Public Advisory Committee Report
Introduction
On February 25, 1993, Governor Fife Symington signed Executive Order 93-5, which established the Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project (ACERP) and a Project Steering Committee. Shortly thereafter, three Technical Committees were established:
o Ecosystems Technical Committee
o Human Health Technical Committee
o Quality of Life Technical Committee
The three Technical Committees developed initial lists of environmental issues based on previous environmental risk projects done by California, Colorado, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington, and Louisiana. Criteria was also suggested by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Each of the three Technical Committees subsequently developed a list of issues to be examined based on criteria and perspectives specific to the particular Committee, such as air pollution and human health risks. A comprehensive list of all the issues identified by the Committees was then submitted to the ACERP Steering Committee for review.
The Steering Committee revised the list and returned it to the Technical Committees for additional review and discussion. Following that review and discussion, a revised list was forwarded to the Steering Committee for final approval. A December 1993 press release from the Steering Committee identified 14 issues on the final list.
The Technical Committees then researched and ranked these 14 issues according to the risk they pose to Ecosystems, Human Health and Quality of Life in Arizona.
Descriptions of Issues
The following descriptions of the 14 issues include examples of the activities and related pollutants that cause environmental problems. The issues are listed alphabetically.
Accidental Releases
This issue includes contaminants accidentally released during transportation, production, storage and use of materials.
o It includes accidental releases from underground and above ground storage tanks.
o It includes contamination from industrial fires, explosions, and train derailments.
Pollutants include industrial chemicals such as PCBs, acids, ammonia, pesticides, and various petroleum products.
Biological Alteration of Ecosystems
Activities that produce biological alteration of ecosystems include hunting, fishing, illegal collection of sensitive species, predator control, and the introduction of insects, pests and diseases. This includes the introduction and perpetuation of non- native species of flora and fauna, a reduction in biodiversity, and species extinction.
Degradation of the Built and Cultural Environment
This issue refers to cultural losses resulting from human activity and applies to the human population.
It includes the loss of visibility and other impacts on view sheds and landscapes caused by air pollution and built structures. It also includes the loss of unique or significant built and cultural environments such as neighborhoods, rural and sacred areas, and the loss of open spaces. In addition, litter, noise, odor, and light pollution are included in this issue.
Food and Drinking Water Contamination
This issue includes environmental risks posed by food consumption, whether the source of the food is inside or outside of Arizona.
It includes risks posed by drinking water from public and private water systems, either from surface or ground water supplies. The water contamination may occur from source to tap and may occur in bottled water as well. This issue also covers supply and distribution of drinking water.
The issue also includes:
o Biological contaminants such as microbes, viruses, bacteria, protozoans, and pests
o Chemical residues in food such as pesticides, hormones, and drugs
o Irradiation of food
Global Climate Change and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
This issue includes risks to Arizonans from global climate change and the increase in ultraviolet radiation. It includes Arizona's contribution to the depletion of stratospheric ozone and increases in the level of carbon dioxide.
Ground Water
This issue includes ground water contamination from agriculture, sludge application, sewage treatment plants, landfills, hazardous waste sites, injection wells, septic tanks, and other industrial sources. Pollutants include pesticides nitrates, gasoline and various industrial chemicals.
Releases from underground and above ground storage tanks, however, are included in Accidental Releases.
Indoor Air Pollution
This issue includes indoor air pollution at the work place, in public buildings, and in the home. Activities include cooking, heating, use of household chemicals, painting, pesticide application, living in a confined space, demolition and renovation of buildings.
Land and Soil Contamination
This issue includes releases from municipal and industrial solid waste sites, seepage from open and closed landfills, and legal and illegal disposal of household hazardous waste.
It also includes:
o Disposal of medical waste, sludge, and mining waste
o Active, inactive, and abandoned hazardous waste sites
Contaminants may include TCE, lead, toluene, heavy metal, PCBs, other toxic chemicals, microbes (for example, Cocci) and nutrients.
