Environmental impact on human health in
russia: risk assessment approach
S.L.Avaliani
Traditionally in Russia environmental regulation
to ensure health safety was based on a set of hygienic
norms or guidelines. These guidelines are based on toxicologic
and epidemiologic studies and indicate the maximum environmental
levels, considered acceptable in order to protect human
health. Nevertheless, individual susceptibility to pollution
varies, so some persons may still experience adverse
health effects at levels below the maximum recommended
levels. Moreover, in many areas of the Russian Federation
these levels are frequently exceeded, in some places
by as much as several times the guideline levels, and
actions to reduce human exposure may be difficult or
very costly. Adverse impacts on human health may thus
be expected to continue in these areas. In such cases,
analysis of health and environment data provides a valuable
tool for obtaining estimates of the health impact of
pollution, which can be used to set priorities for action.
Unfortunately quantitative methods of assessment of
health damage were not widely used in Russia. This creates
a barrier to formulation of environmentally - sound
health policies. In Russia, health professionals have
been little or inadequately involved in environmental
management, and decisions involving human health may
sometimes be taken without their involvement.
Environmental health research and management
both require multidisciplinary approaches. U.S. experience
shows that implementation of risk assessment and risk
management methodology in environmental decision-making
process has been very successful. This methodology has
been extensively tested in Russia over the last several
years, in collaboration with american colleagues and
U.S.AID financial support. The results of regional risk
assessment studies which have taken place in more than
20 regions of Russia over the last 7 years in the framework
of HIID's NIS Environmental Economics and Policy Project
with financial support from U.S.AID (1995-1998) and
other follow-up projects (ROLL program, 1998-2002) demonstrated
advantages of environmental risk regulation for policy
makers.
As a result of these projects, about 20
comprehensive, community-based risk assessments with
cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis and policy
recommendations have been completed (Volgograd, Novokuznetsk,
Angarsk, Perm, V.Novgorod, Krasnouralsk, Samara region,
Moscow oblast, and others).
In this study principal task was to select
a short-list of priority pollutants, which are typical
for Russia. On the other hand, these substances must
have clearly documented dose-response relationships
that can also be used to estimate the expected incidence
of adverse health effects. Risk assessment analysis
was carried out separately for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
hazardous effects.
Considering a number of pollutants generate
multiple and sometimes not comparable risks, it was
decided in these analysis to focus on two types of health
risks affecting the general population of Russia: excess
risk of cancer; excess mortality risk from inhalable
particulates (PM10 fraction of TSP); excess morbidity
risks from several substances when such estimates can
also be used to estimate the expected incidence of adverse
health effects (nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, lead, etc.).
In this study we used data on concentrations
of pollutants in atmosphere, which were obtained under
the regional risk assessment studies. The concentrations
were modeled on the basis of some dispersion models
and verified according to official statistics on monitored
concentrations of the basic pollutants by State Committee
on Environmental Protection.
There are several sources of uncertainty
in the Russia study. Some of these sources are inherent
in the risk assessment process, while others are specific
to the data, methodology and other conditions used in
this study.
For example, regarding exposure and demographic factors,
only ambient exposures have been considered. Human mobility
patterns and indoor/outdoor differences in exposures
may bias the results differently depending on age, residence
location, building characteristics, and occupational
and personal characteristics.
Regarding basic data, emissions estimates
used in the analysis are rather uncertain. Given existing
environmental policy requirements in Russia, only estimates
of maximum emissions based on engineering estimates
are directly available, and no distribution of emissions
is available. In most cases, there is no way to verify
the accuracy or completeness of the emissions inventory.
Since enterprises pay penalty charges for exceeding
their annual emission limits, there may be some incentive
to underreport emission levels. Unfortunately, sometimes
the information available on emissions of most hazardous
chemicals is incomplete. For instance, data on emissions
of such carcinogenic chemicals as chromium-6, arsenic,
1,3-butadiene, vinyl chloride, acetaldehyde, and some
others are lacking although their concentrations are
monitored by the state authorities.
Conclusions:
- As to the results of health risk assessment studies
and separate epidemiological estimates, the most risk
to human health in Russia is related to the criteria
pollutants, such as TSP (PM10 fraction), and NO2.
However SO2 pollution is special only for some Russian
towns. Also important are carcinogenic pollutants,
including formaldehyde, benzene, soot, vinyl chloride,
arsenic, cadmium, nickel, benz(a)pyrene, 1,3-butadiene,
etc. Higher concentrations of these pollutants in
the environment contribute to increasing number of
oncological diseases.
The most important water pollutants include chlororganics
(chloroform, etc.) arsenic, vinilchloride, and lead
compounds, etc.
- Level of individual carcinogenic risk in most big
cities of Russia from exposure to air and water pollutants
is of the order of 10-4, the most polluted areas and
large cities with population over one million are
characterized by the risk levels of nearly 10-3. In
some extremely polluted areas ("zones of emergency
ecological situation") the risk may achieve 8
x 10-3. For example, this risk was observed in the
city of Novokuibyshevsk.
- In Moscow, recently we studied the impact of pollution
from mobile sources on population of 3 million in
central part of Moscow city. It included carcinogenic
risk assessment for 12 carcinogens typical for car
exhaust gases. As a result, we derived individual
carcinogenic risk contours displayed on maps as lines
of constant individual risk: the risk varies from
1.2 x 10-3 in some areas downtown to 1.1 x 10-4 on
the periphery. The expected number of additional cancers
per year only from mobile sources is 15 cases for
3 million people who live in the central part of the
city.
- Additional mortalities related to PM10 in the air
vary from 22,000 to 45,000 annually for all Russian
Federation, which is comparable to other countries'
estimates.
- In the context of the above said, Russia has to
address the following major issues:
- Criteria and procedures to quantify, monitor and
evaluate environmental and health damage should be
further developed and implemented;
- Complex assessment of human health risks from pollution
of the environment;
- Identification of the environmental policy priorities
on the basis of human health risk assessment;
- Determination of possibilities for increasing both
environmental and economic effectiveness of policy
measures.
References:
The Economics of Air Pollution Health Risks in Russia:
A Case-study of Volgograd // World Development, 1999,
Vol.27, No 10, pp.1803-1819 ( B.Larson, S.Avaliani,
J.Vincent, S.Rosen, A.Golub et al).
Assessing chronic health risks from stationary source
air emissions in Volgograd, Russia // "Environment,
Health and Policy Aspects".
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999 (B. N. Filatov, S.
Wolff, B. Larson, et al)
|
