Jefferson*
324,084,674 (7)
4
Victoria
244,736,536 (5)
5
Galveston
191,053,803 (4)
6
Calhoun
188,770,963 (4)
7
Dallas
168,853,649 (4)
8
Nueces
117,481,795 (3)
9
Orange
112,043,835 (3)
10
Ellis
101,831,824 (2)
Jefferson County -Total Pounds Released
(% of total county releases)
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
324,084,674(100)
Rank
Zip code
1
77705
117,354,939 (36)
2
77640*
85,638,533 (26)
3
77701
36,232,629 (11)
4
77651
31,072,455(10)
5
77641*
18,750,920 (6)
6
77665
13,166,185 (4)
7
77713
8,255,432 (3)
8
77642
6,495,436 (2)
9
77643*
4,180,948(1)
10
77627
1,989,368(1)
City of Port Arthur -Total Pounds Released
(% of total city releases)
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
324,084,674(100)
Rank
Zip code
1
77640*
85,638,533 (74)
2
77641*
18,750,920 (16)
3
77642
6,495,436 (6)
4
77643*
4,180,948 (4)
Westside -Total Pounds Released
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
324,084,674(100)
77640*
85,638,533
1-17
-------
MEDIA
State of Texas
90,000,000 -i—
80,000,000 "Fugitive air
70,000,000 I 1 1
-q I ¦ I I ¦ Stack air
8 60 000 000 I I | I I I I
¦3 50,000,000 I I I | BDirectwater
" 40,000,000 I II I I I rl - I 1
| 30,000,000 l I II |l-WL || ||-W- ¦ POTWtransfer
II 11, II II || H H
¦ Offsite incineration
10,000,000 II II 111 llll II ll |
0 H 1= H- II U" ¦ Offsite Incineration
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 (Nofuel value)
Years
Jefferson County
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
"g 14,000,000
£ 12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
01
q:
~a
c
3
o
CL
I I lilnlllli
1996 1997
1998
1999
Years
2000 2001 2002
i Fugitive air
I Stack air
Direct water
I POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(Nofuel value)
118
-------
MEDIA (continued)
City of Port Arthur
12,000,000
10,000,000
•Q
X 8,000,000
to
QJ
££ 6,000,000
trt
T5
C
= 4,000,000
2,000,000
0
I
J i j. j 11
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
Fugitive air
Stack air
Direct water
POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(No fuel value)
Westside
35,000,000
30,000,000
-o 25,000,000
l/>
TO
20,000,000
DC
15,000,000
c
3
S. 10,000,000
5,000,000
1996 1997
1998 1999 2000 2001
Years
Fugitive air
Stackair
Direct water
POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite incineration
(No fuel value)
Offsite recycling
(S/O recovery)
Offsite wastwater
treatment
I 19
-------
CHEMICAL
State of Texas
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Zinc -^—Copper ^—Toluene ^—Ethylene ^—Nitrate
Methanol
Ammonia
n-Hexane
Jefferson County
25,000,000
20,000,000
qj 15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
^—Naphthalene
Styrene
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
¦^—Propylene (Propene} —Benzene
Nitrate
Ammonia
2001 2002
¦^—Ethylene
n-Hexane
1-20
-------
CHEMICAL (continued)
City of Port Arthur
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1996
Naphthalene
•Ethylene
1997
»Benzene
•Toluene
1998
1999 2000 2001 2002
—Propylene (Propene) Styrene
Nitrate
n-Hexane
Westside
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
-a 14,000,000
at
S 12,000,000
a>
* 10,000,000
~a
§ 8,000,000
o
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Naphthalene^— 1.3-Butadiene —Toluene^— Benzene=- Styrene—•Nitrate —=Phenanthrene Biphenyl
I 21
-------
INDUSTRY
State of Texas
Sanitary Services
Electric services
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Nonferrous Rolling and Drawing
Primary Nonferrous Metals
_c Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Plastics Materials and Synthetic
Petroleum Refining
500,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000
Pounds Released
2,000,000,000
Jefferson County
Sanitary Services
Misc. Petroleum and Coal Products
