Status of Cumulative Environmental Impact Methods Development in New Jersey Steve Anderson
description
Transcript of Status of Cumulative Environmental Impact Methods Development in New Jersey Steve Anderson
New Jersey Clean Air Council Public Hearing
The Cumulative Health Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants on Sensitive
Subpopulations and the General Public
Status of Cumulative Environmental Impact Methods Development in New Jersey
Steve Anderson
April 13, 2011
2
Outline
• History/Background:– What question is the method designed to
answer?
• Other similar research
• Brief description of current draft method with results
3
History/BackgroundDate Action Key Issues
February 2002
NJDEP Proposed Environmental Equity Rule
-Enhanced public participation in permit process-Screening model used to estimate future impacts
January 2004 NJ Governor Executive Order 96 -Established petition process for communities to self identify-Re-created EJAC
February 2009
NJ Governor Executive Order 131 -Created current EJAC-DEP will review EJAC recommendations for policy and regulatory to consider and incorporate cumulative impacts into its decision-making
March 2009 EJAC Report and Recommendations on Cumulative Impacts
- Recommend DEP develop a screening tool to identify “vulnerable and burdened” communities to help guide various policies and actions
July 2009 NJDEP response to EJACs Recommendations
DEP has developed a preliminary geographic information system-based screening tool
December 2009
NJDEP Posts Current Method on web
After EJAC public meeting and request for comments on method
March 2010 DEP Presentation at EPA Symposium In Washington DC
DEP on panel with EPA and California staff developing similar methods
June 2010 Ironbound Community Corp. EPA CARE Grant
DEP approves ICC to use draft method on a pilot basis as part of grant activities
October 2010 DEP Presentation to NJ Science Advisory Board
Brief Introduction of the method
4
Background
What the Cumulative Impact Method Is
What the Method is NOT
A state-wide screening approach A facility-specific or community level risk analysis
Uses simple indicators of multiple environmental hazards to estimate overall “impact” or “burden”
A scientific risk assessment that quantifies probability that damage to life, health, and/or the environment will occur as a result multiple hazards (e.g. one chance in a hundred)
Compares relative impacts of different geographic areas
Calculates absolute risk to compare to health based standards
“Bias for action” Caution and certainty
5
Methods: Indicators
• Categories of indicators1) Environmental/exposure
- Air exposures, Traffic, contaminated sites,
2) Social/vulnerability- Environmental Justice (race, income)
3) Public health- Asthma, low birth weight
• Current NJDEP method focuses on Environmental Indicators
– We compare environmental to other indicators (correlation)– EPA and other states combine with social, and public health
6
Other similar methods
• EPA Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT)– Only used internally
• Faber (Northeastern University) “Unequal Exposure”
• California EPA report: Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation (Dec 2010)
7
EPA EJ SEAT Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool
8
Faber (Northeastern University) “Unequal Exposure
9
California EPA
10
Outline of NJDEP ApproachIdentify separate “indicators”
Quantify indicators separately at small geographic scale using GIS
Assess options for combining, weighing or aggregating indicators
Analyze/correlate with other variables
“Scale Up” to larger geographic areas
11
Current NJDEP IndicatorsIndicator Data source Original
Geographic ScaleOriginal Units
NATA cancer risk (1999)
EPA data Census tract Risk per million
NATA diesel (1999) EPA data Census tract Ug/m3
NJDEP Benzene estimate
DEP emission inventory
100 meter grid Ug/m3
Traffic All Congestion Management System
1000 foot buffer Traffic Counts all vehicles
Traffic trucks Congestion Management System
1000 foot buffer Traffic Counts heavy trucks
Density of Major Regulated sites
