United States Office of Solid Waste EPA/540/R-99/013
Environmental Protection and Emergency OSWER 9285.7-29
Agency Response July 2000
www.epa.gov
<&EPA Presenter's Manual for:
"Superfund Risk Assessment
and How You Can Help"
A 40-Minute Videotape
-------
This manual was prepared to guide EPA staff during public presentations of the
40-minute videotape "Superfund Risk Assessment and How You Can Help." The
developers of the videotape (Elmer Akin, Jayne Michaud, Diana Hammer, and
Kevin Garrahan) are grateful to the citizens who volunteered their time to talk
about their experiences with Superfund activities; to Capt. Alvin Chun and Arnold
Den for contributing "Common Questions and Answers;" to EPA headquarters
and regional reviewers of this manual including David Cooper, Janine Dinan,
Bruce Engelbert, Diane Huffman, and Jan Shubert; and to Mary Deardorff, the
project work assignment manager with Environmental Management Support Inc.
Environmental Management Support Inc., 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 500, Silver
Spring, MD 20910 assisted in preparing and producing this document under
Contract Number 68-W6-0046, Work Assignments 007 and 012.
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
Contents
TAB 1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Videotape 1
Purpose of this Manual 2
Tips 3
Presenter's Checklist
Getting the Most Out of the Videotape
Sample Questions for Community Members
TAB 2. VIDEO SEGMENTS: NOTES FOR THE PRESENTER
Overview of Risk Assessment 1
Sample Questions for Community Members 2
Definition of Risk and Risk Assessment 2
Risk Comparisons 2
ATSDR Health Assessments and Health Studies and the EPA
Superfund Risk Assessment 3
Data Collection and Evaluation 4
Sample Questions for Community Members 5
Importance of Scoping, Sampling, and Data Quality 5
Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) and Chemicals of
Concern (COC) 5
Land Use—Current and Future 6
Exposure Assessment 7
Sample Questions for Community Members 8
Exposure Pathways 8
Exposure Concentrations and Calculating Dose 8
Exposure Assumptions: Standard versus Site Specific 9
Toxicity Assessment 10
Sample Questions for Community Members 11
Elements of Toxicity 11
"Safe" Dose 11
Cancer and Non-Cancer Effects 12
-------
Risk Characterization 13
Sample Questions for Community Members 14
Conservatism in Risk Assessment 14
Chemical Interactions and Additivity Assumption 14
Sources of Uncertainty 15
Uncertainty and Margins of Safety 15
Risk Estimates are Presented as Numbers 16
Acceptable Risk and Risk Range 17
Cumulative Risk 17
Videotape Closing Remarks 19
Risk Management 19
References 20
TAB 7. COMMON OUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
TAB 4. HANDOUTS FOR COMMUNITIES
Glossary of Technical Terms in EPA's Superfund Risk Assessment Video
Community Tools
Diagram of Superfund NPL Remedial Response Process
Fact Sheets
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
-------
TAB 1
INTRODUCTION
EPA PiusiNun's Mmm
Purpose of tIie VidEOTApE
EPA developed the 40-minute videotape "Superfund Risk Assessment and How
You Can Help" to help explain in plain terms the Superfund human health risk
assessment process and how communities can be involved. The videotape lays
the groundwork for in-depth discussions on human health risk assessment, how it
relates to cleanup, and how people can be involved. The community interviews in
the videotape enhance the message that early community involvement is impor-
tant to the Superfund cleanup program.
A 10-minute introductory videotape containing information extracted from
the 40-minute videotape is also available and should be shown first to deter-
mine if the audience wants to know more about risk assessment.
Generally, it is best to show the videotapes before the risk assessment begins and
at a time when the community is not focused on other site issues. The regional
community involvement coordinator and risk assessor can help you decide which
videotape to use and when.
The 40-minute videotape cannot replace discussions with a risk assessor.
Although the videotape helps explain risk assessment, it is intended to be used
with technical staff present to answer questions. Your efforts to communicate with
the public may be hindered if you do not have the resources to answer questions
during the session. Commit to responding to any unanswered questions quickly,
preferably within a day.
You should schedule about two hours to show the 40-minute videotape and
answer questions. Before starting the videotape, discuss your expectations and
take a few minutes to explain how risk assessment fits into the Superfund process.
Also note that EPA evaluates both health and ecological risks. Be upfront about
how community input will be used and identify any limitations on that input.
The best way to show the 40-minute videotape is in segments. Because the video-
tape is long, plan to stop the tape periodically to reinforce key messages and give
people a chance to ask questions. The pauses also offer an opportunity to talk about
ways community members can be involved. The best places to pause are after data
collection and evaluation, exposure assessment, and toxicity assessment. Ten-second
pauses have been screened in at these points. If your audience wants more frequent
interruptions, you may do so.
The end of the tape is another time to reinforce main messages, answer questions,
discuss site-specific concerns, and talk about how and when follow up will occur.
This is also an appropriate time to give viewers additional information, handouts,
and a list of contacts in your region.
Essential Ingredients
• Risk Assessor
• Community Involvement
Coordinator
• Knowing your
audience
• Good preparation for
site-specific issues
• Time to pause and
discuss
• Follow up plans
Pause the Tape to
• Discuss technical
concepts
• Answer questions
• Reinforce messages
Introduction
Tab 1-1
-------
This Manual Will
Help You
• Reinforce key
concepts
• Prepare for questions
• Generate discussion
• Plan for follow up
The materials in
this manual are not
intended to be read
verbatim to audiences.
Purpose of This ManuaL
This manual highlights the key messages described in the videotape and other issues
that audiences might raise. Results of field tests with community groups helped
identify the questions and issues likely to come up when people view the videotape.
The information in this manual is intended as background information for
presenters to use in explaining risk assessment concepts. These materials are not
intended to be read verbatim to audiences.
(Tab 2) Video Segments: Notes for the Presenter contains key messages and
additional information on topics that could not be addressed in the videotape.
References are provided at the end of Tab 2. (Tab 3) Common Questions and
Answers (Chun and Den, 1999) contains sample responses to questions often
asked at public meetings about risk assessment. (Tab 4) Handouts for Commu-
nities includes a Glossary of Technical Terms in EPA's Risk Assessment Video,
Community Tools, Diagram of Superfund NPL Remedial Process, and fact
sheets on risk assessment. You should provide viewers with additional informa-
tion about Superfund, assistance programs, and people to contact.
Unfortunately, most of the available references on risk assessment were written at the
college level. Almost no easy-to-read information on risk assessment is currently
available for citizens, many of whom read at basic grade-school levels (see below).
Facts AbouT LiTERAcy*
About 47 percent of the U.S. adult population (16 years old and older) reads
only at the 5th to 8th grade levels (26 percent at a maximum of 5th grade and 21
percent at a maximum of 8th grade).
Among adult welfare recipients, reading skills are generally worse. In this
group, 75 percent read at the 5th to 8th grade levels (50 percent at about 5th
grade and 25 percent at about 8th grade).
*The National Center for Education Statistics' 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (http://nces.ed.gov/nadlits/)
Tab 1-2
Introduction
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
Tips
This section contains the following:
• Presenter's Checklist
• Getting the Most Out of the Videotape
• Sample Questions for Community Members
Introduction
Tab 1-3
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
Presenter's ChEcklis
Presenter's ChEcklisT
When presenting this videotape, be well prepared. Preparation is essential if you
and the audience are to get the most from the videotape. The audience should
have some familiarity with Superfund, ideally has already viewed the Superfund
risk assessment "overview" videotape (a 10-minute videotape extracted from the
longer videotape), and has a desire to learn more. The longer videotape covers
some very technical concepts that are integral to an understanding of how EPA
conducts Superfund risk assessments. People are likely to ask tough questions,
and this Presenter's Manual will help you prepare for them.
Here are some tips:
~ Schedule about two hours to show the videotape and answer questions
~ Set up the room to facilitate viewing and discussion (e.g., U-shaped)
~ Make sure the room temperature and accommodations are comfortable
~ Have a flip chart(s), markers, and tape on hand to record notes and to list
questions to answer later
~ Make sure you have a working TV, VCR, and any other necessary equipment
~ Make copies of handouts appropriate to the audience (for suggestions, see Tab
4 of this Presenter's Manual)
~ Before presenting the videotape, you should familiarize yourself with it and this
Presenter's Manual
~ The videotape is approximately 40 minutes long and includes built-in pauses
for audience questions and site-specific discussions:
Introduction 6 minutes
Data Collection and Evaluation 14 minutes
~ Because it is critical to have knowledgeable staff on hand to respond to ques-
tions, we recommend showing this videotape only when a risk assessor is
present
~ Encourage discussion and have fun
(Pause)
Exposure Assessment
(Pause)
Toxicity Assessment
(Pause)
Risk Characterization
Closing
4 minutes
9 minutes
7 minutes
1 minute
Tab 1-4
Introduction
-------
GETTiNq tIie Most Out of tIie VidEOTApE
BeFore showiNq tIie vidEOTApE
• Discuss expectations
• Explain how risk assessment fits into the Superfund process, and that
EPA evaluates both health and ecological risks
• Be up front about how community input will be used and any limitations
• Show the 10-minute videotape first
DuitiNq tIie vidEOTApE
• Pause the tape for questions and answers
• Reinforce key messages
• Talk about ways community members can be involved
AFter
• Reinforce main messages
• Discuss how and when follow up will occur
• Give viewers additional information, handouts, and list of contacts
Show the 10-minute
videotape first to
determine if the
audience wants to
learn more about risk
assessment.
Show the videotapes
at a time when the
audience can focus on
risk assessment and
not on other issues
that have developed at
the site.
Introduction
Tab 1-5
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
SampLe Questions For CoMMUNiTy IMEMbERs*
ScopiNq ThE Risk Assessment
• Do you know of any area on or near the site where there is pollution?
• Are you aware of any spills or dumping on or near the site?
• Who uses the site now or used the site in the past for work, play, or other
activity?
• Who else in the community should the site team contact to be sure nothing
is overlooked?
Data CoLLectIon ancI EvaLuatIon
• Do you know how the site was used in the past? If not, who would know?
• Are there specific chemicals you know were used at the site?
• Do you worry about any particular dangers from the site?
• Do you have any reason to suspect that there is pollution in the {name the
area) where we plan to take samples for background levels of contami-
nants?
• How do you think the land will be used in the future, considering the past
history of the site?
Exposure Assessment
• Do people fish, hunt, garden, pick berries, play, swim, or hike on or near
the site? If so, how often do they do these activities?
• What types of animals are hunted or fished?
• What types of foods are grown in the garden?
ToxiciTy Assessment
• Have you or your neighbors had any health problems that you think could
be related to the site?
• What do you want to know about the toxicity assessment process?
Risk ChARACTERizATioN
• Is the risk assessment understandable to you?
• Do you understand how the risk assessment is being used?
*Source: EPA (1999) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part
A. Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments
Tab 1-6
Introduction
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
OvERviEW of Risk Assessment 6 IVfiiMUTES
The first part of the videotape briefly describes the Superfund program, explains
the importance of community involvement, and introduces several important
messages, which are summarized below. You may want to underscore these
messages during and after showing the videotape. The next two pages contain
questions risk assessors might ask community members, more detailed informa-
tion on some of the key messages, and other risk assessment topics that are com-
monly misunderstood.
KEY MESSAGES
• Early community involvement is important. Getting involved early in the
scoping of the risk assessment is ideal, but people can be involved at any
stage of risk assessment. For instance, in the videotape, the community in
Fort Valley, Georgia, led EPA to several areas that needed to be sampled,
including a neighborhood that had been flooded and a drainage ditch that
contained kaolin, which was used by some people as a medicinal clay.
• Risk assessment answers four basic questions: Is there a risk, who is at
risk, how great is the risk, and what is causing the risk. People who live near
the site can help EPA answer questions about who is exposed, how they get
exposed, and where.
• EPA evaluates both human and ecological health threats. This video-
tape focuses on human health risk assessment. Superfund assessments
evaluate risks for current and future site land uses.
• Risk is the chance of harm or loss. At Superfund sites, risk is the chance
that chemicals from a site will cause health and ecological problems.
• Risk assessment is the method EPA has chosen to help make decisions.
Risk assessments are used to decide what needs to be cleaned up, where, and
to what level.
• EPA's bottom line is protect public health and the environment. People
do not have to be sick for EPA to take action.
Superfund is a govern-
ment program that
cleans up hazardous
waste sites.
The goal of Superfund
is to reduce risks to a
safe level.
Community input can
help EPA prepare a
thorough risk assess-
ment.
Overview of Risk Assessment
Tab 2-1
-------
SampLe Questions For CoMMUNiTy IViEivibERS
Risk is the chance that
chemicals from a
Superfund site could
cause health prob-
lems.
Risk assessment is a
way of finding out
what the health risks
are now and in the
future.
Risk assessments are
used to decide what
needs to be cleaned
up, where, and to what
level.
ScopiNq tIie Risk Assessment
• Do you know of any area on or near the site where there is pollution?
• Are you aware of any spills or dumping on or near the site?
• Who uses the site now or used the site in the past for work, play, or other
activity?
• Who else in the community should the site team contact to be sure nothing is
overlooked?
DEfiiMmoN of Risk ancJ Risk Assessment
Risk is a complex term with different meanings for different people. Risk in the context
of health and the environment may be described as the potential for a harmful event,
such as cancer, that carries with it doubt about whether the harmful event will occur.
Risk also may be described as the probability of harm from exposure to a hazard.
Risk assessment answers the following main questions:
• Is it toxic? (Hazard Identification)
• How toxic is it? (Toxicity Assessment)
• Who is exposed to it, to how much, how often, and for how long? (Exposure
Assessment)
• What does the risk assessment tell us? (Risk Characterization)
The primary purpose of the baseline human health risk assessment* is to provide risk
managers and the community with an understanding of the potential human health risks
posed by the site in the absence of any cleanup or removal action. The NCP states that
the baseline risk assessment should "characterize the current and potential threats to
human health and the environment that may be posed by contaminants migrating to
ground water or surface water, releasing to air, leaching through soil, remaining in the
soil, and bioaccumulating in the food chain." (See §300.430(d)(4) in NCP).**
Risk CoMpARisONS
Risk communication experts caution against comparing health risks from
Superfund site exposures with risks from other harmful events, such as dying in
an auto accident or lifestyle choices, such as diet. Such comparisons are often
perceived as minimizing or trivializing the risks from a Superfund site. Compari-
sons also tend to confuse voluntary risks, such as the decision to drive a car or
smoke cigarettes, with involuntary risks, such as living near a Superfund site.
It is better to compare similar risks, e.g., comparing risks for different standards, and
comparing risks before and after cleanup. (See Tab 3 Common Questions and Answers).
*The videotape does not use the term "baseline risk assessment" and instead uses more general language to
convey the "baseline" concept. (See Glossary in Tab 4 of this manual).
"The complete citation is shown in the reference section of this document.
Tab 2-2
Overview of Risk Assessment
-------
ATSDR Public HeaLtIi Assessments anc] HeaLtIi
StucHes ANd tNe EPA SupEitfuNd Risk Assessment
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was established in
1983 as an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services.
Section 104 of CERCLA requires ATSDR to conduct a health assessment for all sites
listed or proposed for listing on the NPL. (See page 3 in EPA's ATSDR Guidance!
ATSDR's overall role is to determine exposure and adverse human health effects and
diminished quality of life associated with exposure to hazardous substances from waste
sites, unplanned releases, and other sources of pollution present in the environment.
ATSDR's public health assessment is usually more qualitative than EPA's baseline
risk assessment. The health assessment focuses on medical and public health
concerns associated with a Superfund site and surrounding community. (See
Section 2.1 in Health Assessment Guidance and page 2-9 in RAGS-A). The EPA
baseline human health risk assessment uses site-specific data to quantitatively
appraise health threats associated with the site under current and future land use
conditions. ATSDR may study existing health effects and whether they are related
to past exposures.
ATSDR uses the health assessment to identify (1) knowledge gaps concerning the
toxicity of substances identified at the facility, (2) communities near facilities or
releases where measurements of human exposure or medical investigations are
needed, and (3) the need for additional health information. ATSDR may choose to
initiate a variety of health studies, such as pilot health effects studies (disease- and
symptom-prevalence studies, cluster investigations, exposure studies), epidemio-
logic studies, disease registries, and site-specific surveillance. (See Health Assess-
ment Guidance).
The ATSDR assessment assists EPA in identifying health concerns, potentially ex-
posed people and sensitive subpopulations. However, the risk assessment and other
information from the Remedial Investigation are used to make cleanup decisions.
EPA Baseline
Human Health
Risk Assessment
• Uses site data to
assess current and
future risks
• Helps identify potential
threats to people from
past and future
chemical releases
• Identifies what and
how people may be at
highest risk
• Predicts health effects,
but does not replace
epidemiological
studies
• Evaluates risks for
sensitive populations
so that risk manage-
ment decisions will be
protective
A risk assessment can
help identify potential
health threats before
people get sick.
An ATSDR health
study investigates
health problems after
people get sick.
ATSDR determines the
need for a health study
during a site-specific
public health assess-
ment.
