# Risk and Technology Review **-**

**Analysis of Socio -**  **Economic Factors for Populations Living Near**  **Wool Fiberglass Facilities** 
Prepared b y: EC/R Incorporated 501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
EPA Contract No. EP
- D
- 06
- 119 Work Assignment No. 4
- 0 1 Prepared for: Regina Chappell , Work Assignment Manager Community

and Tribal Programs Group Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27 711

August 17 , 2 01 1

### ii 

## Disclaimer Although the anal ys is described in this document has been funded wholly or in part by

the United States Environmental Protection Agency contract EP
- D
- 06
- 119 to EC/R Incorporated, it has not been subject to the Agency 's review and therefore does not necessarily

reflect the views of the Agency , and no official endorsement should be inferred.

### iii 

# Contents

1. Introduction 1 2
. Census Data 2 3. Calculation Methods 4 3.1 Racial, Ethnic and Age Categories and the Total Population 4 3.2 Level of Education 5 3.3 Household Income 6 3.4 Poverty

L evel 7 3.5 Disability 7 3.6 Linguistic Isolation 8 4. Results 8 5. Uncertaint y Discussion 10 Appendix A A
- 1

### iv

### 1



# 1. **Intr oduction** 
This document describes the approach used to evaluate th e potential cancer risks associated with inhalation and air
- related exposures to hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in different social, demographic , and economic groups within the population living near wool fiberglass manufacturing facili t ies in the United S tates . This work was carried out in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ’s Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for wool fiberglass manufacturing emissions subject to Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) requirements under 40 CF R 63 Subpart NNN
. In the RTR anal ys is, the Human Exposure Model, Version 3 ( HEM
- 3 ) 1 , 2 

### was used to estimate cancer risks due to the inhalation of HAP for the populations residing within 50 kilometers of each wool fiberglass facility in the country
. HEM
- 3 estimates cancer risks at the level of census blocks using the AERMOD state
- of
- the
- art air dispersion model developed under the direction of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) / EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMI C). Each census bl ock ty picall y includes about 50 people. Additional information on the risk anal ys is is available in the docket for the proposed **National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:**  **Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing**  **Operations** rulemaking wh ere a report is provided , covering the inputs and specific assumptions, and addressing uncertainties. In the current anal ys is, cancer risk estimates from the wool fiberglass HEM
- 3 modeling effort were linked to detailed census data in order to evaluate the dis tribution of risks for different demographic groups (including racial, ethnic, age, economic , educational , disab led and linguistically

isolated population categories) . The following population categories were included in this analy sis :  Total population  Wh ite  Minority  African American (or Black)  Native Americans  Other races and multiracial  Hispanic or Latino  Children 18 y ears of age and under  Adults 19 to 64 y ears of age  Adults 65 y ears of age and over 1
. EC/R. 2006. Modeling for the Residual Risk and Technology Review Using the Human Exposure Model 3

– AERMOD Version. Prepared by EC/R Incorporated for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 2
. EC/R. 2008. HEM
- 3 User’s Guide. Prepared by EC/R Incorporated for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/human_hem.html#guide

### 2

 Adults without a high school diploma  Households earnin g under the national median income  People living below the poverty line  Working aged people (16
- 64) with a disability  Linguisticall y isolated people The HEM
- 3 results for a particular census block reflect the estimated level of cancer risk that would be ex perienced b y an individual residing in the block for 70 ye ars. In this analy sis, the demographic composition of the population estimated to experience a risk greater than 1 in 1 million as a result of wool fiberglass manufacturing emissions is compared to the demographic composition of the overall nationwide population
. The census data used in this analy sis is described in Section 2. The algorithms used to compute the distributions of risk and exposure are presented in Section 3. The results of this ana ly sis are presented in Section 4. 

