Comparative Risk Project - Public information documents

This page includes the full text of a series of five fact sheets that are being distributed to the public to provide general information about the Project. Each of the five sheets was designed to be read alone, and some of the same text appears on each; that is why you will find several duplicate paragraphs here. Each fact sheet is separated by a line.

General Project Description
Human Health Work Group
Ecosystems Work Group
Quality of Life Work Group
Public Participation Work Group

Comparative Risk: General Project Description

This information sheet describes the Comparative Risk Project and provides some detail about the efforts of the Steering Committee and work groups. For more information contact the Pollution Prevention Unit, NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750, (518) 402-9469;

New York State has undertaken a project to evaluate and compare risks posed by the release of harmful or toxic substances into the environment. The results of the project will be used to develop a statewide strategy for reducing risks to human health and the environment through the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) pollution prevention program.

Pollution prevention eliminates the risk and costs associated with the release of chemicals into the environment, helping protect human health, environmental quality, and quality of life. It can also help reduce the consumption of natural resources, saving them for future generations, and help reduce the consumption of raw materials, reducing costs for businesses. The Comparative Risk Project will serve as a basis for DEC to prioritize environmental management strategies that incorporate pollution prevention.

The environmental release of harmful substances poses some degree of risk to human health, ecological resources, or the quality of life. The substances that are released to the environment can be thought of as stressors (see stressor list, page 3) on the environment. The New York State Comparative Risk Project identified, evaluated, and compared the risks posed by these stressors and developed a strategy to reduce their risks. Comparative risk involves many diverse and multi disciplinary considerations (scientific as well as social, cultural, ethical, and legal). Assessing the relative risk posed by each stressor or group of stressors can help create a standard system for the measurement and prioritization of environmental damages caused by very different types of releases.

New York has joined other states and local governments in conducting a comparative risk project. However, New York's Comparative Risk Project is unique in its focus on reducing risk only through pollution prevention measures. As a result of this narrowed focus, it limited its evaluation to risks posed by stressors or groups of stressors, and their sources, rather than broadly defined problems such as air pollution or hazardous waste contamination that are typically evaluated by other comparative risk projects. Problems that pose risks that cannot be reduced through pollution prevention, such as habitat destruction, are not part of New York's project.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA has funded $50,000 for each of the two phases of New York's project. Phase I identified potential risks to human health, ecosystems, and quality of life that result from releases to the environment. Phase II has developed pollution prevention strategies to reduce those risks.

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

The project is composed of a Steering Committee, which reports directly to the Commissioner of DEC, and five work groups. Three technical work groups were established to compile and evaluate data on the groups of stressors. These work groups, Human Health, Ecosystems, and Quality of Life, prepared a characterization and comparison of the risks associated with each group of stressors. Two additional work groups, Public Participation and Risk Reduction Strategies, also supported the project.

The Human Health Work Group evaluated health risks for each group of stressors, including both cancer and non-cancer effects. The analysis included risks caused by acute and chronic exposure.

The Ecosystems Work Group evaluated risks to NYS ecosystems. The health and preservation of the plants, animals and aquatic and terrestrial landscapes that make up the ecosystem, as well as ecosystem processes, were considered.

The Quality of Life Work Group evaluated factors including, but not limited to, individual and societal costs (such as the cost of health care), recreational opportunities, the unequal distribution of risks among New Yorkers, peace of mind, and impacts on future generations.

The Public Participation Work Group provided advice and identified appropriate strategies to disseminate information and gather input from the public. It served as a resource to the technical work groups to develop processes for carrying out activities to facilitate a dialogue between the public and the project participants.

The Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group used comparisons developed by the other work groups to recommend a list of potential risk reduction strategies that DEC can use in its pollution prevention efforts.

The Steering Committee and work groups have representation from the Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health, environmental groups, academic institutions, businesses, local government, private citizens, the State legislature, federal agencies, other State agencies, and recreational organizations. Further detail on the work groups and their activities are listed in separate information sheets.

