t  -J
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/8-87/045
August 1987
               Research and Development
The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986
                                                  SFUND RECORDS CTR

                                                    99750

-------
                                                              EPA/600/8-87/045
                                                                  August 1987
                           THE RISK ASSESSMENT

                             GUIDELINES OF 1986
i
I                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
i                                    Washington, B.C.

-------
                                         DISCLAIMER


   This document has been reviewed in accordance wilh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.

-------
                                  CONTENTS

Preface 	 iv

Abstract 	 v

GUIDELINES FOR CARCINOGEN RISK ASSESSMENT 	 1-1

GUIDELINES FOR MUTAGENICITY RISK ASSESSMENT  	 2-1

GUIDELINES FOR THE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OF CHEMICAL MIXTURES 	 3-1

GUIDELINES FOR THE HEALTH ASSESSMENT
 OF SUSPECT DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICANTS 	 4-1

GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURES 	 5-1
                                      111

-------
                                            PREFACE


    On September 24, 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued risk  assessment
guidelines relating to five areas: carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, chemical mixtures, suspect developmental
toxicants, and estimating exposures (51 FR 33992-34054). The guidelines were developed to promote high
technical quality and Agencywide consistency in the risk assessment process.

    The guidelines were developed partly in response to a 1983 National Academy of Sciences publication
entitled "Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:  Managing the Process," which recommended that
Federal regulatory agencies establish risk assessment guidelines. An EPA task force, convened by then
Administrator William D. Ruekelshaus to study ways to improve the scientific  foundation  for Agency
regulatory decisions, accepted the recommendation, and work on the guidelines began early in 1984.

    The guidelines are products of a two-year Agency development and review process which included many
scientists  from the larger scientific community. They were developed as part of an interoffice guidelines
development program under the auspices of the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment  in the
Agency's Office of Research and Development.  The scientists involved were skilled in each topic, and early
drafts were  peer-reviewed  by experts from academia, industry,  public  interest groups, and other
governmental agencies. Subsequently, proposed guidelines were published in the Federal Register, reviewed
by special panels of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), and revised to take into account public and SAB
comments. After final EPA review and Office of Management and Budget review, the guidelines were signed
by EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas on August 22, 1986, and published in the Federal Register on
September 24,1986.

    Each of the five guidelines provides both technical information and science policy guidance relating to the
conduct of EPA risk assessments and presentation of risk assessment information.  The guidelines are
sufficiently flexible to allow skilled scientists to make appropriate technical judgments on a case-by-case
basis, giving full consideration to all relevant scientific information.  The guidelines also stress that risk
assessments should include a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each assessment by describing
uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations, as well as the scientific basis and rationale for each assessment.
They require risk assessors to inform Agency decisionmakers and the  public about the assumptions used in
and  the implications of individual risk assessment conclusions, so  that appropriate risk management
decisions can be made and explained.

    While these guidelines are  published Agency documents, they should not be interpreted as static, but as
the first step in the continuing process of identifying the best methods for assessing risk to environmental
pollutants. Consequently, the risk  assessment guidelines are constantly undergoing Agency scrutiny and
will be revised in line with new  methods and information, as appropriate.

    This document presents the five guidelines as they originally appeared in the Federal Register but in a
format that is easier to read.
                                                IV

-------
                                            ABSTRACT


    On September 24, 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued risk assessment guidelines
relating to five areas: carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, chemical mixtures, suspect developmental toxicants,
and estimating exposures (51 PR 33992-34054).  The guidelines were developed to promote high technical
quality and  Agencywide consistency in the risk assessment process. This document  presents  the five
guidelines as they originally appeared in the Federal Register but in a format that is easier to read.

-------
                 51 FR 33992

GUIDELINES FOR CARCINOGEN  RISK
ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY:On September 24, 1986, the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency issued the
following five guidelines for assessing the health
risks of environmental pollutants.

   Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for Estimating Exposures

   Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
   Developmental Toxicants

   Guidelines for the  Health  Risk  Assessment of
   Chemical Mixtures

This section contains the Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment.

   The Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
(hereafter  "Guidelines") are intended to guide
Agency evaluation of suspect  carcinogens in line
with the policies and procedures established in the
statutes administered by the EPA. These Guidelines
were developed as part of an interoffice guidelines
development program  under  the auspices of the
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA) in the Agency's Office of Research and
Development. They reflect Agency consideration of
public and Science Advisory  Board (SAB) comments
on the Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen  Risk
Assessment published  November 23, 1984 (49 FR
46294).

   This publication completes the first round of risk
assessment  guidelines development. These
Guidelines  will  be revised, and new guidelines will
be developed, as appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Robert E. McGaughy
Carcinogen Assessment Group
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(RD-689)
401M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-5898

SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION: In  1983,
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published
its book entitled Risk Assessment  in the  Federal
Government: Managing the  Process. In that book,
the NAS recommended that  Federal regulatory
agencies establish "inference guidelines" to ensure
consistency and technical  quality  in  risk
assessments and to ensure that the risk assessment
process was  maintained  as a scientific effort
separate from risk management. A task force within
EPA accepted that recommendation and requested
that Agency scientists begin  to  develop  such
guidelines.

General

   The guidelines  are products of a two-year
Agencywide  effort,  which has included many
scientists from the  larger scientific community.
These guidelines set forth principles and procedures
to guide EPA scientists in the conduct of Agency risk
assessments, and to inform Agency decision makers
and the public about these procedures. In particular,
the guidelines emphasize that risk assessments will
be conducted on a case-by-case  basis, giving full
consideration to all relevant scientific information.
This case-by-case approach means that Agency
experts review the scientific information on  each
agent and use the most scientifically appropriate
interpretation to assess risk. The guidelines also
stress that this information will be fully presented
in Agency risk assessment documents, and that-
Agency scientists  will identify  the strengths and
weaknesses of each assessment by  describing
uncertainties, assumptions, and  limitations, as well
as the scientific basis and rationale for  each
assessment.

   Finally, the guidelines are formulated in part to
bridge gaps in risk assessment methodology and
data. By identifying these gaps and the importance
of the missing information to the risk assessment
process, EPA wishes to encourage research and
analysis  that will lead to new risk assessment
methods and data.

Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

   Work on the  Guidelines for Carcinogen  Risk
Assessment  began in January 1984.  Draft
guidelines were developed by Agency  work groups
composed of expert scientists from throughout the
Agency. The drafts were peer-reviewed by expert
scientists, in the field of carcinogenesis   from
universities, environmental groups, industry, labor,
and other governmental agencies. They were  then
proposed  for  public comment in the  FEDERAL
REGISTER (49 FR 46294). On  November 9, 1984,
the Administrator directed  that Agency offices use
the proposed guidelines in  performing  risk
assessments until final guidelines become available.
                                              1-1

-------
     After the close of the public comment period,
 Agency staff prepared summaries of the comments,
 analyses of the major issues  presented by the
 commentors, and proposed changes in the language
 of the guidelines to deal with  the  issues raised.
 These analyses were presented to review panels of
 the SAB on March 4 and April 22-23, 1985, and to
 the Executive Committee of the SAB on April 25-26,
 1985. The SAB meetings were  announced in the
 FEDERAL REGISTER as  follows: February  12
 1985  (50 PR 5811) and April 4, 1985 (50 PR 13420
 and 13421).

     In a letter to the Administrator dated June  19,
 1985, the Executive Committee generally concurred
 on all five of the guidelines, but recommended
 certain revisions, and requested that any revised
 guidelines be submitted to the appropriate  SAB
 review panel chairman for review and concurrence
 on behalf of the Executive Committee. As described
 in the responses to comments (see Part B: Response
 to  the Public and Science  Advisory  Board
 Comments), each guidelines document was revised,
 where appropriate, consistent with  the  SAB
 recommendations, and revised draft guidelines  were
 submitted  to  the panel chairmen. Revised draft
 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk  Assessment were
 concurred on in a letter dated February 7, 1986.
 Copies of the letters are available at the Public
 Information  Reference Unit,  EPA Headquarters
 Library, as indicated elsewhere in this section.

    Following this Preamble are two parts: Part A
 contains the Guidelines  and Part B, the Response to
 the Public and Science Advisory Board Comments (a
 summary of the  major  public comments, SAB
 comments, and  Agency responses to those
 comments).

    The Agency is continuing to study the  risk
 assessment issues  raised in the guidelines and will
 revise, these Guidelines in line with new information
 as appropriate.

    References,  supporting documents,  and
 comments received on the proposed guidelines,  as
 well as copies of the  final guidelines, are available
 for inspection and copying at the Public Information
 Reference Unit (202-382-5926), EPA  Headquarters
 Library,  401 M Street, S.W., Washington,  DC,
 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

    I certify that these  Guidelines are not major
 rules as defined by Executive Order 12291, because
 they are nonbinding policy statements and have no
 direct  effect on the regulated community. Therefore,
 they will have no effect on costs or prices, and they
 will
                  [51FR33993J
                                  have no  other
significant adverse effects on the economy. These
Guidelines were reviewed  by  the Office  of
 Management and Budget under  Executive  Order
 12291.


 August 22, 1986

 Lee M. Thomas,

 Administrator

 CONTENTS

 Part A: Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

 /, Introduction

 HJIazard Identification

   A. Overview
   B. Elements of Hazard Identification
      1. Physical-Chemical Properties and Routes and
       Patterns of Exposure
      2, Structure-Activity Relationships
      3, Metabolic and Pharmacokinetic Properties
      4. Toxicologie Effects
      5. Short-Term Tests
      6.1.ong-Term Animal Studies
      7. Human Studies
   C. Weight of Evidence
   D. Guidance for Dose-Response Assessment
   E. Summary and Conclusion

 ///.Dose-Response Assessment, Exposure A ssessment, and Risk
    Characterization

   A.Uose-Response Assessment
      1. Selection of Data
     2. Choice of Mathematical Extrapolation
       Model
     3. Equivalent Exposure Units Among Species
   B. Exposure Assessment
   C. Risk Characterization
      I. Options for Numerical Risk Estimates
     2. Concurrent Exposure
     3. Summary of Risk Characterization

 IV. EPA Classification System for Categorizing Weight of
    Evidence for Carcinogenicity from Human and Animal
    Studies (Adapted from IARC)

   A, AssessmentofWeightol'Evidence forCarcinogenicity from
     Studies in Humans
   B. Assessmentof Weighlof Evidence for Carcinogenicity from
     Studies in Experimental Animals
   C. Categorization of Overall Weight of Evidence for Human
     Carcinogenicity

 V.References

 Part B: Response to Public and Science Advisory Board
 Comments

 /. Introduction

 II. Office of Science and Technology Policy Report on
  Chemical Carcinogens

 III. Inference Guidelines

 IV. Evaluation of Benign Tumors

 V.TransplacentalandMultigenerationalAnimalBioassays

 VI. Maximum Tolerated Dose

 VII. Mouse Liver Tumors

 VIII. Weight-of-Euidence Categories

XL Quantitative Estimates of Risk
                                                  1-2

-------
Part A: Guidelines for  Carcinogen  Risk
Assessment

/. Introduction

   This is  the first revision of the 1976 Interim
Procedures  and Guidelines for Health Risk
Assessments of Suspected Carcinogens (U.S. EPA,
1976; Albert et  al.,  1977). The impetus for this
revision  is the  need to incorporate into these
Guidelines the concepts and approaches  to
carcinogen risk assessment  that have been
developed during the  last ten years. The purpose of
these Guidelines is to promote quality and
consistency of carcinogen risk assessments within
the EPA and to inform those outside the EPA about
its approach to carcinogen risk assessment. These
Guidelines emphasize  the  broad but essential
aspects of risk assessment that are needed by
experts in the various disciplines required (e.g.,
toxicology, pathology, pharmacology, and statistics)
for carcinogen risk assessment. Guidance is given in
general terms since the science of carcinogenesis is
in a state of rapid advancement, and overly specific
approaches may rapidly become obsolete.

   These  Guidelines describe the  general
framework to be followed in developing an analysis
of carcinogenic risk and some salient principles to be
used in evaluating  the quality  of data  and in
formulating judgments concerning the nature and
magnitude of the cancer  hazard from suspect
carcinogens. It is the intent of these Guidelines to
permit sufficient flexibility to accommodate new
knowledge and new assessment methods as they
emerge. It is also recognized that there is a need for
new methodology that has not been addressed in this
document in a number of areas,  e.g.,  the
characterization of uncertainty. As this  knowledge
and assessment methodology are developed, these
Guidelines will be revised whenever appropriate.