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Metal Forgings and Stampings
Agricultural Chemicals
Misc. Plastics Products, Nec
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Plastics Materials and Synthetic
Petroleum Refining
50.000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000
PoundsReleased
1-22
-------
INDUSTRY (continued)
City of Port Arthur
Sanitary Services J 4,180,948
Misc. Petroleum arid Coal Products f 715,174
Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials 92S
Iron and Steel Foundries 1,162
Petroleum and Petroleum Products 2,430
Ship and Boat Building and Repairing 81,156
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 152,510
Plastics Materials and Synthetic
Petroleum Refining
4,216,061
| 13,980,794
91,734,677
20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000
Pounds Released
80,000,000 100,000,000
Westside
Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials
Iron and Steel Foundries
Ship and Boat Building and Repairing
>¦
3
to Industrial Organic Chemicals
TS
_c
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Misc, Petroleum and Coal Products
Petroleum Refining
925
1,162
31,156
74,025,279
152.510
j 715,174
10,662,327
0 10,000,00020,000,00(80,000,00010,000,00050,000,00060,000,00070,000,00060,000,000
Pounds Released
1-23
-------
FACILITY
State of Texas -Total Pounds Released
(% of total state releases)
TEXAS
4,515,104,877
(100)
Rank
Facility (County)
1
Celanese Ltd. Clear Lake
144,534,826 (3)
Plan T (Harris)
2
Basf Corp (Brazoria)
136,795,937 (3)
3
Dupont Victoria Plant
(Victoria)
133,561,464 (3)
4
Air Products L. P. (Harris)
125,298,186 (3)
5
Equistar Chemicals (Victoria)
110,856,032 (3)
C
Ineos USA Lie Green Lake
100,938,575 (2)
Plant (Calhoun)
7
Dupont Beaumont Plant
(Jefferson)*
93,158,297 (2)
8
Lyondell Chemical Co Bayport
Facility (Harris)
84,639,030 (2)
9
Chaparral Steel Midlothian Lp
(Ellis)
82,264,430 (2)
10
Bayer Materialscience
Baytown (Chambers)
77,434,530 (2)
Jefferson County -Total Pounds Released
(% of total county releases)
JEFFERSON COUNTY 324,084,674 (10)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Dupont Beaumont Plant
(77705)
93,158,297 (29)
2
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co
(77640)*
73,803,710 (23)
3
ExxonMobil Oil Corp (77701)
28,033,342 (9)
4
Huntsman Corp - Po/Mtbe
Plant (77651)
15,270,731 (5)
C
Huntsman Petrochemical
14,238,103 (4)
CorpPabc (77641)
6
Merisol USA Lie (77665)
13,166,185 (4)
7
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
(77705)
11,767,924 (4)
8
Huntsman Corp O&O Facility
(77651)
9,987,662 (3)
9
Motiva Enterprises Lie
(77640)*
8,112,688 (3)
10
Mobil Chemical Beaumont
7,756,728 (2)
Polyethylene Plant (77713)
City of Port Arthur -Total Pounds Released
(% of total city releases)
PORT ARTHUR
115,065,837
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co
(77640)*
73,803,710 (64)
2
Huntsman Petrochemical Corp Pabc
(77641)
14,238,103(12)
3
Motiva Enterprises Lie (77640)*
8,112,688 (7)
4
Equistar Chemicals L.P Port Arthur
Plant (77641)
4,216,061 (4)
5
Veolia Technical Solutions Port
Arthur Facility (77643)
4,180,948 (4)
6
Total Petrochemicals - Port Arthur
Refinery (77642)
3,318,467 (3)
7
Nafta Region Olefins Complex
(77642)
3,176,969 (3)
8
Premcor Refining Group Inc Port
Arthur (77640)*
2,364,803 (2)
9
Chevron Port Arthur Distribution
Center (77640)*
714,924 (1)
10
KMCO. Port Arthur Inc. Dba Kmtex
(77641)
294,325 (0.3)
Westside
-Total Pounds Released
WESTSIDE
85,638,533
Rank
Facility
1
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co
73,803,710
2
Motiva Enterprises Lie
8,112,688
3
Premcor Refining Group Inc
Port Arthur
2,364,803
A
Chevron Port Arthur
714,924
H
Distribution Center
c;
Afton Chemical Additives
221,569
0
Corp
6
Motiva Enterprises Lie Port
Arthur Terminal
184,836
7
Air Products L. P.
