new jersey takes cep seriously

["Michael R. Meuser" <meuser@mapcruzin.com>]

Mapping the risks of pollution: New Jersey Takes CEP Seriously  

Source: http://www.bergen.com:80/news/airbt199905161.htm

Mapping the risks of pollution 

Sunday, May 16, 1999

By BRUNO TEDESCHI
Trenton Bureau

   Excerpt: "The EPA had originally intended to publish its modeling data in    
December of last year, but it opted not to after complaints from the U.S.        
Conference of Mayors. Instead, the EPA made the raw data available to    
the public upon request without analyzing or summarizing its findings." 

Millions of people living in New Jersey and much of the Northeast are 
breathing a toxic stew of unhealthy air that can increase the chances of 
getting cancer, an extensive analysis of federal government data by The 
Record has found.

With the help of a computer mapping program, The Record analyzed data 
generated by the Environmental Protection Agency, which recently modeled 
the concentrations of 148 hazardous air pollutants throughout the country. 
The analysis turned up several troubling findings, including:

* In some parts of New Jersey, as many as 30 of the 148 chemicals exceed 
the cancer risk. In Bergen and Passaic counties, depending on location, 
between 17 and 21 chemicals exceed the cancer benchmark, with the 
highest concentration of toxic chemicals in the southern sections. In Morris 
County, between 12 and 20 chemicals exceed the benchmark in any one 
location.

* Nine chemicals are in such high concentrations that they are 100 times 
greater than the cancer risk in at least one census tract in New Jersey, and 
13 exceed the cancer risk by more than 50 times.

* In the Northeast, the risk of getting cancer is greatest in places that have 
the highest concentration of people, cars, and industry: Philadelphia, 
Baltimore, Manhattan, and parts of the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn.

* In parts of Camden, Newark, Jersey City, Linden, and Elizabeth, the risks 
are just as high as in the major Northeastern cities. In the rest of New 
Jersey, the risks are also elevated, but they decrease the farther you go from 
the industrial corridor that closely follows the New Jersey Turnpike.

The EPA used a computer model, known as the Cumulative Exposure 
Project, to figure the concentration of the chemicals in every census tract in 
the nation. Census tracts vary in size, but generally include about 4,000 
people.

By itself, the data are nothing more than a collection of numbers. But when 
analyzed, they provide the first look at the extent of the problem of airborne 
toxic agents, a group of chemicals that has received little attention in the 
nation's battle against air pollution.

In many cases, the concentrations of toxic agents far exceed the health 
benchmark -- which is one cancer in a population of 1 million people exposed 
to a particular chemical or group of chemicals in their lifetimes.

Although industry contributes its share to the problem, motor vehicles are a 
major source of some of the worst air pollutants, such as benzene, 
formaldehyde, 1,3 butadiene, and acetylaldehyde. Areas with heavy traffic 
tend to have the highest concentrations of toxic pollutants.

The EPA estimates that 29 percent of the toxic pollutants in New Jersey 
come from motor vehicles.

"I do not feel like people need to be fleeing the cities," said Charissa Rigano, 
a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But it should 
raise awareness that something needs to be done, especially on these 
mobile sources."

Cancer risks

Allthough air pollution elevates the risk of getting cancer, that risk is still 
small compared to other activities, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, or 
eating a diet high in fat.

In one landmark 1981 study, researchers concluded that 35 percent of all 
cancers in the United States could be traced to diet, while 30 percent were 
attributable to smoking. Pollution accounted for 2 percent. The study is 
nearly two decades old, but subsequent research has bolstered its findings. 

"I agree that air pollutants account for a small percentage of cancer," said 
Bernard D. Goldstein, the director of New Jersey's Environmental and 
Occupational Health Sciences Institute in Piscataway. "But we don't know 
the cause of most cancers. We've got to admit our ignorance."

Researchers, for example, don't know the true cumulative impact of breathing 
so many different types of toxic agents.