   A summary of the current state of knowledge in
the field of carcinogenesis and a statement of broad
scientific principles of carcinogen risk assessment,
which was developed by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP, 1985), forms an important
basis for these Guidelines;  the format of these
Guidelines is similar to that proposed by the
National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academy of Sciences in a book entitled Risk
Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing
the Process (NRC, 1983).

   These Guidelines are to be used within the
policy framework already provided by  applicable
EPA statutes and do not alter such policies. These
Guidelines provide general directions for analyzing
and organizing available data. They do not imply
that one kind of data or another is prerequisite for
regulatory action to control, prohibit, or allow the
use of a carcinogen.
   Regulatory decision making involves  two
components: risk assessment and risk management.
Risk  assessment defines the  adverse  health
consequences  of exposure to toxic agents. The  risk
assessments will be carried out independently from
considerations of  the consequences  of regulatory
action.  Risk management combines  the risk
assessment with the directives of regulatory
legislation, together with socioeconomic, technical,
political, and other considerations, to  reach a
decision as to whether or how much to control future
exposure to the suspected toxic agents.

   Risk assessment includes one or more of the
following components: hazard identification, dose-
response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk
characterization (NRC, 1983).

   Hazard identification is  a  qualitative risk
assessment, dealing with the process of determining
whether exposure to an agent has the potential  to
increase the incidence of cancer. Kor purposes  of
these Guidelines, both  malignant and  benign
tumors are  used  in  the  evaluation  of  the
carcinogenic  hazard.  The hazard identification
component  qualitatively answers the question  of
how likely an agent is to be a human carcinogen.

   Traditionally,  quantitative risk assessment has
been used as  an inclusive term to describe all  or
parts of dose-response assessment, exposure
assessment, and risk characterization. Quantitative
risk assessment can be a useful general term  in
some circumstances,  but the more explicit
terminology developed by the NRC (1983) is usually
preferred. The dose-response assessment defines the
relationship between the dose of an  agent  and the
probability of induction of a carcinogenic effect. This
component  usually entails an extrapolation from the
generally high doses administered to experimental
animals or  exposures noted in epidemiologic studies
to the exposure levels expected from human contact
with the agent in  the environment; it also includes
considerations  of  the  validity   of  these
extrapolations.

   The exposure assessment identifies populations
exposed to  the agent,  describes their composition
and size,  and presents the types, magnitudes,
frequencies, and durations of exposure to the agent.
                 [51 PR 339941
   In risk characterization,  the results  of the
exposure  assessment  and the dose-response
assessment are combined to estimate  quantitatively
the  carcinogenic   risk.  As  part  of risk
characterization, a summary of the strengths and
weaknesses in the  hazard identification, dose-
response, assessment, exposure assessment, and the
public health risk estimates  are  presented. Major
assumptions, scientific judgments, and, to the extent
possible, estimates of the uncertainties embodied in
the assessment are also presented, distinguishing
clearly between fact, assumption, and  science policy.
                                               1-3

-------
    The National Research Council (NRC,  1983)
pointed out that  there are  many  questions
encountered in the risk assessment process that are
unanswerable given current scientific knowledge.
To bridge the uncertainty that exists in  these areas
where there is  no scientific consensus, inferences
must be made to ensure that progress continues in
the assessment process. The OSTP (1985) reaffirmed
this position, and generally left  to the  regulatory
agencies the job of  articulating  these  inferences.
Accordingly, the Guidelines incorporate judgmental
positions (science policies) based on evaluation of the
presently available  information  and on  the
regulatory mission  of the Agency. The  Guidelines
are consistent with  the principles developed by the
OSTP (1985), although in many instances  are
necessarily more specific.
//. Hazard Identification
A. Overview

    The qualitative assessment or hazard
identification part  of risk assessment  contains a
review of the relevant biological  and chemical
information bearing on whether or not an agent may
pose a carcinogenic hazard.  Since chemical  agents
seldom  occur  in  a  pure  state and  are  often
transformed in the body, the review should include
available information on contaminants, degradation
products, and metabolites.

    Studies are evaluated according to  sound
biological and statistical considerations and
procedures.  These have been described in several
publications (Inleragency Regulatory Liaison
Group, 1979; OSTP, 1985; Peto et ah, 1980; Mantel,
1980; Mantel and Haenszel,  1959; Interdisciplinary
Panel on Carcinogenicity, 1984; National Center for
Toxicological Research, 1981; National  Toxicology
Program, 1984; U.S.  EPA, 1983a,  1983b,  I983c;
Haseman,  1984). Results and  conclusions
concerning the agent, derived from different types of
information, whether indicating positive or negative
responses, are melded together  into a weight-of-
evidence determination.  The  strength of  the
evidence   supporting  a  potential  human
carcinogenicity judgment is developed in a weight-
of-evidence stratification scheme.

B. Elements of Hazard Identification

    Hazard identification should include a review of
.the following information to the extent that it is
available.

    1. Physical-Chemical Properties and Routes  and
Patterns  of Exposure. Parameters relevant to
carcinogenesis,  including physical state, physical-
chemical properties, and exposure pathways  in the
environment should be described where possible.
    2. Structure-Activity Relationships. This section
should summarize relevant structure-activity
correlations that support or argue against the
prediction of potential carcinogenicity.

   3. Metabolic and Pharmacokinetic Properties.
This section should summarize relevant  metabolic
information. Information such as whether the agent
is direct-acting or requires conversion to a reactive
carcinogenic  (e.g., an  electrophilic) species,
metabolic pathways  for  such  conversions,
macromotecutar  interactions, and fate (e.g.,
transport, storage, and excretion), as well as species
differences, should be  discussed  and critically
evaluated. Pharmacokinetic  properties determine
the biologically effective dose and may be relevant to
hazard identification and other components  of risk
assessment.
   4. Toxicologic Effects. Toxicologic effects other
than  carcinogenicity (e.g., suppression  of the
immune  system, endocrine  disturbances,  organ
damage)  that are relevant  to the evaluation of
carcinogenicity should be summarized. Interactions
with other chemicals or agents and with lifestyle
factors should be discussed. Prechronic and chronic
toxicity evaluations, as well  as other test results,
may yield information  on  target  organ effects,
pathophysiological reactions,  and preneoplastic
lesions  that  bear on  the  evaluation of
carcinogenicity. Dose-response and time-to-response
analyses of these reactions may also be helpful.
   5. Short-Term Tests. Tests for point mutations,
numerical and structural chromosome aberrations,
DNA  damage/repair, and in vitro transformation
provide supportive evidence of carcinogenicity and
may give information on potential carcinogenic
mechanisms. A range of tests from each of the above
end points helps to characterize an agent's response
spectrum.

   Short-term in vivo and in vitro tests that can
give indication of initiation and promotion activity
may  also  provide supportive  evidence for
carcinogenicity. Lack of positive  results in short-
term  tests for genetic toxicity does not  provide a
basis  for  discounting positive results in long-term
animal studies.

   6. Long-Term Animal Studies. Criteria  for the
technical adequacy of animal  carcinogenicity
studies have been published (e.g.,  U.S.  Food and
Drug  Administration, 1982; Interagency Regulatory
Liaison Group, 1979; National Toxicology Program,
1984; OSTP, 1985; U.S. EPA, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c;
Feron et al., 1980; Mantel, 1980) and should be used
to judge  the acceptability of individual studies.
Transplacental   and    multigenerational
carcinogenesis studies, in addition  to more
conventional long-term animal studies,  can yield
useful information about the  carcinogenicity of
agents.
   It is  recognized that chemicals that  induce
benign tumors  frequently also  induce malignant
                                               1-4

-------
tumors, and that benign tumors often progress to
malignant tumors (Interdisciplinary  Panel on
Carcinogenicity, 1984). The incidence of benign and
malignant tumors  will be combined when
scientifically defensible  (OSTP, 1985; Principle 8).
For example, the Agency will, in general, consider
the combination of benign and malignant tumors to
be scientifically defensible unless the benign tumors
are not considered to have the potential to progress
to the  associated malignancies of the same
histogenic origin. If an increased incidence of benign
tumors  is observed in  the absence  of malignant
tumors, in most cases the evidence will be
considered as limited evidence of carcinogenicity.

   The weight of evidence that  an agent is
potentially carcinogenic for humans increases (1)
with the increase in number of tissue sites affected
by the agent; (2) with the  increase in number of
animal  species,  strains, sexes, and  number of
experiments  and doses showing  a  carcinogenic
response; (3) with the occurrence of clear-cut dose-
response relationships as well as  a high  level of
statistical significance of the  increased tumor
incidence in treated compared to control groups; (4)
when there is a dose-related shortening of the time-
to-tumor occurrence or  time to death with tumor;
and (5) when there is a dose-related increase in the
proportion of tumors that are malignant.

   Long-term animal  studies at or near the
maximum tolerated dose level (MTD) are used to
ensure  an adequate  power for the detection of
carcinogenic
                 [51 PR 33995]
                               activity (NTP,
1984; IARC, 1982). Negative long-term animal
studies at exposure levels above the  MTD may not be
acceptable if animal survival is so impaired that the
sensitivity of the study is significantly reduced
below that of a conventional chronic animal study at
the MTD. The OSTP (1985; Principle 4) has stated
that,
The carcinogenic effects  of agents may be  influenced by non-
physiological responses (such as extensive organ damage, radical
disruption of hormonal function, saturation of metabolic-
pathways, formation of stones in the urinary tract, saturation of
DNA repair with a functional loss of the system) induced in the
model systems. Testing regimes inducing these responses should
be evaluated for their relevance to the human response to an
agent and evidence from  such a study, whether positive or
negative, must be carefully reviewed.

Positive studies at levels above the MTD should be
carefully reviewed to ensure that the responses are
not due to factors which do not operate at exposure
levels below the MTD. Evidence indicating that high
exposures alter tumor  responses by indirect
mechanisms that may  be unrelated to effects at
lower exposures should  be dealt with on an
individual basis. As  noted by the OSTP (1985),
"Normal metabolic  activation  of carcinogens may
possibly also be altered and carcinogenic potential
reduced as a consequence [of high-dose testing]."
   Carcinogenic responses under conditions of the
experiment should be reviewed carefully as  they
relate to the  relevance of the evidence to  human
carcinogenic risks (e.g.,  the occurrence of bladder
tumors in the presence of bladder stones and
implantation site sarcomas).  Interpretation of
animal studies is aided by the review of target organ
toxicity and  other effects  (e.g., changes in the
immune and endocrine systems) that may be noted
in prechronic or other toxicological studies. Time
and  dose-related  changes  in  the  incidence of
preneoplastic lesions  may also be  helpful  in
interpreting animal studies.

   Agents that are positive in long-term  animal
experiments and also show evidence of promoting or
cocarcinogenic activity in specialized tests should be
considered as complete carcinogens unless there is
evidence to the contrary because it is, at present,
difficult to determine whether an agent is only a
promoting or cocarcinogenic agent. Agents that
show positive results in  special  tests for initiation,
promotion, or cocarcinogenicity and no indication of
tumor response in well-conducted and well-designed
long-term animal studies should be dealt with on an
individual basis.

   To evaluate carcinogenicity,  the primary
comparison is tumor response in dosed animals as
compared  with that in contemporary matched
control animals. Historical  control data are  often
valuable, however, and  could be used along with
concurrent control  data  in the evaluation of
carcinogenic responses (Haseman et al., 1984). For
the evaluation of rare tumors,  even small tumor
responses may be significant compared to historical
data. The review of tumor  data  at sites with high
spontaneous  background requires  special
consideration (OSTP,  1985;  Principle 9). For
instance, a response that is  significant with respect
to the experimental control group may become
questionable  if the historical control data indicate
that the  experimental control  group had  an
unusually low background incidence (NTP, 1984).

   For a number of reasons,  there  are widely
diverging scientific views (OSTP, 1985; Ward et al.,
1979a, b; Tomatis, 1977; Nutrition Foundation,
1983) about the validity of mouse liver tumors as an
indication of potential carcinogenicity in humans
when such tumors  occur in strains  with  high
spontaneous background incidence and when they
constitute the only tumor response to an agent.
These Guidelines take the  position  that  when  the
only tumor response is in the mouse liver and  when
other conditions for a classification of "sufficient"
evidence in animal studies  are  met (e.g., replicate
studies, malignancy; see section IV), the data should
be considered as  "sufficient"  evidence of
carcinogenicity.  It is understood  that  this
classification could be changed on a case-by-case
basis to "limited," if warranted, when factors such as
the following, are observed: an increased incidence
                                                1-5

-------
                                                                                             J  .
of tumors only in the highest dose group and/or only
at the end of the study; no substantial dose-related
increase in  the proportion  of tumors that are
malignant; the occurrence  of tumors that are
predominantly benign; no dose-related shortening of
the time to the appearance of tumors;  negative or
inconclusive results from a spectrum of short-term
tests for mutagenic activity; the occurrence of excess
tumors only in a single sex.