152,510
8
Tdi-Halter Inc. Dock Yard
81,156
9
Standard Alloys &
Manufacturing Co
1,162
10
U.S. Intec Inc.
925
1-24
-------
Appendix J
Total Toxicity-Weighted Results, 1996-2002
(RSEI, Version 2.2.0)
OVERALL
State of Wisconsin - Risk-related Score
(% of state score)
Rank
County
Milwaukee'
827,280 (21)
Brown
358,230 (9)
Wood
148,530 (4)
Marathon
81,999 (2)
Waukesha
188,014(5)
Kenosha
1,259,148 (32)
Dane
459,887 (12)
Waupaca
77,844 (2)
Outgamie
116,648 (3)
WISCONSIN
3,922,208 (100)
10 Ozaukee 57,766 (1)
Milwaukee County - Risk-related Score
(% of county score)
Rank
County
53215
122,171 (15)
53172
86,652 (11)
53209
75,875 (9))
53214
38,480 (5)
53208'
126,181 (15)
53212
41,699 (5)
53213
86,486 (11)
53204
101,423 (12)
53216
24,333 (3)
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY
827,280 (100)
10 53154 17,429 (2)
City of Milwaukee - Risk-related Score
(% of city score)
MILWAUKEE
611,573(100)
Rank
County
1
53208*
126,181 (21)
2
53215
122,171 (20)
3
53204
101,423 (17)
4
53209*
75,415(12)
5
53212
41,699 (7)
6
53216*
24,333 (4)
7
53202
17,096 (3)
8
53214
16,675 (3)
9
53207
13,434 (2)
10
53213
13,309 (2)
30th Street Corridor -
Risk-related Score
MILWAUKEE
611,573
Zip Code
53208
126,181
53209
75,875
53210
8,101
53216
24,333
-------
MEDIA
State of Wisconsin
450,000
400,000 ¦ Fugitive air
350,000
0>
3 300,000
m
-g 250,000
-5 200,000
¦jj 150,000
^ 100,000
50,000
i Stack air
Direct water
POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
¦ Offsite Incineration
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 (No fuel value)
Years
Milwaukee County
120,000
100,000
(LI
3 80,000
U~l
T3
a»
jo
?
jk
iA
60,000
40,000
20,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
Fugitive air
Stack air
Direct water
POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(No fuel value)
J-2
-------
MEDIA (continued)
City of Milwaukee
0>
!_
o
"O
o»
-------
CHEMICAL
State of Wisconsin
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
¦^—Chromium^—Copper —» Lead — Manganese^— Sulfuric acid Diisocyanates'^— Nickel Gycolethers
Milwaukee County
120.000
S
to
T3
ID
JS
V
..