PROGRESS-TO-DATE AND FUTURE PLANS:

The New York State Comparative Risk Project (Project) was initiated in 1996 to assist the Department of Environmental Conservation in developing a risk-based approach to pollution prevention. The Project seeks to identify those environmental problems that pose the highest risks to the citizens and the environment of New York State and to develop recommendations for reducing those risks through pollution prevention/risk reduction programs, or technical assistance strategies. The Project decisions are, to the greatest extent practicable, based on the available scientific information and current technology and attempt to reflect public opinions and values.

The comparison of environmental problems in this Project is based on risks associated with substances that are released into the environment. These substances can be chemicals or particles that may be released into the air, water, or land. Fourteen groups of these substances, called stressors, have been developed. The stressor groupings are based on similarities in their physical or chemical characteristics.

The project is broken into two phases. Phase 1, the risk characterization phase, identified the most significant threats to human health, ecosystems, and quality of life that result from toxic releases to the environment. For this phase, three work groups were established to identify and evaluate these environmental threats. The evaluations of these three groups were intended to help identify those problem areas where current regulatory and pollution prevention efforts have either not yet been implemented, can benefit from enhancement, or have so far failed to adequately reduce risk to human health, ecosystems, or quality of life for New Yorkers. The Project focuses on residual risks (i.e., the risks that remain given current levels of environmental regulation and control). These first three work groups have written reports that examine and compare the risks posed by the groups of 14 stressors.

Phase 2, the risk reduction strategies phase, developed management strategies that incorporate pollution prevention methods and prioritized them for implementation. For Phase 2, a Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group was established to build on the work of the three previous work groups and the Project Steering Committee by identifying sources of the 14 stressors evaluated and the availability of pollution prevention measures that are potentially the most effective at reducing risk. The Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group has prepared a Draft Final Report that develops, prioritizes and recommends for implementation overall management strategies that also incorporate specific pollution prevention strategies.

Additional details about the Comparative Risk Project, including copies of the Project ground rules and other documents, can be obtained through the Project website.

AVAILABLE REPORTS

Three work group reports, prepared by the Human Health, Ecosystems, and Quality of Life Work Groups were released in the summer of 2001 for public comment and have been finalized. A Steering Committee Final Report summarizing the Project and findings from Phase 1 is also available. The draft Final Report of the Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group is now available for public comment.

All reports can be obtained through the Project's website. They can also be obtained through the address, phone, fax, and email address provided in the next section.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD INFORMATION

A public comment period on the draft Final Report of the Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group will take place through September 16, 2002. During this time, written comments on this draft report will be accepted by the following means:

Through the mail at the following address:
Comparative Risk Project
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Pollution Prevention Unit
12th Floor
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-1750
By fax at (518) 402-9168
Through email at comprisk@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Formal public comments will not be taken by phone, but those with questions about the Project may call 518-402-9472. Please send comments in by September 16, 2002. The Draft Final Report of the Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group will be revised and finalized shortly after review of the public comments received, and it is anticipated that the Steering Committee will prepare a final report for the Project by the end of 2002. Although no formal written response to individual public comments will be prepared, each comment that is received will be considered by the Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group or the Steering Committee and will be reflected in changes to the report which will be posted on the Project's website.

STRESSORS THAT WERE EVALUATED BY THE NYS COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT

Stressors that are released into the environment, grouped into chemical categories