    Data from all long-term animal studies are to be
considered  in the evaluation of carcinogenicity. A
positive  carcinogenic   response  in  one
species/strain/sex  is not  generally negated by
negative results  in other  species/strain/sex.
Replicate negative studies that are essentially
identical in all other respects to a positive study may
indicate that the positive results are spurious.

    Evidence for carcinogenic action should be based
on the observation of statistically significant tumor
responses in specific organs or tissues. Appropriate
statistical analysis should be performed on data
from long-term studies to help determine whether
the effects are treatment-related or possibly due to
chance. These should at  least include a statistical
test for trend, including  appropriate  correction for
differences in survival. The weight to be given to the
level of statistical significance (the p-value) and to
other available pieces of  information  is a matter of
overall  scientific judgment. A  statistically
significant excess of tumors  of all  types  in  the
aggregate,  in the absence of a statistically
significant  increase of any individual tumor type,
should be  regarded  as minimal  evidence  of
carcinogenic action unless there are  persuasive
reasons to the contrary.

    1,  Human Studies, Epidemiologic studies
provide unique information about the  response of
humans who  have  been exposed to  suspect
carcinogens.  Descriptive  epidemiologic  studies are
useful in generating hypotheses  and providing
supporting data, but can rarely be  used to make a
causal inference. Analytical epidemiologic studies of
the case-control or cohort variety, on the other hand,
are especially useful in assessing risks to exposed
humans.

    Criteria  for the  adequacy of epidemiologic
studies are well recognized. They  include  factors
such as the proper selection and characterization of
exposed and control  groups, the  adequacy of
duration and quality of  follow-up,  the  proper
identification and characterization of confounding
factors and bias,  the appropriate consideration of
latency effects, the valid ascertainment of the causes
of morbidity  and death,  and  the ability to detect
specific  effects. Where  it  can be calculated, the
statistical power to detect an  appropriate outcome
should be included in the assessment.

    The strength of the epidemiologic evidence for
carcinogenicity depends, among other things, on the
type of analysis and  on the  magnitude  and
specificity of the response. The weight of evidence
increases  rapidly with  the number of adequate
studies that show comparable results on populations
exposed  to the  same  agent  under different
conditions.

   It should be  recognized  that epidemiologic
studies are  inherently capable of detecting  only
comparatively large increases in the relative risk of
                 T51FR 33996]
                               cancer. Negative
results from such studies cannot prove the absence
of carcinogenic action; however, negative results
from a  well-designed  and  well-conducted
epidemiologic study  that contains usable  exposure
data can serve to define  upper limits of risk; these
are useful if animal evidence indicates that the
agent is potentially carcinogenic in humans.

C. Weight of Evidence

   Evidence of possible  carcinogenicity in humans
comes primarily from two sources: long-term animal
tests and epidemiologic investigations. Results from
these studies are supplemented with  available
information  from short-term tests, pharmacokinetic
studies, comparative metabolism studies, structure-
activity relationships, and other relevant toxicologic
studies. The question of how likely an agent is  to be
a human  carcinogen  should  be  answered in the
framework  of a weight-of-evidence judgment.
Judgments about the weight of evidence involve
considerations of the quality and adequacy of the
data and the kinds  and consistency of responses
induced by a suspect carcinogen. There are  three
major steps to charactering the weight of evidence
for carcinogenicity in humans: (1) characterization
of the evidence from human studies and from animal
studies individually,  (2) combination of the
characterizations of these two types of data into  an
indication of the overall weight of evidence for
human carcinogenicity,  and (3)  evaluation of all
supporting information to determine if the overall
weight of evidence should be modified.

   EPA has developed a system for stratifying the
weight of  evidence (see  section IV).  This
classification is not  meant to  be  applied rigidly or
mechanically.  At various points in  the above
discussion, EPA has emphasized the need for  an
overall, balanced judgment of the totality of the
available  evidence. Particularly for well-studied
substances, the  scientific data base will have a
complexity that cannot  be captured by  any
classification scheme. Therefore,  the hazard
identification section should include a narrative
summary  of the  strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence as  well as its categorization in the  EPA
scheme.

   The EPA classification system is, in general, an
adaptation of the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC, 1982) approach for classifying the
                                               1-6

-------
.  1
   weight of evidence for human data and animal data.
   The  EPA  classification  system  for  the
   characterization of the overall weight of evidence for
   carcinogenicity (animal, human, and other
   supportive data) includes: Group A ~ Carcinogenic
   to Humans; Group B — Probably Carcinogenic to
   Humans; Group C  — Possibly Carcinogenic  to
   Humans; Group D -- Not Classifiable as to Human
   Carcinogenicity; and Group E  — Evidence  of Non-
   Carcinogen icity for Humans.

      The  following modifications of  the IARC
   approach have been made for classifying human and
   animal studies.
      For human studies:
      (1) The observation of a statistically significant
   association between an agent and  life-threatening
   benign tumors in humans is  included in the
   evaluation of risks to humans.
      (2) A "no data available" classification is added.
      (3)  A  "no evidence  of  carcinogenicity"
   classification is added. This classificaton indicates
   that no association was found between exposure and
   increased risk  of cancer in well-conducted, well-
   designed,  independent  analytical epidemiologic
   studies.
      For animal studies:
      (1) An increased incidence of combined benign
   and malignant tumors will be considered to provide
   sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity if the other
   criteria defining the "sufficient" classification of
   evidence  are met  (e.g., replicate  studies,
   malignancy; see section IV). Benign and malignant
   tumors  will be combined when scientifically
   defensible.
      (2) An increased incidence of benign tumors
   alone generally constitutes "limited" evidence of
   carcinogenicity.
      (3) An increased incidence of  neoplasms  that
   occur with high spontaneous background incidence
   (e.g., mouse liver tumors and rat pituitary tumors in
   certain strains) generally constitutes "sufficient"
   evidence of carcinogenicity, but may be changed to
   "limited" when warranted by the specific
   information available on the agent.
      (4) A "no  data available" classification has been
   added.
      (5)  A  "no evidence  of carcinogenicity"
   classification  is also added.  This operational
   classification would include substances for which
   there is  no increased incidence of  neoplasms in at
   least two well-designed and well-conducted animal
   studies of adequate power and dose in different
   species.

   D. Guidance for Dose-Response Assessment

      The  qualitative  evidence  for  carcinogenesis
   should be discussed for purposes of guiding the dose-
   response assessment. The guidance should be given
   in terms of the appropriateness and  limitations of
   specific studies  as well as  pharmacokinetic
   considerations that should be factored into the dose-
response assessment. The appropriate method  of
extrapolation should be  factored  in when the
experimental route of exposure differs from that
occurring in humans.

   Agents that are judged to be in the EPA weight-
of-evidence stratification Groups A and B would be
regarded as  suitable for  quantitative risk
assessments. Agents that are judged to be in Group
C  will  generally be  regarded  as suitable for
quantitative risk assessment, but judgments  in this
regard may be made on a case-by-case basis. Agents
that are judged to be in Groups D and  E would not
have quantitative risk assessments.

E. Summary and Conclusion

   The summary should  present all of the key
findings in all of the sections of the qualitative
assessment  and the interpretive rationale that
forms the basis for the  conclusion.  Assumptions,
uncertainties in the evidence, and other factors that
may affect the relevance of the evidence to humans
should be discussed. The conclusion should present
both  the weight-of-evidence  ranking  and a
description that brings out the more subtle aspects of
the evidence that  may  not be evident from the
ranking alone.

///. Dose-Response  Assessment,  Exposure
Assessment, and Risk Characterization

   After data  concerning the  carcinogenic
properties of a  substance have been collected,
evaluated, and categorized, it is frequently desirable
to estimate the likely  range of excess cancer risk
associated with given  levels and  conditions  of
human  exposure. The  first step of the analysis
needed to make such estimations is the development
of the likely relationship between dose and response
(cancer incidence) in the region of human exposure.
This information on dose-response relationships is
coupled  with information on  the nature  and
magnitude of human exposure to yield an estimate
of human risk. The risk-characterization step also
includes an interpretation of these estimates in light
of the  biological, statistical, and exposure
assumptions and uncertainties that have  arisen
throughout the process of assessing risk.

   The elements of dose-response assessment are
described in section III.A. Guidance on  human.
exposure assessment is provided in another EPA
                 [51 FR 339971
                               document (U.S.
EPA, 1986); however, section III.B. of these
Guidelines includes a brief description of the specific
type of exposure information that is useful  for
carcinogen risk assessment. Finally, in section Ill.C.
on risk characterization, there is a description of the
manner in which risk estimates should be presented
so as to be most informative.

   It should be emphasized that  calculation  of
quantitative estimates of cancer risk does not
                                                 1-7

-------
require that an agent be carcinogenic in humans.
The likelihood that an agent is a human carcinogen
is a function of the weight of evidence, as this has
been described in the hazard identification section of
these Guidelines.  It is nevertheless  important to
present quantitative estimates,  appropriately
qualified and interpreted, in those circumstances in
which there is a reasonable  possibility, based on
human  and animal data, that  the agent  is
carcinogenic in humans.
    It should be emphasized  in every quantitative
risk  estimation that the  results are  uncertain.
Uncertainties   due  to  experimental  and
epidemiologic variability as well as uncertainty in
the exposure assessment can be important. There
are major uncertainties in extrapolating both from
animals to  humans and  from high  to low doses.
There are important species differences in uptake,
metabolism, and organ distribution of carcinogens,
as  well as species and strain differences in target-
site susceptibility. Human populations are  variable
with  respect  to genetic  constitution, diet,
occupational  and home  environment,  activity
patterns, and other cultural factors. Risk estimates
should be  presented together with the associated
hazard assessment (section III.C.3.) to ensure that
there is an appreciation of the weight of evidence for
carcinogenicity that underlies the quantitative risk
estimates.
A.  Dose-Response Assessment
    1. Selection of Data. As indicated in section H.D.,
guidance needs to be given by the individuals doing
 the  qualitative assessment (lexicologists,
 pathologists, pharmacologists, etc.) to those doing
 the quantitative assessment as to  the appropriate
 data to be  used in  the dose-response assessment.
 This is determined by the quality  of the data, its
 relevance to human modes of exposure, and other
 technical details.
    If available, estimates based on  adequate human
 epidemiologic data are preferred over estimates
 based  on animal  data. If adequate exposure data
 exist in a well-designed and well-conducted negative
 epidemiologic study, it may be possible to obtain an
 upper-bound estimate  of risk  from that study.
 Animal-based estimates, if available, also should be
 presented.
     In the  absence of appropriate  human  studies,
 data from a species that responds most like humans
 should be used, if information to this effect exists.
 Where, for a given agent, several studies are
 available, which may  involve different animal
  species, strains, and sexes at several doses and by
 different routes of exposure, the following approach
  to selecting the data sets is used:  (1) The tumor
  incidence data are separated according to organ site
  and tumor type. (2) All biologically and statistically
  acceptable data sets are presented. (3) The range of
  the  risk estimates is presented with due  regard to
biological relevance (particularly in the case  of
animal  studies) and appropriateness of route  of
exposure. (4)  Because it is possible that human
sensitivity is as high as the most  sensitive
responding animal species,  in the absence  of
evidence to the contrary, the biologically acceptable
data set from long-term animal studies showing the
greatest sensitivity should generally be given the
greatest emphasis, again with  due  regard  to
biological and statistical considerations.

    When the exposure  route  in the species from
which the  dose-response information  is obtained
differs from the route occurring in environmental
exposures,  the considerations  used in making the
route-to-route extrapolation must be carefully
described.  All assumptions should be presented
along with a discussion of the uncertainties in the
extrapolation. Whatever procedure is adopted in a
given case, it must be consistent with the existing
metabolic and pharmacokinetic  information on the
chemical (e.g., absorption efficiency via the gut and
lung, target organ doses, and  changes in placental
transport throughout gestation  for transplacental
carcinogens).

    Where two or more significantly elevated tumor
sites or types are observed  in the same study,
extrapolations may be conducted on selected sites or
types. These selections  will be made on biological
grounds. To obtain a total estimate of carcinogenic
risk, animals with one or more tumor sites or types
showing significantly elevated tumor incidence
should  be  pooled and used for extrapolation. The
pooled estimates will generally be used in preference
 to  risk estimates based  on single sites or types.
Quantitative risk extrapolations will generally  not
be done on the basis of totals that include tumor sites
 without statistically significant elevations.

