1. 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. 2 Outline History/Background: –What question is the method designed to answer? Other similar research Brief description of current draft method with results

3. 3 History/Background DateActionKey Issues February 2002NJDEP Proposed Environmental Equity Rule -Enhanced public participation in permit process -Screening model used to estimate future impacts January 2004NJ Governor Executive Order 96-Established petition process for communities to self identify -Re-created EJAC February 2009NJ 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 2009EJAC 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 2009NJDEP response to EJACs Recommendations DEP has developed a preliminary geographic information system-based screening tool December 2009 NJDEP Posts Current Method on webAfter EJAC public meeting and request for comments on method March 2010DEP Presentation at EPA Symposium In Washington DC DEP on panel with EPA and California staff developing similar methods June 2010Ironbound Community Corp. EPA CARE Grant DEP approves ICC to use draft method on a pilot basis as part of grant activities October 2010DEP Presentation to NJ Science Advisory Board Brief Introduction of the method

4. 4 Background What the Cumulative Impact Method Is What the Method is NOT A state-wide screening approachA 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 actionCaution and certainty

5. 5 Methods: Indicators Categories of indicators 1)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. 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. 7 EPA EJ SEAT Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool

8. 8 Faber (Northeastern University) Unequal Exposure

9. 9 California EPA

10. 10 Outline of NJDEP Approach Identify 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. 11 Current NJDEP Indicators IndicatorData sourceOriginal Geographic Scale Original Units NATA cancer risk (1999) EPA dataCensus tractRisk per million NATA diesel (1999)EPA dataCensus tractUg/m3 NJDEP Benzene estimate DEP emission inventory 100 meter gridUg/m3 Traffic AllCongestion Management System 1000 foot bufferTraffic Counts all vehicles Traffic trucksCongestion Management System 1000 foot bufferTraffic Counts heavy trucks Density of Major Regulated sites DEP NJEMS data100 meter gridSites per acre Density of Known Contaminated DEP SRP data100 meter gridSites per acre Density of Dry Cleaners DEP GIS data100 meter gridSites per acre Density of JunkyardsDEP NJEMS data100 meter gridSites per acre

12. 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. 13 DRAFT Results Option 2: Count of all scores >1

14. 14 NJ Census Data for Percent Minority 10 cut points Natural breaks

15. 15 Relationship between Cumulative Impact and Social/Economic Indicators 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

16. 16 Work Needed Updates/improvements to existing indicators –Example….NATA 2005 results for diesel particulate

17. 17

18. 18

19. 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