Overview of Risk Assessment
Tab 2-3
-------
Data CoLLectIon anc] EvaLuatIon — 14 IMIimutes
During data collection,
EPA finds out what
happened at the site
and what pollution
may be left there.
It's important to
collect samples in the
right places so that no
chemicals are missed.
People in the commu-
nity can tell EPA
where pollution might
be found.
Computer models can
predict if the pollution
will travel from the site
and how fast.
The second major segment of the videotape describes the initial part of risk assess-
ment, which is the data collection and evaluation phase. The most important messages
EPA conveys in this segment of the videotape are summarized below. Questions risk
assessors might ask community members, more information on some of the key
messages, and other topics that are often misunderstood follow these messages.
KEY MESSAGES
• The chemical analysis answers the questions: Which chemicals and how
much are present in the environment, such as soil, water, and air?
• EPA must follow strict protocols to ensure the quality and integrity of
environmental samples. EPA takes samples for chemical analysis using
proper containers and equipment to ensure that the measurements are
accurate and part of the sample does not get lost or contaminated. EPA
also searches historical records and interviews former site personnel.
• This step identifies chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). This
information does not tell us whether someone is exposed or at risk, but
helps identify the list of chemicals reported in samples at the site. This list
may be long because of the standard list of chemicals included in every
analysis. This raises a perception problem that the community is exposed
to all of the reported chemicals. The rest of the risk assessment will deter-
mine which ones are the "chemicals of concern" (COCs) that need to be
addressed. For simplicity, the videotape focused on two chemicals that
posed the greatest health risks: mercury in Lavaca Bay and arsenic in
North Dakota. Superfund sites have mixtures of chemicals, and there is
rarely one chemical of concern. However, often one or several chemicals
pose the greatest risks and become the focus of the cleanup action.
• Community input helps. People can tell EPA places where they and
others could contact the site, what they know about historical disposal
practices, and help identify realistic future land uses. People should not try
to collect their own samples for Agency use because strict procedures must
be followed to ensure that samples are adequate for the risk assessment.
• EPA also uses computer models. These help predict chemical movement
in the environment or in relation to nearby communities. For instance, the
movement and speed of contaminated groundwater away from a site and
toward public drinking water wells can be determined using computer
models. An example of this is shown in the videotape to illustrate how
arsenic moved from the soil surface (after crops were sprayed) to the
groundwater that people used for drinking water.
Tab 2-4
Data Collection and Evaluation
-------
SampLe Questions For CoMMUNiTy IViEivibERS
Data CoLLectIon ancI EvaLuatIon
• Do you know how the site was used in the past? If not, who would know?
• Are there specific chemicals you know were used at the site?
• Do you worry about any particular dangers from the site?
• Do you have any reason to suspect that there is pollution in the {name the area)
where we plan to take samples for background levels of contaminants?
• How do you think the land will be used in the future, considering the past
history of the site?
Importance of ScopiNq, SAMpLiNq, anc] Data QuaHty
The videotape emphasizes the importance of scoping, sampling, and data quality
for several reasons. First, community members can have a role early, during the
scoping process and may have knowledge about site history that could contribute
to the sampling strategy plan. Second, people usually do not understand EPA's
data quality requirements. They may come to EPA with a sample of their well
water and expect EPA to use it in the risk assessment.
The videotape explains that prior to the risk assessment, EPA tries to learn enough
about a site to formulate a plan of action for the risk assessment. This involves
producing a sampling and analysis plan. Risk assessors use environmental
samples to find the harmful chemicals at the site and determine the amounts that
are there.
Environmental samples may be gathered by EPA contractors, states or federal
agencies, contractors for state-lead sites, Department of Energy (DOE) contrac-
tors, Department of Defense (DoD) for military installations, and Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) at enforcement-lead sites. The sampling plan and
unannounced EPA audits of PRPs' work ensures proper sample collection. In
addition, EPA has strict procedures to ensure the accuracy of sampling data and
site decisions. (See Data Quality Objectives').
EPA established the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) over 17 years ago to
analyze environmental samples for Fund-lead sites. All laboratories performing
Superfund work must follow strict EPA procedures, and the lead for the site
obtains independent validation of the results. (See CLP).
ChEiviicAls of PotentIaL Concern (COPCs) anc]
ChEiviicALs of Concern (COC)
Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are chemicals found in site samples that
may be toxic and related to the site. The list of chemicals may be long because
samples are analyzed for a long list of chemicals. However, this does not mean
that all of these chemicals pose a risk or that people are exposed. Some chemi-
cals may be natural, such as calcium in a limestone aquifer. Others may be present
in places where no person would come into contact with them.
Strict sampling proce-
dures are followed to
ensure the quality of
the data.
The Superfund Pro-
gram routinely ana-
lyzes samples for
about 150 chemicals.
Not all of those are
hazardous to people.
Hazard depends not
only on the presence
of a chemical but also
on its concentration,
toxicity, and chance
that someone will
come into contact with
it.
EPA evaluates all of
the chemicals de-
tected in the samples
(these are the COPCs),
but focuses the risk
assessment on those
chemicals that may
cause a significant
health problem. These
are the COCs.
Data Collection and Evaluation
Tab 2-5
-------
Reasonable Land
Use
EPA strives to develop
realistic assumptions
about the likely future
land uses at Superfund
sites through community
involvement, including
early discussions with
local land use planning
authorities, local offi-
cials, and the public.
Different land uses
may result in different
exposure scenarios,
but many aspects of
exposure are very
similar from one
Superfund site to the
next. That is why EPA
uses categories of
land use, such as
agricultural, residen-
tial, recreational, and
industrial.
The risk assessor evaluates the COPCs using the exposure and toxicity informa-
tion and determines which ones are chemicals of concern (COCs). The list of
COCs is usually much shorter than the original list of COPCs reported in samples
at a site. (See pages 5-20 - 5-24 in RAGS-AY
Some people may argue that when risk assessors eliminate less threatening chemi-
cals from the risk assessment, the sum of the risks will be artificially low. How-
ever, the criteria for eliminating COPCs are strict and are designed to prevent the
possibility of diminishing the risks by any amount that would be a health concern.
LancJ Use—Current anc] Future
The baseline risk assessment is designed to help risk managers protect people now
and in the future. The site team needs to consider how the site might be used in the
future. In determining future land use, RAGS Part A recommends making the most
cautious and protective choice, which is residential land use. However, RAGS also
mentions that an assumption of future residential land use may not be justifiable if
the probability that the site will support residential use in the future is exceedingly
small. The NCP does not require the residential land use assumption in risk assess-
ment. Talking with people who live in the community on or near a Superfund site
can help EPA make sure that the exposure scenarios evaluated in the risk assessment
reflect realistic activities and land uses at the site.
The community and local officials in Fort Valley, Georgia, which is the location of
the old pesticide plant mentioned in the videotape, decided that a portion of the
contaminated property will be used for a public library. This information helped
EPA understand how people might be exposed to site chemicals in the future.
When discussing the risk assessment's future land use assumptions, it is important
to be clear that EPA has no role in determining the future land uses at a site. The
process for identifying anticipated future land uses for a site is discussed in detail
in the 1995 EPA directive Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process.
(See Land Use).
Tab 2-6
Data Collection and Evaluation
-------
Exposure Assessment — 9 IVfiiMUTES
The Exposure Assessment provides the most opportunity for community involve-
ment because it considers how people live, work, and play. The key messages
EPA tries to convey in the videotape are summarized below. The next few pages
contain questions risk assessors might ask community members, more detailed
information on some of the key messages, and other risk assessment topics that
are commonly misunderstood.
KEY MESSAGES
• Exposure assessment answers three key questions: How are people
exposed, who could be exposed, and how much of the chemicals are
people exposed to? The risk assessor evaluates all chemicals, all routes,
and all pathways.
• Exposure occurs only if the chemical gets to the person and then gets
inside the body. Without exposure to a chemical, there is no risk from
that chemical.
• Dose depends on the concentration of chemical and how people are
exposed. Some people may not incur high doses because of their behavior
(e.g., they only work indoors, do not garden, consume small amounts of fish).
• The Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) dose is the highest
exposure reasonably expected to occur. Superfund considers this in
determining health risks for a site and also in setting protective cleanup
levels.
• The exposure route is important. Some chemicals are not toxic by
ingestion but are by inhalation. Some are not absorbed through the skin
and are not toxic on the skin.
• Standard assumptions are used to provide consistency and protective-
ness. Drinking water intake is assumed to be about 2 liters/day (8
glasses) for adults. Community information about pathways are some-
times used to modify the assumptions when appropriate.
• People can contribute in many ways. Examples in the videotape in-
clude identifying pathways (e.g., eating fish) and places to sample (e.g.,
where people fish and which species and parts are eaten).
Community Input
has Helped EPA
Describe:
• Sources of
contamination
• Who is exposed
• How people are
exposed
How much chemical a
person is exposed to
is called dose.
The RME is the high-
est dose anyone is
likely to receive from
the site.
Sometimes exposures
to site chemicals pose
no health concerns.
Exposure Assessment
Tab 2-7
-------
Elements of an
Exposure Pathway
Source
(Origin of a chemical on
site: e.g., leaking waste
pile, leaking drums, or
soil under them)
I
Transport and
Transformation
(The chemical can be
carried by moisture or
wind from its source to
other areas, such as
groundwater, and can be
changed into something
else more or less toxic)
I
Exposure Point
(Place where people can
be exposed to the
chemical, such as a well
that supplies drinking
water)
4
Exposure Route
(Way the chemical enters
the body: drinking,
eating, breathing, skin
contact)
I
Receptor
(People potentially
exposed to the
chemical)
The exposure route
matters; some chemi-
cals are more danger-
ous if eaten than if
touched.
SampLe QuESTioNs For CoMMUNiTy IVfEMbERs
Exposure Assessment
• Do people fish, hunt, garden, pick berries, play, swim, or hike on or near the
site? If so, how often do they do these activities?
• What types of animals are hunted or fished?
• What types of foods are grown in the garden?
Exposure PAThwAys
Exposure assessment describes how people can come into contact with site chemicals,
who might be exposed, and by how much. To describe how people could be exposed to
a chemical, risk assessors identify any possible paths that the chemical might travel from
its source to points where people may come into contact with it. Risk assessors look at
existing pathways as well as pathways that could occur in the future depending on the
likely future use of the property. (See Exposure Pathways and page 6-8 in RAGS-AY
Although the important exposure pathway at the Lavaca Bay site involved the
discharge of mercury into the Bay and subsequent eating of Bay fish, another
pathway involved swimming in the Bay and subsequent skin contact. In Fort
Valley, several exposure pathways were identified in the previously flooded
neighborhood. Also, some people touched and ate contaminated kaolin.
Risk assessors take into account all exposure pathways. They do this by summing
chemical risk estimates for all pathways of exposure in the risk characterization. RAGS
Part A provides guidance for identifying exposure pathway combinations and for
summing risks across pathways. (See pages 6-47 and 8-15 in RAGS-A and 2.5.1
Chemical Interactions and Additivity Assumption in this manual). Combining risks is a
form of cumulative risk, but the risks are limited to those associated with site contamina-
tion. (See 2.5.6 Cumulative Risk in this manual).
Risk assessors are particularly concerned about people who might be especially sensi-
tive, such as children or pregnant women. They are also concerned about people who
have uncommon exposures, such as people who practice subsistence fishing.
Risk assessors evaluate different exposure scenarios that reflect the various ways people
may use land on and around the Superfund site. For example, people might live (resi-
dential scenario), play (recreational), or work (occupational or commercial) near or on
the site. Although the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
generally responsible for promoting and enforcing compliance with workplace health
and safety requirements, Superfund gets involved in the workplace when the source of
the chemicals is from a Superfund site rather than from the workplace itself.
Exposure Concentrations anc] CaLcuLatInci Dose
Risk assessors estimate intake dose to characterize risk. Intake dose estimates are
based on five main factors (See page 6-19 in RAGS-A and Standard Defaults'):
• Concentration of a chemical—at an exposure point, such as a drinking water well
or contaminated fish fillet. (See page 1 in Calculating Concentration).
Tab 2-8
Exposure Assessment
-------
• Contact rate—amount of water, food, dust, or air that a person may take in over a
specified time.
• Exposure frequency and duration—how often and for how long people could be
exposed.
• Body weights for each age group that may be exposed.
• Exposure averaging time—is the time over which exposure is averaged in days.
For a chemical that might cause cancer, EPA prorates the total exposure over a
lifetime to determine a lifetime average daily dose. For a chemical that can cause
non-cancer effects, averaging is over a year (365 days).
Risk assessors insert these five factors into the following equation to calculate an
intake dose that results in a reasonable maximum exposure for that pathway:
Intake Dose (mg/kg-day) = (C) (CR) (EF) (ED)
(BW) (AT)
where: C = contaminant concentration
CR = contact rate (also called intake rate)
EF = exposure frequency
ED = exposure duration
BW = body weight
AT = averaging time
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME). Risk assessors choose a value for each
factor so that the combination of all factors results in a RME dose. To do this, they
use statistics as well as professional judgment. For instance, because of uncer-
tainty associated with estimates of contaminant concentration, risk assessors
usually use the 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic average, which
is a higher concentration than the straight average. To protect the majority of
individuals in a population, they choose "high end" values for contact rates and
duration. However, to avoid unreasonable estimates they use the average value for
body weight over the exposure period. This combination of "high end" contact
rate and average body weight avoids the false assumption that a very small person
would have the highest intake. (See page 6-19 in RAGS-AY
Exposure Assumptions: Standarc] versus SIte Specific
When site exposure information is lacking, risk assessors use standard assumptions,
also called default assumptions, in the exposure assessment. The standard assump-
tions help bridge the gap created by uncertainties. Their sole purpose is to protect
the most vulnerable groups in the community, such as children, the elderly, preg-
nant women, and people who are sick. At the North Dakota site mentioned in the
videotape, EPA used standard assumptions about water consumption to estimate
how much arsenic people were drinking every day. However, community input
can result in modification of the exposure assumptions, such as the fish consump-
tion rate at the Lavaca Bay Superfund site also mentioned in the videotape.
Intake versus
Absorbed Dose
Risk assessors most
often calculate intake
dose because they can
estimate it more accu-
rately than they can
absorbed dose. Ab-
sorbed dose is the
amount of chemical
absorbed into the blood
from the entry point in
the body, such as the
gut, lungs, or skin.
Intake dose is the
amount of chemical that
enters the mouth, lungs,
or contacts the skin.
The RME protects even
the most vulnerable
groups in the commu-
nity.
EPA makes health-
protective assump-
tions to be on the safe
side.
Community input is
sometimes used to
change EPA's expo-
sure assumptions.
Exposure Assessment
Tab 2-9
-------
Information about how
toxic a chemical is
comes from research
performed by universi-
ties, government, and
others. Much of this
information is avail-
able in databases, like
IRIS.
A RME dose that is
greater than the
reference dose (a safe
dose) may be harmful
to people.
The likelihood that
additional cases of
cancer will occur from
a site depends on the
dose.
Science can't explain
why some people get
cancer while others
who are equally
exposed don't.
Toxiciiy Assessment --- 7 IVfiiMUTES
The Toxicity Assessment provides less opportunity for community involvement
than other phases of the risk assessment since EPA uses toxicity values that have
been peer reviewed and derived from the scientific literature. However, the fol-
lowing key messages from the video are important for people to understand.
Questions risk assessors might ask community members, more detailed informa-
tion on some of the key messages, and other risk assessment topics that are com-
monly misunderstood follow on the next few pages.
KEY MESSAGES
• Toxicity assessment addresses potential health effects of the chemicals, and
how much exposure causes adverse health effects.
• "The dose makes the poison." The harm caused by a chemical depends on
how much of that chemical a person is exposed to.
• EPA uses toxicity data that are available to the public on the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS).* The data are derived from animal
studies and occasionally from studies of people in the workplace. The
toxicity data used in risk assessment are peer reviewed and represent "con-
servative" or protective estimates of toxicity in humans.
• EPA evaluates cancer and non-cancer effects. In general, non-cancer
effects have some threshold below which no effects will occur (Reference
Dose). For cancer causing agents, we assume that even at very low
doses, cancer may develop in a small percentage of exposed individuals.
However, every chemical is different, and new science is showing that
some chemicals do not follow these rules (some carcinogens may have
thresholds and not pose a risk at low exposure levels). To protect the
public health, EPA uses large margins of safety when there is uncertainty in
the data.
• Some chemicals exhibit both cancer and non-cancer effects. The risk
assessment evaluates both.
Tab 2-10
* See Tab 4: Community Tools—Additional EPA Internet Resources.
Toxicity Assessment
-------
SampLe Questions For CoMMUNiTy IViEivibERS
ToxiciTy Assessment
• Have you or your neighbors had any health problems that you think could be
related to the site?
• What do you want to know about the toxicity assessment process?
ELements of Toxiciiy
A substance is toxic if it is hazardous or poisonous to living things. Toxicity refers to the
inherent potential of a substance to cause damage to living things. A person must be
exposed to a toxic substance before a damaging effect can occur. The term hazardous is
more broadly defined than toxicity. Hazardous refers to the capability of a substance to
cause harm due to its toxicity, flammability, corrosiveness, explosiveness, or other
harmful property. (See Region 5 Web Site).