     Benign tumors should generally be combined
 with malignant tumors for risk estimates unless the
 benign  tumors are not considered to have  the
 potential to progress to the associated malignancies
 of the same histogenic origin. The contribution of
 the benign tumors, however, to the total risk should
 be indicated.

     2. Choice of Mathematical Extrapolation Model.
 Since  risks  at low exposure  levels cannot be
 measured directly either by animal experiments or
 by epidemiologic studies, a number of mathematical
 models have been developed to extrapolate from
 high to low dose. Different extrapolation models,
 however, may fit the observed data reasonably well
 but may lead to large differences in the projected
 risk at low doses.

     As  was pointed out by OSTP (1985; Principle
 26),
     No single mathematical procedure  is recognized as the most
 appropriate for low-dose extrapolation  in carcinogenests. When
 relevant biological evidence on mechanism of action exists 
-------
employed should be consistent with the evidence. When data and
information are limited, however, and when much uncertainty
exists regarding the mechanism of carcinogenic action, models or
procedures which incorporate low-dose linearity are preferred
when compatible with the limited information.

At present, mechanisms of the carcinogenesis
process are largely unknown and data are generally
limited. If a carcinogenic agent acts by accelerating
the same  carcinogenic process that leads to the
background occurrence of cancer, the added effect of
the carcinogen at low doses is expected  to  be
virtually linear (Crump et al., 1976).

   The Agency will review each assessment as to
the evidence on carcinogenesis  mechanisms and
other biological or statistical evidence that indicates
the suitability of a particular extrapolation model.
Goodness-of-fit to the experimental observations is
not an effective means of discriminating among
models (OSTP, 1985). A rationale will be included to
justify the use of the chosen model. In the absence of
adequate information to the contrary, the linearized
multistage  procedure will be employed. Where
appropriate,  the results  of using  various
extrapolation models may be useful  for comparison
with the linearized multistage procedure. When
longitudinal data on tumor development  are
available, time-to-tumor models may be used.

    It should be emphasized that the linearized
multistage procedure leads to
                  [51 PR 33998]
                               a plausible upper
limit to the risk  that is consistent with some
proposed mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Such  an
estimate, however, does not  necessarily give a
realistic prediction of the risk. The true value of the
risk is unknown, and may be  as low as zero. The
range of risks,  defined by the upper limit given by
the chosen model and the lower limit which may be
as low as  zero, should be explicitly stated. An
established procedure does not yet exist for making
"most likely" or "best" estimates of risk within the
range of uncertainty defined by the upper and lower
limit estimates, if data and  procedures become
available, the Agency will also provide "most likely"
or "best" estimates of risk. This will be most feasible
when human data are available and when exposures
are in the dose range of the data.

      In certain cases, the linearized multistage
procedure cannot be used  with the observed data as,
for example, when the data are nonmonotonic or
flatten out at high doses. In these cases, it may be
necessary to make adjustments to achieve low-dose
linearity.

      When pharmacokinetic or metabolism data
are available, or when other substantial evidence on
the  mechanistic  aspects of the carcinogenesis
process exists, a low-dose extrapolation model other
than the linearized multistage procedure might be
considered more appropriate on biological grounds.
When a  different model  is chosen,  the  risk
assessment should clearly discuss the nature and
weight of evidence that led to  the  choice.
Considerable  uncertainty will remain concerning
response at low doses; therefore, in most cases an
upper-limit  risk  estimate using  the  linearized
multistage procedure should also be presented.

    3. Equivalent  Exposure Units Among  Species.
Low-dose risk estimates  derived from laboratory
animal  data extrapolated  to  humans are
complicated by a variety of factors that differ among
species and  potentially affect the response  to
carcinogens.  Included among  these factors are
differences between humans and experimental test
animals with respect to life span, body size, genetic
variability, population homogeneity, existence of
concurrent disease, pharmacokinetic effects such as
metabolism  and  excretion patterns, and the
exposure regimen.

    The usual approach  for  making interspecies
comparisons has been to  use  standardized scaling
factors. Commonly employed  standardized dosage
scales include mg per kg body weight per day, ppm
in the diet or water, mg per m2 body surface area per
day, and mg per kg body weight per lifetime. In the
absence of comparative toxicological, physiological,
metabolic, and pharmacokinetic data for a given
suspect carcinogen, the Agency takes the  position
that the extrapolation on the basis of surface area is
considered to be appropriate  because  certain
pharmacological effects commonly scale according to
surface area (Dedrick, 1973; Freireich et al., 1966;
Pinkel, 1958).
B. Exposure Assessment
    In order to obtain a quantitative estimate of the
risk, the results of the dose-response assessment
must be combined with an estimate of the exposures
to which the populations of interest are likely to be
subject. While  the reader is referred to the
Guidelines  for Estimating Exposures (U.S. EPA,
1986) for specific details, it is important to convey an
appreciation of the impact of  the strengths and
weaknesses of exposure assessment on the overall
cancer risk assessment process.

    At present there is no  single  approach  to
exposure assessment that is appropriate for all
cases. On a case-by-case basis, appropriate methods
are selected to match the data on hand and  the level
of sophistication required. The  assumptions,
approximations, and uncertainties need to be clearly
stated because, in some instances, these will have a
major effect on the risk assessment.

    In  general,  the magnitude,  duration, and
frequency of exposure  provide  fundamental
information for estimating the concentration of the
carcinogen to which the organism is exposed. These
data are generated from  monitoring information,
modeling results,  and/or reasoned estimates. An
appropriate treatment of exposure  should  consider
                                               1-9

-------
                                                                                           i .
the potential for exposure via ingestion, inhalation,
and dermal penetration from relevant sources of
exposures including multiple avenues of intake from
the same source.

    Special  problems arise  when the human
exposure situation of concern suggests exposure
regimens, e.g.,  route and dosing  schedule that are
substantially different from  those used in  the
relevant animal studies. Unless there is evidence to
the contrary in a particular case, the cumulative
dose received over a lifetime, expressed as average
daily exposure  prorated  over a lifetime,  is
recommended as an  appropriate measure  of
exposure to a carcinogen. That is, the assumption is
made that a high dose of a carcinogen received over a
short period of time is equivalent to a corresponding
low dose spread  over a lifetime. This approach
becomes more problematical as  the exposures in
question become  more  intense but less frequent,
especially when there is evidence that the agent has
shown dose-rate effects.

   An attempt should be made to assess the level of
uncertainty  associated with the  exposure
assessment which is to be used in a cancer risk
assessment. This  measure  of uncertainty should be
included in the  risk characterization (section III.C.)
in order to provide the decision-maker with a clear
understanding of  the impact of this uncertainty on
any final quantitative risk estimate. Subpopulations
with heightened susceptibility (either because of
exposure or predisposition) should, when possible, be
identified.

C. Risk Characterization

    Risk characterization is composed of two parts.
One is a presentation of the numerical estimates of
risk; the other  is a framework to help judge  the
significance  of the  risk. Risk  characterization
includes the exposure assessment and dose-response
assessment; these are used in the estimation of
carcinogenic risk. It may also consist of a unit-risk
estimate which can be combined elsewhere with the
exposure assessment for the purposes of estimating
cancer risk.

    Hazard  identification and dose-response
assessment are covered in sections II. and III.A., and
a detailed discussion of exposure assessment is
contained in EPA's Guidelines for  Estimating
Exposures (U.S. EPA, 1986). This section deals with
the numerical risk estimates and the  approach to
summarizing risk characterization.

    1. Options for Numerical  Risk Estimates.
Depending on the needs of the individual program
offices, numerical estimates can be presented in one
or more of the following three ways.
    a. Unit Risk -- Under an assumption of low-dose
linearity, the unit cancer risk is the excess lifetime
risk due to a continuous constant lifetime exposure
of one unit of  carcinogen concentration. Typical
exposure units include ppm or ppb in food or water,
mg/kg/day by ingestion, or ppm or ug/m3 in air.
   b. Dose Corresponding to a Given Level of Risk —
This approach can be useful, particularly when
using nonlinear extrapolation  models where the
unit risk would differ at different dose levels.
   c. Individual and Population Risks — Risks may
be characterized either in  terms of the excess
individual lifetime risks, the excess number of
cancers
                 [51 FR 33999]
                               produced  per
year in the exposed population, or both.
      Irrespective of the  i.,,lions chosen, the degree
of precision and accuracy in the numerical risk
estimates currently do not permit more than one
significant figure to be presented.

   2. Concurrent Exposure.  In characterizing the
risk due to concurrent exposure  to  several
carcinogens, the risks are combined on the basis of
additivity unless there is specific information to the
contrary. Interactions  of cocarcinogens, promoters,
and inititators with known  carcinogens should be
considered on a case-by-case basis.

   3.  Summary  of Risk Characterization,
Whichever method of presentation is chosen, it is
critical that the numerical estimates  not be allowed
to stand alone, separated from  the  various
assumptions and uncertainties upon which they are
based. The risk characterization should contain a
discussion and interpretation of the  numerical
estimates that affords  the risk manager some
insight into  the degree to which the quantitative
estimates are likely to reflect the true magnitude of
human risk, which generally cannot be known with
the degree of quantitative accuracy reflected in the
numerical estimates. The final risk estimate will be
generally rounded to one significant figure and will
be coupled  with the EPA  classification  of the
qualitative weight of evidence. For example, a
lifetime individual risk of 2X10-* resulting from
exposure to a "probable human carcinogen" (Group
B2) should be designated as 2X10-4 [B2J . This
bracketed designation of the qualitative weight of
evidence should be included with all numerical risk
estimates (i.e., unit risks, which are  risks at a
specified concentration  or concentrations
corresponding to a given risk). Agency statements,
such as FEDERAL REGISTER notices, briefings,
and  action memoranda,  frequently  include
numerical estimates  of carcinogenic  risk. It  is
recommended that whenever these numerical
estimates are  used,  the qualitative  weight-of-
evidence classification should also be included.

   The section  on risk characterization should
summarize the hazard identification, dose-response
assessment,  exposure assessment, and the public
health risk estimates. Major assumptions, scientific
judgments, and, to the extent possible, estimates of
                                              1-10

-------
the uncertainties embodied in the assessment are
presented.

IV. EPA Classification System for Categorizing
Weight of Evidence for Carcinogenicity from Human
and Animal Studies (Adapted from I ARC)

A.  Assessment  of Weight  of Evidence for
Carcinogenicity from Studies in Humans

    Evidence of Carcinogenicity from human studies
comes from three main sources:
    1. Case reports of individual cancer patients who
were exposed to the agent(s).
    2. Descriptive epidemiologic studies in which the
incidence of cancer in human populations was found
to vary in space  or time with  exposure  to the
agent(s).
    3. Analytical epidemiologic (case-control and
cohort) studies in which individual exposure to the
agent(s) was found to be associated with an
increased risk of cancer.

    Three criteria  must be met before a causal
association can be inferred between exposure and
cancer in humans:
    1. There is no identified bias that could explain
the association.
    2. The possibility of confounding has been
considered and  ruled  out as  explaining the
association.
    3. The association is  unlikely to be due  to
chance.

    In  general, although a single study  may be
indicative of a cause-effect relationship, confidence
in inferring a causal association is increased when
several independent studies are  concordant  in
showing the association, when the  association is
strong, when there is a dose-response relationship,
or when a reduction in exposure is  followed by a
reduction in the incidence of cancer.

    The weight of evidence for Carcinogenicity1 from
studies in humans is classified as:
    1. Sufficient evidence of Carcinogenicity,  which
indicates that there is a causal relationship between
the agent and human cancer.
    2. Limited evidence of Carcinogenicity, which
indicates that a causal interpretation is credible, but
that alternative explanations, such as chance, bias,
or confounding, could not adequately be excluded.
     1 For purposes of public health protection, agents
 associated with life-threatening benign tumors in humans are
 included in the evaluation.
     2 An increased incidence of neoplasms that occur with high
 spontaneous background incidence (e.g., mouse liver tumors
 and rat pituitary tumors in certain strains) generally
 constitutes "sufficient" evidence of Carcinogenicity, but may be
 changed to "limited" when warranted by the specific
 information available on the agent.
     3 Benign and malignant tumors will be combined unless
 the benign tumors are not considered to have the potential to
 progress to the associated malignancies of the same histogenic
 origin.
    3. Inadequate evidence, which indicates that one
of two conditions  prevailed: (a) there  were  few
pertinent data, or  (b) the available studies, while
showing evidence  of association, did not exclude
chance, bias, or confounding, and therefore a causal
interpretation is not credible.
    4. No data, which indicates that data are not
available.
    5.  No  evidence, which  indicates that no
association was found between exposure and an
increased risk of cancer in well-designed and well-
conducted  independent analytical epidemiologic
studies.

