Development of a Right-to-Know Website presenting Estimated Cancer Risks for Air Emissions of...

Development of a Right-to-Know Website presentingEstimated Cancer Risks for Air Emissions of Industrial Facilities

Ad M.J. Ragas1, Mark A.J. Huijbregts1, Eric H. van Kaathoven2,Johan H. Wolsink2 and Jeroen Wemmenhove3

1Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands2Gelderse Milieufederatie, Arhem, The Netherlands

3KamKonsult, Arnhem, The Netherlands

DisclosureAimMethods & DataWebsiteResponsesLessons

Right-to-Know website

Public Disclosure of Environmental Information

• USA: Community Right-to-Know Act (1986)

• EU: Aarhus Convention (1998)

• Motives:

o Public has the Right-to-Know

o Stimulates Environmental Performance



Examples of Public Disclosure Programs

USEPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI; 1987):

• emission data• 23,675 facilities• ± 650 substances• ZIP code access




EU’s EPER (2001):

• emission data• 9,124 facilities• ± 50 substances• map-based access




US Scorecard (1998):

•TRI emission data•ZIP code & map-based

access•emissions &

installations prioritised based toxicity




Friesland Risk Map (2001):

•explosion & accident risks• industrial installations,

transport activities & vulnerable objects

•map-based access



HypothesisData about industrial emissions can be disclosed to the general public in a more meaningful way, i.e. in terms of location-specific risks.

AimDemonstrate the potential usefulness of a publicly accessible website that quantifies the location-specific extra cancer risk due to air emissions of local industrial installations.

Parties Involved• Environmental NGO (initiative)• University (scientific work)• SME (website)• Ministry of Environment (funding)



Methods & Data

1. Selection of Case Study Areas*

2. Selection of Carcinogenic Substances

3. Carcinogenic Potency Factors

4. Emission & Stack Data*

5. Dispersion Calculations

6. Location-Specific Risk per Substance

7. Location-Specific Cumulative Risk*

8. Interpretation Framework*



Case Study Areas

Rijnmond Rotterdam:• 20 x 20 km• 15 facilities• petrochemical industry

Nijmegen West:• 10 x 10 km• 14 facilities• unrest cancer incidence

IJmond:• 10 x 10 km• 7 facilities• iron melting plant



Emission Data

• 18 Carcinogenic Substances selected

• Emission Data gathered fromo Dutch Emission Registrationo Permits and Annual Reportso Government Agencieso Industrial Facilities

• Data Gathering & Quality Check was a Hell of a Job!



18i

1i

ii,LtotalL

URFCR

70RL = total annual cancer risk on location LCL,i = concentration of substance i on location LURFi = unit risk factor (lifetime cancer risk for 1 μg/m3)70 = life expectancy

Cumulative Risk



Risk Maps

NV Afvalverwerking Rijnmond

DSM Special Products Rotterdam BV

Air Products BV (Botlek)

Shin Etsu BV

AKZO Nobel Chemical BV

VOPAK BotlekOdfjell

Aluminium & Chemie Rotterdam BV

Shell Nederland Chemie BV - Botlek

Shell Nederland Raffinaderijen BV

Exxon

1-2 in 10 million

2-3 in 10 million

3-4 in 10 million

4-5 in 10 million

5-6 in 10 million

6-7 in 10 million

Yearly Risk



Interpretation Framework

• Comparison with Dutch Risk Standards

• Comparison with Background Risk:• Rural Area• City Area• City Area near busy Traffic Road

• Comparison with Common Risks, e.g.• Smoking• Car Accident• Hit by Lightning

• Extensive Overview of Uncertainties



Calculated Yearly Cancer Risks

• IJmond: 1.9 to 56·10-8

• Rijnmond: 1.3 to 83·10-8

• Nijmegen: 1.6 to 71·10-9

Reference values

• Dutch maximum standard: 1·10-5

• Dutch long term aim: 1·10-7

• Background Risk City Area: 2.5·10-6



Website: www.rechtomteweten.nl



Responses

• Visits:o 1st month: 33,000 visitso 5 months: 77,000 visitso current demo: 100 visits/day

• Media response: newspapers, radio, TV

• Mentioned in Dutch parliament

• Fierce discussion between opponents and proponents on website forum

• No obvious unrest among general public!



Lessons Learned

• Right-to-Know is a political issue

• Risk information triggers fierce debate but does not cause obvious unrest

• Risk comparisons are used in debates

• Initiative should be extended & adopted by government or independent body

• Strict guidelines for maintenance of emission data required

• Additional risk communication & perception research is required



Questions



How to present risks?

Development of a Right-to-Know Website presenting Estimated Cancer Risks for Air Emissions of...

Documents

Transcript of Development of a Right-to-Know Website presenting Estimated Cancer Risks for Air Emissions of...