Natural Hazards
This issue includes events that, while natural, have an incidence and severity that may be increased by human activity and management practices. This includes such events as drought, earthquakes, floods, lightning, and wild fires.
Outdoor Air Pollution
This issue includes air pollution caused by automobiles, trucks, trains, airplanes, industry, manufacturing, agricultural activities, timber processing, mining activities, and urban activities such as fireplace smoke.
Air pollutants include fuels, solvents, airborne pesticides, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, ground-level ozone, and airborne metals such as arsenic and lead. Pollutants also include airborne allergens and infectious agents such as pollens, molds, bacterias, and viruses.
Physical Alteration, Fragmentation and Loss of Ecosystems
This issue includes activities such as agriculture, domestic livestock grazing, highway and road construction, energy production, fire suppression, mining activities, timber management, interbasin water transfers, surface water channelization, water diversion, ground water drawdown and subsidence, water impoundments, recreation and urbanization.
Alteration and loss of ecosystems includes the physical removal of soil and vegetation, loss of riparian wildlife habitat as a result of channelization and diversion of natural water courses.
This issue does not include biological and chemical effects on ecosystems, however. They are covered in other issues.
Radiation
This issue includes exposure of workers and the public to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Sources of ionizing radiation are found in the nuclear power fuel cycle, including power plant operation, mining, milling, and processing of uranium fuels, and the disposal and storage of spent nuclear fuels. It includes medical wastes, industrial sources, and low-level radioactive waste.
Sources of non-ionizing radiation include microwave and radio frequencies used in telecommunications, radar, and microwave heating. Other sources are low-frequency electromagnetic fields produced from overhead power lines, consumer products, and solar radiation.
This issue does not include radionuclides in drinking water, which are covered in Food and Water Contamination.
Surface Water Contamination
This issue includes non-point source (indirect) contamination such as agricultural runoff, urban storm water runoff, energy production, construction, timber harvesting, wood processing, mining, domestic livestock grazing, and runoff from hazardous waste sites. Pollutants from non-point sources include pesticides, nutrients, sediment, fecal material, petroleum-based chemicals, and temperature changes.
Also included is point source (direct) discharge from sewage treatment plants, mines, manufacturing, and industrial facilities. Pollutants from point sources include sewage, ammonia, chlorine by-products, metals and nutrients.
Workplace and Consumer Exposure to Hazardous Materials
This issue includes consumer exposure to hazardous materials in the home such as lead paint dust, paint thinner, cleansers, and asbestos. It also includes on-the-job exposure to toxic chemicals, both inhaled and absorbed through the skin. Risk from pesticide applications to farm workers, applicators within buildings, home users, and bystanders are also included. Pollutants include lead, pesticides and solvents.
This issue does not include exposure to radioactive materials, which is covered under the Radiation category.
ACERP Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
The ACERP Public Advisory Committee (PAC) was composed of representatives from a broad range of stakeholders directly involved in issues surrounding Arizona's environment, as well as members of the ACERP Steering Committee.
Formed in July 1994, this Committee was charged with developing the final ranking of the 14 stressors, utilizing information from the Technical Committee reports and the Public Values Assessment.
In addition, a series of ACERP Open Houses were held statewide at the following locations:
o Graham County/Safford (March 22, 1994)
o Yuma (March 27, 1994)
o Flagstaff (March 29, 1994)
o Kingman (April 6, 1994)
o Douglas (April 8, 1994)
o Prescott (April 11, 1994)
o Tucson (April 12, 1994)
o Phoenix (April 21, 1994)
The comments of the attendees were passed on to the PAC. For a full description of the Open House comments, see ACERP 1995, Section 5: Public Comments.
The Public Advisory Committee met at regular intervals during what proved to be an intense year of reviewing presentations from members of the three Technical Committees, listening to public comments offered at each of their meetings, in addition to reading and discussing a wide array of information.