B.  Assessment  of  Weight  of Evidence  for
Carcinogenicity from Studies in Experimental
Animals

    These  assessments  are classified  into  five
groups:
    1. Sufficient evidence2 of Carcinogenicity, which
indicates that there is an increased incidence of
malignant tumors or combined  malignant  and
benign tumors:3 (a) in multiple species or  strains; or
(b) in multiple experiments (e.g., with different
routes of administration or using different  dose
levels); or (c) to an unusual degree in a  single
experiment with regard to high incidence, unusual
site or type of tumor, or early age at onset.
    Additional evidence may be provided  by data on
dose-response effects, as  well as information from
short-term tests or on chemical structure.
    2. Limited evidence of Carcinogenicity, which
means that the data suggest a carcinogenic effect
but are limited because:  (a) the studies  involve a
single species, strain, or experiment and do not meet
criteria for sufficient evidence (see section IV. B.l.c);
(b) the experiments are  restricted by inadequate
dosage levels, inadequate duration of exposure to the
agent, inadequate period of follow-up, poor survival,
too few animals, or inadequate reporting; or (c) an
increase in the incidence of benign tumors only.
    3. Inadequate  evidence, which indicates that
because  of major qualitative or  quantitative
limitations, the studies  cannot be interpreted as
showing either the  presence or absence  of a
carcinogenic effect.
    4. No data, which indicates that data are not
available.
    5. No evidence, which indicates that there is no
increased incidence of neoplasms in at  least two
well-designed
                  [51 PR 34000]
                                and      well-
conducted animal studies in different species.

      The  classifications "sufficient evidence" and
"limited evidence" refer  only to the weight of the
experimental  evidence  that  these agents  are
carcinogenic and not  to the potency of their
carcinogenic action.
                                                1-11

-------
C, Categorization of Overall Weight of Evidence for
Human Carcinogenicity

    The overall  scheme for categorization of the
weight of evidence of carcinogenicity of a chemical
for humans uses a three-step process. (1) The weight
of evidence in human studies or animal studies  is
summarized; (2) these lines of information are
combined  to yield a tentative assignment to  a
category  (see Table  1);  and (3) all relevant
supportive  information is evaluated  to  see if the
designation of the overall weight of evidence needs
to be modified. Relevant factors to be included along
with the tumor information from human and animal
studies include  structure-activity relationships;
short-term test  findings; results of appropriate
physiological, biochemical,  and lexicological
observations; and  comparative metabolism  and
pharmacokinetic studies. The nature  of these
findings  may cause  one to adjust  the  overall
categorization of the weight of evidence.

    The agents are categorized  into five groups as
follows:

    Group A — Human Carcinogen

    This group is used only when there is sufficient
evidence from epidemiologic  studies  to  support a
causal association between exposure to the agents
and cancer.

    Group B — Probable Human Carcinogen

    This group includes agents for which the weight
of evidence of human carcinogenicity based on
epidemiologic studies is "limited" and also includes
agents for which the  weight of  evidence  of
carcinogenicity  based  on  animal studies  is
"sufficient." The group  is divided  into  two
subgroups. Usually, Group Bl is reserved for agents
for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity
from epidemiologic studies.  It is reasonable, for
practical  purposes, to regard an agent  for which
there is "sufficient" evidence of carcinogenicity  in
animals as if it  presented a carcinogenic risk  to
humans. Therefore,  agents for  which there  is
"sufficient" evidence  from animal studies and for
which there is "inadequate evidence" or "no data"
from epidemiologic studies  would  usually be
categorized under Group B2.

    Group C — Possible Human Carcinogen

    This group  is  used for agents with limited
evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in the
absence of human data. It includes a wide variety of
evidence, e.g., (a) a malignant tumor  response in a
single well-conducted experiment that does not meet
conditions  for  sufficient evidence,  (b) tumor
responses of marginal statistical  significance  in
studies having inadequate design  or  reporting, (c)
benign but not  malignant tumors with  an agent
showing no response in a variety of short-term tests
for mutagenicity,  and (d) responses of marginal
statistical significance in a tissue known to have a
high or variable background rate.

    Group D -- Not Classifiable as to Human
Carcinogenicity

    This group  is generally  used for agents  with
inadequate human and  animal  evidence of
carcinogenicity or for which no data are available.

    Group E — Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for
Humans

    This group is used for agents  that show no
evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two adequate
animal tests in different species or in both adequate
epidemiologic and animal studies.

    The designation of an agent as being in Group E
is based on the available evidence and should not be
interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent
will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances.

V. References

Albert, R.E.,Train, R.E., and Anderson, E. 1977. Rationale
    developed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the
    assessment'of carcinogenic risks. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
    58:1537-1541.
Crump, K.S., Hoel, D.G., Langley, C.H., Peto R. 1976.
    Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications
    for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res. 36:2973-2979.
Dedrick, R.L. 1973. Animal Scale Up. J. Pharmacokinet.
    Biopharm. 1:435-461.
Feron, V.J., Grice, H.C., Griesemer, R., Peto R., Agthe, C., Althoff,
    J., Arnold, D.L., Blumenthal, H., Cabral, J.R.P., Delia Porta,
    G., Ito, N., Kimmerle, G., Kroes, R., Mohr, U., Napalkov,
    N.P., Odashima, S., Page, N.P., Schramm, T., Steinhoff, D.,
    Sugar, J.,Tomatis, L.Uehleke, H., and Vouk, V. 1980. Basic
    requirements for long-term assays for carcinogenicity. In:
    Long-term and short-term screening assays for carcinogens:
    a critical appraisal. I ARC Monographs, Supplement 2. Lyon,
    France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, pp 21-
    83.
Freireich, E.J., Gehan, E.A., Rail, D.P., Schmidt, L.H., and
    Skipper, H.E. 1966. Quantitative comparison of toxicity of
    anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey and
    man. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 50:219-244.
Haseman, J.K. 1984. Statistical issues in the design, analysis and
    interpretation of animal carcinogenicity  studies. Environ.
    Hea Ith Perspect. 58:385-392.
Haseman, J.K., Huff, J., andBoormnn,G.A. 1984. Use of
    historical control data in carcinogenicity studies in rodents,
    Toxicol. Pathol. 12:126-135.
Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG), 1979. Scientific
    basis for identification  of potential carcinogens and
    estimation of risks. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 63:245-267.
Interdisciplinary Panel on Carcinogenicity. 1984. Criteria for
    evidence of chemical carcinogenicity. Science 225:682-687.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IAUC). 1982. IARC
    Monographs on the
                    [51 PR 34001)
                                  Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Supplement 4. Lyon,
France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Mantel, N. 1980. Assessing laboratory evidence for neoplaslic
    activity.Biometrics36:381-399.
Mantel, N., and Haenszel, W. 1959. Statistical aspects of the
    analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J, Null.
    Cancer Inst, 22:719-748.
National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR). 1981.
    Guidelines for statistical tests for carcinogenicity in chronic
    bioassays. NCTR Biometry Technical  Report 81-001.
    Available from: National Center for Toxicological Research.
                                                  1-12

-------
                TABLE 1.-ILLUSTRATIVE CATEGORIZATION OF EVIDENCE BASED ON ANIMAL AND HUMAN DATAI

Human evidence

Sufficient
Limited
Inadequate
No data
No evidence
Animal evidence

Sufficient
A
81
B2
B2
B2
Limited
A
B1
C
C
C
Inadequate
A
81
D
D
D
No data
A
B1
D
D
D
No evidence
A
B1
D
E
E
                   1 The above assignments are presented for illustrative purposes. There may be nuances in the classification of both
               animal and human data indicating that different categorizations than those given in the table should be assigned.
               Furthermore, these assignments are tentative and may be modified by ancillary evidence. In this regard all relevant
               information should be evaluated to determine if the designation of the overall weight of evidence needs to be modified.
               Relevant factors to be included along with the tumor data from human and animal studies include structure-activity
               relationships, short-term test findings, results of appropriate physiological, biochemical, and toxicological observations, and
               comparative metabolism and pharmacokinetic studies. The nature of these findings may cause an adjustment of the overall
               categorization of the weight of evidence.
             National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Risk assessment in the
                 Federal government: managing the process. Washington,
                 D.C.: National Academy Press.
             National Toxicology Program. 1984. Report of the Ad Hoc Panel
                 on Chemical Carcinogenesis Testing and Evaluation of the
                 National Toxicology Program,  Board of Scientific
                 Counselors. Available from:  U.S. Government Printing
                 Office, Washington, D.C. 1984-421 -132:4726.
             Nutrition Foundation. 1983. The relevance of mouse liver
                 hepatoma to human carcinogenic risk: a report of the
                 International Expert Advisory Committee to the Nutrition
                 Foundation. Available from: Nutrition Foundation. ISBN 0-
                 935368-37-x.
             Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 1985. Chemical
                 carcinogens:  review of the science and its associated
                 principles. Federal Register 50:10372-10442.
             Peto, R., Pike, M., Day, N-, Gray, R., Lee, P., Parish, S., Peto, J.,
                 Richard, S., and Wahrendorf, J. 1980. Guidelines for simple,
                 sensitive, significant tests for  carcinogenic effects in long-
                 term animal experiments. In: Monographs on the long-term
                 and short-term screening assays for carcinogens: a critical
                 appraisal. IARC Monographs, Supplement 2. Lyon, France:
                 International Agency for Research on Cancer, pp. 311 -426.
             Pinkel, D. 1958. The use of body surface area as a criterion of drug
                 dosage in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 18:853-856.
             Tomatis, L. 1977. The value of long-term testing for the
                 implementation of primary prevention. In: Origins of human
                 cancer. Hiatt, II.H., Watson, J.D., and  Winstein, J.A., eds.
                 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, pp. 1339-1357.
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1976. Interim
                 procedures and guidelines for health  risk and economic
                 impact assessments of suspected carcinogens. Federal
                 Register 41:21402-21405.
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980. Water
                 quality criteria documents; availability. Federal Register
                 45:79318-79379.
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983a. Good
                 laboratory practices standards - toxicology testing. Federal
                 Register 48:53922.
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 19831).
                 Hazard evaluations:  humans  and domestic animals.
                 Subdivision F. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA. PB 83-
                 153916.
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983c. Health
                 effects test guidelines. Available from: NTIS, Springfield,
                 VA. PB 83-232984.
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986,Sept.
    24.GuideIines for estimating exposures. Federal Register 51
    (185): 34042-34054
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA). 1982.
    Toxicological principles for the safety assessment of direct
    food  additives and color additives used in food. Available
    from: Bureau of Foods, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Ward, J.M., Griesemer, R.A., and Weisburger, E K. 1979a. The
    mouse liver tumor as an eadpoint in carcinogenesis tests.
    Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 51:389-397.
Ward, J.M., Goodman, D.G., Squire, R.A. Chu, K.C., and Linhart,
    M.S. 1979b. Neoplastic and  nonneoplastic lesions in aging
    (CsvBL/eNXCall/HeNlF! (BeCsF^ mice. J. Natl. Cancer
    Inst. 63:849-854.

Part  B:  Response to  Public  and  Science
Advisory Board Comments

/. Introduction

    This section summarizes the major issues raised
during  both the public comment  period on  the
Proposed Guidelines for  Carcinogen  Risk
Assessment published on November 23, 1984 (49 FR
46294), and  also during  the April 22-23, 1985,
meeting of  the Carcinogen Risk Assessment
Guidelines Panel of the Science Advisory Board
(SAB).

    In order  to respond to  these issues the Agency
modified the proposed  guidelines  in  two  stages.
First,  changes resulting from  consideration of the
public comments were made in  a draft sent to the
SAB review panel  prior to their  April  meeting.
Secondly,  the guidelines were further  modified in
response to the panel's recommendations.

    The Agency received 62 sets of comments during
the public comment period, including 28 from
corporations,  9 from professional  or  trade
associations, and 4  from academic institutions. In
general,  the  comments  were favorable. The
commentors welcomed the update of the 1976
guidelines and felt that the proposed guidelines of
,
                                                                  1-13

-------
1985 reflected some of the progress that has occurred
in understanding the mechanisms of carcinogenesis.
Many commentors, however, felt that additional
changes were warranted.