Acidic and alkaline substances - This category includes substances that have a pH less than 2 or greater than 12.5. It does not include substances that react once in the environment to form acids or bases or to cause acid rain.
Atmospheric gases (NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, and CH4) - This category includes nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide, which are common by-products of combustion and which contribute to acid rain. They are also precursors to ambient ozone, which is considered in this category. Greenhouse gases, except for CFCs, are also included in this category. CO and CO2 are combustion by-products and CH4 is emitted from various sources, including landfills.
Halogens - This category includes elemental halogens, such as chlorine and bromine. Drinking water chlorination by-products and waste water disinfection by-products, such as trihalomethanes, are included in this category.
Metals and cyanide - This category includes both elemental and organic forms of metals. Lead, mercury, and cadmium are the three that are most often cited as posing environmental risk. Other metals, such as silver, nickel, chromium, and manganese, have sometimes been implicated as causing harm and may be considered as well. In addition, cyanide will be considered here because of its similar properties. These substances enter the environment through a wide variety of sources, including combustion, wastewater discharges, and manufacturing facilities.
Non-volatile halogenated organic compounds - This category includes dioxin, certain pesticides, PCB's, and a variety of other compounds that are generally of high molecular weight and contain at least one halogen atom. These compounds are likely to be both highly bioaccumulative and toxic.
Non-volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds - This category includes phthalates, alkylphenols, and glycol ethers, among other compounds, that may produce harmful effects such as endocrine disruption. This category includes all non- and semi- volatile organic compounds that are not halogenated.
Nutrients - This category includes substances containing various elements, such as phosphorous, potassium, and nitrogen, that act to promote the growth of certain unwanted aquatic species, often to the detriment of other beneficial species. These primarily reach the environment through non-point sources, including agricultural activities.
Particulates - This category includes dust, soot, and other small particles (PM-10) that become suspended in the air. Asbestos will be considered as well. Combustion is the primary source of particulates. Toxic substances that are associated with particulates, such as benzo(a)pyrene, are not included here.
Pesticides - This category includes all pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and others, that are not included in other categories on this list. Certain pesticides are found in the non-volatile halogenated organic compounds and heavy metals categories. This category includes carbamates and organophosphates.
Petroleum products - This category includes petroleum product mixtures such as oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. It does not include the substances that are released when these products are burned or the individual components such as benzene, toluene, and xylene which are considered in the VOC category.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - This category includes aromatic compounds that contain three or more closed rings. A typical example is benzo(a)pyrene, which is a potent carcinogen. The primary source of these compounds in the environment is combustion.
Radionuclides - This category includes radiation released by human activities, but not radon or other naturally-occurring radiation.
Suspended and settleable solids - This category includes nontoxic solid particles, such as silt, that have the ability to cause physical or mechanical damage to surface waters.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - This category includes many low molecular weight solvents used in a variety of commercial processes, such as dry cleaning, degreasing, manufacturing, painting, and printing. Common solvents include perchloroethylene, TCE, and benzene.

Comparative Risk Project: Human Health Work Group

This information sheet is one of a series that described the role of the work groups of the Comparative Risk Project. For more information or to get on our mailing list, contact the Pollution Prevention Unit, NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750 or phone 518-402-9469;

WHAT IS THE COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT?

The environmental release of harmful substances poses some degree of risk to human health, ecosystems, or the quality of life. The substances that are released to the environment can be thought of as stressors on the environment. The New York State Comparative Risk Project is a planning tool for identifying, evaluating, and comparing risks posed by these stressors, and developing a strategy to reduce the risks. This project has looked at pollution prevention as a means of reducing the risks they pose. Phase I identified potential risks to human health, ecosystems, and quality of life that result from releases to the environment. Phase II has developed pollution prevention strategies to reduce those risks. Those pollution prevention measures determined to be the most worthwhile will be recommended to the DEC Commissioner for implementation. This project is coordinated by the Pollution Prevention Unit at the DEC, and will be used to provide a sound basis for prioritizing pollution prevention activities.

THE HUMAN HEALTH WORK GROUP

The Human Health Work Group was charged with the evaluation, characterization, and comparison of the health risks and relevant effects, both cancer and non-cancer, for each group of stressors identified by the Steering Committee. It first evaluated the stressor groups proposed by the Steering Committee. Some groups of stressors (such as volatile organic compounds or pesticides) include thousands of chemicals. Due to the complexity of evaluating all potential members of such a group, the work group developed criteria for identifying priority stressors within each group of stressors. Because of resource and time constraints, if a greater number of stressors were included, then less data could be gathered on each one.