*
-S£
l/l
s
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
1996
-Chromium
-Sulfuric acid
1997 1998 1999
— 1,2 Dicholorpropane Lead
2000
2001 2002
^—Manganese
Nickel
Acetaldehyde ^^Gycolethers
J-4
-------
CHEMICAL (continued)
City of Milwaukee
01
o
u
l/>
T3
U
4-J
_ro
v
90,000
80,000
70,000
60.000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
1996
¦Manganese
1997
-Nickel
1998
1999 2000
Chromium
2001
—Lead
2002
^—Glycol ethers 1.2-Dichloropropane 'Acetaldehyde 1.2.4-Trimethylbenzene
30th Street Corridor
"g
53216
53210
53209
53208
11
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Risk-related Score
1.2.4-Trimethylbenzene Cadmium
I Nickel ¦ Manganese
Epichlorohydrin
Chromium
11,2 Dicholorpropane
! Acetaldehyde
J b
-------
INDUSTRY
State of Wisconsin
>¦
v_
3
Chemical Products
Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Products
General Industrial Machinery and Equipment
Construction, Mining, and Materials Handling Machinery and
Equipment
Fabricated Structural Metal Products
TS
C Paper Mills
Iron and Steel Foundries
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment
Pulp Mills
Electric services
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
Risk-related Score
Milwaukee County
Engines and Turbines
Electric services
Electrical Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
^ LeatherTanning and Finishing
i/>
TJ
c Chemical Products
Industrial Machinery and Equipment
Construction, Mining, and Materials Handling Machinery and
Equipment
Iron and Steel Foundries
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment
¦
1
:
F
-
-
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000
Risk-related Score
J-6
-------
INDUSTRY (continued)
City of Milwaukee
Fabricated Structural Metal Products
Foods and Kindred Products
Electrical Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Chemical Products
Industrial Machinery and Equipment
Metal Forcings arid Stampings
I ron and Steel Foundries
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Risk-related Score
30th Street Corridor
Construction, Mining, and Materials Handling Machinery and
Equipment
£
3
4-»
l/l
TJ
c
4,301
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services ] 1,19
Cutlery, Handtools, and General Hardware [
9,325
Chemical Products
Manufacturing Industries 206
Industrial Machinery Equipment |
Fabricated Metal Products H 10,8
lron& Steel Foundries T
22,699
34
Food Preparations and Kindred Products
Beverages
13
\ 1,102
642
58,882
87,638
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000100,000
Risk-related Score
J-7
-------
FACILITY
State of Wisconsin - Risk-related Score
(% of state score)
WISCONSIN
3,922,208
(100)
Rank
Facility (County)
1
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant
(Kenosha)
1,251,299 (32)
2
Zalk Josephs Fabricators Lie
(Dane)
397,198 (10)
3
Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Products (Brown)
310,110(8)
4
Maynard Steel Casting Co
(Milwaukee)*
120,275 (3)
5
Rexnord Industries - Canal
(Milwaukee)*
87,638 (2)
6
Bucyrus International Inc.
(Milwaukee)*
83,307 (2)
7
Grede Foundries Inc. Liberty
Foundry (Milwaukee)*
73,178 (2)
8
DomtarA.W. Corp Nekoosa Mill
(Wood)
64,394 (2)
9
Waukesha Foundry Inc
(Waukesha)
63,203 (2)
10
Thyssenkrupp Waupaca Plant 1
(Waupaca)
54,911 (1)
Milwaukee County - Risk-related Score
(% of county score)
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
827,280 (100)
Rank Facility (Zip code)
City of Milwaukee - Risk-related Score
(% of city score)
MILWAUKEE
611,573(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Maynard Steel Casting Co (53215)
120,275 (20)