Frequency and length of exposure help determine how much, if any, harm will occur.
Chronic toxicity is usually studied in two different ways depending on whether or not
cancer is a concern.
Acute toxicity can occur after a single large exposure or limited number of exposures
within a short time, generally less than 24 hours. Damaging effects, such as breathing
difficulties, vomiting, rashes, and even death, can occur immediately or within hours of
an acute exposure. Occasionally, acute exposure can produce delayed toxicity. Chronic
toxicity, the main concern at most Superfund sites, can occur after repeated exposures
over a long time—usually years—and damaging effects are seen months or years after
exposure began.
EPA often refers to large databases for toxicity information on chemicals at a site. The
databases show the harm a chemical can have and at what dose to expect harm. This
information comes from reseach performed by universities, government laboratories,
and other organizations, and is peer reviewed. For instance, EPA would refer to such
data to find out about the toxicity of the pesticides and arsenic at the Fort Valley site and
to learn about mercury in Lavaca Bay.
The risk assessment predicts health risks based on toxicity and exposure information.
An important point made in the videotape is that health effects do not need to be happen-
ing in a community for EPA to take some action.
"SaFe" Dose
The term "safe" in reference to chemical exposure levels usually refers to amounts
that are too small to be a human health concern even though some level of risk
remains. This is true for cancer risks as well as non-cancer hazards and indicates
that there are degrees of safety. (See Tab 3 Common Questions and Answers).
The Dose Makes
the Poison
"All substances are
poisons; there is none
that is not a poison. The
right dose differentiates a
poison from a remedy."
Paracelsus (1493-1541)
When a chemical has a
health effect on a
laboratory animal, it
often has the same
effect on people.
Safety and Risk
An absolutely safe level
with zero risk is unattain-
able for many chemicals
in the environment. But
to imply that an EPA risk
level is not safe at all can
lead the public to
conclude that if it is not
risk free, it must be
unsafe.
Toxicity Assessment
Tab 2-11
-------
Cancer ancJ Non-Cancer EFFects
Cancer and non-
cancer effects are
analyzed differently.
Most chemicals cause cancer in different ways than they cause non-cancer effects, such
as damage to the liver or kidneys.
Very small amounts of some substances are capable of starting the growth of
cancers. For these substances, there is theoretically no level of exposure that is risk
free. For other substances, however, scientists have discovered that exposure has
to occur above a certain amount, called a threshold dose, before risks to humans
become a concern. Most chemicals that cause non-cancer effects as well as a few
cancer-causing chemicals fall into the threshold category. (See IRIS and Chapter 3
in Reporting on Risk).
Because of these differences, risk assessors report risks differently for cancer and for non-
cancer effects. When risk assessors estimate cancer risk, they try to predict a lifetime
risk level for an exposed individual and how many additional cancer cases might
occur in a population of exposed people. These are cancers that may or may not occur,
but if they were to occur, they would be in addition to cancers from other causes, such as
smoking tobacco. For non-cancer toxicity, risk assessors estimate a daily exposure level
that is likely to be of little risk to people.
Tab 2-12
Toxicity Assessment
-------
Risk ChARACTERizATioN — 4 IMilMUTES
The last part of risk assessment—Risk Characterization—brings the information
from the previous parts together to describe the risks associated with the
Superfund site. Risk characterization summarizes the risks and explores uncer-
tainties in the risk estimates. The result should be a clear and understandable
discussion of the site risks.
The most important key messages from the video are summarized below. Sample
questions risk assessors may ask community members, more detailed information
on some of the key messages, and other risk assessment topics that are commonly
misunderstood follow on the next few pages. A complete description of risk
characterization is provided in RAGS Part A (1989) Chapter 8, Risk Characteriza-
tion fRAGS-AY
KEY MESSAGES
• Risk characterization describes the risks. Risks for individual chemicals
are added. For instance, exposures to soil may include several chemicals and
several routes. All of these are added to present a total risk.
• Risks are presented as numbers. Cancer risks are presented as probabili-
ties. The cancer slope factor is used to estimate the probability that addi-
tional cases of cancer will occur at different doses. Non-cancer "risks" are
described as a number called the hazard quotient, which is related to the
Reference Dose.
• Some uncertainties can be addressed. There are many uncertainties
related to the data sampling and collection process, exposure assumptions,
and toxicity data. Communities can help reduce some sources of uncertainty
in the exposure assessment and the data collection phase. EPA builds in
margins of safety to prevent underestimating the potential risks.
• The risk assessment is used to develop cleanup goals. EPA sets cleanup
concentrations based on the information gathered in the risk assessment, such as
location of chemical contamination, how people are exposed, and the concentra-
tions that pose health risks. (See Tab 3 Common Questions and Answers).
Community input
during the risk assess-
ment can help reduce
uncertainty about
exposure scenarios.
Risk assessment uses
the best available
science and applies
many margins of
safety to protect
people and the envi-
ronment.
Risk Characterization
Tab 2-13
-------
Because uncertainties
and incomplete
information cannot be
avoided, EPA uses
safety factors that
provide a margin of
safety.
Safety factors tend to
overestimate what
EPA believes to be the
actual risks. It is not
possible to measure
the actual risk.
In the absence of
scientific data, EPA
takes measures to err
on the side of caution.
EPA Uses Additivity
EPA advises that in the
absence of adequate
toxicological data on a
mixture, risk assessors
should use data on a
similar mixture if interac-
tion information is
known. In the absence
of such data, EPA
recommends summing
the health risks of the
individual chemicals.
SampLe Questions For CoMMUNiTy IVfEMbERS
Risk ChARACTERizATioN
• Is the risk assessment understandable to you?
• Do you understand how the risk assessment is being used?
CoNSERVATisM iN Risk Assessment
EPA's risk assessment guidance for Superfund supports an approach that leads to protec-
tive or conservative risk estimates. Conservative risk estimates are made to prevent
underestimating the health risks to the public. For instance, risk assessors add the risks
posed by different chemicals at the site. Adding chemical risks is a protective approach
risk assessors can take when data are lacking on how chemicals interact. In the exposure
assessment, risk assessors use human dose levels that represent the reasonable maximum
exposure (RME). This is the highest exposure level anyone is likely to receive from the
site. Also, for the RME, risk assessors generally estimate the duration of exposure to site
chemicals using the high-end value of 30 years for potential residential exposure, which is
designed to protect most people who live on or near the site. By combining high-end
estimates with average values for certain exposure estimates, EPA risk assessors
ensure that the site risk estimates are conservative but possible, which translates
into health-protective cleanup decisions.
When assessing cancer toxicity, EPA guidelines recommend that risk assessors use the
most conservative procedure possible for analyzing the relationship between the dose and
response (i.e., a no threshold response) unless there is enough quality information to
justify to EPA that a less conservative procedure is appropriate. And for non-cancer
effects, EPA builds in a margin of safety to protect the public.
ChEiviicAl Interactions anc] Addmviiy AssuivipTioN
When little or no information is available on the interaction of chemicals in a mixture,
Superfund risk assessment guidance recommends adding risks. Risk assessors estimate
total cancer risk by adding the estimated cancer risks for each chemical of concern. For
non-cancer causing chemicals, risk assessors add the hazard quotients (HQs) from
various exposure pathways provided that the chemicals produce the same toxic effect by
the same mode of action and for the same exposure period. In the risk characterization,
risks are summed across exposure pathways. (See page 8-16 in RAGS-AY
For instance, at Lavaca Bay, the risks of eating mercury-contaminated fish and
touching mercury-contaminated water while swimming are summed. At Fort
Valley, the risks are summed across even more exposure pathways that include
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal routes of exposure.
Little is known about the effects chemicals may have when people are exposed to more
than one chemical simultaneously. When people are exposed to more than one chemical,
the combined health effect may be additive, synergistic, or antagonistic.
The risks of chemicals are additive when their magnitude in the presence of all chemi-
cals is the same as summing the risks produced by each chemical alone (i.e., risk of
Tab 2-14
Risk Characterization
-------
chemicals combined = risk of chemical 1 + risk of chemical 2 +...). Since little, if any-
thing, is known about the actual interactions of chemicals, especially within the body,
EPA considers additivity to be a reasonable assumption. However, some people view it
as overly protective while other people believe it is not protective enough. (See page A-9
in Chemical Mixtures and Lang Article).
Synergism occurs when the damaging effect of both chemicals together is greater than
would be expected if added together. In other words, they enhance each other's effects
beyond what would be expected if they were not interacting with each other. For
instance, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and vinylidene fluoride are each capable
of altering enzyme activity in the liver. When an individual is exposed to both of these
chemicals simultaneously, the effect on liver enzyme activity exceeds that expected
when the effect of each chemical is added. Although EPA believes that synergism is
a rare occurrence and that the additivity assumption is generally protective, EPA will
use synergism in the risk assessment if specific data exist to support it.
Antagonism occurs when chemicals interfere with each other. In other words, the
effect seen when a person is exposed to both chemicals together is less than would
be expected if additivity had occurred.
Due to the lack of data on both synergism and antagonism, addition of chemical
risks is our most protective approach. EPA's Risk Assessment Forum is revising the
1986 Guidelines for Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures, but changes are
not expected in EPA's recommended use of additivity in the absence of data suggest-
ing that another type of interaction occurs. (See Mixtures Guidelines').
Sources of Uncertainty
Uncertainty is part of all risk assessments simply because scientists lack sufficient
information on actual exposure and on how some chemicals may harm people.
Uncertainty can come from many sources, such as the following (See Exhibits 4
and 5 on pages 9 - 10 in Data Usability in RA):
• Inadequate sampling data.
• Incomplete information about how people might come in contact with site chemicals.
• No information on how a chemical might harm people.
• Having to use experimental animal studies to estimate human risks.
• Having to use small numbers of experimental animals at high doses to see an
effect, especially since some effects can take years to develop in humans.
Uncertainty anc] IMARqiNS of SaFety
Any description of uncertainty should emphasize that EPA takes a cautious and
protective approach in response to it. EPA builds margins of safety into the expo-
sure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization to prevent underes-
timating the potential risk. EPA also seeks information from the community to
minimize uncertainties. (See also Chapter 8 in CI-Toolkit).
To ensure an adequate margin of safety for the public, EPA uses protective assump-
tions in the risk assessment. (See page 28 in Hazardous Substances). For instance—
Scientists must use
large doses to deter-
mine if cancers will
develop in laboratory
animals. These doses
are far larger than
those people are
exposed to in the
environment.
The Community's
Role
The community can
provide information to
help overcome some
uncertainties. For
instance, community
members can tell EPA:
• How they use the site
• How much fish, if
any, people eat from
nearby streams
• Whether people grow
and eat their own
garden vegetables
• Where children play
• Past activities they
have observed at the
site
EPA builds in many
margins of safety to
prevent underestimat-
ing risk.
Risk Characterization
Tab 2-15
-------
Mathematical dose-
response models are
used to find out the
likelihood that cases
of cancer may occur at
the low doses typical
of Superfund sites.
The risk assessment
results in numbers
that indicate how great
the risk is.
Non-cancer risks are
described as a number
that compares the
RME to a safe dose,
called the reference
dose.
• In the exposure assessment, risk assessors use the human dose representing the
reasonable maximum exposure because it is the highest exposure anyone is likely to
receive from the site. For example, when risk assessors look at a person's possible
exposure to contaminated drinking water, they typically assume that people drink 8
glasses of water a day. So people that drink less than 8 glasses of water a day are
protected. Also, risk assessors typically use the upper-bound value of 30 years to
estimate exposure duration in residential settings. This practice may overstate the
years of exposure for some residents, but is designed to protect most people.
These and other margins of safety help EPA make sure it protects people's
health.
• When assessing the toxicity of a chemical, EPA also wants to be protective.
When data about the mechanism of carcinogenic action are limited, EPA
guidelines recommend using a linear multistage model to estimate the relation-
ship between dose and response to the chemical at the low concentration levels
found in the environment. (This relationship is referred to as the slope factor in
the videotape.) Risk assessors may apply a less conservative model than the
linear multistage model when there are enough data to convince the Agency it
is appropriate to do so.
• For non-cancer effects, EPA builds a margin of safety into the toxicity criteria
for noncarcinogens. An "uncertainty factor" ranging up to 10,000 might be
applied to compensate for limits in the data available on a particular chemical.
For instance, these factors can account for unknown differences between
laboratory animals and humans, potential differences in response to chemicals
among people, and other uncertainties in the data. This means that the reference
dose (RfD), which is considered safe for humans, can be up to 10,000 times
less than the smallest dose that can cause a health problem in laboratory ani-
mals.
• In risk characterization, risk assessors sum the risks for individual chemicals
across exposure pathways to present a total risk estimate.
Risk Estimates are PreseimtecJ as INuivibERS
For each chemical of concern that may cause non-cancer effects, a Hazard Quotient
(HQ) is reported. The HQ is a ratio of the reasonable maximum exposure (i.e., the
chronic daily dose averaged for a lifetime) divided by the reference dose (RfD):
HQ = Chronic Daily Dose
RfD
If the chronic daily dose is less than the RfD (i.e., if the ratio of HQ is less than
1.0), people are not likely to be harmed because of the many safety features built
into the RfD. However, if the HQ is above 1.0, there is a potential for concern.
When more than one chemical is involved, EPA adds their respective HQs. This rule is
in keeping with the assumption that the effects of different chemicals over an exposure
period are additive unless specific data indicate otherwise. The sum of HQs is called a
Hazard Index (HI). (See standard tables in RAGS-D and page 8-12 in RAGS-AY
Tab 2-16
Risk Characterization
-------
Cancer risk in Superfund risk characterizations is expressed as an upper-bound
estimate of excess lifetime cancer risk for an exposed individual. These cancer
risks are called "excess" or "additional" cancer risks because they are risks only
from the Superfund site. People have cancer risks from other sources related to
their family medical histories and lifestyle choices. Cancer risk is the probability
that additional cases of cancer might occur in the future. Cancer risk is calculated
by multiplying the reasonable maximum exposure (i.e., chronic daily intake aver-
aged over a lifetime) with the cancer slope factor derived from the dose-response
relationship:
Individual Excess Lifetime Risk = Chronic Daily Intake x Cancer Slope Factor
See standard tables in RAGS-D and Exhibit 8-2 on page 8-7 in RAGS-A for examples
of how cancer risk estimates are usually reported in table format.
Cancer risks are reported as a statistical probability. For instance, a risk of 3 x 10~2
indicates that 3 additional cancer cases in a population of 100 are likely to occur, and
3 x 10"4 indicates that 3 additional cancer cases in a population of 10,000 could
occur. This means only that the possibility exists that these cancer cases will occur, not
that they will or will not occur. An excess lifetime cancer risk of 10"6 after cleanup could
be expressed this way: among one million people drinking 2 liters (8 glasses) of water
per day over their whole lives, one case of cancer might result from exposure to
contaminants in the water.
AccEpTAbLE Risk ancJ Risk RANqE
The term "acceptable risk" may be misleading because it suggests a value judg-
ment (See Tab 3 Questions 8 and 9).
EPA generally considers an upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between
10-4 and 10-6 as a safe range. A risk of 10"4 represents a probability that there may be one
extra cancer case in a population of 10,000. A 10~6 risk is the probability that there may
be one extra cancer case in a population of one million people over a lifetime of expo-
sure to a chemical at the RME dose. This also means that at most, there is one chance
in a million of getting cancer from exposure to a specific level of a chemical,
under the conditions defined in the risk assessment, over a lifetime (See page 8-27
in RAGS-AY
An upper-bound cancer risk estimate ensures that the actual chance of getting cancer will
most likely be below EPA's risk estimate. To get an upper-bound risk estimate, EPA
chooses the most conservative mathematical model to analyze the data. Also, in the
exposure assessment, EPA chooses reasonable maximum exposure. As a result, the
cancer risk range that EPA views as acceptable for soil, air, and water is likely to over-
state the actual human cancer risks.
CumuLatIve Risk
In 1997, EPA's Administrator issued the Cumulative Risk Assessment Guidance—
Phase I Planning and Scoping. The guidance defines cumulative risk assessment as
Numbers such as
1x1a4 (one in ten
thousand) are terms
that scientists use to
describe the extra
cancer risk above the
baseline level of
cancer from other
causes.
The NCP Says
"For known or suspected
carcinogens, acceptable
exposure levels are
generally concentration
levels that represent an
excess upper-bound
lifetime cancer risk to an
individual of between 104
and 106 using informa-
tion on the relationship
between dose and
response. The 106 risk
level shall be used as the
point of departure for
determining remediation
goals for alternatives
when ARARs are not
available or are not
sufficiently protective."
(NCP)
Risk Characterization
Tab 2-17
-------
Superfund risk as-
sessments address all
site sources of pollu-
tion but do not include
off-site sources of
pollution.
the aggregate ecological or human health risk caused by the accumulation of risk from
multiple stressors and pathways. (See Cumulative Risk Guidance). EPA's definition of
cumulative risk is evolving.