Evaluating health risks for each group of stressors posed challenges. Much is still unknown about the health effects of many chemicals. The gaps in available data precluded a thorough evaluation of some chemicals. Risk analysis, by its nature, involved a degree of uncertainty.

To begin the initial research, the work group agreed to collect data for each stressor that was evaluated using the parameters listed in the table below. Toxicity information (i.e. reference dose, cancer potency factor) and exposure information were combined to describe the health risk for each stressor. This information was used to evaluate and compare human health risks for each stressor. All the collected data was included in the work group's final report.

Parameter	Description
Reference Dose (RfD or RfC)	An estimate of a daily exposure to humans (including sensitive subgroups) that is thought not likely to have a noticeable risk of damaging effects over a lifetime, based on existing information.
Cancer Potency Factor (CPF)	A factor used to calculate increased human cancer risk associated with a given exposure.
Typical Exposure	Average levels of a chemical in air, water, soil or food to which the general population is exposed.
'Reasonable' Worst Case Exposure	Maximum levels of a chemical in air, water, soil or food to which the general population is exposed; or levels associated with a highly exposed sub-population.
Health Endpoints of Greatest Concern	The most significant health effects.
Health Endpoint Associated with RfD/RfC	The health effects that were observed at the lowest exposure levels in the study (or studies) from which the RfD/RfC values were derived.
Size of Exposed Populations	A description of the exposed populations
Persistence	How long it takes for the chemical to break down in the environment.
Bioaccumulation	The ability of the chemical to build up in human or animal tissues.
Pathway	How people become exposed to a chemical from a given source.
Sensitive Subgroups	People that may have health effects at lower exposures than the general population.
Synergistic Effects	Health effects from exposure to more that one chemical that are greater than the sum of the effects from exposure to the individual chemicals.

Comparative Risk Project: Ecosystems Work Group

This information sheet is one of a series that describes the role of the work groups of the Comparative Risk Project. For more information contact the Pollution Prevention Unit, NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750 or phone 518-402-9469;

WHAT IS THE COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT?

THE ECOSYSTEMS WORK GROUP

The Ecosystems Work Group defined an ecosystem as the combination of plants and animals and their relationships with each other and the physical environment (soil, water, air). A number of different ecosystems were considered when assessing how stressors impact our environment. The list of ecosystems included: oceans and bays, estuaries and tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, streams and rivers, lakes and ponds, uplands (including forests), agricultural areas, and urban and residential areas.

The analysis began by characterizing each group of stressors. Each characterization statement answered the following questions:

Which stressors within the group are included in the evaluation? (The work group evaluated those stressors that are most significant from an ecosystems standpoint.)

What effect does the stressor have on ecosystems? What are the ecological responses and implications of the group of stressors?

Where does the stressor come from and how does it get to where the problem occurs?

What ecosystems, species or populations are particularly sensitive or affected?

After the stressors were characterized, the Ecosystems Work Group evaluated the group of stressors by using four specific criteria. For each criterion, there was a scale, from A to C, to describe the extent of the impact for that criterion, and to aid in the final ranking process for that group of stressors. For example, hypothetical Stressor X was evaluated by the work group using the four criteria, and received either an A, B, or C for each criterion. The Ecosystems Work Group would then assign a final ranking based on the four criteria, taking into consideration any other relevant data amassed in the research phase. As each group of stressors was assigned an A, B, or C evaluation for each criterion and was then given a final ranking The Ecosystems Work Group documented the basis for their decisions. This information was used in combination with rankings from other work groups to set priorities that target the most important stressors for the DEC pollution prevention program.

Criterion 1. The severity of the effect of a stressor.

Scale:

The structure or function of an ecosystem is affected, or
Populations are affected, or
There is no or little effect on individual organisms, and no measurable effect on the ecosystem.

Criterion 2. Reversibility of the effect of a stressor; that is, how much time it takes for an ecosystem to naturally recover if the stressor is eliminated.