2
Rexnord Industries Lie - Beg
Group - Canal (53208)*
87,638(14)
3
Stainless Foundry & Engineering
Inc (53209)*
45,917(8)
4
Mid-City Foundry (53204)
37,024 (6)
5
Grede Foundries Inc Milwaukee
Alloy Foundry (53204)
36,613(6)
6
Tower Automotive Products Co
Inc. (53216)*
23,259 (4)
7
Hercules Inc (53209)*
22,696 (4)
8
C&D Technologies Power Division-
Keefe (53212)
17,215(3)
9
Pfister & Vogel Leather (53202)
16,929 (3)
10
Lesaffre Yeast Corp (53208)*
13,642 (2)
30th Street Corridor - Risk-related Score
30th STREE CORRIDOR 234,490
Facility (Zip code)
Maynard Steel Casting Co (53215) 120,275 (15)
Rexnord Industries Lie - Beg
Group - Canal (53208)*
Rexnord Industries (53208)
87,638
87,638(11)
Stainless Foundry & Engineering (53209)
45,917
Bucyrus International Inc. (53172) 83,307 (10)
Tower Automotive Products (53216)
23,259
Grede Foundries Inc. Liberty
Foundry (53213)
5
Stainless Foundry & Engineering
Inc (53209)*
45,917 (6)
6
Mid-City Foundry (53204)
37,024 (5)
7
Grede Foundries Inc Milwaukee
Alloy Foundry (53204)
36,613(4)
8
Tower Automotive Products Co
Inc. (53216)*
23,259 (3)
9
Hercules Inc (53209)*
22,696 (3)
C&D Technologies Power Division-
Keefe (53212)
Hercules (53209) 22,696
Lesaffre Yeast Corp (53208)
13,642
Badger Alloys (53208)
12,965
Steeltech Mfg. Inc. (53208)
10,834
Master Lock Co (53210)
8,101
SPX Dock Prods. (53209)
4,301
Hydro-Platers. Inc. (53209)
1,195
J-8
-------
OVERALL
State of Illinois - Risk-related Score
(% of state score)
ILLINOIS
10,588,994(100)
Rank
County
1
Cook*
5,323,861 (50)
2
Adams
723,863 (7)
3
Madison
689,310 (7)
4
Peoria
675,687 (6)
5
Will
492,889 (5)
6
Macon
414,759 (4)
7
Lake
384,614 (4)
8
Winnebagc
338,985 (3)
9
St Clair
328,957 (3)
10
Whiteside
311,355 (3)
City of Chicago -
(% of city score)
Risk-related Score
COOK COUNTY
5,323,861 (100)
Rank
Zip code
1
60804
1,581,143 (27)
2
60160
732,190 (14)
3
60614
495,607 (9)
4
60827*
435,808 (8)
5
60501
269,373 (5)
6
60608
240,662 (5)
7
60623
193,484 (4)
8
60644
179,084 (3)
9
60617
128,480 (2)
10
60107
81,273 (2)
Cook County - Risk-related Score
(% of county score)
CHICAGO
1,787,959 (100)
Rank
Zip code
1
60614
495,607 (28)
2
60608
240,662 (14)
3
60623
193,484(11)
4
60644
179,084 (10)
5
60617
128,480 (7)
6
60641
68,154 (4)
7
60639
67,459 (4)
8
60609
59,103 (3)
9
60607
40,161 (2)
10
60827*
39,769 (2)
Altgeld Gardens
- Risk-related Score
COOK COUNTY
5,323,861
60827
435,808
-------
MEDIA
State of Illinois
1,200,000
1,000,000
a>
g 800,000
io
T5
n
g 400,000
u
IS)
13
300,000
200,000
100,000
~cc
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
i Fugitive air
l Stack air
Direct water
i POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(No fuel value)
J-10
-------
MEDIA (continued)
City of Chicago
250,000
200,000
v
0
& 150,000
-o
01
100,000
50,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
Fugitive air
Stack air
Direct water
POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(No fuel value)
Altgeld Gardens
QJ
i_
O
u
i/i
~o
0
*•>
_ro
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Years
2002
Fugitive air
Stack air
Direct water
POTW transfer
J11
-------
CHEMICAL
State of Illinois
o
u
-------
CHEMICAL (continued)
City of Chicago
120,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
100,000
0
1996
^—Manganese
^—Asbestos (friable)
¦^—Copper
1997
1998 1999 2000 2001
Chromium Nickel
Lead ^—Glycol ethers
«—Polycyclic aromatic compounds
2002
Altgeld Gardens
75,000
65,000
55,000
45,000
35,000
25,000
15,000
5,000
-5,000
1996
1998
2002
<— Zinc ^—Manganese Molybdenum trioxide ^—Chromium
Hydrocholoricacid ^—Nickel —-Gycolethers Lead
J-13
-------