Nevertheless, toxicologists do their best to estimate the probability that a 
group of people will get cancer from exposure to certain hazards.

For example, if 1 million people were exposed over their lifetimes to a 
chemical or mixture of chemicals posing a cancer risk of one in 1 million, 
then scientists would expect one additional cancer in that population.

The EPA data show that no part of the nation has a zero risk of cancer from 
airborne chemicals. In the Northeast, the cancer risk for 1 million people 
ranges as high as 2,609 in a section of New York City to 29 in upstate New 
York, according to the EPA data.

The one in a million cancer risk from airborne chemicals averages 370 in 
Passaic County and 317 in Bergen County, meaning that there will be 370 
additional people in Passaic and 317 in Bergen who can expect to get 
cancer in a population of 1 million over their lifetimes.

"There's pollution everywhere," said Joann Held, a scientist with the state 
Department of Environmental Protection. "Wherever you have people, you 
have these emissions. It's not like you can say, 'I'll move to Sussex County 
and be safe.' You can't escape it."

Even hibernating indoors won't protect people from air pollutants. Carpeting, 
furniture made with particle board, a gasoline-powered lawnmower sitting 
unused in an attached garage, and old cans of paint stored in the basement 
all emit toxic agents, and at levels that can exceed those found outdoors. 

Lifestyle choices can make the biggest impact. Someone who smokes a 
pack of cigarettes a day will be exposed to 20 to 50 times more benzene, for 
example, than someone breathing even the most tainted outdoor air.

"With smoking, you're dealing with a situation that swamps anything you're 
going to get from outdoor air," Goldstein said.

Sources of emissions

Toxic emissions come from three main sources.

* Motor vehicles and users of internal combustion engines, such as farm and 
construction equipment, lawnmowers, and boats, account for about 38 
percent of the total emissions of toxic chemicals in New Jersey, according to 
the EPA.

Although gasoline and exhaust emissions have become cleaner over the 
years, cars still spew a blend of hazardous chemicals that include benzene, 
formaldehyde, acetylaldehyde, 1,3 butadiene, and polycyclic organic 
compounds.

All the chemicals are either in gasoline or created by burning gasoline, and 
all are carcinogenic. In every part of New Jersey, all but acetylaldehyde 
exceed the acceptable cancer risk of one in a population of 1 million. 
Acetylaldehyde exceeds the cancer benchmark in all of Bergen and most of 
Passaic and Morris counties

* More than half of the toxic pollutants come from what the EPA classifies as 
area sources, which comprise a wide range of categories including small 
unregulated or barely regulated manufacturers, residential heaters, wood-
burning fireplaces, gas stations, and household products such as paint, 
cleaning solvents, and pesticides.

* The smallest share of pollution comes from the major industrial plants that 
many people associate with air pollution. The EPA estimates that only 10 
percent of the toxic agents in New Jersey's air come from so-called point 
sources of pollution, such as large chemical plants, oil refineries, and 
incinerators.

What is being done?

State and federal regulators have done little specifically to decrease toxic 
pollutants. Much of the focus over the years has been on decreasing six so-
called criteria pollutants: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, lead, sulfur 
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. All but ozone now meet the 
federal standards. Among the six criteria pollutants, only lead is a hazardous 
air pollutant.

In an effort to cut ozone levels, regulators since 1990 have been looking to 
cut the levels of volatile organic chemicals in the air. Volatile organics 
evaporate and react with nitrogen dioxide in sunlight to form ground-level 
ozone during the hot summer months.

But because many toxic pollutants are also volatile organics, the efforts to 
cut ozone have had the side benefit of reducing the most hazardous of the 
pollutants, too. Much of the effort has been on cleaning up gasoline and 
tightening emissions standards on cars.

In 1993, the federal government began requiring cleaner-burning diesel fuel. 
The following year, cars were required to meet new federal emissions 
standards. In 1995, gasoline was reformulated to evaporate less and burn 
cleaner.

