Comparative Risk: Multi-Media Pollution Prevention Strategic Planning
In 1992 the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation began to implement a new environmental management initiative that emphasizes the reduction of generation and release of toxic and hazardous substances to all environmental media (see Attachment 1). The multi-media pollution prevention approach that the Department has embarked upon is an integrated and comprehensive process encompassing all of the environmental quality programs that regulate discharge and emission of toxics to the air, water, and land. The initiative is supported by the State's Hazardous Waste Reduction Act of 1990 which requires certain facilities to develop plans for reducing hazardous waste generation and sets a goal of a 50% reduction in the generation and release of hazardous waste from 1990 through the year 2000. Regulations are being promulgated under other statutory authorities of the Environmental Conservation Law that will require similar reduction plans for toxic releases to the air and water.
A key component of the Department's multi-media pollution prevention initiative is the substitution of single-medium regulatory programs with an integrated facility management process which is based on the simultaneous evaluation and review of potential releases of toxics to the environment. This approach is preferred over traditional regulatory programs because it:
-facilitates the identification of opportunities to implement pollution prevention processes and procedures;
-avoids potential for shifting pollutants from one environmental medium to another;
-provides a mechanism to work with industrial facilities and other sources of pollution that is coordinated and unified; and
-effects a more meaningful reduction in risks associated with exposure to toxic releases to the environment.
The Department's initial efforts in integrated facility management have centered around those facilities in New York State where pollution prevention efforts will be more productive. Approximately 400 facilities have been identified as being responsible for generating 95% of both hazardous waste and of toxic discharges to the air and water of New York State.These facilities were identified using a number of data sources on quantities of toxic chemical releases.
Although the data sources used are compiled on chemicals that present potential risks to humans and ecosystems, neither the relative nor specific toxicities of individual chemicals on these lists have been considered by the Department in focusing its pollution reduction efforts. Thus, certain facilities may have been overlooked that are releasing high-risk levels of toxic substances that are in a total discharge quantity below the established thresholds. Conversely, facilities may be included on the list that by virtue of the relatively low toxicities of chemicals released should not be among those considered to represent high potential for risk reduction.
Throughout the initial year of implementing New York's multi-media pollution prevention initiative, it has become apparent that this approach is extremely resource-intensive. Guidance must be developed, training provided, workloads redistributed, and low priority tasks dropped. In order to ensure that the agency is directing its resources appropriately, a refinement of the current approach of determining greatest risk reduction potential must be developed.
Several related issues have been identified by a task force convened in 1993 by Governor Cuomo to address reforms in environmental regulatory programs. Two shortcomings that were brought to the attention of the task force by the business community were: (1) lack of sound, systematic risk assessment in determining environmental priorities, and (2) inadequate use of cost/benefit and economic impact assessment in determining the means to achieve agreed-to environmental goals.
One strong option for improving the Department's environmental programs is to conduct a comparative risk analysis of the environmental problems that can be addressed through the new multi-media pollution prevention initiative. The results of such an analysis would provide a sound basis for prioritizing multi-media pollution prevention activities so that the greatest reductions in risk can be more readily achieved.
This option fits well with the recommendations presented by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in their 1990 report entitled "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection". The SAB recommendations for environmental management include: targeting environmental protection efforts on the basis of opportunities for greatest risk reduction; emphasizing pollution prevention as the preferred option for reducing risk; considering risk-based priorities in strategic planning processes; making greater use of all tools available to reduce risk; and improving public understanding of environmental risks.
The "New York State Economic Development Plan: Strategies and Initiatives for 1993-1996" also recommends that New York State should "apply analytical and ranking methodologies to better reflect the essential balancing of health risks, ecological risks, and quality-of-life/economic risks...[in light of New York State's] many competing environmental needs and a stressed economy."
By targeting industrial facilities that are responsible for the dominant percentage of toxic and hazardous waste generation, the agency has begun to concentrate its pollution prevention efforts on areas representing the greatest potential for risk reduction. The risks associated with toxic releases from these industrial facilities represent the majority of sources of risk. Areas of risk that would be associated with facilities include point source discharges to surface water, groundwater contamination, stack and fugitive emissions to ambient air, on-site land disposal and waste treatment, accidental releases from storage tanks and other sources, acid deposition, and releases from POTWs.
Other sources of risk that may be addressed include mobile sources, solid and hazardous waste facilities, low-level radioactive waste, inactive hazardous waste sites and pesticides. These risks should be evaluated along with risks associated with industrial facilities so that the Department's overall strategic planning can be refined.
The goal of the comparative risk analysis is to identify the most significant threats to human health and the environment that result from toxic discharges and emissions to the environment of New York State. This empirical analysis of residual risk will provide a foundation for a more refined strategy for pollution prevention and control of toxics that will lead to more effective reductions in risk and more efficient allocation of resources.
-Estimate the risks associated with toxic releases and emissions and the impacts that they may have on human health, ecosystems and the quality of life in New York State.
-Involve citizens, academia, industry (including the NYS Business Council), state agencies (including the Departments of Economic Development, Health, and Agriculture and Markets) and interest groups in discussions of comparative risk and in the formulation of draft policy recommendations.