# 2. **Census Data** Table 1 summarizes the census data used in this analy sis, showing the source of each dataset and the level of geographic resolution. All of the data are from the 2000 Decennial census. Race , ethnicity an d age data were obtained at the census block level. Distributions regarding educational status, poverty status, household income , disabilities and linguistic isolation were obtained at the block group level. A census block contains about 50 people on ave rage; and a block group contains about 26 blocks on average, or about 1,350 people. (For comparison, a census tract is larger than a block group, with each tract containing an average of 3 block groups, or about 4,300 people.) Table 1. Summary

of Census Data used to Anal yz e Risks for Different Socio
economic Groups Ty pe of population category Source of data Level of geographic resolution Racial and ethnic categories Landview ® Census block Age groups SF 1 Table P 12 Census block Level of education
- a du lts without a high school diploma SF3 Table 37 Block group Households earning below the national median income SF3 Table 52 Block group People living below the poverty line SF3 Table P87 Block group Working a ge p eople (16
- 64) with a d isabilit y SF3 Table P42 Block group Linguisticall y i solated p eople SF3 Table P20 Block group

### 3

Data on race and ethnicity were obtained primarily

from the Landview ® database compiled by

the Census Department. 3 

### Landview ® gives a breakdown for the population of each c ensus block among different racial classifications, including: White, African American or Black, American Indian or Native Alaskan, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other South Pacific Islander, other race, and two or more races. In the current anal ys is, the Asi an, Native Hawaiian or other South Pacific Islander, and other race categories were combined into a single category
. The Landview ® database also indicates the number of people in each tract that are of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity . Landview ® covers the 5 0 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, but does not cover the Virgin Islands. Race and ethnicity data on the Virgin I slands were obtained from the Virgin Islands Summary File. 4 

### Data on age distributions in the U.S. and Puerto Rico for each census block were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1 (SF1) Short Form , Table P12
. Data on poverty status, household income, education level , disabilities and linguistic isolation for each block group in the U.S. and Pu erto Rico were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3 (SF3) L ong Form. For the U.S. this file was accessed on a DVD version prepared b y Geo Lytics. 5 

### SF3 data for Puerto Rico were obtained from the Census Department website, 6 

### and d ata for the Virgin Islands were retrieved from similar tables in the Virgin I slands Summary File. 4 

### The SF3 data set consist s of over 800 separate tables , each providing information on a different subject. For the current anal ys is, data were obt ained from Table s P20, P37, P42, P52, and P87. Table P37 analyzes the level of education attained by men and women over 25 ye ars of age (e.g. some high school but no high school diploma, high school graduate, some college, etc.) in each block group . Tabl e P52 gives information on household income in 1999
. Table P87 estimates the number of people living below the poverty line in each block group. Table P42 estimates the number of people in different age categories with disabilities in each block group. And Table P20 estimates the fraction of households in each block group that are considered linguistically

isolated.

3
. Census. 2002 . LandView 5 on DVD [electronic resource] : a viewer for EPA , Census and USGS data and maps . U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. 4
. Censu s. 2008. Virgin Islands Summary File. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. www.factfinder.census.gov 5
. Census. 2004 . Census DVD 2000 Long Form SF3, Release 2.2. Geolytics, Inc. , East Brunswick, NJ. www.geolytics.com 6
. Census. 2008. SF3 Data for Puerto Rico. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. www.factfinder.census.gov

### 4



# 3. **C alculation Methods**  T he HEM
- 3 models the cancer and noncancer risk at a point near the geographic center of each census block. 7 

### For the current anal ys is, this risk estimate was assumed to apply to all individuals residing in the block. We used b lock identification code s to link the HEM
- 3 modeling results for each block to the appropriate census statistics. This allowed us to estimate the numbers of people falling into different population categories within each block. We then anal yz ed the distribution of estimated inhalation risks within each population category, giv en the numbers of people within the category that are exposed to dif

ferent risk levels. Each distribution involved a tabulation of all the census blocks modeled for the wool fiberglass source category . W e also computed the average risk for all individuals in each population category
. Distributions of risk and average risks were computed for the raw HEM
- 3 model results for wool fiberglass operations . For comparison, the nationwide demographic composition (i.e., population percentage in each demographic group for the country as a whole, based on the 2000 Census ) is als o provided in the results table
. Section 3.1 describe s the calculation method used for categories where block
- level data were available

– racial , ethnic and age categories and the total population. Sections 3.2 through 3. 6 describe calculation methods for education status, household income, povert y status, disability and linguistic isolation, respectivel y. 