Last year, the state began requiring gas cap tests at car inspection stations 
to help reduce the escape of benzene vapors from gasoline tanks. In 
December, the state will begin a tougher emissions test. Although the test is 
aimed at reducing nitrogen dioxide emissions, a cleaner burning engine will 
emit less toxic pollution.

Major industrial sources of toxic pollution, such as large chemical plants and 
oil refineries, have been steadily reducing the amount of hazardous air 
pollutants released into the air over the last decade in New Jersey.

The federal government has also begun to crack down on area sources. 
Since 1990, it has enacted a host of new regulations that require a wide 
range of smaller polluters to use advanced pollution controls. The regulations 
affect everything from neighborhood dry cleaners to hospital incinerators to 
the printing and publishing industry.

The regulations, however, are not expected to have much of an impact in 
New Jersey because the state DEP imposed many of the same rules in the 
1980s, Held said.

The state DEP could have reduced toxic agents further by requiring emission 
sources applying for operating permits to do what are known as risk 
assessments. Instead, the risk assessments are voluntary.

"If a company calculates a high risk, they will often find ways to reduce the 
risk," Held said. "Once they quantify the impact on their neighbors, they are 
often motivated to reduce it. However, no one has opted for this voluntary risk 
assessment."

The first step to reducing toxic substances in the years to come is 
understanding where they are and in what amounts. The EPA's model helps, 
but it is only an estimate based on many assumptions that could be wrong. 
In fact, the DEP found some errors in the EPA's data, most significantly in 
Salem County, but not enough to invalidate the overall results of the study. 

Knowing the actual concentrations of the chemicals would be a big help to 
scientists studying the toxic pollution problem. But New Jersey has only one 
air monitor in Camden County, and it measures only 19 of the 148 chemicals 
modeled by the EPA. Of them, only three -- vinyl chloride, 1,3 butadiene, and 
benzene -- are of a major concern in New Jersey.

The EPA has said it intends to add 17 new monitoring stations nationwide 
later this year. The state DEP has announced that it plans to install a new 
monitoring station somewhere in North Jersey.

Beyond increased monitoring, the EPA is proposing tougher emission 
standards for new motor vehicles that, at a minimum, would reduce benzene 
and formaldehyde.

Although car exhaust has become cleaner since 1990, emissions from sport 
utility vehicles have remained essentially unchanged because they were 
exempted. The EPA has proposed including SUVs, but it is facing 
widespread opposition from manufacturers.

The EPA is also planning to impose new requirements on a host of smaller 
emission sources that until now have been mostly free of air pollution 
controls.  

The EPA had originally intended to publish its modeling data in December of 
last year, but it opted not to after complaints from the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors. Instead, the EPA made the raw data available to the public upon 
request without analyzing or summarizing its findings.  

DEP officials initially sought to downplay the data, stressing that the 
numbers were from 1990 and saying that air quality has since improved 
because of cleaner cars, better fuels, and reductions in industrial emissions. 
But since then, the DEP has acknowledged the importance of the EPA's 
model and posted a Web page Friday explaining the toxic pollution problem 
in New Jersey. It can be found at 
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/airtoxics/index.html

The EPA is expected to produce another model later this year based on 
1996 emissions data.

"People involved in risk assessment say, 'It's only one in a million; what's the 
big deal?' If it was your child or your spouse, how would you feel?" said Jeff 
Tittel, executive director of the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter.

"The whole point of this information being released is for the public to know 
what is happening to them so they can demand the proper permitting and 
pollution control equipment and so they don't have to be subject to these 
potential health risks," Tittel said.  

Copyright © 1999 Bergen Record Corp. 

http://www.mapcruzin.com/
For Right-to-Know News, 
free GIS, maps and data,
Community Mapping Resources

Michael R. Meuser
Clary-Meuser Research Associates
GIS and WWW Mapping Application Development
Mapping for Community Right-To-Know
"making data make sense"
meuser@mapcruzin.com