   The SAB concluded that the guidelines are
"reasonably complete in their conceptual framework
and are sound in their overall interpretation of the
scientific  issues"  (Report  by   the  SAB
Carcinogenicity Guidelines Review Group, June 19,
1985). The SAB suggested various editorial changes
and raised some issues regarding the content of the
proposed  guidelines, which are discussed below.
Based on  these recommendations, the Agency has
modified the draft guidelines,

//. Office of Science and Technology Policy Report on
Chemical Carcinogens

   Many commentors requested  that the  final
guidelines not be issued until after publication of the
report of the Office of Technology and Science Policy
(OSTP) on chemical carcinogens.  They  further
requested that this  report be incorporated into the
final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.

   The final OSTP report was published in 1985 (50
FR 10372). In its deliberations, the Agency reviewed
the final OSTP report and feels that the Agency's
guidelines  are consistent  with the  principles
established by the OSTP. In its review,  the SAB
agreed that the Agency guidelines are generally
consistent with the OSTP report. To emphasize this
consistency, the OSTP principles have  been
incorporated into the guidelines when controversial
issues are discussed.

///. Inference Guidelines

   Many commentors felt that  the proposed
guidelines did not provide a sufficient distinction
between scientific fact and policy decisions. Others
felt that EPA should not attempt to propose firm
guidelines in the absence of scientific consensus. The
SAB report also indicated the need to "distinguish
recommendations based on scientific evidence from
those based on science policy decisions."

   The Agency agrees with the recommendation
that policy, judgmental, or inferential decisions
should be clearly identified. In  its revision of the
proposed guidelines,  the  Agency has included
phrases (e.g., "the Agency takes the position that")
to more clearly distinguish policy decisions.

   The Agency also recognizes the need to establish
procedures for action on important  issues in  the
absence  of complete scientific  knowledge  or
consensus. This need was acknowledged in'both the
National  Academy  of Sciences book  entitled Risk
Management in the Federal Government: Managing
the Process and the OSTP report on chemical
carcinogens. As the NAS report states, "Risk
assessment is an analytic  process  that is firmly
based  on scientific considerations, but it  also
requires judgments to be made when the available
information is incomplete.  These judgments
inevitably draw on both  scientific and policy
considerations."
                 151FR 34002]
    The judgments of the Agency have been based on
current available scientific information and on the
combined experience of Agency experts. These
judgments, and the  resulting guidance,  rely on
inference; however, the positions taken  in  these
inference guidelines are felt to be reasonable and
scientifically defensible. While all of the guidance is,
to some degree, based on inference, the guidelines
have  attempted to distinguish those issues that
depended more oh judgment. In  these cases, the
Agency has stated a position but has also retained
flexibility to accommodate new data or specific
circumstances that demonstrate that the proposed
position is inaccurate. The Agency recognizes that
scientific opinion will be divided on these issues.

    Knowledge   about   carcinogens   and
carcinogenesis is progressing at a rapid rate.  While
these guidelines are considered a best effort at the
present  time, the  Agency has attempted  to
incorporate flexibility into the current guidelines
and also recommends that the guidelines be revised
as often as warranted by advances in the field.

IV. Evaluation of Benign Tumors

    Several commentors discussed  the appropriate
interpretation of an increased incidence of benign
tumors alone or with an increased incidence of
malignant tumors as part of the evaluation  of the
carcinogenicity of an agent. Some comments were
supportive of the position in the proposed guidelines,
i.e., under certain circumstances, the incidence of
benign and malignant tumors would be combined,
and an increased incidence of benign tumors alone
would be considered an indication, albeit limited, of
carcinogenic  potential.  Other  commentors raised
concerns about the criteria that  would be used to
decide which tumors should be combined. Only a few
commentors felt that benign tumors should never be
considered in evaluating carcinogenic potential.

    The Agency believes that current information
supports the  use of benign tumors. The guidelines
have  been modified to incorporate the language of
the OSTP report,  i.e., benign  tumors  will  be
combined  with   malignant   tumors   when
scientifically defensible.  This position allows
flexibility in  evaluating the data base  for each
agent. The guidelines have also  been modified to
indicate that, whenever  benign and malignant
tumors have been combined, and  the  agent is
considered  a candidate  for  quantitative risk
extrapolation, the contribution of benign tumors to
the estimation of risk will be indicated.

V.  Transplacental and Multigenerational Animal
Bioassays
                                               1-14

-------
   As one of its two proposals for additions to the
guidelines, the SAB recommended a discussion of
transplacental and multigenerational animal
bioassays for carcinogenicity.

   The Agency agrees  that such  data, when
available, can provide useful  information in the
evaluation of a chemical's potential carcinogenicity
and has stated this in the final  guidelines. The
Agency has also revised the guidelines to indicate
that  such  studies  may  provide  additional
information on the metabolic and pharmacokinetic
properties of the chemical. More guidance on the
specific use of these studies will be considered in
future revisions of these guidelines.

VI. Maximum Tolerated Dose

   The  proposed guidelines discussed the
implications of using a maximum tolerated dose
(MTD) in bioassays  for carcinogenicity. Many
commentors  requested that EPA define MTD. The
tone  of  the  comments suggested  that the
commentors were  concerned  about the  uses and
interpretations of high-dose testing.

   The Agency recognizes  that  controversy
currently surrounds these issues. The appropriate
text from the OSTP report  has been  incorporated
into the final guidelines which suggests that the
consequences of high-dose testing be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.
VII. Mouse Liver Tumors

   A large number of  commentors expressed
opinions about the assessment of bioassays in which
the only  increase  in  tumor incidence was liver
tumors in the  mouse. Many felt that mouse liver
tumors were afforded too much credence,  especially
given existing information that indicates that they
might arise by a different mechanism, e.g., tissue
damage followed by regeneration.  Others felt that
mouse liver  tumors were but  one case  of a high
background  incidence of one  particular  type of
tumor and that all such tumors should be  treated in
the same fashion.

   The Agency has reviewed  these comments and
the OSTP principle regarding this issue. The OSTP
report does not reach conclusions as to the  treatment
of tumors with a high spontaneous background rate,
but states, as  is now included in the text of the
guidelines, that  these data require special
consideration. Although questions have been raised
regarding the validity of mouse  liver tumors in
general, the Agency feels that mouse liver tumors
cannot be ignored as an indicator of carcinogenicity.
Thus, the position in the proposed guidelines has not
been changed: an increased incidence of only mouse
liver tumors  will  be regarded  as  "sufficient"
evidence of carcinogenicity if all other criteria, e.g.,
replication and malignancy, are met  with the
understanding that this classification could  be
changed to "limited" if warranted. The factors that
may cause this re-evaluation are indicated in the
guidelines.

VIII. Weight-of'Evidence Catagories

    The Agency was praised by both the public and
the SAB for incorporating a weight-of-evidence
scheme into its evaluation of carcinogenic  risk.
Certain specific aspects of the scheme, however,
were criticized.

    1. Several commentors noted that while the text
of the proposed guidelines  clearly states that EPA
will use all available data in its categorization of the
weight of the evidence  that a  chemical  is a
carcinogen, the classification  system in Part A,
section IV did not indicate the manner in which EPA
will use information other  than data from humans
and long-term animal studies in assigning a weight-
of-evidence classification.
    The Agency has added a discussion to Part A,
section IV.C. dealing with the characterization of
overall evidence  for human carcinogenicity. This
discussion clarifies EPA's  use of  supportive
information to adjust, as  warranted, the designation
that would have  been made solely on the basis of
human and long-term animal studies.

    2. The Agency agrees with the SAB and  those
commentors who felt that a simple classification of
the weight of evidence, e.g., a single letter or even a
descriptive title, is inadequate to describe fully the
weight of evidence for each individual chemical. The
final guidelines propose that a  paragraph
summarizing  the data should  accompany the
numerical estimate and weight-of-evidence
classification whenever possible.

    3.  Several  commentors objected to the
descriptive title E (No Evidence of Carcinogenicity
for Humans) because they felt the title would be
confusing to  people  inexperienced  with the
classification system. The title for Group E, No
Evidence of Carcinogenicity for Humans, was
thought by these commentors to suggest the absence
of data. This group, however, is intended  to be
reserved for agents for which  there exists credible
data demonstrating  that  the agent is not
carcinogenic.
    Based  on these comments and  further
discussion, the Agency has changed the
                 [51 FR 34003]
                               title of Group E
to "Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans."

    4. Several  commentors felt that the title for
Group C, Possible Human Carcinogen, was not
sufficiently distinctive  from  Group B, Probable
Human Carcinogen. Other commentors felt that
those agents that minimally qualified for Group C
would lack sufficient data for such a label.
    The Agency recognizes that Group C covers a
range of chemicals and  has considered whether to
subdivide Group C. The consensus of the Agency's
                                              1-15

-------
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Committee, however,
is that the current groups, which are based on the
IARC categories, are a reasonable stratification and
should be retained at present. The structure of the
groups will be reconsidered when the guidelines are
reviewed in the future. The Agency also feels lhat
the descriptive title  it originally  selected  best
conveys the meaning of the classification within the
context of EPA's past and current activities.

   5. Some commentors indicated a concern about
the distinction between Bl and 132 on the basis of
epidemiologic evidence only. This issue has been
under discussion in the Agency and may be revised
in future versions of the guidelines.

   6. Comments  were also  received about  the
possibility of keeping the groups for animal and
human data separate without reaching a combined
classification. The Agency feels that a combined
classification  is useful;  thus, the combined
classification was retained in the final guidelines.

   The SAB suggested that a table be added to Part
A, section IV to indicate the  manner in which
human and animal data would be  combined to
obtain an overall weight-of-evidence category. The
Agency realizes that a table that would present all
permutations of potentially available data would be
complex and possibly impossible to construct since
numerous combinations of ancillary data (e.g.,
genetic toxicity, pharmacokinetics) could be used to
raise or lower the weight-of-evidence classification.
Nevertheless, the Agency decided to include a table
to illustrate the  most probable weight-of-evidence
classification  that would be assigned on the basis of
standard  animal and human  data  without
consideration of the ancillary data. While it is hoped
that  this table will clarify the weight-of-evidence
classifications, it is also important to recognize that
an agent may be assigned to a final categorization
different from the category which would  appear
appropriate from the table and still conform to the
guidelines.

IX. Quantitative Estimates of Risk

   The  method  for quantitative  estimates of
carcinogenic risk in the proposed guidelines received
substantial comments from the public. Five issues
were discussed by the Agency and have resulted in
modifications of the guidelines.

   1. The major criticism was the perception that
EPA would use  only one  method  for  the
extrapolation of  carcinogenic risk  and would,
therefore, obtain  one  estimate  of risk.  Even
commentors who concur with the procedure usually
followed by EPA felt that some indication of the
uncertainty of the  risk estimate should be included
with the risk estimate.
   The Agency feels that the  proposed  guidelines
were  not intended to suggest that  EPA would
perform quantitative  risk estimates  in a rote or
mechanical  fashion. As  indicated  by the OSTP
report and paraphrased in the proposed guidelines,
no  single mathematical procedure has  been
determined to be the most appropriate method for
risk extrapolation. The final guidelines quote rather
than paraphrase the OSTP principle.  The guidelines
have  been revised to  stress  the importance  of
considering all available data in the risk assessment
and now  state, "The  Agency will review each
assessment  as to the  evidence on carcinogenic
mechanisms  and other biological  or statistical
evidence that indicates the suitability of a particular
extrapolation model." Two issues  are emphasized:
First, the text now indicates the  potential  for
pharmacokinetic information  to contribute to the
assessment of carcinogenic risk. Second, the final
guidelines  state that time-to-tumor  risk
extrapolation  models  may  be   used  when
longitudinal data on tumor development are
available.

    2. A number of commentors noted that the
proposed  guidelines  did not indicate how the
uncertainties of risk  characterization would be
presented. The Agency has revised the proposed
guidelines to indicate that major  assumptions,
scientific judgments, and, to  the  extent possible,
estimates of the  uncertainties embodied in the risk
assessment  will be presented along with the
estimation of risk.

    3. The proposed guidelines  stated that the
appropriateness of quantifying risks for chemicals in
Group C (Possible Human Carcinogen), specifically
those agents that were on the boundary of Groups C
and  D  (Not  Classifiable  as   to  Human
Carcinogenicity), would be judged on a case-by-case
basis. Some commentors felt that quantitative risk
assessment should not be performed on any agent in
Group C.
    Group C includes a  wide range of agents,
including some for which there are positive results
in one species in one  good bioassay. Thus, the
Agency  feels that many agents in Group C will be
suitable for quantitative risk  assessment, but that
judgments in this regard will be made on a case-by-
case basis.