For the Public Advisory Committee, the ACERP process culminated on May 15, 1995, with the final ranking of 14 environmental issues.
Comparative risk rankings at the state and local levels have traditionally relied on negotiated consensus or an open voting approach to making decisions. After considering the pros and cons of these traditional tools, ACERP PAC members opted for a new tack using a computerized polling system developed by Dames and Moore, an environmental consulting firm.
By using a series of pair-wise comparisons, PAC members systematically considered whether the risks from one issue were either slightly, moderately, or significantly higher than then risks posed by the other issue. To accomplish this lengthy list of comparisons, PAC members were instructed in how to vote using their own individual electronic voting box. Results were tabulated instantly and displayed for the PAC to review. Unlike verbal or visual voting systems used in other comparative risk projects, this system assured PAC participant anonymity. The voting could then be instantaneously processed and results discussed.
The final ranking of the issues by the ACERP Public Advisory Committee follows. With the exception of Outdoor Air Quality, the issues were ranked fairly closely within the categories of High, Medium and Low Risk.
FINAL RANKING RESULTS
The following represents the final ranking of the 14 environmental issues by the Public Advisory Committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Very High | High | Medium | Low | ================================================================================================== | Outdoor air quality | Degradation of the | Biological alteration | Accidental releases | | | built and cultural | of ecosystems | | | | environment | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Ground water | Food and water | Global climate | | | contamination | contamination | change and | | | | | stratospheric ozone | | | | | depletion | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Physical alteration | Indoor air quality | Natural hazards | | | of ecosystems | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Land and soil | Radiation | | | | contamination | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Surface water | Workplace and | | | | contamination | consumer | | | | | exposure to | | | | | hazardous materials | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent of disparity in voting among PAC members was strongest surrounding third-ranked Physical alteration of ecosystems and sixth-ranked Food and water contamination. Perhaps surprisingly, disagreement was also high surrounding the tenth-ranked stressor, Workplace and consumer exposure to hazardous materials and twelfth-ranked Accidental releases.
Very little disparity surrounded the voting on Natural hazards or Radiation, ranked 13th and 14th, respectively.
Speaking to the members of the Public Advisory Committee immediately before they began their ranking, Edward Z. Fox, Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, acknowledged the difficult task taken on by the group and expressed his appreciation:
I'd like to thank you all on behalf of the Governor's Office, for completing a very long and tedious process and for the large sacrifice that you all made to help the State of Arizona try to put together a plan, a package, a prioritization of environmental issues. We started this process over two years ago with the idea that we could bring together all the various stakeholders from around the state to try and identify the various environmental concerns which impact our quality of life and in doing that try to establish a of baseline of information that we all can work from.
There are many products that will result from this process. One is baseline data and information from the scientific community and information about public values which we've never had in Arizona.That in and of itself is a valuable product for the state. We can begin meaningful discussions about what we should do with the information with regard to environmental protection, how we go about environmental protection, and what we should focus on with regard to environmental protection. But more importantly, we will have also gained from this process a knowledge of the stakeholders' opinions about the scientific data, about their values associated with the scientific data.
Now that we've completed the process, it doesn't mean that everybody will walk out of this ranking session as if it happened just the way they wanted it to happen. But we ought to walk out of here knowing that we took part in very democratic process. We took part in a process which allowed everybody's voice to be heard. And we took part in a process that allowed everybody to bring information and data to the table for consideration. That's a process of critical importance to a society. In many respects, this process has been missing in setting the environmental agenda in this country and in this state for over the last ten or more years. It's been a process that has been dominated by lobbyists and whoever had the loudest voice at any particular time in Congress and the Legislature. But it's in this kind of open democratic process where we bring the stakeholders together and we bring the available data together and where we can make conscious and collective decisions that are going to allow us to move forward with setting an environmental protection agenda that makes sense, that protects our public health, our environment, and that makes sense for our economy.