-Develop a ranking of environmental problems based on the above risk analysis.
-Recommend a pollution prevention strategy that will significantly reduce risks in a cost-effective manner.
-Broaden risk education and develop environmental policy consensus through the above risk ranking process.
The comparative risk project will be a valuable tool to develop a risk-based approach for the Department's multi-media pollution prevention initiative. Greatest opportunities for reducing environmental risks can be identified considering the three categories of risk employed in EPA's comparative risk projects: risk to human health, risks to ecological systems, and risk to quality of life.
The following are potential areas of risk to be evaluated and ranked under these categories with respect to New York's multi-media pollution prevention initiative:
- Emissions to air
- Non-point and point discharges to surface water and groundwater
- Discharges to POTWs
- Non-point source discharges to surface water
- Drinking water and groundwater contamination
- Hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal
- Pesticides use and disposal
The sources of risk that would be addressed would be industrial facilities, incinerators, POTWs, mobile sources, storage tanks, inactive hazardous waste sites, municipal landfills and construction and demolition debris landfills. Types of releases to be considered would be permitted releases discharges and emissions, fugitive releases and accidental releases.
The risk analyses and ranking could address individual or groups of chemicals. The TRI list could be evaluated to determine which chemicals are appropriate within the multi-media pollution prevention initiative and which chemicals should be added, deleted, or given special attention. Examples of groupings that could be evaluated and ranked for special attention in the multi-media pollution prevention initiative include heavy metals, carcinogens, chlorinated hydrocarbons, bioaccumulative chemicals, microbes and genetically engineered organisms. Other groupings of chemicals that could be considered include the Part 378 Priority Chemicals and EPA's 33/50 list of 17 chemicals.
Other tools to include in the evaluation of risk reduction opportunities are targeting on a geographic basis, population density, industry type, or potential for exposure. Sector approaches such as transportation, energy, government, agriculture, industry and households could be considered as well.
Advisory groups and public participants will be encouraged to develop their own approaches to identifying pollution reduction strategies. Non-regulatory mechanisms for managing risk, such as voluntary programs and public education, could be considered in terms of environmental management options to address the identified risks. The process will require a substantial emphasis on risk communication, especially how risk levels are determined and considered in environmental management. It will result in improved public perception of environmental risk and a greater understanding of risk management and environmental protection.
This process will provide a valuable opportunity for public, industry, state agencies and other participation in the development of the Department's pollution prevention programs that will benefit both the agency, the regulated community and other interest groups. It will insure that human health, ecological and social and economic risks have been taken into account in the agency's pollution prevention initiative. The outcome of the project will be beneficial to the Department in its strategic planning and budget process and will promote flexibility in the expenditure of grant monies.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will be the lead State agency for the project. The Office of Environmental Quality's Pollution Prevention Unit will be responsible for oversight of the project and coordination of all activities within the Department and among all other participants. The Department's Offices of Natural Resources, Environmental Remediation, and Environmental Quality will actively participate in their appropriate areas of jurisdiction. The success of the project will be further ensured by the participation of other State agencies (including the Departments of Economic Development, Health, and Agriculture and Markets), the NYS Business Council and other industry groups, academia, concerned citizens, public interest groups, and EPA.
A Multi-media Pollution Prevention Advisory Group has already been established to advise the Department in areas related to pollution prevention; members of this Advisory Group include representatives from industry, environmental groups, legislative staff and other state agencies (see Attachment 3.) This group will work with the Pollution Prevention Unit and the Project Director to develop the project elements and establish the topic-specific work groups and a Technical Advisory Committee. Work groups will be organized around the following themes: human health risk, risks to ecological systems, and quality of life. The Multi-media Pollution Prevention Advisory Group will work with the Pollution Prevention Unit to select members of the work groups and the Technical Advisory Committee. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee will be scientific, technical and policy experts from state and federal agencies, industry and academic/research institutions.
Active public outreach will be performed throughout the life of this project. The primary source of public education and polling will be through the use of existing Department publications such as the Pollution Prevention Bulletin (circulation of approximately 6,000), and additional mailings that will target citizen groups throughout the State. The Fall 1994 addition of the Bulletin will be used to conduct a public survey to assist in the identification of environmental issues to be included in the comparative risk project. A comparative risk summit and public comment period are also planned for the final year of the project.
To ensure diverse working group and public participation the Department will contact minority group representatives, tribal and local governments throughout the State. In addition, an environmental justice grant proposal has been submitted to EPA Region II for funding through a Pollution Prevention Incentives for States program to expand the economic and demographic base of stake holders involved in DEC's decisionmaking process by increasing minority and low-income participation in this Project.
The Multi-media Pollution Prevention Advisory Group will coordinate public input into the study, including policy options, and will serve as liaison between the citizens of the state and the staff of the Comparative Risk Project. The Technical Advisory Committee will provide a peer review function and provide scientific and technical advice to the Comparative Risk Project.