DEP NJEMS data 100 meter grid Sites per acre
Density of Known Contaminated
DEP SRP data 100 meter grid Sites per acre
Density of Dry Cleaners
DEP GIS data 100 meter grid Sites per acre
Density of Junkyards DEP NJEMS data 100 meter grid Sites per acre
12
Methods: Indicator Quantification• Create 100 meter grid rasters using consistent statewide grid• Calculate statistical z-score for each indicator and grid
– Z score = (value-mean)/standard deviation• Eliminate outliers, z-score >3 are assigned a score of 3
– This impacts less than 0.5% of grids
• Two options used to combine indicators:
– Option 1: Sum all z-scores in each grid • Maximum score of 27 (9 indicators) * (3 max z score)• Quantifies how all indicators impact one area• One or two high indicators can drive results
– Option 2: Count each grid with a z score greater than 1• Maximum score of 9 (9 indicators) * (1 count if z >1 )• Focuses more on higher scores• Highlights areas with multiple high indicators
13
DRAFT Results Option 2: Count of all scores >1
Legend
Grid Impact Count Method
VALUE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Counties±0 210,000 420,000105,000 Feet
For Illustration Purposes Only
14
NJ Census Data for Percent Minority
•10 cut points
• Natural breaks
Legend
Counties
Block Groups
Percent Minority
0.00 - 0.07
0.08 - 0.12
0.13 - 0.19
0.20 - 0.28
0.29 - 0.38
0.39 - 0.50
0.51 - 0.63
0.64 - 0.78
0.79 - 0.90
0.91 - 1.00
±0 210,000 420,000105,000 Feet
For Illustration Purposes Only
15
Relationship between Cumulative Impact and Social/Economic Indicators
Figure 1: Relationship Between Cumulative Impact and Percent Minority
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
<0.10 0.10 to0.20
0.20 to0.30
0.30 to0.40
0.40 to0.50
0.50 to0.60
0.60 to0.70
0.70 to0.80
0.80 to0.90
>0.90
Percent Minority
Mean
Co
un
t >
1
•Grouped all block groups based on percent minority and poverty
• Calculated average cumulative impact score for combined groups
• Cumulative impact scores increase steadily with increasing percent minority and poverty
Figure 2: Relationship Between Cumulative Impact and Poverty
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
< 2.5 2.5 to5
5 to7.5
7.5 to10
10 to12.5
12.5to 15
15 to17.5
17.5to 20
20 to25
>25
Percent Poverty
Mean
Co
un
t >
1
16
Work Needed• Updates/improvements to existing indicators
– Example….NATA 2005 results for diesel particulate
2005 Estimated Concentrations in New Jersey
Diesel Particulate Risk
Maximum average census tract concentration is 7.9 ug/m3, or
2379 times the health benchmarkHealth Benchmark = 0.0033 ug/m3
Source Contribution
Point - 0%Nonpoint - 0%On-Road - 47%Nonroad - 53%
Background - 0%Secondary - 0%
1000 - 2400 times benchmark
Under 10 times benchmark
10 - 50 times benchmark
50 - 100 times benchmark
100 - 1000 times benchmark
NJDEP - BTS
Risk Benchmark = 1 in a million
17
2005 Estimated Concentrations in New Jersey
Nonroad Diesel Risk
Maximum average census tractconcentration is 6.71 ug/m3, or
2033 times the health benchmark.Health Benchmark = 0.0033 ug/m3
NJDEP - BTS
Under 10 times benchmark
10 - 50 times benchmark
50 - 100 times benchmark
100 - 1000 times benchmark
1000 - 2100 times benchmark
Risk Benchmark = 1 in a million
18
2005 Estimated Concentrations in New Jersey
Onroad Diesel Risk
Maximum average census tractconcentration is 3.35 ug/m3, or
1015 times the health benchmark.Health Benchmark = 0.0033 ug/m3
NJDEP - BTS
1000 - 2100 times benchmark
Under 10 times benchmark
10 - 50 times benchmark
50 - 100 times benchmark
100 - 1000 times benchmark
Risk Benchmark = 1 in a million
19
Work Needed
• Potential new environmental indicators (Environmental Public Health Tracking)– Drinking Water (Community water systems and Private Well Testing)– Ambient Water Monitoring– SRP soil and groundwater contamination data/RPS?– Ambient Air Monitoring/CMAQ– Radon, Radiation– Facility Release/Emission data– Modeled areas “impacted” where possible to replace where data is
currently release point– Communication/Provide “context” to data
• Vulnerability and Health data– Working with DHSS
• Stakeholder Input