    4. A few commentors felt that EPA intended to
perform quantitative risk  estimates on aggregate
tumor incidence. While EPA will consider an
increase in total aggregate tumors as suggestive of
potential carcinogenicity, EPA does  not generally
intend  to  make quantitative estimates  of
carcinogenic  risk based on total aggregate tumor
incidence.

    5. The proposed choice of body surface area as an
interspecies  scaling factor was criticized by several
commentors  who felt that body weight was also
appropriate and  that both  methods should be used.
The OSTP report recognizes that both scaling factors
are in common use. The Agency feels  that the choice
of the body surface area scaling  factor can be
                                               1-16

-------
justified from the data on effects of drugs in various
species. Thus, EPA will continue to use this scaling
factor unless data on a  specific agent suggest that a
different scaling factor is justified. The uncertainty
engendered by choice of scaling factor will be
included in the summary of uncertainties associated
with the assessment of risk mentioned in point 1,
above.

    In the second of its two proposals for additions to
the proposed guidelines, the SAB suggested that a
sensitivity analysis be  included in  EPA's
quantitative estimate of a chemical's  carcinogenic
potency. The Agency agrees that an analysis of the
assumptions and uncertainties inherent in an
assessment of carcinogenic risk must be accurately
portrayed. Sections of the final guidelines that deal
with this issue have been strengthened to reflect the
concerns of the SAB and the Agency. In particular,
the last  paragraph of the guidelines states  that
"major assumptions, scientific judgments, and, to
the extent possible, estimates of the uncertainties
embodied in the assessment" should be presented in
the summary characterizing the risk. Since the
assumptions and uncertainties will vary  for each
assessment,  the Agency  feels  that a  formal
requirement for a particular type of sensitivity
analysis  would be less useful than a  case-by-case
evaluation  of the particular assumptions  and
uncertainties most significant for a particular risk
assessment.
                                               1-17

-------

                 51FR34006

GUIDELINES FOR MUTAGENICITY RISK
ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY: On September 24,  1986, the  U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency issued  the
following five guidelines for assessing the health
risks of environmental pollutants.

   Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for Estimating Exposures

   Guidelines for Mutagenieity Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
   Developmental Toxicants

   Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of
   Chemical Mixtures

This  section contains  the  Guidelines  for
Mutagenieity Risk Assessment.

  The  Guidelines  for  Mutagenieity  Risk
Assessment (hereafter "Guidelines") are intended to
guide Agency analysis of mutagenicity data in  line
with the policies  and procedures established in the
statutes administered by the EPA. These  Guidelines
were developed as part of an interoffice  guidelines
development program  under the  auspices of the
Office of Health  and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA) in the Agency's Office of Research  and
Development. They reflect Agency consideration of
public and Science Advisory Board (SAB) comments
on the Proposed  Guidelines  for Mutagenicity Risk
Assessment published November 23, 1984 (49 FR
46314).

  This publication completes the first round of risk
assessment  guidelines development. These
Guidelines will be revised, and new guidelines  will
be developed, as appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Lawrence R. Valcovic
Reproductive Effects Assessment Group
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(RD-689)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7303

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1983,
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published
its book entitled Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process.  In  that book,
the NAS recommended that federal regulatory
agencies establish "inference guidelines" to ensure
consistency and technical  quality  in  risk
assessments and to ensure that the risk assessment
process was  maintained  as a scientific effort
separate from risk management. A task force within
EPA accepted that recommendation and requested
that Agency scientists begin  to develop  such
guidelines.

General

   The guidelines  are products of a two-year
Agencywide  effort, which has included many
scientists from the  larger  scientific community.
These guidelines set forth principles and procedures
to guide EPA scientists in the conduct of Agency risk
assessments, and to inform Agency decision makers
and the public about these procedures. In particular,
the guidelines emphasize that risk assessments will
be conducted  on a case-by-case basis, giving full
consideration  to all relevant scientific information.
This case-by-case approach means that Agency
experts review the scientific information on  each
agent and use the most scientifically appropriate
interpretation to assess risk. The guidelines also
stress that this information will be fully presented
in Agency risk assessment documents,  and that
Agency scientists  will  identify the strengths and
weaknesses of each assessment by  describing
uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations, as well
as the scientific basis and rationale for  each
assessment.

   Finally, the guidelines are formulated  in part to
bridge gaps in risk assessment methodology and
data. By identifying these gaps and the importance
of the missing information to the  risk assessment
process, EPA wishes  to encourage research and
analysis  that will lead to. new risk assessment
methods and data.

Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment

   Work on the Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk
Assessment  began in January 1984. Draft
guidelines were developed by Agency work groups
composed of expert scientists from throughout the
Agency. The drafts were peer-reviewed by expert
scientists in the field  of genetic toxicology  from
universities, environmental groups, industry, labor,
and other governmental agencies.  They were  then
proposed  for  public comment  in  the  FEDERAL
REGISTER (49 FR 46314).  On November 9, 1984,
the Administrator directed that Agency offices use
the proposed guidelines  in  performing  risk
assessments until final guidelines become available.
                                              2-1

-------
    After the close of the public comment period,
Agency staff prepared summaries of the comments,
analyses of the major issues presented by the
commentors, and preliminary Agency responses to
those comments. These analyses were presented to
review panels of the SAB on March 4 and April 22-
23, 1985, and  to the Executive Committee of the
SAB on April 25-26, 1985. The SAB meetings were
announced in the FEDERAL REGISTER as follows:
February 12, 1985 (50 FR 5811) and April 4, 1985
(50 FR13420 and 13421).

    In a letter to the Administrator dated June 19,
1985, the Executive Committee generally concurred
on  all five of the guidelines, but  recommended
certain revisions, and requested that any revised
guidelines  be  submitted to the appropriate SAB
review panel chairman for review and concurrence
on behalf of the Executive Committee. As described
in the responses to comments (see Part B: Response
to  the  Public  and  Science  Advisory  Board
Comments), each guidelines document was revised,
where appropriate,  consistent with the  SAB
recommendations, and revised draft guidelines were
submitted  to the panel  chairmen.  Revised draft
Guidelines  for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment were
concurred on in a letter dated September 24, 1985.
Copies of the letters  are available at the Public
Information Reference Unit,  EPA  Headquarters
Library, as indicated elsewhere in this section.

    Following this Preamble are two parts: Part A
contains the Guidelines and Part B, the Response to
the Public and Science Advisory Board Comments (a
summary of the  major public comments,  SAB
comments, and  Agency  responses to those
comments).

    The Agency is continuing to study the risk
assessment issues raised  in the guidelines and will
revise these Guidelines in line with new information
as appropriate.
    References, supporting documents, and
comments received on the proposed guidelines, as
well as copies of the final guidelines, are available
for inspection and copying at the Public Information
Reference Unit (202-382-5926), EPA Headquarters
Library, 401 M Street,  S.W., Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
    I  certify that these Guidelines  are not  major
rules as defined by Executive Order  12291, because
they are nonbinding policy statements and have no
direct effect on the regulated community. Therefore,
they will have no effect on costs or prices, and they
will have no other significant adverse effects on the
economy. These Guidelines  were reviewed by the
Office of Management
                 [51FR34007J
                               and   Budget
under Executive Order 12291.
August 22,1986

Lee M. Thomas,

Administrator


CONTENTS


Part A: Guidelines for Mutagenicily Itisk Assessment
/. Introduction
    A.Concepts Relating to Heritable Mutagenie Risk
    B.Test Systems
17. Qualitative Assessment (Hazard Identification)
    A.Mutagenic Activity
    B.Chemical Interactions in the Mammalian Gonad
    C.Weight-of-Evidence Determination
///. Quantitative Assessment
    A.Dose Response
    B,Exposure Assessment
    C.Risk Characterization
IV. References

Part B: Response to Public and Science Advisory Board
Comments

Part A: Guidelines for Mutagenicity  Risk
Assessment

/. Introduction

    This section describes the procedures that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will follow
in  evaluating the potential genetic risk associated
with human exposure to chemicals. The central
purpose of the health risk assessment is  to provide a
judgment concerning the weight of evidence that an
agent is a potential human  mutagen, capable of
inducing transmitted genetic changes, and, if so, to
provide a judgment on how great an  impact this
agent is likely to have on public health. Regulatory
decision making  involves two components: risk
assessment and risk management. Risk  assessment
estimates the potential adverse health consequences
of  exposure  to toxic chemicals; risk management
combines the risk assessment with the directives of
the enabling regulatory legislation—together with
socioeconomic, technical, political,  and other
considerations—to reach a decision as to whether or
how much  to control future exposure to  the
chemicals. The issue of risk management will not be
dealt with in these Guidelines.

    Risk assessment is comprised of the following
components: hazard  identification, dose-response
assessment,  exposure  assessment,  and  risk
characterization (1). Hazard identification is the
qualitative risk  assessment,  dealing with  the
inherent toxicity of a chemical substance. The
qualitative mutagenicity assessment answers the
question of how likely an agent  is to be a human
mutagen.  The  three  remaining components
                                               2-2

-------
          comprise  quantitative  risk  assessment, which
          provides a numerical estimate of the public health
          consequences  of  exposure  to an agent.  The
          quantitative mutagenicity risk assessment deals
          with the question of how much mutational damage
          is likely to be produced by exposure to a given agent
          under particular exposure scenarios.

             In a dose-response assessment,  the relationship
          between the dose of a chemical and the probability of
          induction of an adverse  effect is defined. The
          component generally entails an extrapolation from
          the high  doses administered  to experimental
          animals or noted in some epidemiologic studies to
          the low exposure  levels  expected  from human
          contact with the chemical in the environment.

             The exposure assessment identifies populations
          exposed  to toxic  chemicals, describes  their
          composition  and  size,  and presents the types,
          magnitudes, frequencies, and durations of exposure
          to the chemicals.  This  component  is developed
          independently of  the  other components of the
          mutagenicity assessment and is addressed in
          separate Agency guidelines (2).

             In risk characterization, the  outputs of the
          exposure assessment  and  the  dose-response
          assessment are combined to estimate quantitatively
          the mutation  risk, which is  expressed  as either
          estimated increase  of genetic disease per generation
          or per lifetime, or  the  fractional  increase in the
          assumed  background mutation rate of humans. In
          each step of the assessment, the strengths and
          weaknesses of the  major assumptions need  to be
          presented, and the nature  and magnitude of
          uncertainties need to be characterized.

             The procedures  set forth in these Guidelines will
          ensure consistency in the Agency's scientific risk
          assessments for mutagenic effects. The necessity for
          a consistent approach to the evaluation of mutagenic
          risk  from chemical  substances arises  from the
          authority conferred upon the Agency by a number of
          statutes to regulate  potential  mutagens.  As
          appropriate, these Guidelines will  apply to statutes
          administered by the Agency, including the Federal
          Insecticide, Fungicide,  and Rodenticide Act; the
          Toxic Substances Control Act; the Clean Air Act; the
          Federal Water Pollution Control Act;  the Safe
          Drinking Water Act; the Resource Conservation and
          Recovery  Act;  and  the  Comprehensive
          Environmental Response,  Compensation, and
          Liability Act. Because each statute is administered
          by separate offices, a consistent  Agency-wide
          approach for performing risk  assessments is
          desirable.

             The mutagenicity risk assessments prepared
          pursuant to these  Guidelines will  be utilized with
          the requirements and constraints  of the applicable
          statutes to arrive at regulatory decisions concerning
          mutagenicity.  The standards  of the applicable
          statutes and regulations may dictate that additional
   considerations (e.g., the economic and social benefits
   associated with use of the chemical substance) will
   come into play in reaching appropriate regulatory
   decisions.

      The Agency has not attempted to provide in the
   Guidelines a detailed discussion of the mechanisms
   of mutagenicity or of the various test systems that
   are currently in use to detect mutagenic potential.
   Background  information on  mutagenesis and
   mutagenicity  test  systems is available in
   "Identifying and Estimating the Genetic Impact of
   Chemical Mutagens", National Academy of Sciences
   (NAS)  Committee on Chemical  Environmental
   Mutagens (3), as well as in other recent  publications
   (4,5).

      The  Agency  is concerned  with  the risk
   associated with  both germ-cell  mutations and
   somatic-cell mutations. Mutations carried in germ
   cells may be  inherited by future generations and
   may contribute  to genetic  disease, whereas
   mutations occurring in somatic cells may be
   implicated in the etiology of several disease states,
   including cancer.  These Guidelines, however, are
   only concerned with genetic damage as it relates to
   germ-cell mutations. The use of mutagenicity test
   results in the assessment of carcinogenic risk is
   described in the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
   Assessment (6).