As indicated throughout this proposal, we will solicit participation from a broad range of citizen, industrial, environmental, public health, tribal and minority groups. It is expected that the makeup of the three working groups will vary but overall representation will be as diverse as possible. The Department recognizes the value of this project as a public education and outreach tool and as a means of providing public input to environmental management decisionmaking.
Membership on the topic-specific work groups and Technical Advisory Committee will be determined during the first two months of the project. Minority group representation will be encouraged on all work groups and required on the quality of life work group. Initial organizational tasks will also be completed during that time period.
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND DATA ACQUISITION
The comparative risk analysis will utilize reports from EPA and state pilot risk ranking projects and other information related to toxic and hazardous releases in New York State. Information will be gathered from the Department's environmental quality and natural resources programs and other relevant program areas. The Departments of Economic Development, Health, and Agriculture and Markets will be asked to submit relevant data and information required to conduct the comparative risk analysis.
Selection of issues will take place in the second quarter of the initial year of the study. Public comments and suggestions solicited by the Multi-media Pollution Prevention Advisory Group will be incorporated into the study design and the list of environmental problems that will be considered in the risk analysis. The MMPP Advisory Group will ultimately determine the scope of the Comparative Risk Project, taking into consideration the needs of New York State in developing and refining its strategic plan for controlling and preventing pollution through a comprehensive and integrated environmental management approach.
Project staff and the three working groups will identify data needs and collect other information. The work groups will begin their risk analysis with the data available at the time and will supplement as additional information is gathered.
The human health work group will examine risks to human health associated with toxic releases. This will include analyses of risks associated with various routes of exposure (e.g., inhalation of ambient air; ingestion of drinking water from surface water and groundwater sources; and ingestion of contaminated soils, vegetables, fish and dairy products), individual chemicals of concern (e.g., benzene, PCBs, lead), groups of chemicals (e.g., metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, solvents, persistent chemicals, EPA's 33/50 chemicals, CAAA hazardous air pollutants), and toxic endpoints (carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, neurotoxicity).
The ecological work group will evaluate risk to ecological systems. The work group will define receptors potentially at risk and define populations, communities, and habitats to be evaluated. Ecological assessment and measurement endpoints will be identified and described. Geographic or regional strategies can be employed to identify environmental hazards, characterize exposure, and determine residual risk and areas of habitat destruction.
The quality of life work group will concentrate on the socioeconomic effects and environmental equity as well as any effects that would be overlooked in the human health and environmental risk assessments. The issues that will be examined related to cultural, aesthetic and economic costs and benefits that should be addressed in the development of the recommendations for risk reduction. An important issue to be addressed by this work group is whether certain activities have a disproportionate impact on minority communities. Concepts presented in full-cost accounting and other financial analyses will be used in economic considerations.
RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK RANKING
Each work group will develop a methodology to conduct their analyses of the risk identified in the study design. Development of methodology will be aided by evaluation of procedures used in previous EPA DNA state risk ranking analyses and with information and training provided to the project staff by the Northeast Center for Comparative Risk. Each work group will prepare a separate report summarizing their methodology, data sources, assumptions and findings. These reports will be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and that Committee will submit its comments on the work group reports to the M2P2 Advisory Group.
Based on the findings of the three work groups and the Technical Advisory Group reviews, the Multi-media Pollution Prevention Advisory Group will conduct a preliminary ranking of risks. These rankings will then be published and submitted for public review and comment. It is proposed that an event sponsored through outside funding be held at this time to provide a forum for discussion of the rankings by all interested parties. These discussions would be valuable in the formulation of recommendations for the final report. The rankings would be revised by the Multi-media Pollution Prevention Advisory Group as determined to be necessary by the broader public forum discussions.
The results of the comparative risk analyses and ranking will be used by the Multi-media Pollution Prevention Advisory Group to formulate a strategy to reduce those risks which pose the greatest threat to human health and the environment. This will include a basis for a risk-based pollution prevention strategy for the environmental quality programs. This strategy will be subject to public input during the development phase and there will be additional opportunity for public comment upon completion of a draft comprehensive report. This report will be submitted for external review, revised, and published at the end of the project period. Copies will be sent to the Governor, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner for Environmental Quality, the public, other State agencies, EPA, and interested parties.
The strategic planning process for the Office of Environmental Quality normally begins toward the end of the calendar year for the State fiscal year beginning the following April 1. Thus implementation could occur as soon as the first state fiscal year following the completion of the 2-year project.
| 0-6 months | Develop and finalize contract for Project Director Distribute public survey of environmental issues Meet with M2P2 Advisory Group Project organization and design Identification of issues Work groups established Compile survey results |
| 6-12 months | Work Groups meet Methodologies established Risk analyses conducted Technical Review Group reviews/comments on analyses |
| 12-18 months | M2P2 Advisory and work groups rank risks Risk rankings published Comparative Risk "Summit" Revisions to rankings |
| 18-24 months | Strategy development Draft of final report Public comment Revisions to final report Final report submitted |
Proposal submitted to USEPA June, 1994
Any comments or questions?
Contact us at: 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750;
518-402-9469 (phone); 518-402-9168 (fax)