### 3.1 **Racial ,**  **Ethnic and Age**  **Categorie s and the Total Population**  Since race , ethnicit y and age data are available at the census block level, the calcu lation of risk distributions for these categories involved a simple block
- by
- block accumulation of the people in each category . We began by identifying a set of bins reflecting the level of risk. The population of each block was then assigned to the appr opriate risk bin based on the modeled risk level in the block. The numbers of people in each risk bin were then added together for all of the blocks modeled for the wool fiberglass source category : H(R ab 

### ,s ) = ∑ i (Ra≤Ri<Rb) 

### [ N (s ,i ) ] (1) where: H(R ab 

### ,s ) = the population count for risk bin R ab 

### , which is between R a 

### and R b 

### for population subgroup “s” R i 

### = the modeled risk level in block “í” (estimated lifetime cases of cancer per million population) ∑ i (Ra ≤Ri<Rb) 

### refers to the summation over all blocks i where R i 

### falls in bin R ab 

### , between R a



### and R b 

### N(s ,i ) = the number of people within population subc ategory s , in block i

7. HEM
- 3 generally uses the coordina tes given by the census for the internal point, or “centroid” of each block. How ever, when the footprint of an industrial facility includes the block centroid, the model is designed to identify the highest
- risk point outside of the facility’s footprint.

### 5

The same approach was used for the total population. The average risk for a given populati on category or for the total population was then calculated using the following equation:

A(S) = ∑ i 

### [N(s,i) × R i 

### ] ⁄ ∑ i 

### [N(s,i)] (2) where: A(s) = the average risk for population subgroup “s” (estimated lifetime cases of cancer

per million population) ∑ i 

### refers to the summation over all blocks “í” modeled for the emission source category N (s,i) and R i 

### were defined above 

### 3.2 **Level of Education** Table P37 of the SF3 dataset specifies the education status for men and women age 25 and older for each census block group , based on the last grade completed. To obtain the total number of adults with out a high school degree, we added together the numbers who had completed grades below a high school senior. Thus, the number of people without a high school degree equals the sum of the number of males with no schooling, the number of females with no sch ooling, the numbers of males and females who have completed nursery school through 4 th 

### grade, up to the numbers of males and females who have completed some high school but not received a high school degree. The number of adults without a high school degr ee as a fraction of the total population was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group. Thus, the number of adults without a high school degree in each block was computed as follows: N (nhs ,b/bg) = N( t ,b/bg) × N (nhs ,bg ) ⁄ N( t ,bg) ( 3 ) where: N(nhs ,b/bg) = numb er of adults without a high school diploma, in block “ b ” of block group

“ bg ” N( t ,b/bg) = total number of people in block “ b ” of block group “ bg ” N(nhs ,bg) = numb er of adults without a high school diploma in bloc k group “ bg ” N( t ,bg) = total number of people in block group “ bg ” Equation ( 1 ) was then used to generate risk distribution s based on the block
- level results, and Equation ( 2 ) was used to compute the average risk for adults without a high school diploma
.

### 6



### 3.3 **Household Income** Table P 52 of the SF3 dataset estimates the numbers of households in each block group with income for the ye ar 1999 in various ranges, generall y divided into $5 , 000 increments (e.g. $10,000 to $14,999, $15 , 000 to $19,999, etc.). The me dian national income for 1999 was about $ 42 ,000 per ye ar. Therefore, in order to determine the number of households with incomes under the median income, we added the estimates for the ranges below that level
. W e assumed that the household incomes in the $40,000 to $44,999 increment were evenly distributed over this range. Therefore, 40% of the households in the $40,000 to $4 4,999 income range were assumed to be below the national median income of about $42,000. The following equation was used to estimate the fraction of households below the national median income within each census block group: F( n m,bg ) = [C <10 