INDUSTRY
State of Illinois
Primary Metal Products
Metalworking Machinery
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Iron and Steel Foundries
Petroleum Refining
Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Beverages
Grain Mill Products
c
¦+-*
on
~Q
c
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000
Risk-related Score
2,500,000
3,000,000
Cook County
Primary Metal products
LeatherTanning and Finishing
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Ironand Steel Foundries
Plastics Products, Nec
3
(f\
T3
C Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials
Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Grain Mill Products
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000
Risk-related Score
2,000,000
2,500,000
J-14
-------
INDUSTRY (continued)
City of Chicago
3
¦o
Primary Metal Products
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Metal Cans and Shipping Containers
Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Metal Forgings and Stampings
Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials
Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Chemical Products
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
Risk-related Score
Altgeld Gardens
Chemicals and Allied Products
43
Misc. Fabricated Metal Products 12,867
2"
3
-a
c
Metal Services.Nec
Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products
Misc. Nonmetallic Mineral Products 14,129
368,991
Misc. Chemical Products
F
39,769
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000
Risk-related Score
J-15
-------
FACILITY
State of Illinois - Risk-related Score
(% of state score)
ILLINOIS
10,588,994
(100)
Rank
Facility (County)
1
Chicago Castings Co (Cook)*
1,190,358 (11.2)
2
National Castings Inc. (Cook)*
724,996 (6.8)
3
Midwest Patterns Inc. (Adams)
514,969 (4.9)
4
ADM (Peoria)
397,241 (3.8)
5
Mittal Steel USA - Riverdale Inc.
(Cook)*
368,991 (3.5)
6
A. Finkl & Sons Co. (Cook)*
358,052 (3.4)
7
Northwestern Steel & Wire Co
(Whiteside)
306,365 (2.9)
8
Corn Products Argo Plant
(Cook)*
261,037 (2.5)
9
Keystone Steel & Wire Co
(Peoria)
259,322 (2.4)
10
Koppers Inc (Cook)*
239,757 (2.3)
Cook County - Risk-related Score
(% of county score)
COOK COUNTY
5,323,861
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Chicago Castings Co (60804)
1,190,358 (22)
2
National Castings Inc. (60160)
724,996 (14)
Q
Mittal Steel USA - Riverdale Inc.
368,991 (7)
0
(60827)*
4
A. Finkl & Sons Co.
358,052 (7)
5
Corn Products Argo Plant
(60501)
261,037 (5)
6
Koppers Inc (60804)
239,757 (5)
7
GAC Kansas - Chicago -
Springville Inc (60644)
166,676 (3)
8
H. Kramer & Co. (60608)
149,884 (3)
9
Empire Hard Chrome Inc (60623)
193,027 (2)
10 Horween Leather Co (60614) 103,799 (2)
City of Chicago - Risk-related Score
(% of city score)
CHICAGO
1,787,959
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
A. Finkl & Sons Co. (60614)
358,052 (20)
2
GAC Kansas-Chicago-Springville
Inc (60644)
166,676 (9)
3
H. Kramer & Co. (60608)
149,884 (8)
4
Empire Hard Chrome Inc. (60623)
125,744 (7)
5
Horween Leather Co (60614)
103,799 (6)
C
Acme Steel Co. Furnace Plant
72,472 (4)
D
(60617)
7
Amber Plating Works Inc (60641)
67,866 (4)
8
Empire Hard Chrome Inc. (60608)
67,283 (4)
9
Silgan Closures Lie #35 (60639)
41,403 (2)
10
Hickman Williams & Co (60827)*
39,769 (2)
Altgeld Gardens - Risk-related Score
ALTGELD GARDENS
435,808
Facility
Mittal Steel USA - Riverdale Inc.
368,991
Hickman Williams & Co
39,769
Harsco Co Multiserv Plant 27
14,129
ACME Packaging Riverdale Facility
12,867
Airgas Specialty Products Riverdale II
43
Riverdale Plating & HeatTreAting Inc.