Scale:

More than 20 years, or
Three to 20 years, or
Less than three years

Criterion 3. The ecological significance of the ecosystem; that is, ecosystems that are considered sensitive or special were given a higher rating on the scale.

Scale:

High significance. The ecosystem was characterized by high biodiversity (the sum total of all species present), globally or regionally rare or unique natural communities, endangered or threatened species, important migration or breeding areas, and was considered highly sensitive to change.
Moderate significance. The ecosystem was characterized by moderate biodiversity, locally rare or unique natural communities, species of special concern, or rare plants, and was moderately sensitive to change.
Limited significance. The ecosystem was characterized by monocultures (a single species present, e.g., a pine plantation) or low biodiversity, non-native or artificial systems, common species and minimally sensitive to change.

Criterion 4. Geographic scale is the number of ecological regions of the state (of the six defined by the work group) that are or likely to be affected.

Scale:

Extensive - five or six regions
Broad - three or four
Limited - one or two

Comparative Risk Project: Quality of Life Work Group

WHAT IS THE COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT?

The environmental release of harmful substances poses some degree of risk to human health, ecosystems, or the quality of life. The substances that are released to the environment can be thought of as stressors on the environment. The New York State Comparative Risk Project is a planning tool for H.R.H., evaluating, and comparing risks posed by these stressors, and developing a strategy to reduce the risks. This project has looked at pollution prevention as a means of reducing the risks they pose. Phase I identified potential risks to human health, ecosystems, and quality of life that result from releases to the environment. Phase II has developed pollution prevention strategies to reduce those risks. Those pollution prevention measures determined to be the most worthwhile will be recommended to the DEC Commissioner for implementation. This project is coordinated by the Pollution Prevention Unit at the DEC, and will be used to provide a sound basis for prioritizing pollution prevention activities.

THE QUALITY OF LIFE WORK GROUP

The Quality of Life Work Group, one of five work groups established for this project, used the following criteria to evaluate the risks and damages resulting from toxic or harmful releases (stressors) on the quality of life using the following six criteria:

Aesthetics - factors that affect our sense of beauty and our senses

Economic Well-being - factors that result in increased expenses or losses to people to cope with or to mitigate the effects of pollution

Value of a Healthy Ecosystem - factors that affect human use and appreciation of a healthy and self-sustaining ecosystem, including passive and active recreation as well as spiritual values

Fairness - factors that affect a just and equitable distribution of the risks caused by the stressors

Future Generations - factors that produce or result in placing environmental damages or degradation onto future generations of New York residents

Peace of Mind/Sense of Community - factors that result in people feeling threatened or at risk, individually or as a community

The Quality of Life Work Group ranked the stressors against the six criteria listed above as having a high, medium or low effect on quality of life.

MAJOR INITIATIVES:

Citizen Mail Survey

In cooperation with the Public Participation Work Group, the Quality of Life Work Group undertook a random mail survey of about 1,000 New Yorkers to solicit their concerns and reactions about how environmental contamination affects various aspects of their quality of life.

The survey asked questions pertaining mainly to the peace of mind, sense of community, fairness, and future generations criteria to help pinpoint the public's psychological and emotional reactions caused by concern about exposure to pollution, rather than the purely physical, health-related reactions being looked at by the human health and ecosystems work groups. Perceptions of risk, environmental attitudes and demographic measures were used to study the associations between environmental stressors and how they interfere with quality of life activities. The results of the mail survey were the primary basis for evaluating many of the stressors, but not necessarily all of them.

Research on Value of a Healthy Ecosystem

To assess how New Yorker's active and non-active (including spiritual) recreational activities are affected by the stressors, information was gathered through interviews with state and academic experts in various fields as well as by reviewing previously published information.

This work was based upon the presumption that the most significant adverse effects are likely associated with aquatic ecosystems and water-based recreation: fishing, swimming, boating, etc. The results of this research formed the basis for the work group evaluating the groups of stressors against the value of a healthy ecosystem criterion.