### + C 10
- 15 

### + .... + C 35
- 40 

### + (0.4×C 40
- 45 

### )] ⁄ C T 

### ( 4 ) where: F ( n m ,bg) = fraction of households in block group “bg” with incomes below the median

national income C <10 

### = number of households with incomes under $10,000 C 10
- 15 

### = number of households with incomes from $10,000 to $14,999 C 35
- 40 

### = number of households with incomes from $35,000 to $39,999 C 40
- 45 

### = number of households with incomes from $40,000 to $44,999 C T 

### = total number of households in block group “bg” The fraction of people living in households below the median income for each block within the block group was assumed to be the same as the fraction of households below the median i ncome for the block group. N( n m, b/bg) = F(sm,bg) × N( t ,b/bg) ( 5 ) where: N( n m,b/bg) = number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” living in households below

the national median income F( n m,bg) = fraction of households in block group “bg” below the national median income N( t ,b/bg) = total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” Equation ( 1 ) was then used to generate risk distribution s based on the block
- level results, and Equation ( 2 ) was used to compute the average risk for people li ving in households below the national median income
. Itmust be noted that this approach neglects any potential relationship between household s ize and income level within a particular block group. However, it is expected to provide a reasonable indicati on of the risk level of people living below the national median income, relative to the population as a whole.

### 7



### 3.4 **Poverty Level** Table P 87 of the SF3 dataset estimates the total number people in each block group living below the povert y level, as well as the numbers of people below the poverty level in different age groups. The current study did not include an analy sis of poverty status by age group, onl y of the total population below the povert y line. The fraction of people below the poverty line was ass umed to be the same for each block in the block group. Thus, the population below the poverty line in each block was computed as follows:

N(p ,b/bg) = N(T,b /bg) × N(p ,bg ) ⁄ N(T,bg) ( 6 ) where: N(p ,b/bg) = number of people below the povert y line in block “b” of block group “bg” N(T,b/bg) = total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” N(p ,bg) = number of people below the povert y line in block group “bg” N(T,b g) = total number of people in block group “bg” Equation ( 1 ) was then used to generate risk distribution s based on the block
- level results, and Equation ( 2 ) was used to compute the average risk for people living below the povert y level
. 

### 3.5 **Disability** Table P42 of the SF3 dataset estimates the total number of people in each block group with disabilities, as well as the numbers of people with disabilities in different age groups. This anal ys is includes the total number of working aged people ( 16 through 64 ye ars of age) with a disability
. The fraction of working age d people with a disability was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group. Thus, the population of working age d people with a disability in each block was computed as follows: N( d ,b/bg) = N(T,b/bg) × N( d ,bg ) ⁄ N(T,bg) ( 7 ) where: N( d ,b/bg) = number of working age d people with a disability in block “b” of block group

“bg” N(T,b/bg) = total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” N( d ,bg) = number of working age d people with a disability in block g roup “bg” N(T,bg) = total number of people in block group “bg” Equation ( 1 ) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block
- level results, and Equation ( 2 ) was used to compute the average risk for working age d people with a disability
.

### 8



### 3.6 **Linguistic Isolation** Table P 20 of the SF3 dataset estimates the fraction of households in linguistic isolation in each block group . For this analy sis, the fraction of people living in linguistic isolation for each block within the block group was a ssumed to be the same as the fraction of households in linguistic isolation for the block group. Thus, the population of linguistically i solated people in each block was computed as follows: N(li,b/bg) = F(li,bg) × N(t,b/bg) (8) where: N(li,b/bg) = number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” living in linguisticall y

isolated households F(li,bg) = fraction of households in block group “bg” in linguistic isolation N(t,b/bg) = total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” Equation ( 1 ) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block
- level results, and Equation ( 2 ) was used to compute the average risk for people living in linguistic isolation
. 

# 4. **Results** T he distribution of estimated lifetime inhalation cancer risks great er than or equal to 1 in a million for different racial and ethnic groups among the population living near wool fiberglass facilities is shown in Table 2
. For comparison purposes , T able 2 provides the nationwide percentages of the various demographic group s. D etailed demographic s data and anal ys es used to create Table 2 can be found in Appendix A of this document. The results of the demographic analy sis presented in Table 2 indicate that there are approximately 850,000 people exposed to a cancer risk gr eater than or equal to 1
- in
- 1 million
. The demographic results for th e population potentially impacted by

wool fiberglass emissions indicate that the Minority, African American, Other and Multiracial, and Hispanic or Latino percentages are higher than the ir respective national percentages (b y 11, 7, 5, and 2 percentage points, respectivel y)
. With respect to age categories, there is a modest percentage increase (of 4 percentage points) for the “ages 19 to 64” demographic compared to the national demographi c percentage for that age group
. With respect to the population below the poverty level potentiall y impacted b y wool fiberglass emissions, there is a modest percentage increase (of 2 percentage points) compared to the national percentage. With respect to the population over 25 without a high school diploma, there is a small percentage increase (of 1 percentage point) compared to the national percentage. With respect to the working age population with a disability , there is a modest percentage increase (o f 2 percentage points) compared to the national percentage. The percentages for the other demographic categories are similar to or below the respective national percentages.