9
Riverdale Industries Lie Riverdale Facility
0
J-16
-------
OVERALL
State of Texas - Risk-related Score
(% of state score)
TEXAS
15,436,918(100)
Rank
County
1
Harris
5,916,593 (38)
2
Jefferson*
4,691,666 (30)
3
Dallas
953,873 (6)
4
El Paso
846,922 (6)
5
Brazoria
410,309 (3)
6
Galveston
393,145 (3)
7
Nueces
350,429 (2)
8
Ellis
318,533 (2)
9
Tarrant
168,522 (1)
10
Gregg
110,214(1)
Jefferson County - Risk-related Score
(% of county score)
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
4,691,666 (100)
Rank
Zip code
1
77643*
4,125,182 (88)
2
77651
392,456 (8)
3
77701
48,956 (1)
4
77641*
45,995 (1)
5
77705
40,397 (1)
6
77640*
25,672 (1)
7
77642
9,799 (0.2)
8
77627
2,656 (0.1)
9
77713
471 (0.01)
10 77619 67 (0.001)
City of Port Arthur - Risk-related Score
(% of city score)
PORT ARTHUR
4,206,648 (100)
Rank
Zip code
1
77643*
4,125,182 (98)
2
77641*
45,995(1)
3
77640*
25,672 (1)
4
77642
9,799 (0.2)
Westside - Risk-related Score
JEFFERSON COUNTY
4,691,666
Zip Code
77640
25,672
J-17
-------
MEDIA
State of Texas
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
S 3,000,000
"g 2,500,000
+¦>
-g 2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1/1
£
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Years
2002
I Fugitive air
I Stackair
Direct water
! POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
{Nofuel value)
Jefferson County
QJ
v-
0
u
OO
TJ
-------
MEDIA (continued)
City of Port Arthur
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
£
g 3,000,000
m
"g 2,500,000
+-»
2,000,000
¦g 1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1996 1997
1998
1999
Years
2000 2001 2002
i Fugitive air
i Stack air
Direct water
i POTW transfer
Offsite incineration
Offsite Incineration
(Nofuel value)
Westside
to
oj 3,000
= 2,000
1,000
1
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
Fugitive air
Stack air
Direct water
J 19
-------
CHEMICAL
State of Texas
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
S 2,000,000
1,500,000
E
1,000,000
500,000
1996 1997
-Lead
-Sulfuric acid
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
1998 1999
^Manganese
Chlorine
Polycyclic aromatic compounds
2000 2001 2002
^^Diisocyanates
—Diaminotoluene (mixed isomers)
Jefferson County
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
a 2,500,000
l/l
TJ
I 2,000,000
QJ
1,500,000
ir
1,000,000
500,000
^—Sulfuric acid
Heptachlor
—Toxaphene
1996 1997 1998 1999
Hexachloro-1.3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
2000 2001
—Chlorine
1.3-Butadiene
2002
J-20
-------
CHEMICAL (continued)
City of Port Arthur
qj
i-
o
u
V)
TJ
-------
INDUSTRY
State of Texas
>-
w
2
Cement, Hydraulic
Paints and Allied Products
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Iron and Steel Foundries
Petroleum Refining
Ferroalloy Ores, Exc Vanadium
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Plastics Materials and Synthetic
Sanitary Services
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000
Risk-related Score
Jefferson County
V)
T3
Sanitary Services
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Nonferrous Foundries (Castings
Misc. Chemical Products
Agricultural Chemicals
Railroad Equipment
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Plastics Materials and Synthetic [ 26,663
Petroleum Refining 61,118
4,125
2,479
7,768
463,682
3,465
,182
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000
Risk-related Score
J-22
-------
INDUSTRY (continued)
City of Port Arthur
3
-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sanitary Services
¦ 4,125
Petroleum and Coal Products
29
Asphalt Pawing and Roofing Materials
89
Iron and Steel Foundries
1
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
24
Ship and Boat Building and Repairing
22
Industrial Organic Chemicals
| 55,283
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
55
Plastics Materials and Synthetic
731
Petroleum Refining
] 25,233
,182
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 J,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000
Risk-related Score
Westside
Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials gg
t
3
«-»
t/>
X!