It is important that people understand that Superfund risk assessments address only
site-related sources of pollution. Because of limits set in the Superfund law, they do
not yet incorporate potential off-site sources of pollution, such as nearby highways,
permitted factories, or farms. Superfund's policy of adding risks from several exposure
pathways in the risk assessment is a form of cumulative risk, but EPA has defined
cumulative risk more broadly. (See Chapter 1 in Considering Cumulative Effects').
Questions about cumulative risk are often raised by communities with environ-
mental justice concerns. For information about environmental justice, please refer
to the following guidances: the 1997 Cumulative Risk Assessment Guidance, 1997
OEi-NEPA Environmental Justice Guidance, 1998 CEQ-NEPA Environmental Justice
Guidance, and 1998 Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Com-
plaints Challenging Permits. A history of environmental justice at EPA and other
related documents are in the EJ Action Agenda.
Tab 2-18
Risk Characterization
-------
VidEOTApE CLosiNq RemarUs — 1 IMIimute
In the closing of the videotape, EPA briefly mentions that the risk assessment
results are used to help risk managers determine how to clean up the site to protect
public health. A brief discussion of risk management may be needed at the end of
the videotape, and the following information will help you prepare for that discus-
sion.
Risk Management
Risk management addresses the question: what is going to be done about the risks? Risk
management decisions center around selecting ways to block exposure pathways and
remove contamination risks. These decisions involve the site team and the community.
EPA established a national goal and a series of criteria for EPA staff to use in choosing
site cleanup methods, often called remedial alternatives. The national goal of the remedy
selection process is to select cleanup methods that are protective of human health and the
environment, maintain protection over time, and minimize untreated wastes. The goal
and expectations are set out in the NCP (See pages 1-9 in Rules of Thumb!
EPA's nine criteria for evaluating site cleanup methods ensure that the site team
considers all important factors in deciding on a remedy:
Overall protection of human health and the environment;
Compliance with ARARs (applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements);
Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination through treatment;
Short-term effectiveness;
Implementability;
Cost;
State acceptance; and
Community acceptance.
At a minimum, the chosen cleanup option must meet the first two criteria (protec-
tion of human health and the environment, and compliance with ARARs). No
remedy will be permitted if it does not satisfy these requirements.
Risk assessment information applies to several of the nine criteria EPA uses for
selecting cleanup methods during the Feasibility Study phase of the Superfund
process:
• Overall protection of human health and the environment is a risk-based thresh-
old criterion that the selected cleanup method must satisfy.
• Risk assessment is used to evaluate possible short-term health concerns that
could occur during the cleanup process if contamination is released creating
new exposure pathways.
Thus, risk estimates are used to identify the chemicals that need to be cleaned up,
target the chemical concentrations that the cleanup methods must attain in each
medium (soil, water, air) during and following treatment, and identify risks that
will remain after the cleanup goals are met.
Risk Estimates
Are Used To
• Identify chemicals that
need to be cleaned up
• Target chemical
concentrations that the
cleanup methods must
attain in each medium
(soil, water, air) during
and following treatment
• Identify risks that will
remain after the
cleanup goals are met
When the risk is
unsafe, EPA takes
action to clean up the
site.
There are no simple
solutions for cleaning
up most Superfund
sites.
Videotape Closing Remarks
Tab 2-19
-------
ReFerences
Calculating Concentration: U.S. EPA. 1992. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calcu-
lating the Concentration Term." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. Directive 9285.7-081. NITS: PB92-
963373.
Chemical Mixtures: U.S. EPA. 1988. "Technical Support Document on Risk Assess-
ment of Chemical Mixtures." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
search and Development. Washington, DC. EPA 600-8-90-064.
CI-RA Guidance: U.S. EPA 1999. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume
1—Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement
in Superfund Risk Assessments." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. Directive 9285.7-01E-P. EPA
540-R-98-042. NTIS: PB99-963303. www.epa.gov/superjiind/programs/risk/ragsa/ci-
ra.htm.
CI-Toolkit: U.S. EPA. 1998. "Superfund Community Involvement Handbook and
Toolkit." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-R-98-007. Will be available soon on
www.epa.gov/superjimd/.
CLP: U.S. EPA. Contract Laboratory Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/
superjund/programs/clp/.
Considering Cumulative Effects: CEQ. 1997. "Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act." Executive Office of the President of the United
States, Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, DC. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/
ccenepa/ccenepa.htm.
Cumulative Risk Guidance: U.S. EPA. 1997. "Cumulative Risk Assessment Guid-
ance—Phase I Planning and Scoping." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wash-
ington, DC. www.epa.gov/ORDspc/cumulrsk.htm.
Data Quality Objectives: U.S. EPA. 1993. "Data Quality Objective Process for
Superfund." Interim Final Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-R-93-071. Directive
9355.9-01. NHS: PB94-963203.
Data Usability in RA: U.S. EPA. 1992. "Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assess-
ment (Part A). Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington, DC. Directive 9285.7-09A.
EJ Action Agenda: U.S. EPA 1995. "OSWEREnvironmental Justice Action Agenda."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse. Washington, DC. EPA 540-R-95-023. www.epa.gov/swerosps/ej/ejndx.htm.
Environmental Risk: U.S. EPA. 1991. "Environmental Risk: Your Guide to Analyzing
and Reducing Risk." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5. Chicago,
Illinois. EPA 905-9-91-017. www.epa.gov/region5/risk.htm.
Tab 2-20
References
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
EPA's ATSDR Guidance: U.S. EPA. 1987. "Guidance for Coordinating ATSDRHealth
Assessment Activities with the Superfund Remedial Process." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Hazardous Site Control Division. Washington, DC. Directive
9285.4-02.
Exposure Pathways: U.S. EPA. "Superfund Emergency Response: Exposure Pathways."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/superjiind/programs/er/hazsubs/pathways.htm.
Hazardous Substances: U.S. EPA. 1990. "Hazardous Substances in Our Environment: A
Citizen's Guide to Understanding Health Risks and Reducing Exposure." U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Policy Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC. EPA 230-
09-90-081.
Health Assessment Guidance: ATSDR "ATSDR Public Health Assessment Guidance
Manual." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/
HAGM/toc-html. html.
IRIS: U.S. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System on-line database. RfD background
document and background on carcinogenicity assessment. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Research and Development, www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/.
Land Use: U.S. EPA. 1995. "Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC. Directive 9355.7-04. EPA 540-R-95-052. NTIS:PB95-963234.
www. epa. gov/superfund/resources/landuse. htm.
Lang Article: Lang, L. 1995. "Strange Brew: Assessing Risk of Chemical Mixtures."
Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 103, No. 2, February. Full article on Web http://
ehpnetl.niehs.nih.gov/qa/103-2focus/focus.html.
Mixtures Guidelines: U.S. EPA. 1998. "Guidelines for Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC. (The 1986 "Guidelines for
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures" are being revised.)
NCP: "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan" (The
NCP): With the Preambles of 1988 and 1990 and the New Index of Key Terms. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 55 Federal Register 8666, March
8.
RAGS-A: U.S. EPA. 1989. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1—
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-1-89-002.
NHS: PB90-155581. www.epa.gov/superfiind/programs/risk/ragsa/index.htm.
RAGS-D: U.S. EPA. 1998. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and
Review of Superfund Risk Assessments)." Interim. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC.
EPA 540-R-97-033. Directive 9285.7-01D. NTIS: PB97-963305. www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/risk/ragsd/index.htm.
References
Tab 2-21
-------
Region 5 Web Site: U.S. EPA Region 5. "What Does Toxic Mean?" U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region 5 Superfund Web Site. www.epa.gov/R5Super/
sfd_toxic.html.
Reporting on Risk: FACS. "Reporting on Risk: A Journalist's Handbook on
Environmental Risk Assessment." Foundation for American Communications
(FACS) and National Sea Grant College Program, www.facsnet.org/report_tools/
guidesprimers risk main.html.
Role in Remedy Selection: U.S. EPA. 1991. "Role of the Baseline Risk Assess-
ment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC.
Directive 9355.0-30. NTIS: PB91-921359. www.epa.gov/superJund/programs/
risk/baseline.pdf.
Rules of Thumb: U.S. EPA. 1997. "Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy
Selection." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-R-97-013. Directive 9355.0-69.
NTIS: PB97-963301. www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/rules/index.htm.
Standard Defaults: U.S. EPA. 1991. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS): Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance:
Standard Default Exposure Factors." Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. Direc-
tive 9285.6-03. NTIS: PB91-921314.
Tab 2-22
References
-------
B 5. COMMON OUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
EPA Piusi Mini's Majuja
1
PUBLIC MEETINGS
TYPICAL OUESTIONS & SAMPLE RESPONSESs
Prepared by
Captain Alvin Chun, USPHS, Senior Environmental Health Policy Advisor
Arnold R. Den, Senior Science Advisor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105 USA
The following list contains sample questions which are often asked by the public.
The list is taken from USEPA, Region 9's Risk & Decision Making and Public
Involvement Workshops. Some typical answers or responses to these questions
are given as examples. The examples show how a good understanding of the
question and careful preparation of a response using USEPA's Seven Cardinal
Rules of Risk Communication are needed to provide helpful answers. Whether or
not answers are perceived to be helpful depends on the credibility of the Agency
and the trust that citizens give to the people representing the Agency. This impor-
tant point is the subject of USEPA Region 9's Public Involvement Workshop.
The authors welcome your comments and suggestions for additional questions.
Based on your feedback, the list may be expanded or revised. All comments may
be directed to the authors at (415) 744-1133 or 744-1018.
If you are interested in learning more about how to work productively with the
public and how to answer similar questions, you may want to attend EPA Region
9's Workshop on Public Involvement. This popular and informative workshop
provides the framework and experiences one would need to fully understand some
of the questions and answers in this section. If you are interested, please call Alvin
Chun or Arnold Den at (415) 744-1133 or (415) 744-1018, or e-mail:
chun.alvin@epa.gov or den.arnold@epa.gov.
A CAUTION TO THE READER — People are astute. Thus, the sample
answers given are intended only to be used as ideas from which to develop
one's own genuine responses. They are not intended to be memorized and
used verbatim since then it may not sound genuine and be perceived as hollow
"PR" As a general rule, responses should be open, honest, and frank; address
the specific needs of your audience; and be acceptable to both you and your
organization. This usually requires spending additional time, getting policy
input from management as well as technical input from credible sources.
Such preparation is required in order to be an effective Agency representative
and communicator. (CR 2) *
* Cardinal Rule #2 from USEPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication (See next page).
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-1
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
USEPA'
Seven CaihHnaL RuLes of Risk CoMMUNicATioN*s
.... For Many Organizations These May Be New Policies Requiring New
Leadership, Processes, Resources and Skills
CR 1 - Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner early and
often in the process for environmental decisions.
CR 2 - Plan carefully and evaluate your performance. Ask others who do
not have a direct stake in your work for their frank evaluations and
suggestions.
CR 3 - Listen and be responsive to people's feelings.**
CR 4 - Be honest, open, frank, kind and respectful.
CR 5 - Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
CR 6 - Meet the needs of the media.
CR 7 - Speak clearly using plain conversational English and with
compassion.
* Updated by USEPA, Region 9
** Examples of "active listening" are underlined in responses to the questions which follow
1 .s Q. Why can't I Ask iviy question now?s
Underlying Public Need: The public is saying they would like their
concerns and questions addressed now instead of later. Apparently, the
Agency's proposed agenda isn't meeting the needs of the public. Some-
times the Agency incorrectly assumes that the public needs to be educated
before they should be allowed to ask questions. One should seriously
consider involving the public in resetting the agenda to better meet their
needs. The public is more likely to listen to the Agency if their concerns
and needs are addressed first. This example of involvement is a way that
the Agency can show its interest in listening and treating the public as a
legitimate partner. This action helps to reduce fear and begin to establish
trust and credibility with the public.
Tab 3-2
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
Reminder Note: The underlined sentences are examples of "active listen-
ing," an important skill used in facilitating discussions. Active listening is
the subject of management, supervisory and interpersonal skill training.
A. It sounds like vou have a lot of questions that need to be answered
now. Maybe we should do that first and save the rest of the agenda
for later? Is that OK? (Principles: Listen; provide feedback on what
you heard; and accept the public as a legitimate partner by getting their
participation in deciding on the agenda.) (CR 1, 3)
A. I know vou all have a lot of questions that vou want answered. Would
it be alright if we proceed with the 10 minute presentation, which I
believe will answer many of your questions, and then leave the bulk of
the remaining time to address the rest of your questions?
(Principles: Listen; provide feedback to the public with a recommendation
on how to proceed with the meeting; and accept the public as a legitimate
partner in deciding on a final agenda.) (CR 1, 3)
A. Poor Response: We share your concerns. If you will please allow us to
finish I'm sure your questions will be answered. (Caution: The overused
statement, "We share your concerns" is vague and may be perceived to be
patronizing. The previous two answers are less vague because they pro-
vide more specific definitions of what is understood. People are astute and
they can usually tell when an Agency response is not genuine or sounds
too much like a "PR" spin. As a general rule good responses usually
requires hard work, an investment in time and policy input.)
A. Poor Response: Please let me finish my talk! There will be lots of time
after my talk to answer your questions. (It can be difficult to hear what the
audience is trying to say especially if you are nervous about your talk and
had invested a great deal of time preparing for it. This problem may be
avoided if you can get a sense of the community's concerns (i.e., know
your audience) before the meeting, and prepare accordingly. It may also
be helpful to involve a neutral meeting facilitatorf who can assist you by
listening for subtle messages being expressed by the audience. Not being
able to hear the audience's urgent need for answers to their questions may
be interpreted as an indication that the Agency doesn't care and that it
knows better than the community. This may create perceptions that we are
disrespectful and not genuinely interested in helping.)
A. Poor Response: Please (With your hand raised and pushing at audience),
all questions will be taken after our presentation! We need to follow the
(Agency's) agenda. Let us give our presentation, and then we'll take your
questions. (The push-back hand gesture may send out a subtle but strong
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-3
-------
message that you and your Agency don't want to listen to people's con-
cerns and that people don't have anything important or useful to say.
Remember that for a meeting to be useful it must have an agenda that
meets most of everyone's needs; otherwise a meeting may not be useful
and some other medium needs to be used. To help insure that an agenda is
useful, a trained Agency meeting facilitator or a neutral outside facilitatorf
should be designated to develop an agenda using input from both the
Agency and the audience or community.)
f COMMENT: An experienced meeting facilitator with mediation skills
would be helpful; an inexperienced facilitator may hurt the trust and
credibility of your Agency.
Q.s Why won't you answer iviy questIon?s
(This is usually a follow-up question to Question #1 after the Agency
insists that questions will only be answered following their presentation.)
Underlying Public Need: This person is anxious to vent or express his
feelings and would like the Agency to listen attentively and acknowledge
their concern before responding. By providing an opportunity for this
person to express his concerns, he may feel that we have a better under-
standing of his concern and that we will therefore take appropriate action.
The public is usually more interested in direct answers to their questions,
and may not have patience for "slick" presentations that don't address their
specific concerns. (Most Agency staff tend to be well versed in giving
detailed presentations to their peers who are more interested in details. In
contrast, the public is usually more interested in our conclusions. Details
may become important later or not at all. A useful presentation for the
public generally includes responses to their needs and concerns.)
It sounds like vou have a pressing question that we need to address
immediately? Let me answer (briefly) then:
(Principles: Listen and respond.) (CR 1, 3)
I apologize if we have not answered your question, and I have written
down vour question here (on the board or a flip chart pad of paper), and
I have saved this part of the agenda (also, shown on another flip chart)
to answer them. After having heard some of your questions, I believe
that many of them will be answered in the 10 minute presentation that
we have prepared. I also believe that hearing the brief presentation
first may save you and everyone here some time. If that sounds like a
useful way to proceed, can we proceed? And if that's not acceptable,
then we'll have to think of something else.
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
(Principles: Listen; provide feedback and helpful suggestions; and involve
the public in deciding how to proceed.) (CR 1, 3)
A. (When you feel that an apology is not needed.) Let me try again. I feel
it's important that we answer your question and everyone else's. I'll
write your question here on the flip chart to make sure that we fully
understand it, and then give you an answer. Let me restate your ques-
tion so that everyone can hear it: " ." Did I correctly
understand your question? If not, please help me out by restating it.
(CR 1,3)
A. I understand that your question is very important to vou. and mavbe
we haven't been listening too well. How many of you also have ques-
tions and would like them answered now? (From the show of hands) I
see there are many questions. Let me offer two suggestions on how we
might proceed, and with a show of hands let me know if one sounds
good:
One suggestion is to answer your questions until they are all an-
swered, and then if you are still interested, we can give you our 10-
minute presentation. Also, you are welcome to pick up a fact sheet
which summarizes the presentation if you can't stay.
A second suggestion is to let us give the 10-minute presentation so that
everyone will have some common understanding of the situation. The
10-minute presentation may answer many of your questions. It may
also raise other questions which you may want addressed. After the
presentation, we can spend the rest of the evening making sure that all
your questions are answered. Because there seems to be a lot of
questions, we are prepared to stay late until all your questions have
been answered.