### 9

**Table 2. Summary of Demographic Assessment of Risk Results for the Wool**  **F ibergl**  **ass Source Category** 

Emissions Basis Demographic Group

Total Minority African

American Other and

Multiracial Hispanic

or Latino Native

American Ages

0 to 18 Ages

19 to 64 Ages 65 and up Below

the Poverty Level Over 25

Without a HS Diploma Work ing

Age with Disability Linguistic

Isolation Nationwide Demographic Breakdown n/a 285,339,128 25% 12% 12% 14% 0.9% 27% 60% 12% 13% 13% 12% 5.4%

Maximum Risk (in 1 million) Population With Cancer Risk Greater Than or Equal to 1 in 1 million
Source C ategory 4 0 8 48 , 782 36 % 19 % 17 % 1 6 % 0 .7 % 2 5 % 64 % 12 % 15 % 14 % 14 % 5
. 7 % Notes: Source Category emissions were estimated based on Information Collection Request (ICR) data from March of 2010
. Minority population is the total population minus the white p opulation. Population figures are for the population residing within 50 km from the center of these facilities whose cancer risks are estimated to be greater than or equal to 1 in a million
.

### 10



# 5. **Uncertainty Discussion** Our anal ys is of the distributio n of risks across various demographic groups is subject to the ty pical uncertainties associated with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census forms), which are generall y thought to be small, as well as the additional uncertainties a ssociated with the extrapolation of census
- block group data (e.g., income level and education level) down to the census block level. The uncertainties in these risk estimates include the same uncertainties in emissions data sets, in air dispersion mode ling, in inhalation exposure and in dose response relationships that are associated with our source category risk estimates. The methodology

for our demographic anal ys es is still evolving. While this is our best attempt to provide useful information now , our thinking is continuously advancing. EPA is in the process of developing technical guidance for environmental justice analy ses. We present these anal ys es, with their associated uncer tainties, to EPA decision makers and the public as additional anal ys es to inform RTR decisions.

### A
- 1 

### Appendix A

### A
- 2 To ta l popul at ion Whit e Afri can Ameri can Nat iv e Ameri can Ot he r and mul ti raci al Hisp an

ic or La ti no c
0 t o 1 26,223,131 18, 338,919 4,622,125 120,307 3,141,780 2,776,825 1 t o 5 782,112 511,515 136,099 5,352 129, 146 121,061 5 t o 10 55,029 27,808 16,240 429 10, 552 12,631 10 t o 20 7,347 1,780 4,907 42 618 595 20 t o 30 3,184 205 2,810 15 154 186 30 t o 40 860 345 389 1 125 113 40 t o 50 144 1 135 0 8 0 50 t o 100 106 82 0 7 17 40 To ta l numbe r 27,071,913 18, 880,655 4,782,705 126,153 3,282,400 2,911,451 0. 1254 0. 1114 0. 14 0. 1646 0. 1826 0. 1862 No te s:

c The Hi sp an ic or Lat ino popul

at ion is d oubl e-count ed i n this anal ys is , si nc e d if feren t i ndi vi dua ls wi thi n the cat eg ory ma y cl

assi fy t he ms el ve s as Whi

te , Afri can Ameri can , Nat iv e Am

eri can , or o the r. 