C
Iron and Steel Foundries 1
Ship and Boat Building and Repairing 2 2
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 55
Misc. Petroleum and Coal Products 29
Petroleum Refining
3,476
5,000
10,000 15,000
Risk-related Score
22,001
20,000
25,000
J-23
-------
FACILITY
State of Texas - Risk-related Score (% of state score)
TEXAS
15,436,918
(100)
Rank
Facility (County]
1
Veolia Technical Solutions Port
Arthur (Jefferson)*
4,125,182 (27)
2
Air Products L. P. (Harris)
1,173,529 (8)
3
American Minerals Inc (El Paso)
677,802 (4)
4
Shell Oil Co Deer Park Refining
(Harris)
455,080 (3)
5
Engineered Polymer Solutions
Inc. (Dallas)
386,575 (3)
6
Quality Electric Steel Castings
(Harris)
311,144 (2)
7
Huntsman Corp O&O Facility
(Jefferson)*
309,421 (2)
8
Flint Hills Resources LP - West
Plant (Nueces)
303,708 (2)
9
Dow Chemical Co Freeport
Facility (Brazoria)
297,298 (2)
10
GB Biosciences Corp (Harris)
230,837 (2)
Jefferson County - Risk-related Score
(% of county score)
JEFFERSON COUNTY
4,691,666
(100)
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Veolia Technical Solutions Port
Arthur (77643)
4,125,182 (88)
2
Huntsman Corp O&O Facility
(77651)
309,421 (7)
3
Huntsman Corp - PO/MTBE Plant
(77651)
70,665 (2)
4
Huntsman Petrochemical Corp
Pabc (77641)
45,197 (1)
5
ExxonMobil Oil Corp (77701)
23,748(1)
6
DuPont Beaumont Plant (77705)
21,972 (1)
7
Motiva Enterprises LLC (77640)*
12,705 (0.3)
8
LNVA- North Regional Treatment
Plant (77701)
12,119(0.3)
9
Ameripol Synpol Corp. (77651)
11,390 (0.2)
10
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
(77705)
8,692 (0.2)
City of Port Arthur - Risk-related Score
(% of city score)
PORT ARTHUR
4,206,648
(100))
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Veolia Technical Solutions Port
Arthur (77643)
4,125,182 (98)
2
Huntsman Petrochemical Corp
Pabc (77641)
45,197 (1)
3
Motiva Enterprises LLC (77640)*
12,705 (0.3)
4
Premcor Refining Group Inc Port
Arthur (77640)*
8,665 (0.2)
5
NAFTA Region Olefins Complex
(77642)
6,567 (0.1)
6
Total Petrochemicals - Port Arthur
Refinery (77642)
3,232 (0.1)
7
Afton Chemical Additives Corp
(77640)*
2,079 (0.1)
8
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co
(77640)*
1,397 (0.03)
9
Equistar Chemicals L.P. Port Arthur
Plant (77641)
731 (0.02)
10
Motiva Enterprises Port Arthur
Terminal (77640)*
630 (0.01)
Westside
- Risk-related Score
WESTSIDE
25,672
Rank
Facility (Zip code)
1
Motiva Enterprises LLC
12,705
2
Premcor Refining Group Inc Port
Arthur
8,665
3
Afton Chemical Additives Corp
2,079
4
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co
1,397
5
Motiva Enterprises LLC Port Arthur
Terminal
630
6
U.S. Intec Inc.
89
7
Air Products L. P.
55
8
TDI-Halter Inc. Dock Yard
22
Q
Great Lakes Carbon LLC Port
16
y
Arthur Plant
10
Chevron Port Arthur Distribution
13
Center
J-24
-------
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of
50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free
------- |