Case Studies of Two Counties

To aid in assessing the fairness and future generations criteria relating to environmental fairness and equity, the Quality of Life Work Group used two counties in New York State, Erie and Nassau, as case studies. In each of these counties, many concerns with environmental contamination in local communities have already prompted outreach efforts by the State Health Department. A major portion of the work was in relating Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) information geographically to the 1990 Census tract-based socio-economic characteristics information for these counties. Average household income and education levels were correlated with proximity to TRI facilities.

Comparative Risk Project: Public Participation Work Group

WHAT IS THE COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT?

The environmental release of harmful substances poses some degree of risk to human health, ecosystems, or the quality of life. The substances that are released to the environment can be thought of as stressors on the environment. The New York State Comparative Risk Project is a planning tool for socioeconomic, evaluating, and comparing risks posed by these stressors, and developing a strategy to reduce the risks. This project has looked at pollution prevention as a means of reducing the risks they pose. Phase I identified potential risks to human health, ecosystems, and quality of life that result from releases to the environment. Phase II has developed pollution prevention strategies to reduce those risks. Those pollution prevention measures determined to be the most worthwhile will be recommended to the DEC Commissioner for implementation. This project is coordinated by the Pollution Prevention Unit at the DEC, and will be used to provide a sound basis for prioritizing pollution prevention activities.

THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORK GROUP

The Public Participation Work Group (hereby referred to only as Public Participation) realized that New Yorkers face an unending assault from pollution to human health, their environment, and quality of life. People fear the risk of contamination by toxic chemicals such as heavy metals finding their way into water systems, crops, and through the food chain to humans. As a result, communities are asking, "What else can we do to reduce the risks of chemical pollution on our citizens?" One answer Public Participation felt was important was building a better understanding of the comparative risks involved and their impact on citizens by providing broad public input and awareness through activities that would help us understand the decision-making process.

Public Participation accepted the responsibility for ensuring that, to the extent possible, the decisions made by the other work groups and the Steering Committee are informed by the values held by the citizens of New York State. It is responsible for soliciting and receiving public comment, as appropriate, throughout the project. It has provided advice and identifies methods to get information out and get input from the public. It has fostered dialogue among project participants and the public. Public Participation has assisted in efforts to incorporate project strategies into models for public participation and outreach. Public Participation has primary responsibility for communicating the results of the project to the public.

In general, Public Participation has had three main tasks:

Spread the word about the comparative risk project and build communication networks to both inform interested constituencies and engage them in dialogue on specific initiatives. Identified audiences include government, business, civic groups, special interest groups, industry, municipalities, authorities and citizens.
Public Participation has polled the public on risk issues and provides technical risk information to the public for comment. It has encouraged public comment for the Steering Committee to consider and present the Steering Committee's recommended stressor evaluations to the public. The public was asked for their suggestions for reducing risks of chemicals released to the environment.
Public Participation has been available to work with and provide assistance to the other work groups (Ecosystems, Human Health, Quality of Life, and Risk Reduction Strategies) to incorporate public participation into their planning process and gather public comment, opinions or ideas to help with their decision making.
Public Participation had proposed a pilot program that would take the project findings to the public to explain the Steering Committee recommendations. This pilot comparative risk citizen participation program was carried out in four communities. The goals of the pilot program included:
1. Identification of the level of knowledge and understanding the community has of pollution problems, pollution-related decisions being make, and comparative risk as a basis for making pollution reduction decisions.
2. Determination of how a community learns about pollution problems and pollution-related decisions.
3. Identification of strategies to get communities interested in and knowledgeable about pollution-related concerns in their community.
4. Exploration of methods for maintaining community interest and constructive involvement.
5. Documentation of how community involvement is used in making pollution prevention decisions.
Public Participation developed a detailed evaluation of the pilot program and submitted it to the Steering Committee.

Any comments or questions?
Contact us at: 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750;
518-402-9469 (phone); 518-402-9168 (fax)