### Ta **bl e**  **A-1 . D**  **is tr** 

**ib ut**  **io n**  **of In ha**  **la tio**  **n Ca**  **nc er**  **R is**  **k f or**  **Raci al**  **an d**  **Eth ni**  **c Gr**

**ou ps** 

a Mode le d risks are for a 7 0- ye ar l if et ime,b ased

on the pred

ic te d out door

conc en tra ti on and not ad

ju ste d for ex pos ur e fact or s. Ra nge o f l

if etime indi vi dua l cancer

ri sk (chance i n one m illion) a

Av erag e ri

sk ( chances in o ne m illion)

b Di stri but io ns by race ar e ba sed on de mogr aphi

c i nf orma ti on at the cen su s b lo ck

l ev el. R is ks from wo ol fi be rg la ss em

is si ons were m

ode le d at t he cen su s b lo ck

l ev el
. Mode le d ri

sk from the wo ol

fi be rg la ss sourc e cat eg ory Nu mbe rs o f p eo

pl e i n di ffe re nt range s for l

if et ime cancer ri

sk b

### A
- 3 Tota l popul at ion Ag es 0

t hr u 18 Ag es 1 9 thru

64 Ag es 6 5 and

up
0 t o 1 26,223,131 6, 953, 215 16,397,273 2,872,643 1 t o 5 782,112 193,497 498,631 89,984 5 t o 10 55,029 14, 548 34,510 5,971 10 t o 20 7,347 1, 944 4,373 1,030 20 t o 30 3,184 930 1,727 527 30 t o 40 860 238 496 126 40 t o 50 144 55 72 17 50 t o 100 106 19 68 19 Tota l numbe r 27,071,913 7, 164,446 16,937,150 2,970,317 0. 1254 0. 1239 0. 1262 0. 1241 Note s: 

### Ta **bl e**  **A-2 . D**  **is tr**  **ib ut** **io n**  **of R**  **is k f**  **or D**  **iffe re**  **nt**

**A ge**  **G ro**  **ups**

Mode le d ri

sk fro m the wo ol

fi be rgla ss sour ce cat eg ory

b Di stri but ions b y ag e ar e b ased

o n mode ling da ta and ag e dat a at t he cen su s b lo ck

l ev el
. Ra nge o f l

if et im e i ndi vi dua l cancer ri sk (chance i n one mi llion) a Nu

mbe rs o f p eopl

e i n di ffe re nt range s fo r l

if et ime cancer ri sk b

Av erag e r is k (c ha nc es i

n one mi llion)

a Mode le d ri

sk s are fo r a 7 0- ye ar

l if et ime, b ased on the p red ic te d outdoor

conc en trati on and not ad ju st ed fo r ex pos ur e fact or s.

### A
- 4 Tota l popul at ion Tota l numbe r 25 and ol de r Nu mb er 2 5 and ol de r wi thout a h ig h school di pl om a
0 t o 1 26,223,131 16, 538, 384 3,090,106 1 t o 5 782,112 500, 252 105,899 5 t o 10 55,029 33, 713 11,036 10 t o 20 7,347 4, 545 1,491 20 t o 30 3,184 1, 847 592 30 t o 40 860 558 156 40 t o 50 144 76 17 50 t o 100 106 75 23 Tota l numbe r 27,071,913 17, 079,450 3,209,319 0. 1254 0. 1255 0. 1425 Note s: 

### Ta **bl e**  **A-3 . D**  **is tr** 

**ib ut**  **io n**  **of R**  **is k f**  **or A**  **dul ts**  **w ith**  **an d**  **wi th** **ou**

**t a H ig**  **h Sch** **ool**

**D ip** **lo ma** 

Mode le d ri

sk fro m the wo ol

fi be rgla ss sour ce cat eg ory

b Di st ri but ions by ed

uc at ion le ve l ar e b ased

on mo de ling da ta at

t he cen sus b lo ck

l ev el , an d ed uc at ion da ta at

t he b lo ck g ro up le ve l. Al

l cen su s b lo cks i

n a b lo ck g ro up ar e assu

me d to ha ve t he same ed

uc ation le ve l di

stri buti on. Ra nge o f l

if et im e i ndi vi dua l can cer ri sk (ch an ce i n one m illion) a Nu

mb er s o f p eopl

e i n di ffe re nt ra nge s for l

if et im e cancer ri sk b

Av erag e r is k (c ha nc es i

n one mi llion)

a Mode le d ri

sk s are for a 7 0- ye ar

l if et im e, b ased o n the p red ic te d out door

co nc en tra ti on and not ad ju st ed for ex pos ur e fact or s.