Now let's have a show of hands to decide how we should proceed.
How many would like to hear the presentation first? How many
would like to get at the questions first? It looks like most of you
would like to . Would those of you who voted for the
other choice mind if we proceeded this way and give it a try?
(Principles: Listen; provide feedback with helpful suggestions; and
involve the public in deciding how to proceed.) (CR 1, 3)
A. Poor Response: Because they will be answered after you hear our presen-
tation. Please let us finish and you will see. (This will not be effective if
there is low trust between the Agency and the public.)
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-5
-------
Poor Response: Sir (using a frustrated or irritated tone of voice), if you would
just let me finish, I'll get to your question at the end, and we will answer all
your questions. (It is sometimes very difficult for Agency personnel to share
control of the meeting with the public. As a consequence, it may appear to the
public that the Agency is more concerned about sticking to its agenda and
maintaining "control" (thus, reinforcing public perceptions that government is
inflexible and not receptive) of the meeting rather listening and including
agenda items raised by the public. In other words, the Agency's message to
the public is that they and their problems are not important. In an attempt to
maintain control, one will likely lose trust, credibility and control. An impor-
tant point to consider: If your goal is to give your presentation at any cost, you
may want to consider just sending out a fact sheet and not have a meeting.
However, if you do have a meeting people will also expect your attention, and
we should take time to listen, and try to meet the needs of the community, and/
or to include their input in solving an environmental problem. When a com-
munity is insisting to be heard, we should try to accommodate them, or present
them with alternatives that meet both their needs and the Agency's. Giving
people more control and input to the meeting agenda beforehand will help
build trust and promote two-way communications.)
Poor Response: If you will be patient like everyone else here, I'm sure
we'll get to your question along with everyone else's. You may even learn
something. (Insults and arrogance will tend to anger everyone especially
when the Agency is not respected. Insults and arrogance is not acceptable
nor a substitute for respect which people deserve and expect.)
Q. WhAT are you doiNq AbouT iT? Why is iT
TAkiNq so LoNq?
Underlying Public Need: The public would like to see action, and to know
that we are correcting the problem. Ultimately, they will be evaluating our
sincerity in protecting their health.
Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions for cleaning up hazard-
ous waste sites. It is a complicated and time consuming process. You
are concerned about what we're doing, and why it's taking so long.
Like you, we would like to clean this up as quickly as possible. Here's
what we have done and what we will be doing: . Our goal
is to protect public health, and we are proceeding as fast as we can.
(Principles: Listen; provide feedback.) (CR3, 4, 7)
You know, you're right. It is taking long and I have not been clear on
why. Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy solutions for cleaning
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
up hazardous wastes site so that your health is protected. What I can
do is tell you what we have done, what we plan to do and keep you
updated with progress that we are making.
(Principles: Listen; provide feedback.) (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: Ah, Ah, Ah... Don't you know we're doing our best! Clean-
ing up this site and issuing the permit is very complicated. It takes time. If
you will just read our Fact Sheet you will understand. (This Agency person
was not well prepared and did not have answers to some basic questions. He
became defensive and sarcastic. This tends to increase public fears which may
ultimately delay any Agency decision on cleanup options or solutions. Some
lessons learned here are: that you should be knowledgeable about your site,
state that a primary Agency goal is to protect public health and the environ-
ment, anticipate that people will be concerned, have responses that address
those concerns, and remember that we serve the public.)
A. Poor Response: I have five other sites that I'm working on and I'm work-
ing hard on all of them. (The public is usually not interested in the status
of other sites or our excuses. They want to know specifically what we are
doing to clean up their site and to protect them.)
4. Q. Why hAVENfT you Closed tNe PIant or GIven
us BottLecJ Water Yet? How MANy more
PeopLe NeecJ to Get cancer or bE huRT
BeFore You will act?
Underlying Public Need: The public is fearful about getting cancer from
exposure to DNC, and is concerned that we have not closed the plant.
From the public's perspective, closing the plant and giving bottled water
seem to be obvious and logical solutions.
A. The plant does not pose an immediate health threat. You can drink
the water and your air is O.K. for now. However, we are concerned
that if we do not take action, the water will get contaminated and
breathing the contaminated air for many years might cause harm. We
are taking action so that you can continue to drink the water and
breathe the air for many years to come without health problems.
(Principles: Give a direct answer that demonstrates our concern for
protecting people's health and welfare, and state our actions.) (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. We are not closing the plant because there is no immediate health
threat. The problem is a long term one where if nothing is done about it
in the next few years, it will become a health problem. In other words,
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-7
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
constant long term exposures to DNC is the problem which may cause
cancer, and that is the problem we are aggressively solving. We are
taking action to eliminate the long term exposure to you and your
family. Here's what we are proposing, and we believe this will correct
the problem and protect your health: . Your health is
not in danger.
(Principles: Give a direct answer that demonstrates our concern for
protecting people's health and welfare, and state our actions.) (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: We've been working with the plant, and we don't think
that it's necessary! (While this may be true, it does not tell the whole
story. This response may suggest that we are more concerned about the
plant than the community. It may also give the community the impression
that their concerns and ideas are not important, and that only the Agency
knows what is best for them.)
A. Poor Response: (Even though the water is safe to drink and not contami-
nated, several Agency staff at the meeting are seen drinking bottled water.
This can alarm and mislead people to conclude that the water is highly
contaminated because the Agency's "actions" give the impression that the
water is not safe to drink.)
A. Poor Response: We are studying the problem and we'll let you know if we
find something. (Does not provide a definite positive, negative or uncer-
tain answer. This can suggest that the water may be unsafe to drink and
that we just don't care, causing more unnecessary alarm.)
When this question is asked after you have begun your presentation:
A. Poor Response: Let me finish my presentation! (Even though one may
have spent hours preparing the presentation, one must remain open and be
prepared to change. The problem may be that one is not prepared to
change or that one has not been given permission by one's supervisor nor
requested it ahead of time in order to be able to make adjustments during
the meeting. Planning for these situations, and designating a neutral
meeting facilitatorf (see "COMMENT" at end of Question #1) who will
have responsibility for making changes are important contingencies to
consider.)
5. Q. Is iT SaFe? Are My Kids SaFe?
Underlying Public Need: The public wants to know if there is any danger
to their family. They want direct and understandable answers to their
question, e.g., yes, no, or I don't know and why. They do not want
Tab 3-8
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
answers that come from an Agency who is not trustworthy nor credible, e.g.,
"This hazard represents only a 10~5 risk to your community." This example
suggests that one is hiding something because the response is indirect and uses
mysterious technical language; thus, one may perceive that "it isn't safe" even
though the intent is to suggest otherwise. Answering this common question is
easier when one has developed trust with the public and is confident about his
answer. One can respond more confidently when there is general agreement
within the Agency.
A. Yes, you and your family are safe. Let me explain what I mean by safe.
Your concern for safety is our concern also. We are here to protect your
health and the health of your family. We consider any amount of a
cancer causing agent to be potentially dangerous and we take it seriously.
(This is the non-threshold dose response policy that EPA uses in cancer risk
assessments.) DNC is such a substance. Based on our knowledge of the
amount of DNC that people are being exposed to, we feel it is safe for all
residents east of the Acme Plastics Plant because DNC isn't in the air or
drinking water. For the residents of Coyote Knolls, DNC is only present
in the air, but in such small quantities that exposure may be a health
concern if it is not reduced in the next several years. In other words, it is
safe now and by taking action in the next years it will continue to be safe.
(CR 3,4) (In this case there will be a finite but small concentration of DNC
that will remain in the ground water and air, but it will be below the RfD or
RfC or within a 10"4 to 10"6 risk range which the Agency considers "safe" in its
various air and water standards. You should anticipate that this may not be
acceptable to some people and possibly some Agency people, especially if
they believe that any contamination is unacceptable. These issues must be
discussed and resolved internally so that everyone in the Agency has a com-
mon understanding. In addition such issues must be fully heard and discussed
with concerned citizens in order to reach some common understanding.)
A. We are also very concerned about vour safety and the safety of vour
loved ones. We believe it is safe for you and your kids to drink the water
and breathe the air. There is no DNC in the drinking water, but we feel
there will be in the future if the leak from Acme's underground tank is
not controlled. There is some DNC contamination in the air and this will
become a health concern if steps are not taken to control it, and if people
continue to be exposed to it for many years. We are taking steps to insure
that the contamination will be controlled so that it will continue to be safe.
(CR3,4)
A. Poor Response: The lifetime risk of getting cancer based on the current level
of DNC in the air is 10-4 Based on that estimate, we feel that we should
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-9
-------
reduce the risk to a level of 10~5. (It may be second nature and more
comfortable for Agency people to use scientific language, but it is not
usually helpful to speak in terms that are unfamiliar to the public. Ad-
dressing the community by using unfamiliar scientific language may be
taken very offensively because it can suggest an unwillingness to commu-
nicate. Because this response does not directly or indirectly say if it is
safe, the community may interpret it as being very unsafe!)
6. Q. Are tIiere ANy saFe LeveLs For a CARciiMoqEN?
(A CLass A, or B, or C CARciiMoqEN, or
kiMOWN OR LikEly CARcilMOqENS ARE
dESCRipTORS tIiat tIie AqENcy is REvisiNq iN
iTS CANCER quidEliNE.)
A. Your question is about carcinogens and whether there are safe levels.
EPA has categorized some chemicals as "known" or "A" carcinogens,
"likely" or "B" carcinogens, and "possible" or "C" carcinogens.
These classifications are based primarily on actual data from humans
for "A" carcinogens, and animal studies for "B" and "C" carcinogens.
If EPA believes that a chemical is a carcinogen, we assume that all
levels of exposure will have some level of cancer risk. The smaller the
exposure, the smaller the risk. We generally describe these risks in
terms of probability or the specific chance of getting cancer. If in
asking your question, you want to know if there are levels of exposure
that are free from risk, the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you
are asking whether certain levels of chemical exposure are too small to
be of a health concern, then the answer is yes. Our goal is to reduce
the level of exposure to a safe level where it will be safe to drink the
water and breathe the air. (From EPA's experience and the experiences
of many health agencies, risks greater than 10-4 are almost always unac-
ceptable or unsafe and need to be controlled. Risks that are between 10~5
to 10"4 have been controlled on a case-by-case basis, and risk less than 10~6
are usually not controlled and thus deemed safe. Remember that a safe
level does not necessarily mean zero risk. (There is an actual EPA court
decision on this. See Bork 1989 decision on the Clean Air Act NESHAP
on Vinyl Chloride.) For example, 10"4 or 10~5 risks are safe levels. There are
many reasons why zero risk may not be feasible, but one must also remem-
ber that 10"4 or 10"5 are upperbound estimates or maximum risks. This
means that the actual probability or risk may be much lower or even be zero
given all the health protective assumptions that are used.) (CR 3,4)
A. Poor Response: No. Any level is dangerous, and can cause cancer. (This
answer paraphrases EPA's use of its non-threshold dose response assumption
Tab 3-10
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
for carcinogens. This assumption is a default policy that EPA uses when
there is no documented evidence for how a particular chemical causes
cancer. EPA's default policy assumes that there is some finite risk or prob-
ability associated with any exposure to a carcinogen, i.e., theoretically one
molecule of DNC can start the cancer process. Too often the public as well
as some Agency personnel misinterpret this policy to mean that any expo-
sure to a carcinogen will definitely cause cancer. Contrary to this notion, the
policy uses a probability concept, and asserts that when the exposure to a
carcinogen is very small, the probability of getting cancer is also very small;
so small that it is not a health concern and is safe. This is an important
concept to understand since we routinely set cancer risks levels above zero
(i.e., 10"4 to 10"6) as safe levels. While we may want to eliminate any expo-
sure to a carcinogen as an overall Agency goal, the reality of taking into
account technology limits, budgetary limits, analytical limits, social benefits,
etc., often requires management decisions that will reduce risks to levels that
are greater than zero, but so small as to not be a health concern.)
7. Q. Would you ditiNk our water? Would you
bREAThE OUR AiR?
Underlying Public Need: Again, the public wants to know how this affects
their family and if we are sincerely concerned about protecting their
health.
A. Yes, I would drink the water because it is not contaminated with DNC,
and I am here breathing the air because it is such an extremely low
risk that I am not concerned about it harming my health. I under-
stand that some of vou may still feel that any concentration of DNC in
the air is unsafe. But let me say again that we feel there is no immedi-
ate hazard or concern, and that we can clean up the contamination so
that there will be no long-term health concern. (If there was an imme-
diate health hazard, an emergency response action would have been
ordered, and bottled water may have been offered or recommended if the
drinking water was contaminated.) (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: That's a personal choice whether to drink the water or
not. (While this is true, it sounds evasive and doesn't answer the question.
As a result, even though we know that the water isn't contaminated with
DNC, the response gives the impression that the water isn't safe to drink.)
A. Poor Response: (Hesitates and doesn't answer. Similarly, this may also
give the impression that the uncontaminated water isn't safe to drink.)
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-11
-------
8. Q. How can you SAy ii's ACCEpTAblE? IMy uncIe
Nas cancer! Just Look at our NEiqhboRhood
ANd aLL tNe illNESSES ANd pEoplE wiTh
cancer!
Underlying Public Need: The public wants to have some control over deter-
mining what is acceptable, and to make it as safe as possible. They may just
want some expression of acknowledgment, compassion and concern for the
people stricken with cancer. (The phrase "acceptable risk" should not be used
by the Agency because it is a value judgment. An Agency can decide what it
considers "safe" and the public has every right to say that it isn't acceptable.
The Agency's goal in risk communication is not to impose our value judg-
ments on people. Rather our goal is to engage people in a dialogue so that we
can understand their perspective and so that they can have a better understand-
ing of the situation, the Agency, and it's intentions. With this information,
people can make a more informed judgment.)
A. I'm sorry (genuinely) about your uncle's cancer. (Pause and wait for
any reaction.) (CR 1, 3, 4, 7)
A. I'm sorry (genuinely) to hear about your uncle. I'm also hearing that
you're not satisfied with our cleanup proposal, and that you're very
concerned about cancer which PNC can cause. (CR 1, 3, 4, 7)
A. I'm troubled to hear that there is so much sickness. I want you to
know that our goal is to make it safe for you and your family. (An
Aside - It is not necessary to say this now, but we do not believe that DNC
is responsible for the cancers because cancer usually takes many years of
exposure to develop and DNC has only been in the environment for a few
years.) I believe the DNC leaking from ACME Plastics can be elimi-
nated so that your health is protected. If you would like, we can
discuss this further after the meeting, during the break, or I would be
happy to call you at your convenience. (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: I'm sorry (insincerely) about your uncle's cancer.
A. Poor Response: I'm sorry (memorized from this document and not genu-
ine) to hear about your uncle. I'm also hearing that you're not satisfied
with our cleanup proposal, and that you're very concerned about cancer
which DNC can cause.
A. Poor Response: I'm sorry to hear about your uncle, however, we are going
to clean up the situation to our acceptable risk range of 10~6. (One's feeling
of sorrow for the uncle is eliminated with the word "however" and the
Tab 3-12
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
words following. Sorrow should be genuine and could have been more
clearly expressed by just saying, "I'm sorry to hear about your uncle."
Usually nothing more needs to be said unless one is asked again.)
A. Poor Response: It's acceptable because the risk is 10-6. Based on that risk level,
those cancers couldn't have been caused by DNC. (While the numbers and
conclusion may be correct, the response doesn't acknowledge the tragedy of the
situation and address the person's concern to have some personal control in this
situation. The Agency's response about acceptability may be perceived as
callous; we appear to be more concerned with numbers than with people.)
A. Poor Response: We don't know what caused those cancers. However, you
should know that one out three of you will get cancer in your lifetime just from
everyday activities and exposures that don't include DNC. For example, you're
more likely to get cancer from eating peanut butter or charcoal broiled steaks
than from exposure to DNC. (Whether this is true or not is irrelevant when
people are upset. People may just want acknowledgment of their feelings, or to
just be allowed to vent their concerns. They may not expect an answer. If this is
the case, people would probably appreciate some expressions of acknowledg-
ment or empathy from the Agency. People, especially when they are upset, do
not want to be told why they shouldn't be concerned or that their concerns are
exaggerated. In this case, any explanation may be perceived as patronizing.)
9. Q. WhAT doEs 1 x 10'4 or 1 x 10'6 mean?
WhAT is Risk? WIiat's a Risk assessment?
Underlying Public Need: The public needs direct answers. They also
need to know us, and if we are trust worthy, e.g., Are we trying to "snow
them" with our jargon and are we're looking after their best interest. First
understanding and discussing how the situation affects people personally,
and directly answering the "Is it safe?" question will address most of
people's needs. Usually only after that has been adequately demonstrated
will people be more receptive to a technical discussion about risk calcula-
tions. Often, if the Agency has done a good job addressing the "Is it
safe?" question with honesty and compassion, it will have earned some
degree of trust and credibility. As a result of addressing their underlying
concerns, the public may not require more explanation of the technical
jargon or specific 10~6 terminology.
Problems occur when Agencies focus on the 10~6 term or issue with the public
too soon, because they assume that it is the primary question on people's
minds. Some of the primary questions on people's minds that deserve atten-
tion are: Does the Agency understand my concerns? Is the Agency interested
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-13
-------
in my concerns? Is the Agency open and upfront with me? Do they know
what they're doing? Can I trust them? These are the questions that must
be first worked on to establish rapport necessary to answer other questions.
Focusing too soon on 10~6 issues may generate more public concern and
confusion. When this happens, Agency staff may sometimes misinterpret
this to mean that they did a poor job of explaining the technical terms; and
that if 10"6 could have been more clearly explained, then the public
wouldn't have overreacted. This line of reasoning usually leads to more
frustration for everyone.
Answering this question can get quite involved because it is technically
complex, and not easy to do in conversational English. This often times
requires an extensive dialogue with the community which should be
offered. Be prepared to spend sufficient time explaining the technical
aspects when people want it. It is also usually helpful to use easy-to-
understand graphics to help explain your points in the discussion.
Assuming that this question is being asked at a non-technical public
meeting, some answers could be:
A. Explaining risk and risk assessments cannot be easily done in our
short meeting, but I will try to give you a short answer which I hope
will be helpful. If you're interested in a more thorough discussion, I
would invite you to meet with me in the future or we can arrange for a
separate meeting with all of you who would be interested. If that is
not convenient, I also have a short video tape which gets into what
risk assessments are, and you may find looking at this helpful. Of
course, I would be available afterwards to discuss it with you.
1 x 106 is an expression which scientists often use to express one
chance in a million that something may occur. In a risk assessment,
this means at most one chance in a million of getting cancer if one is
constantly exposed to a specific level of a chemical under the condi-
tions stated in the risk assessment (e.g., 24 hours/day of exposure) over
one's 70-75 year lifetime. In our risk assessments, we tend to overesti-
mate the risk when there is insufficient information; that way, we
insure that public health is protected.
If that still isn't a good enough explanation, let me explain it another
way and hopefully, it will be more helpful: DNC is a dangerous
chemical because we have reasons to believe that it may cause cancer.
Currently, there is no danger to you if you drink the water because it
Tab 3-14
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
isn't contaminated. The air is contaminated with DNC, but in such
small levels that it is safe in the short-term. However, we must reduce
the contamination to a lower level for it to be safe in the long-term.
I'm sorry if this sounded confusing because on the one hand we're
saying it's safe in the short-term, but on the other hand we're propos-
ing to clean it up to make it safe in the long-term. (CR 1, 7)
As in any response, this one may not be satisfying to everyone, and you
may need to be prepared to offer other examples, or get people to tell you
where it isn't clear so that you can elaborate. For example:
A. It looks like that answer wasn't too helpful for everyone. Maybe some
of you now have some more specific questions for me which may help
me explain this better, or maybe I could meet with those of you who
would like to discuss it further after this meeting. If you would like, I
can try to find another example. We also have a short video tape that
you may want to view. The tape introduces risk assessment and tries
to explain it but even it may need to be supplemented with some
discussion.
Other examples: A 106 risk level is equal to the risk level associated
with EPA's drinking water standard for trichloroethylene, a
degreasing solvent and classified by EPA as a probable human car-
cinogen; alternatively, this level is 100 times more stringent than
EPA's drinking water standard for vinyl chloride, another cancer
causing chemical. (CR 1, 3, 7)
Assuming that this question is being asked at a technical meeting where
the question can be taken literally, some answers could be:
A. Explaining risk and risk assessments cannot be easily done in our
short meeting, but I will try to give you a short answer which I hope
will be helpful. I would invite you to hear a more thorough discussion
on this rather complex question when you like.
In this situation, we are talking about cancer risk. Cancer risk is the
likelihood or chance of getting cancer from exposure to that chemical.
When we write, "1 x 106" or say "one times ten to the minus sixth,"
we are using scientific shorthand to express "one-in-a-million." By
saying that there is a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk from a given
level of exposure to a chemical, we mean that for each person ex-
posed to a specific cancer causing chemical at some definite level
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-15
-------
during his/her entire lifetime of 70 years, he/she has at most a
one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer from that chemical. This is
similar to saying that due to exposure to a chemical over a specific
time frame, we would expect to see no more than one additional
cancer case in a population of one million people. We specifically refer
to "excess cancer risk" and "additional cancer case" because histori-
cally or statistically we know that there will be about 300,000 cancer
cases over a 70-year period in a population of one million people due to
ordinary exposures from daily activities, family history, genetics, etc.
So the additional cancer cases are those above the statistically expected
cases from ordinary everyday activities.
I should also point out, however, that there is a great deal of uncer-
tainty built into our risk estimates to ensure safety. This is because
science has not yet progressed far enough to explain exactly how
cancers are caused. In addition, we can never be absolutely sure of
the exact levels of a chemical that are present in the environment. To
account for these uncertainties and to acknowledge gaps in science, we
build in safety factors in the risk estimates which tend to overestimate
what we believe to be the actual risk. Where there is uncertainty or
where our information is incomplete, we make assumptions that tend
to overestimate the risk as a way to insure that public health is pro-
tected. For example if we are not sure about the amount of time you
may be exposed to a chemical, we overestimate your exposure by
saying your exposure is 24 hrs/day for a lifetime. As a result, when we
estimate that there is a one-in-a-million (excess) risk, the actual excess
risk is probably much less and may even be zero.
Where the audience is technically oriented and has a greater interest for
technical details, a more expanded explanation may sound like this:
Explaining risk and risk assessments cannot be easily done in our
short meeting, but I will try and give you a summary which I hope
will be helpful. I would invite you to hear a more thorough discussion
on this rather complex question when you like.
As a summary, risk defined by EPA is the probability or chance of
getting cancer from being exposed to a specific carcinogen such as
DNC or a group of carcinogens under conditions described in the risk
assessment. We should remember, of course, that the general risk of
getting cancer in our lifetime without any presence of DNC is about
30% i.e., 300,000 people in a population of 1 million will develop
cancer in a lifetime. That is, from looking at hospital records, 30% of
us will be afflicted with some form of cancer in our lifetime just from
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
our routine lifestyles, medical history, etc. Thus, the risks that EPA
estimates are risks that are in addition to the 30% level found in the
general population.
The conditions defined in the risk assessment are used to help predict
the risk. They depend on the site, and may, for example, state that
people in a community are being exposed to DNC for 24 hours each
day, everyday for the next 9 years. In estimating the risk, two sets of
conditions are often used; one to reflect a typical exposure level and a
second to reflect a higher exposure level.
Numbers such as 1 x 104 and 1 x 106 are terms used by scientists to
describe the extra cancer risks above the 30% baseline cancer level in
the United States. 1 x 104 means that if you were exposed to DNC at
the levels and conditions set forth in the risk assessment, that there
may be a one-in-10,000 chance of getting cancer from DNC. In other
words, if 10,000 people were exposed to DNC over a long period of
time, there may be one person who might get cancer in addition to the
3,000 people who will get cancer from lifestyle exposures and other
factors which do not include DNC. Unfortunately, there is no cer-
tainty to our risk estimates because neither doctors nor scientists
know enough yet about the cancer process, i.e., a one-in-10,000 chance
or risk estimate does not mean that one person out of a 10,000 people
exposed to DNC will actually get cancer. It means that they might.
In order to estimate the chances of getting cancer from exposure to
chemicals, such as DNC, over a long period of time, EPA must make a
number of health protective assumptions also referred to as scientific
policies. Because of our lack of understanding about cancer, our
assumptions or policies tend to overestimate risk rather than underes-
timate it. (All of the probabilities or risk numbers that are calculated are
based on these assumptions.) This is done to insure that public health
will still be protected should some of our assumptions or policies later
be proven to be wrong, based on further scientific research. An
example of a health protective assumption that EPA makes is that
when animals get cancer from very large doses of a chemical given in
laboratory experiments, EPA assumes that people will also get cancer
from that chemical even at much lower levels typically found in our
environment. In making this assumption, we are erring to protect
public safety. If science should prove in the future that our assump-
tion was too health protective, and that people do not get cancer from
exposures to DNC, then we would have erred on the side of safety. So
when a risk assessment states, for example, a one-in-a-million risk or
106 risk, it means a probability or prediction that there may be up to
one extra cancer case in a population of one million people over a long
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
period of exposure to a chemical. This one possible extra cancer case
is one in addition to the 300,000 cases in a population of one million
that would occur over a lifetime due to lifestyle, family medical his-
tory, etc. Again, if any of our assumptions are later proven wrong,
then the actual risk or danger from exposure to DNC may be lower (or
had been overestimated) and could even be zero. (Remember in the
absence of conclusive scientific data, EPA uses health protective assump-
tions in its risk assessments.) This means that the calculated risks may
be a lot lower should one or more of our assumptions prove to be
overprotective. EPA takes these precautions to ensure that the
public's health and safety are protected. (CR 3, 4)
A. Poor Response: It's almost like getting a four-of-a-kind hand in a poker
game. (If people are expressing doubt or confusion about the terms, and
you continue to explain using more unfamiliar or technical terms, it may
not help and may increase people's fears.)
IO.sQ. Am I qoiNq to bE tIie ONE-iN-A-MillioN?s
Why isNfT iT zero?s
Underlying Public Need: The public is concerned about how they will be
affected personally, and whether they should trust the Agency's judgement.
The questions may also indicate that the public wants to be more involved
in deciding on an acceptable cleanup level.
A. I would say no because the odds are so great against it. (When there is
high trust in the Agency, this is a sufficient answer. To earn trust, usually
requires early involvement and clear communication with the public
through the sincere use of the Seven Cardinal Rules.)
A. Your concerns about what the risk numbers means to vou personally
is a very valid one. Because we are talking "probability" or "chance"
when we talk about risk, there is unfortunately no definite answer to
your questions. But based on the safety factors we've used to develop
these risk numbers, we sincerely doubt if you will get cancer from
DNC. Let me explain why. In estimating the risk, we've made nu-
merous health protective assumptions and assumed several worst case
exposure situations to be on the safe side. The assumed exposure
situations over estimate your exposures and are thus very unlikely,
but because of the uncertainties about cancer, we wanted to use this
case to be as protective as possible. As a consequence, the actions we
will take to reduce your risk based on these assumptions will be more
Tab 3-18
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
substantial or health protective than if we had assumed more typical
exposure situations. For example, we assumed a maximum exposure
to DNC of 24 hours/day, 365 days/year for the next 30 (or 70) years. If
this describes your current situation, you may have at most
one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer from DNC. If you are
exposed to DNC for less than 24 hours/day which is more likely then
your risk is even less. Conversely, under those extreme exposure
situations you may have at least a 999,999-in-a-million chance of not
getting cancer from DNC, and an even much less chance if your
exposure is less than the maximum exposure situation we assumed. In
your case, I would guess that you will not be constantly exposed to
DNC for all of your life, and thus your chance of getting cancer from
DNC is much less than one-in-a-million, and for all practical purposes
is zero, especially when one considers all the other health protective
assumptions that are used. (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: Chances are you will not be the one-in-a-million to get
cancer from being exposed to DNC. You're more likely to get cancer from
eating peanut butter or charcoal broiled steaks which also contain carcino-
gens. (It may seem logical and even fair, but it isn't, to show how insig-
nificant the risk from DNC is by comparing it to everyday risks. Such
comparisons are unfair because they compare an involuntary exposure to
DNC with other voluntary exposures. It's like comparing apples with
oranges. As you can imagine such comparisons generate anger because it
sounds like you are belittling people's real concerns.)
ll.sQ.s WhAT doES 1 ppb mean; 1 Jiq/l; 1 Jiq/M5?s
(The context of this question is that we've been using 1 ppm in all our
previous discussions and now we've introduced 1 ppb. This is a technical
question requiring a technical answer which should be given in terms that
are familiar to the audience. The second response provided below can also
be used to clarify "ppb" when it is introduced in a public discussion.
For example,
A. 1 ppb is a term used for expressing concentration. 1 ppb is similar to
one drop of water in an Olympic size swimming pool, 1 second in 32
years, or 1 item out of a billion of those items. I hope these examples
are helpful. Does that clear it up better? (CR 1, 3, 4, 7)
A. I'm sorry if we've confused things by switching from 1 ppm to 1 ppb
concentration, (or, "Oops, I think I may have confused things. Let
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-19
-------
me try it again.") Here's some other ways to explain it that may be
more helpful:
1 ppm is 1,000 ppb, or 1 ppb is a 1,000 times smaller than 1 ppm.
Another way to visualize 1 ppm is that is it is 1/1,000,000, and 1 ppb is
1/1,000,000,000. (Writing these two numbers on a flip chart will help to
illustrate your points.) Even though these may be small numbers or
small concentrations, a small concentration of a certain toxic chemical
may still hurt you. Whether it will hurt you depends on the chemical,
its toxicity, and the length of exposure. (CR 7)
A. Poor Response: (Answering with technical terms or jargon similar to the
previous response when the question was actually a non-technical question
is a poor response because it isn't helpful to the audience.)
12.s0.s WhAT doEs RCRA mean?s
A. See Answers to Question #11. (Avoid jargon and explain terms early in
your presentation. Referring to "RCRA" as the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the "law," or the "regulations" may also be suffi-
cient and won't sound so "jargony" once people are familiar with your
term.) (CR 7)
1 5.s0.s How can you trust tIie coivipANy?s
Underlying Public Need: The public wants to know if our primary con-
cern is for their health and well being. They would also like to know if
and how we go about verifying the company's data.
A. You're concerned about the credibility of the company's data. Even
though we have very limited resources to do our own sampling and
must often rely on company supplied data, let me assure you that we
don't take their data on face value. We critically review the data and
the process by which it was derived to ensure its credibility. If we had
any doubts, we would request additional and more reliable data. Our
goal is to protect your health by ensuring that we have the most
reliable data from which to base our decisions. We would be more
than happy to share their monitoring data with you, and discuss how
we looked at it to insure it's accuracy. (CR 3, 4)
A. Poor Response: Why do you think we trust the company? (This is defen-
sive, and does not answer the question. It gives the impression that we are
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
not subject to question and that we should be trusted. That we "should" be
trusted usually creates suspicion and distrust.)
14.sO. Why did tNe coivipANy Nave to teII you?s
Why didNfT you spoT tNe pRoblEM ANd wh
did iT taUe so LoNq?s
Underlying Public Need: The public probably needs to vent their frustra-
tion about the situation, and to feel reassured that we are doing everything
that we can. They may need an honest apology from the Agency for any
delays which we may have caused, and to be kept more regularly informed
about any progress that is being made.
A. Unfortunately, we do have to rely on the good faith reporting by the
company. To provide strong incentives that they do a good job, we
heavily penalize company's that don't and make sure everyone knows
we are serious. Now that we know, we are taking actions to solve the
problem, and here's what we are doing to protect your health:
. (Some examples of limitations: "We didn't
have any authority in this matter until recently when the regulations came
into affect," or "Nobody knew that DNC was a carcinogen until recently
when the cancer data was published." (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: We're doing the best we can, and I would appreciate it if
you could be patient and try to understand that we are doing our best.
(While this is a true statement, it does not answer the question. If we are open
with people, then maybe they can be more understanding and patient with us.)
1 5.sQ. WhAT doES 0.07 cancers mean? How cans
you hAVE A pARTiAl CANCER?S
Underlying Public Need: The public is confused by the information and
would like clarification so that they can better understand it. (A sugges-
tion here is to revise the presentation and increase the population size even
if it is larger than the real population to make 0.07 be a whole number. For
example, saying seven out of 100 million may be clearer.)
A. I apologize for our poor example, (or "Let me try again since I seem
to be confusing you with our jargon.") Another way that may help to
explain what we mean is to say that out of a population of 100 million
people who might be exposed to this chemical over a lifetime, there
may be no more than seven extra cancer cases. (The seven cases
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-21
-------
attributed to DNC are those projected above other cancer cases attributed
to everyday activities and lifestyle choice.) So for a population of
100,000, it would be highly unlikely that there would be any extra
cancer cases attributed to DNC. Does that explain it better? (CR 1, 3,
4, 7)
A. Poor Response: I'm not sure. (Even though this may be an honest response,
it is not satisfactory. The public expects an Agency representative to have an
answer to this question, i.e., they expect you to understand your own data
and how you arrived at it. It is embarrassing that such a basic question could
not have been answered; this hurts your credibility and the Agency's.)
A. Poor Response: Of the 1,000,000 people that would be exposed to DNC, a
maximum of 0.07 cancer cases may result. (This response uses more
unhelpful technical jargon, and does not answer the question.)
16.s0.s WhAT do you mean you doNfT I(imow?s
Underlying Public Need: The public probably needs to vent their frustration
and concerns, and may also need a genuine apology from Agency officials.
IMPORTANT RULE: If you don't know, you should be open, honest, and
frank, and say so. You may have to repeat this many times and this may be
uncomfortable for you, but never guess or try making up an answer just
because you feel pressured; this is a sure way to lose any established trust
and credibility. People know when you are making up an answer and when
they do, trust and credibility fall below zero and is not easy to regain.