### A
- 5 Tota l popul at ion Peo

pl e l ivin g in hous ehol ds b el ow the nat iona l me di

an in co me c Peopl

e l iv ing be low t he pove rty l ine
0 t o 1 26,223,131 11,803,689 2,943,821 1 t o 5 782,112 406,446 107,457 5 t o 10 55,029 38,616 12,772 10 t o 20 7,347 5,932 2,057 20 t o 30 3,184 2,504 1,010 30 t o 40 860 662 245 40 t o 50 144 124 88 50 t o 100 106 68 6 Tota l numbe r 27,071,913 12,258,041 3,067,456 0. 1254 0. 1383 0. 1525 Note s:

c The m ed ia n in co me i s t he nat iona l me di

an hous ehol d inco me i n 1999, ab out $42,000. Mode le d ri

sk fro m the wo ol

fi be rg la ss so

ur ce cat eg ory

Av er ag e r is k (c ha nc es i

n one mi llion)

a Mode le d ri

sk s are fo r a 7 0- ye ar

l if et ime,b ased

o n the pre di

ct ed outdoor co nc en tra ti on an d not ad just ed for ex pos ur e f act or s. b Di stri but ions b y inco me ar e b ased o n mode ling da ta at

t he cen su s b lo ck

l ev el, and inco me da ta at t he b lo ck g roup le ve l. Al

l cen su s b lo ck s i

n a b lo ck g roup ar e assu

me d to ha ve t

he same i nc ome d is tri but ion. 

### Ta **bl e**  **A-4 . D**  **is tr** 

**ib ut** **io n**  **of R**  **is k for**  **P eo**  **pl e**  **Liv in**  **g i n**  **Ho us**  **eh ol**  **ds b**  **el ow**  **t he**  **Na tio**  **na l**  **Med**

**ia n**  **In com** 

**e an**  **d Be**  **lo w**  **th e**  **Po ve**  **rt**

**y L in**  **e**

Range o f l

if et im e i ndi vi dua l cancer ri sk (chance i n one mi llion) a Nu

mbe rs o f p eopl

e i n di ffe re nt ra nge s for l

if et ime cancer ri sk b

### A
- 6 Tota l popul at ion Work

ing ag ed p eopl e wi th a d is ab ilit y Pe opl

e l iving in lingui st ic i so la ti on
0 t o 1 26,223,131 3,106,107 1,057,162 1 t o 5 782,112 106,487 42,983 5 t o 10 55,029 9,828 5,265 10 t o 20 7,347 1,368 373 20 t o 30 3,184 579 105 30 t o 40 860 192 54 40 t o 50 144 26 1 50 t o 100 106 22 10 Tota l numbe r 27,071,913 3,224,609 1,105,953 0. 1254 0. 1415 0. 1893 Note s: a Mode le d ri

sk s are fo r a 7 0- ye ar

l if et im e,b ased on the pre di

ct ed outdoor conc en tra ti on an d not ad just ed fo r ex pos ur e f act or s. b Di stri but ions o f d

is ab ilit y and lingui

st ic i so la ti on ar e b ased

on mo de ling da ta at

t he cen su s bl oc k le ve l,an

d de mo gr aphi

c p opul at ion da ta at

t he b lo ck g ro up le ve l. Al

l cen sus b lo ck s in a b lo ck g ro up ar e assu

me d to ha ve t

he same d

is ab ilit y and lingui

st ic i so la ti on popul at ion di st ri but ions . 

### Ta **bl e**  **A-5 . D**  **is tr** 

**ib ut**  **io n**  **of R**  **is k f**  **or P**  **eo pl**  **e Liv**  **in g w** 

**ith D**  **is ab** **ilitie s**  **an d**  **in Ling**  **ui st** **ic Is**  **ol at** **io n**  Range o f l

if et im e i ndi vi dua l cancer ri sk (chance i n one mi llion) a Nu

mbe rs o f p eopl

e i n di ffe re nt ra nge s for l

if et im e cancer ri sk b

Mode le d ri

sk fro m the wo ol

fi be rg la ss so

ur ce cat eg ory

Av er ag e r is k (c ha nc es i

n one mi llion)