A. I should know the answer but I don't. I'm sorry. I would like to get
back to you with the answer tomorrow. (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Your question deserves a good answer. I'm sorry I don't have the
answer because it is not my area of expertise. May I called you next
week after I've done some checking to see if I can get the answer for
you? I'd like to follow up with you after this meeting. My phone
number is (415) 744-1133 if you need to reach me in the meantime. (CR
3,4, 7)
A. You sound very disappointed, but we just don't know. Science some-
times just doesn't have all of the answers for us. I can tell you what
we do know and what we don't. If you're bothered by this, we can
talk some more after this meeting to see if there's more that we can do.
(CR 3, 4, 7)
Tab 3-22
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
A. You sound very disappointed. I'm sorry, but we just do not have an
answer. If you'd like, we can talk some more after the meeting.
A. Poor Response: We don't know, and you can't expect me to know every-
thing. (A rational response in this case fuels more anger when all that
people probably needed was an opportunity to vent their frustrations; any
sarcasm added to a rational response just makes a situation worse.)
1 7.sQ. One of our very cLose fmENds who LivEds
NEAR ThE hAZARdoUS WASTE siTE jlJST disds
From cancer. (Person bREAks dowrs irs tears.)
How LoNq ARE you buREAUCRATS qoiNq tos
TAliE bEfoRE WE SEE SOME AdioN? HOW MAN
MORE pEOplE MUST diE? We're TAXpAyERS
ANd we pAy youR saLarIes! I'm totaLL
pRLSTRATEd ANd ANqEREd by TllE AMOUNT OpS
pRES URE WE NEEd TO pUT ON yOUR officES
bsfoRE we can qET ANy actIon. WhAT do yous
Nave to SAy For youRSElf? I want somes
answers! (Person bREAks out irsTO tears.)
Underlying Individual Need: The individual is very upset about the loss of
a dear friend, and is probably needing, most of all, some place to vent their
emotions, and perhaps to get some compassionate response.
A. (One listens and allows the individual to vent emotions, and
empathetically responds:)
I'm sorry (genuinely) to hear about the loss of your friend. If you
would like, I would be glad to discuss this with you after our meeting.
(Principle: Listen and respond with compassion.) (CR 1, 3, 4, 7)
A. (One listens and allows the individual to vent emotions before
empathetically responding:)
This is an especially sad and difficult time for vou. I'm so sorry for
your loss. (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Silence. (No response is needed or expected. Your facial expression
(genuine, not faked) will convey your thoughts. One can satisfy the
person's need for compassion by genuinely listening with empathy until
the person is ready to stop. While listening, you may conclude that people
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-23
-------
may really want to be periodically informed about progress and future
actions. Providing frequent updates may give people some assurance that
cleanup is proceeding. Without feedback, people can get the impression
that nothing or very little is being done.) (Principle: Listen with compas-
sion.) (CR 3)
A. Silence. (One is speechless because you may have been surprised by the
emotional outburst, and may not know what to say, being quiet is the next
best thing to do, given that no response was expected. Being quiet may
also be hard to do because one may feel that a response was expected.
Most of the time, all a grieving person wants is just a chance to vent their
emotions and to share their grief.) (CR 3)
A. Poor Response: (Interrupts the individual and gets somewhat defensive.)
We're doing the best we can. Why, last week we finished the proposed
(e.g., permit, report, or RI/FS). And by next month we
should be making a decision. Please be patient with us.
A. Poor Response: I'm sorry your friend died, but all of you should know that
one out of three of you will get cancer in your lifetime anyway from normal
daily activities. Specifically, for the DNC contamination, the added lifetime
risk of getting cancer is only one in 10,000. Since there are 5,900 people in
this community, we would not statistically expect to see any excess cancers
in such a small population. (While this may be technically correct, the
person is looking for some display of empathy rather than an explanation. A
technical explanation may be interpreted as one of not caring.)
A. Poor Response: I'm sorry your friend died, but it probably wasn't caused
by the DNC contamination because the site has only been there for five
years, and it normally takes 15 years or longer for someone to develop
cancer. We are doing everything we can.
A. Poor Response: Your friend's death is unfortunate, but you shouldn't be
blaming us or the DNC contamination because we had nothing to do with it.
18.s0.s I've bEEN wonkiNq Iiere at Acme PLastIcs
For 1 5 years anc] I'm Fine. How can yous
Ay tIiere's a pRoblEM?s
Underlying Public Need: The public needs to know how credible we and
our science are. (This person's question may also represent some initial
denial of the risk at hand, or a concern about their job, or something else.)
Tab 3-24
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
A. Sir. I'm very relieved that vou and most everyone else are fine. We have
to be concerned about those who may be less fortunate and more prone
to being affected by DNC to make sure they are also protected.
In saying that DNC is a probable human carcinogen and that it has
contaminated the air, we are not trying to create more of a problem.
Unfortunately, science doesn't have all the answers that you and I
would like. It can't explain why some people will get cancer while
others equally affected won't, but we have to deal with that. In dealing
with this, we use many health protective assumptions to make up for
the uncertainties that remain in science. In our evaluation of the health
effects information related to DNC, we believe that it is a carcinogen
which should be treated seriously. We do this to ensure that you, your
family and others do not suffer from any future or long-term health
problems. Because of the uncertainty in science about the causes of
cancer and the wide range of variability, some people are more suscep-
tible than others. So your statement of good health is not surprising.
Unfortunately, I cannot say with your degree of confidence that DNC
will not harm others; the health data say that we should treat the DNC
contamination with caution. Our goal is to ensure that you, your family
and everyone else in your community can say with your degree of
confidence that the DNC exposure is so small that it doesn't pose a
danger. (CR 3,4, 7)
A. Poor Response: Your case is an exception. Our animal studies combined
with our use of health protective assumptions in the risk assessment indicate
that there is a cancer risk which may not be seen for another 20-30 years.
(Even though you understand risk assessment, being argumentative and not
acknowledging that people's concerns are valid can create obstacles in future
communications. In this case, it creates unnecessary or false concerns.)
1 9.sQ. IF we can't qET actIon From EPA ons
MAiiMTAiiMiNq tIie vaLue oF our PROPERTY, whos
CAN WE qo TO?S
Underlying Public Concern: The public is now less angry and fearful, and
more willing to consider solutions to the problem. They also realize that
EPA can't do all they had initially expected.
A. Your concerns about the value of vour property are serious. We are
trying to protect your health and in doing so, we may have to consider
some remedies that may not completely resolve your concern about
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-25
-------
property values, but they will protect your health. Our goal is to find a
remedy that will protect your health and not affect your property values;
but our primary concern is with safeguarding your health. Your ideas
and input will help us make the best decision. I encourage you to com-
ment on the options that we will be considering, and I hope that in doing
so we can correct this problem to your satisfaction. (CR 3,4,7)
A. I know vou are concerned about the future value of vour property.
Even though we can't do anything directly about your property
values, here are some suggestions: which
may be helpful. Are there other ideas that someone else would care to
offer? (CR 1, 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: We have been working hard to solve the hazardous waste
problems. Right now I'm working on five other NPL sites and your site is
getting most of my attention. We don't have legal authority to address
your property value concerns. (We're not listening to people's needs,
reacting naturally, and inappropriately being defensive; this tends to create
a negative perception that we're unwilling to consider or consult with
other credible sources when it is needed.)
20.sQ. You doNfT Nave to Uve iN our NEiqhboR'S
hood! You doNfT Nave to dEAl wiihs
tIie STiqMA as ociATEd wiih This hAZARdous
waste sIte! I've qoT My UFe SAviNqs Tisd ups
iN My hoME! Would you buy My hoME?s
Underlying Individual Need: Even though the Agency may be only con-
cerned with protecting health and the environment, this person is very
concerned about another legitimate risk: the risk of declining property
values due to the contamination. People want to know if we understand
their concern and if our actions will help maintain their property values.
A. Sir, it sounds like vou would like to know if I would buy a home here,
but I think vour real question or concern is about the type of cleanup
we will be doing to ensure that vour property values are not affected,
and that are we doing everything we possibly can. Would answering
that question be more helpful? (CR 1, 3, 4, 7)
Option 1. If so, here's what we are doing: . I would like to
stress that our goal is to ensure that your environment is safe to live
Tab 3-26
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
in. In other words, to ensure that the air you breath, the soil that your
children play in, and the water that you drink are safe. We wouldn't
like your property values to decline. Returning your environment to a
healthful state or preventing it from being unsafe is our responsibility,
and this is what we can offer to help protect your property values. As
you know, there are other factors which also affect property values
such as public perception that unfortunately neither you nor we have
any control over.
Option 2. If not, I don't know if I can really answer your question
about whether I would buy a house here because like other major
investments there are many things to consider, such as schools, com-
muting distance, transportation, employment, environment, etc.,
before I could make such a decision. I know that if I were living here
or if I had to buy a home here, I would at a minimum want the envi-
ronment to be safe, and that is the goal of our Agency: to ensure that
your environment is safe.
A. This whole situation has not been an easy or pleasant one for vou. and
we're also very concerned. As to whether I would live or buy a home
here, that's usually a very complex question for most situations. But if
my only considerations for making a decision were whether the air
was safe to breath or the water safe to drink, I would say yes because
our Agency's goal is to ensure that it is. As you know, there are other
important and personal considerations such as cost, neighborhood,
quality of schools, mortgage rates, etc., which most of us take into
account before deciding on the purchase of a home. (CR 1, 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: Personally, I wouldn't live here. That's off the record, of
course. (Everything that you say should be considered on the record
representing your Agency's position. This response implies that the clean-
up will not result in a safe environment.)
A. Poor Response: (You appear to be caught off guard and seem to be search-
ing for an answer but can't give one, or are afraid to. This may give the
community the impression that you wouldn't ever buy a home here be-
cause the cleanup will not be effective.)
A. Poor Response: Property values are beyond our control and not our
responsibility. I'm sorry we cannot help you. (This may be partially true,
but the response fails to mention how the cleanup will likely improve the
situation and help to minimize losses in property value.)
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
Tab 3-27
-------
21. Q. I am coNsidERiNq buyiNq some pRopERTy
hERE. CivEN aLL ThAT Uas hAppENEd, would
you buy or RECoivuviENd buyiNq pRopERTy
hERE NOW OR iN TllE FUTURE?
Underlying Individual Need: This person is concerned about investing his
money here, and would like to know if that would be a wise thing to do.
A. Property investments are important transactions requiring careful
consideration. I can appreciate your concern about buying property
here. Property investments are also very personal choices. Where I
may be willing to invest my money may be very different from where
you or someone else might be willing to invest their's. For me to tell you
how you should spend your money would probably not be very helpful
because I'm not very knowledgeable in that area, nor do I know what
criteria you consider important. What I think would be more helpful
would be to give you all the information about the hazardous waste
problem that we have so that you or another potential buyer or seller
can make the most informed choice possible. (CR 1,3,4, 7)
A. Poor Response: Sorry, we don't make those types of recommendations.
(Even though this may be true, it does not address the individual's underly-
ing need, and may give the impression that you wouldn't recommend
buying property here. In the preceding answer, the response was not only
honest but also provided helpful information.)
Tab 3-28
U.S. EPA Region 9, Questions and Answers
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
COMMUINITIE
This section contains the following:
• Glossary of Technical Terms in EPA's Superfund Risk Assessment Video
• Community Tools
• Diagram of Superfund NPL Remedial Response Process
• Fact Sheets
Handouts for Communities
Tab 4-1
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
Tab 4-2
-------
ClossARy of TEchNicAL Terms iN EPA's SupEitfuNd
Risk Assessment VidEO
Arsenic A natural element common at low levels in the
environment. At higher concentrations, arsenic can
damage the skin and increase cancer risk. It is an
important commercial ingredient in pesticides and
wood preservatives.
Assumption Facts or relationships that are taken for granted.
Benzene A toxic liquid, often found in gasoline, that can
cause cancer and anemia.
Baseline Risk Assessment An analysis of the potential adverse health effects
(current or future) caused by hazardous substance
releases from a site in the absence of any actions to
control or mitigate these releases (under the
asssumption of no action). The results of the
baseline risk assessment are used to:
• help determine whether additional response action
is needed;
• modify preliminary cleanup goals; and
• document the magnitude of risk at a site and the
primary causes of risk.
Cancer Slope Factor A high-end estimate of the likelihood that an
individual will develop cancer as a result of a
lifetime of exposure to a particular chemical.
Carcinogen Any substance that can cause or promote cancer.
Chemicals of Concern Substances related to the site that cause the most
serious health risks.
Chemicals of Potential Substances related to the site that may be toxic.
Concern Cleanup Plan A program developed to deal with a release or threat
of release of a substance that could affect humans or
the environment. The term "cleanup" is sometimes
used interchangeably with remedial action, removal
action, response action, or corrective action.
Contaminants Chemicals that have the potential of causing harm.
Same as pollutants.
Handouts for Communities
Tab 4-3
-------
Data Collection and
Evaluation
Dermal Exposure
Dermal Toxicity
Dose
Exposure
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Assessment
Exposure Route
Geographic Information
System (GIS)
Groundwater
Hazardous Waste
Health Assessment
Ingestion
Inhalation
Kaolin
Lead
Gathering of information about the chemicals,
history, and human activities for a site and the
surrounding area.
Contact between a chemical and the skin.
The ability of a chemical to harm people through
skin contact.
The amount of chemical a person is exposed to.
Contact with a chemical or physical agent.
The steps a chemical takes from its source to a
receptor, such as a person. A complete pathway
includes the source, chemical transport and
transformation, contact point, exposure route, and
receptor.
An estimate of how chemicals can contact people
who may be exposed, and by how much.
The way a chemical enters the body, such as by
breathing (inhalation), eating or drinking
(ingestion), or by skin contact (dermal).
A computer system designed for storing and
displaying information in a geographic context. For
instance, a GIS could show where people live and
work in relation to a site.
Water below the surface of the ground.
Waste defined by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) that may cause or
significantly contribute to illness or death, or that
may substantially threaten human health or the
environment when not properly controlled.
A description that focuses on potential medical and
public health risks posed by a Superfund site.
The process of eating or drinking.
The process of breathing.
A fine white clay that is used in medicine as an
adsorbent in the treatment of diarrhea.
A natural element common at low concentrations in
the environment. At higher concentrations, lead can
delay mental and physical development in young
children. Lead was commonly used in paint and
gasoline.
Tab 4-4
Handouts for Communities
-------
Margin of Safety
Mercury
Model
Reasonable Maximum
Exposure
Reference Dose
Risk
Risk Assessment
(for human health)
Risk Assessor
Risk Characterization
Risk Manager
Sampling
Sensitive Subpopulations
A measure of protection.
A natural element. Exposure to mercury can lead to
serious nervous system problems in humans.
A series of mathematical equations used to simulate
the behavior, concentration, or occurrence of
chemicals or other features of interest. Models can
conserve time and easily allow "what if'
predictions. Models are usually run on computers.
The maximum exposure reasonably expected to
occur in a population, or in different groups within a
population (for example, the elderly or children).
An estimate with some uncertainty of the daily
exposure to people (including sensitive
subpopulations) that is not likely to cause damaging
health effects during a lifetime.
The mathematical chance that chemicals from a
Superfund site will cause health problems.
A procedure for estimating the kind and degree of
hazard posed to all people who come in contact with
site chemicals now and in the future if no action
were taken to remove the hazard. A full risk
assessment involves data collection and evaluation,
exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk
characterization.
One who conducts a risk assessment.
The last phase of the risk assessment process that
describes the potential health risks to people from
exposure to site chemicals and the uncertainties
involved.
An individual or group who serves as the primary
decision maker for a site. Generally, the decisions
involve the regional Superfund management in
consultation with members of the site team and
technical staff.
A method of taking small portions of the soil, water,
air, plants, and animals from a site to determine
which chemicals are present and at what
concentrations.
Groups, such as children, the elderly, and pregnant
women, who may be more likely to be harmed by
chemicals at a site than the general population.
Handouts for Communities
Tab 4-5
-------
Standard Assumption
Subpopulation
Superfund
Toluene
Toxicity
Toxicity Assessment
The use of statistical data on drinking water
consumption, soil ingestion, inhalation rates, and
other factors to help fill in gaps created by
uncertainties.
An identifiable part of a population. A smaller
group within a larger population.
This is the common term for the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, which is the
federal law that can require the cleanup of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
A toxic liquid that resembles benzene, but is less
volatile, flammable, and toxic. It is produced
commercially for heavy-duty cleaning. Toluene can
cause nervous system problems, such as confusion
and weakness.
The degree to which a substance or mixture of
substances can harm humans or animals.
An evaluation of what health effects can be caused
by specific chemicals and how much of each
chemical can cause harm.
Tab 4-6
Handouts for Communities
-------
CoMMUNiTy Tools AvAiUbU on Internet
Several Superfund publications for communities are available on EPA Web sites.
The following is a sample of current documents at www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/
index.htm.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part A Community
Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessment
Common Chemicals Found at Superfund Sites
Ground Water Cleanup at Superfund Sites
Mercury - Emergency Spill & Release Fact Sheet
NPL Information Documents
Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy Selection
Superfund at Work
Superfund Information Brochure
Superfund Today:
Focus on Revisions to Superfund Risk Assessment
Focus on Property Issues
400th Construction Completion Information
Focus on Community Advisory Group Program
Focus on Cleanup Costs
Focus on Risk Assessment
Community Resources
This is Superfund
Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) documents: (See below for description)
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) documents: (See below for description)
Technical Outreach Services to Communities (TOSC) Program documents:
(See below for description)
Community Based Environmental Protection
Superfund Job Training Initiative
Kids & School Projects
Terms of Environment
Technical Publications
A Citizen's Guide to EPA's Superfund Program. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/
super/sfguide.htm.
General EPA Superfund Information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, www.epa.gov/superfund.
Many EPA publica-
tions are available
free of charge from
the National Service
Center for Environ-
mental Publications.
To order publica-
tions, call NSCEP toll
free at 1-800-490-
9198.
Superfund Hotline
telephone number: 1-
800-424-9346.
Handouts for Communities
Tab 4-7
-------
EPA PiiLsoTin's ManuaL
Community Risk Assessment Tools Across the Agency. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, www.epa.gov/
nceawww 1/communit.htm.
Superfund Today—EPA Moves Ahead on Risk Assessment Reforms. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
www. epa. gov/superfund/tools/today/sft rags, h tm.
Introduction to RCRA, Superfund, and Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know
Act Hotlines. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/hotintro.htm.
CoMMUNiTy AdvisoRy Groups (CAGs)
A Community Advisory Group is a committee or task force of residents affected
by a hazardous waste site. EPA encourages communities to create a CAG, espe-
cially around sites with diverse perspectives and major environmental justice
concerns. They are intended to help empower communities and provide a public
forum where representatives of diverse community interests can discuss their
concerns and participate in the cleanup process.
Other government agencies support similar groups. The U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) urges communities around military installations and FUDS (For-
merly Used Defense Sites) to form Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs). Infor-
mation on the RAB program may be obtained on the Internet at www.attic.mil/
envirodod/rab. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) involves stakeholders in
Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs) at DOE sites. Information on the SSAB
program may be obtained on the Internet at www.em.doe.gov/em22/ssabpg.html.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry encourages people living
and working near NPL sites to participate in Community Assistance Panels. These
panels provide citizen input into ATSDR's public health assessments.
CAG documents are available on EPA's Internet site at www.epa.gov/superjund/
tools/index.htm#communityadvisorygroups. The following indicates the type of
information available:
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Guidance for Community Advisory Groups at Superfund Sites."
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-96-
001. Directive 9230.0-28. PB94-963293.
This document advises community groups on opportunities for the public to
participate early, directly, and meaningfully in site cleanup decisions.
U.S. EPA. 1996. "Community Advisory Groups: Partners in Decisions at Hazard-
ous Waste Sites." EPA 540-R-96-043.
In this report, EPA describes how community groups can form CAGs to partici-
pate in cleanup decisions This report includes case studies of CAGs at five
sites. The introductory sections of the document are available on the Internet in
both English and Spanish.
Tab 4-8
Handouts for Communities
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
U.S. EPA. 1998. "About the Community Advisory Group (CAG) Toolkit: A
Summary of the Tools." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-97-007.
This booklet briefly describes the information, tips, and tools in the Community
Advisory Group Toolkit. It can help communities understand what a CAG is
and decide if their community needs one. If a CAG already exists in a commu-
nity, this booklet can help citizens become involved.
TEchiMicAL Assistance For CommunItIes
EPA awards Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) of $50,000 to eligible citizens'
groups representing communities affected by a Superfund site that is listed, or pro-
posed for listing, on the NPL. The citizen's group must use the funds to hire an inde-
pendent technical advisor. The advisor is someone who can explain and comment on
site information as well as describe the community's concerns. Citizens' groups must
be non-profit and incorporated to apply for a grant. Since awarding the first TAG in
1988, EPA has provided grants, totaling over $12.5 million, to almost 200 local
citizens' groups.
TAG documents are available on EPA's TAG Web site at www.epa.gov/superjiind/
tools/tag/. Each EPA region has a TAG coordinator. The following indicates the type
of information available:
U.S. EPA. 1993. "Superfund Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Handbook: Applying
For Your Grant." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-93-003. Directive 9230.1-09A.
PB93-963352.
This booklet explains the basic program requirements that the citizen's group must
meet to be eligible for a TAG and to complete a grant application.
U.S. EPA. 1993 "Superfund Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Handbook: The
Application Forms with Instructions." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-93-004.
Directive 9230.1-09B. PB93-963353.
This booklet contains detailed instructions to assist citizens in completing the TAG
application forms. It also contains sample completed forms and blank forms.
U.S. EPA. 1994. "Superfund Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Handbook: Procure-
ment—Using TAG Funds." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-93-005. Directive
9230.1-09C. PB93-963354.
This handbook describes certain procedures that must be followed when spending
TAG funds.
U.S. EPA. 1994. "Superfund Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Handbook: Managing
Your Grant." U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-93-006. Directive 9230.1-
09D. PB93-963355.
Handouts for Communities
Tab 4-9
-------
Because TAGs are subject to the same regulations as federal grants awarded to
non-profit organizations and universities, there are some standard federal
reporting requirements. This handbook explains what is expected.
U.S. EPA. 1997. "Technical Assistance Grants (TAG): How to Find, Choose and
Hire a Technical Advisor." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-F-97-001. Directive
9200.5-222FS. NHS: PB97-963205.
OtIier TEchiMicAL AssIstance
Technical assistance is also available to communities through the university-based
Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) program, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Defense's Technical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP) program,
and recently the U.S. Department of Energy's Citizen Monitoring and Technical
Assistance (CMTA) Fund. The few sites participating in Project XL are eligible for
technical assistance funds administered for EPA by the Institute for Conservation
Leadership.
The following are the Internet sites for each of these programs:
TOSC: www.hsrc.org/hsrc/html/tosc
DoD's TAPP program: www.dtic.mil/envirodod/rab/2tappfact.html
DOE's CMTA Fund: www.em.doe.gov/settlement/funding.html
Project XL: www.epa.gov/projectxl
TOSC provides independent technical assistance to communities that do not qualify
for a TAG or other federal assistance. TOSC services are provided through a na-
tional network of university staff and students coordinated by five regional Hazard-
ous Substance Research Centers. The five centers involve 29 leading universities.
TOSC gives communities an independent understanding of hazardous substance
contamination issues to improve their participation in site decisions. TOSC is not
available in all communities.
DoD's TAPP program provides funds to members of DoD Restoration Advisory
Boards and Technical Review Committees to obtain independent technical analysis
on topics of local concern, including the potential health implications of the site.
DOE's CMTA Fund provides money to non-profit, non-governmental, and tribal
government organizations at DOE sites to obtain technical assistance on activities.
Project XL provides funds to some community-based, small local governments, and
worker groups participating directly in XL projects. The funds help them build their
capacity to make independent and informed decisions about the project. Project XL
(excellence and Leadership) is a national pilot program that tests new ways of
achieving better and more cost-effective public health and environmental protection.
As of April 2000, 21 XL projects were underway and 20 more projects were under
development. The project is committed to a total of 50 projects.
Tab 4-10
Handouts for Communities
-------
EPA Piusi Mini's MLUUJA
1
AddmoNAl EPA Internet Resources
EPA home page: www.epa.gov
EPA Risk Assessment Web site: www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk
EPA RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline
Superfund for Kids: www.epa.gov/superfund/kids
Recycle City: www.epa.gov/recyclecity
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): www.epa.gov/iris/
ORdERiNq Government Documents
General sources of EPA documents:
The National Center for Environmental Publications, is a central repository for all
EPA documents. Over 5,000 titles in paper and electronic format are available for
distribution (usually at no cost to the public). Individuals can browse and search
EPA's National Publications Catalog, and order EPA publications online or by
telephone. The EPA publication number (e.g., EPA 999-F-99-999) is used to
identify the resource.
NSCEP
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Phone: 800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
Internet: www.epa.gov/ncepihom
Documents not available free of charge through NSCEP can be obtained through
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
NTIS is a central resource for government-sponsored U.S. and international
scientific, technical, engineering, and business-related information. As a self-
supporting agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS covers its business
and operating expenses with the sale of its products and services. NTIS indexes
EPA publications by their EPA publication number, complete title, and an NTIS
product number (e.g., PB99-999999). NTIS accepts Visa and MasterCard.
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000
Fax: 703-321-8547
E-mail: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
Internet: http://www.ntis.gov
Handouts for Communities
Tab 4-11
-------
Superfund NPL Remedial Response Process
Community
Interviews
Possible
Removal
Action
ATSDR Site Visit
ATDSR Health
Assessment
Preliminary Assessment
Site Investigation
Scoping for RI/FS
Record of Decision (ROD)
Site Discovery
Place on NPL
Feasibility Study
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Apply Hazard Ranking System
Remedial Investigation
(includes Baseline Risk Assessment)
Public Comment and
Selection of Remedy
Operation and Maintenance
Closeout and
Delisting from NPL
5 Year Review
Tab 4-12
Handouts for Communities
-------
Risk Characterization
Risk Characterization, the final step of the process, sums it
all up. It reveals which chemicals are posing the risks and
what the health risks are. It also says how sure we are about
the results. Since some uncertainty about risk estimates is
unavoidable, we build in a large margin of safety to prevent
underestimation of the risks. These safeguards are intended
to protect the exposed public.
We now can use the risk assessment to develop a cleanup
plan that will make the site safe for current and future uses.
Here's how to get more
information
• Call the toll-free Superfund/RCRA Hotline at 1-800-
424-9346 or the Community Involvement Coordinator
in the EPA regional office for your state.
• Information is available on the Superfund home page
(www.epa.gov/superfund) under the Community Tools
and Technical Resources subheadings.
Kama
§mmm
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 540-K-99-003
OSWER 9285.7-30
December 1999
www.epa.gov/Superfund
Superfund Risk
Assessment—
What it's all about
And how you can help
We at EPA would like you to help us learn about the
health risks of the Superfund site in your commu-
nity. That's why we want to tell you about risk
assessment, a tool we use in deciding how to clean
up sites.
We hope that the more you know about risk assess-
ment, the more you can help us. And the more you
know, the more you'll understand the risks the site
may pose to you and your family. You'll also see
that your interest in the site can improve cleanup.
-------
We study health risks based on what people do and are
likely to do on the site. Our goal is to protect everyone
who could come in contact with chemicals from the site
especially children, women of childbearing age, the
elderly, and others who may be at greatest risk.
may be. It also points to who is at risk, what is causing
the risk, and how sure we are about the numbers.
Data Collection and Evaluation
Here's a brief review of
Superfund risk assessment
The first step of the process is Data Collection and Evalu-
ation. We find out what has happened at and around the
site and where chemicals may have been left. We collect
samples of the soil, water, air, fish, garden vegetables,
and other things that might contain chemicals from the
site. From these samples, we try to find out what chemi-
cals are there and
how much. You can
help us find out
where chemicals
might be and how
You can help us find out—
• Where chemicals are located
• What people do on or near
the site
they got there. For instance, you may have seen someone
dumping something or know about the history of the site.
This information helps us get better samples.
Exposure Assessment
People must come in contact with
chemicals from the site to be at risk
In the next step—Exposure Assessment—we use the data
collected in the first step to find out how much of each
chemical people may be exposed to. People must come in
contact with the chemicals to be at risk. The amount of
exposure depends a lot on how much of each chemical is
there, who might be exposed, and how they are exposed.
For instance, children might play in a polluted stream.
People might drink polluted well water or eat polluted
fish. You can tell us about these activities, which helps us
identify everyone who could be exposed. Your assistance
helps us estimate the highest exposure anyone is likely to
receive from the site.
Toxicity Assessment
"The dose makes the poison"
(Paracelsus, 1567) which means as
dose rises, the risk of harm rises
Toxicity Assessment is how we learn about which ill-
nesses or other health effects may be caused by exposure
to chemicals. It also says at what dose harmful health
effects will occur. This is the same as saying how much
of each chemical it takes to cause harm. The higher the
dose, the more likely a chemical will cause harm.
-------
quimicos. Tambien nos dice la cantidad de la dosis que
tendra efectos peligrosos para la salud. Eso es lo mismo
que decir cual es la cantidad necesaria para que el producto
quimico cause dano. Mientras mas alta sea la dosis, mayor
es la probabilidad de que el producto quimico causara dano.
Caracterizacidn de los riesgos
La caracterizacion de los riesgos, el ultimo paso del
proceso, lo resume todo. Revela cuales son los productos
quimicos que presentan riesgos y cuales son esos riesgos
para la salud. Tambien indica la seguridad que tenemos en
la exactitud de los resultados. Puesto que no es posible
evitar cierta incertidumbre acerca de los calculos de los
riesgos, nos damos un gran margen de seguridad para
prevenir que calculemos esos riesgos por debajo de la
realidad. Esas salvaguardas tienen como fin proteger al
publico expuesto.
Ahora podemos utilizar la evaluacion de los riesgos para
elaborar un plan de limpieza que convertira el sitio en un
lugar sin peligro para los usos presentes y futuros.
Como obtener mayor informacion
• Comuniquese con la linea especial de informacion
(Superfund/RCRA Hotline) sin cargo alguno: 1-800-424-
9346, o con el Coordinador de Participation Comunitaria
en la oficina regional de la EPA de su Estado.
• Tambien puede encontrar informacion en la pagina
electronica del Superfund (www.epa.gov/superfund)
debajo de los subtitulos "Community Tools"
(Instrumentos comunitarios) y " Technical Resources''
(Recursos Tecnicos).
EPA
La Agenda de los EPA 540-K-00-001
Estados Unidos para la OSWER 9285.7-35
Proteccion del Medio Diciembre 1999
Ambiente www.epa.gov/Superfund
EVALUACION DE LOS
RIESGOS DEL
SUPERFUND-
De que se trata la evaluacion de los
riesgos y como nos puede ayudar
En la EPA deseamos que nos ayude a conocer los
riesgos para la salud que presenta el sitio del
Superfund en su comunidad. Por eso es que
deseamos hablarle de la evaluacion de los riesgos,
que es el metodo que utilizamos para decidir como
limpiar cada sitio.
Esperamos que mientras mas sepa acerca de la
evaluacion de los riesgos, mas podra ayudarnos. Y
mientras mas sepa, mejor podra comprender los
riesgos que puede presentar el sitio para Ud. y su
familia. Tambien observara que su interes en el sitio
puede mejorar la limpieza del mismo.
-------
Estudiamos los riesgos para la salud de acuerdo con lo que la
gente hace y puede hacer en el sitio. Nuestro objetivo
consiste en proteger a todos los que pudieran entrar en
contacto con los productos quimicos del sitio,
parti cularmente los ninos, las mujeres en edad de procrear,
sitio peijudique a las personas ahora o en el futuro. Ese
proceso nos proporciona cifras que indican la magnitud del
peligro. Tambien indica quienes son vulnerables, que es lo
que causa los riesgos y la fiabilidad de las cifras.
Recopilacidn y evaluacion de los datos
He aqui una resena breve de la
evaluacion de los riesgos del Superfund
El primer paso del proceso es la recopilacion y evaluacion
de datos. Nos enteramos de lo que ha pasado en el sitio y
sus alrededores, y donde es posible que hayan quedado
productos quimicos. Recogemos muestras del suelo,
agua, aire, peces,
plantas y otros
objetos que pudieran
contener productos
quimicos del sitio.
Con esas muestras
tratamos de hallar
Usted puede ayudarnos a descubrir
• Donde se encuentra los quimicos
• Que la gente hace en o acerca
al sitio
cuales son los productos quimicos que hay alii y su
cantidad. Ud. nos puede ayudar a encontrar donde puede
haber productos quimicos y como llegaron a ese lugar.
Por ejemplo, puede haber visto a alguien desechar objetos
o conocer la historia del lugar. Esta information nos
ayuda a tomar mejores muestras.
Evaluacidn de la exposicion
Las personas tienen que entrar en
contacto con los productos quimicos
del lugar para correr peligro
En el siguiente paso, Evaluacion de la exposicion,
utilizamos los datos recopilados en el primer paso para
averiguar el nivel de exposicion de las personas a cada
uno de los productos quimicos. Para correr peligro, es
necesario que las personas entren en contacto con los
productos quimicos. El nivel de exposicion depende en
gran medida de la cantidad del producto quimico, quienes
pueden estar expuestos y como estan expuestos. Por
ejemplo, el arroyo donde juegan los ninos, el agua que se
bebe de los pozos o los pescados que se comen pueden
estar contaminados. Ud. nos puede informar acerca de
esas actividades, lo que nos ayuda a identificar a todos los
que podrian estar expuestos. Su asistencia nos ayuda a
calcular el nivel mas elevado de exposicion que puede
recibir cualquier persona en ese lugar.
Evaluacidn de la toxicidad
"La dosis hace el veneno"
(Paracelso, 1567). Eso signifies que
a medida que aumenta la dosis,
aumenta el peligro.
La evaluacion de la toxicidad nos permite aprender cuales
son las enfermedades u otros efectos sobre la salud que
pueden ser causados por la exposicion a los productos
------- |