      As a result of the progress in the control of
   infectious diseases, increases in average human life
   span, and better procedures for identifying genetic
   disorders, a considerable heritable genetic  disease
   burden  has  been  recognized  in the  human
   population. It is estimated that at least 10% of all
   human disease  is  related to specific genetic
   abnormalities, such as abnormal composition,
   arrangement, or dosage of genes and chromosomes
   (3, 7, 8). Such genetic abnormalities  can  lead to
   structural or  functional health impairments. These
   conditions may be expressed in utero; at the time of
   birth; or during infancy, childhood, adolescence, or
   adult life; they may be chronic or acute in nature. As
   a result, they often  have a severe impact upon the
   affected individuals and their families in terms of
   physical and mental
                    [51 PR 34008]
                                  suffering  and
   economic losses, and upon society in general, which
   often becomes responsible for institutional care of
   severely affected individuals. Some examples of
   genetic  disorders  are  Down and   Klinefelter
   syndromes, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, sickle-cell
   anemia, and achondroplastic dwarfism. Other
   commonly recognized conditions that are likely to
   have    a   genetic    component   include
   hypercholesterolemia, hypertension,  pyloric
   stenosis, glaucoma, allergies, several types of
   cancer, and mental retardation. These disorders are
   only a few of the thousands that are at least partially
   genetically determined (9).
I
2-3

-------
    Estimation of the fraction of human genetic
disorders that result from new mutations is difficult,
although  in  certain specific cases  insights are
available (10). It is clear that recurring mutation is
important in determining  the incidence of certain
genetic disorders, such  as some chromosomal
aberration syndromes (e.g.,  Down syndrome) and
rare dominant and X-Iinked recessive diseases (e.g.,
achondroplasia and hemophilia A). For other single-
factor disorders (e.g., sickle-cell anemia) and certain
multifactorial disorders (e.g., pyloric  stenosis), the
contribution of new mutations to disease frequency
is probably small.  However,  it  is generally
recognized that most newly-arising mutations that
are phenotypically expressed are in some ways
deleterious to the organism receiving them (3, 7, 8).
Adverse  effects  may be   manifested at the
biochemical, cellular, or  physiological  levels  of
organization. Although mutations are the building
blocks for further evolutionary change of species, it
is believed that increases in the mutation rate could
lead to an increased frequency of expressed genetic
disorders in the first and subsequent generations.

    Life in our  technological society results  in
exposure to many natural  and synthetic chemicals.
Some have been shown to  have mutagenic activity
in mammalian and submammalian test  systems,
and thus may have the potential to increase genetic
damage  in the human population. Chemicals
exhibiting mutagenic activity  in various test
systems have been found distributed among foods,
tobacco, drugs, food additives, cosmetics, industrial
compounds, pesticides, and consumer  products. The
extent to which  exposure  to natural and  synthetic
environmental agents may have increased the
frequency of genetic disorders in the present human
population and contributed to the mutational "load"
that will be transmitted to  future generations is
unknown at this time. However, for the reasons
cited above, it seems prudent to limit exposures to
potential human mutagens.

A. Concepts Relating to Heritable Mutagenic Risk

    These Guidelines are concerned  with  chemical
substances or mixtures of substances  that can
induce alterations in the genome of either somatic or
germinal cells. The mutagenicity of physical agents
(e.g.,  radiation)  is not addressed here. There are
several mutagenic end points of concern to the
Agency. These include  point mutations (i.e.,
submicroscopic  changes in  the base sequence  of
DNA) and structural or  numerical  chromosome
aberrations. Structural aberrations  include
deficiencies,  duplications, insertions, inversions,
and translocations, whereas  numerical aberrations
are gains or losses of whole chromosomes (e.g.,
trisomy,  monosomy) or sets of chromosomes
(haploidy, polyploidy).
    Certain mutagens, such  as alkylating agents,
can directly induce alterations in the  DNA.
Mutagenic effects may also come about through
mechanisms other than chemical alterations of
DNA. Among these are interference with normal
DNA synthesis (as caused by some metal mutagens),
interference with DNA repair, abnormal  DNA
methylation, abnormal nuclear division processes,
or lesions in non-DNA targets (e.g., protamine,
tubulin).

   Evidence that an agent induces heritable
mutations in human beings could be derived from
epidemiologic data indicating a strong association
between chemical exposure and heritable effects. It
is difficult to obtain such data because any specific
mutation is a rare event, and only a small fraction of
the estimated  thousands of human genes and
conditions are currently useful as markers in
estimating mutation rates.  Human  genetic
variability,  small numbers o*f  offspring per
individual, and long generation times  further
complicate such studies. In addition, only disorders
caused by dominant mutations, some sex-linked
recessive mutations, and certain chromosome
aberrations can be detected in the first generation
after  their occurrence.  Conditions caused by
autosomal recessive disorders (which appear to
occur  more frequently than dominant disorders) or
by polygenic traits may go unrecognized for  many
generations. Therefore, in the absence of human
epidemiological data, it is appropriate to rely on data
from experimental animal systems as long as the
limitations of using surrogate and  model systems
are clearly stated.

   Despite species differences in metabolism, DNA
repair, and other physiological processes affecting
chemical mutagenesis, the virtual  universality of
DNA as the genetic material and of the genetic code
provides  a rationale for using various nonhuman
test systems to predict the intrinsic mutagenicity of
test chemicals. Additional support for the use of
nonhuman systems is  provided by the observation
that chemicals causing genetic effects in one species
or test system frequently cause similar effects in
other  species or systems. Evidence  also exists that
chemicals can  induce  genetic damage in  somatic
cells of exposed humans. For example, high doses of
mutagenic chemotherapeutic agents have  been
shown to cause chromosomal abnormalities (11),
sister chromatic exchange (11), and, quite probably,
point  mutations in human lymphocytes exposed in.
vivo (12). While these results are  not in germ cells,
they  do  indicate  that it is possible  to induce
mutagenic events in human cells  in  vivo.
Furthermore, a wide variety of different types of
mutations have been observed in humans including
numerical chromosome aberrations, translocations,
base-pair substitutions, and frameshift mutations.
Although the cause of these mutations is uncertain,
it is clear from these observations that the human
germ-cell DNA  is subject to the  same  types of
                                               2-4

-------
mutational events that are observed in other species
and test systems.

   Certain test systems offer notable advantages:
cost; anatomical, histological,  and/or  metabolic
similarities to humans;  suitability for handling
large numbers of test organisms; a large data base;
or a basis for characterizing genetic events.

B. Test Systems

   Many test systems are currently available that
can contribute information  about the  mutagenic
potential of a test compound with respect to various
genetic end points. These tests have recently been
evaluated through the EPA Gene-Tox Programs and
the results of Phase I have been published (5). The
Agency's Office of Pesticides and Toxic  Substances
has published various testing guidelines for the
detection of mutagenic effects (13,14).

   Test systems  for detecting point  mutations
include   those   in  bacteria,   eukaryotic
microorganisms, higher plants, insects, mammalian
somatic cells  in culture, and germinal cells of intact
mammals.  Data from heritable,  mammalian germ-
cell tests provide  the best experimental evidence
that a
                 [51FR 34009]
                              chemical  is  a
potential human  germ-cell  mutagen since these
tests require that mutations occur in germinal cells
and  that  they  are transmitted to  the  next
generation. To date, the most extensively used test
for the induction of heritable  mutation is the  mouse
specific-locus test  which measures the induction of
recessive mutations at seven loci  concerned with
coat color and ear morphology. While this test has a
large data base compared to other germ-cell assays,
it is difficult to extrapolate results  to humans since
recessive mutations may occur more frequently than
dominants, and the impact of recessive mutations is
not seen for many generations.  Information on
frequencies of induced mutations resulting in  health
disorders in the first generation may be obtained
from mouse  systems designed  to detect skeletal
abnormalities, cataracts, or general morphological
abnormalities. However, these  assays  have been
used to  a relatively limited extent, and there is a
need for additional studies with known, chemical
germ-cell mutagens to further characterize the test
systems. Because  large numbers of offspring must
usually be generated in the systems described  above,
it is not expected that many chemicals will be tested
using these systems. To obtain data on a large
number of environmental chemicals,  it will be
necessary  to rely  on other  tests  to identify and
characterize hazards from gene mutations.

   Test systems for  detecting structural
chromosome aberrations have been developed in a
variety of organisms including higher plants,
insects, fish, birds, and several mammalian species.
Many of these assays can be performed in vitro or in
vivo, and in either germ or somatic cells. Procedures
available  for detecting structural chromosome
aberrations in mammalian  germ  cells include
measurement  of  heritable translocations or
dominant  lethality, as well as direct cytogenetic
analyses of germ cells and early embryos in rodents.

   Some  chemicals may  cause numerical
chromosome changes (i.e., aneuploidy) as their sole
mutagenic effect. These agents may not be detected
as mutagens if evaluated only in tests for DNA
damage, gene mutations, or chromosome breakage
and rearrangement. Therefore, it is important to
consider tests for changes in chromosome number in
the total assessment  of mutagenic  hazards.
Although tests for the detection of variation in the
chromosome number are still at an early stage of
development,  systems exist in  such diverse
organisms as fungi, Drosophila, mammalian cells in
culture, and intact mammals (e.g., mouse X-
chromosome loss assay).  Aneuploidy can arise from
disturbances in a number of events affecting the
meiotic  process  (15, 16).  Although the mechanisms
by which nondisjunction occurs are  not well
understood, mitotic structures other than  DNA may
be the  target molecules for at  least some
mechanisms of induced nondisjunction.

   Other  end  points that provide information
bearing on the  mutagenicity of a chemical can be
detected by a variety  of test  systems. Such tests
measure DNA damage in eukaryotic  or prokaryotic
cells,  unscheduled  DNA  synthesis in mammalian
somatic and germ cells, mitotic recombination and
gene  conversion in yeast, and sister-chromatid
exchange  in mammalian somatic and germ cells.
Results in these assays are  useful  because  the
induction of these end  points often correlates
positively  with the potential of a chemical to induce
mutations.

   In general, for  all  three end points (i.e., point
mutations  and  numerical  and  structural
aberrations), the Agency will  place greater weight
on tests conducted  in  germ cells than in somatic
cells, on tests performed in vivo rather than in vitro,
in eukaryotes rather than prokaryotes,  and in
mammalian  species rather than in submammalian
species. Formal numerical weighting systems have
been  developed (17);  however,  the Agency has
concluded  that these do  not readily  accommodate
such variables as dose range, route of"exposure, and
magnitude of response.

   The Agency anticipates that from time to time
somatic cell  data from chemically exposed human
beings will be available (e.g., cytogenetic markers in
peripheral lymphocytes).  When possible, the Agency
will use such data in conjunction with somatic and
germ cell  comparisons from  in vivo mammalian
experimental systems as a component in performing
risk assessments.
                                              2-5

-------
   The test systems mentioned previously are not
the only ones that will provide evidence of
mutagenicity or related DNA effects. These systems
are enumerated merely to demonstrate the breadth
of the available techniques for characterizing
mutagenic hazards, and to indicate the types of data
that the  Agency will consider in  its  evaluation of
mutagenic potential of a chemical agent. Most
systems possess certain limitations  that must be
taken into account. The selection and performance of
appropriate tests for evaluating the risks associated
with human exposure to any suspected mutagen will
depend on sound scientific judgment and experience,
and may necessitate consultation with geneticists
familiar with the sensitivity and experimental
design of the  test system in question.  In view of the
rapid  advances in test methodology, the Agency
expects that both the number and quality of the tools
for assessing genetic risk to human beings  will
increase with time. The Agency will closely monitor
developments in mutagenicity evaluation and  will
refine its risk assessment scheme as better  test
systems become available.

II. Qualitative Assessment (Hazard Identification)

   The assessment of potential human germ-cell
mutagenic risk is a multistep process. The first step
is an analysis of the evidence bearing on a
chemical's ability to induce mutagenic events, while
the second step involves an analysis of its ability to
produce these events in the mammalian gonad. All
relevant information is  then integrated  into a
weight-of-evidence scheme  which  presents the
strength of the  information bearing on  the
chemical's potential ability to produce mutations in
human germ cells. For chemicals demonstrating this
potential, one may decide  to  proceed with an
evaluation of the quantitative  consequences of
mutation following expected human exposure.

   For hazard identification, it is clearly desirable
to have data from mammalian germ-cell tests, such
as the mouse specific-locus test for point mutations
and the heritable translocation or  germ-cell
cytogenetic  tests for  structural  chromosome
aberrations. It is recognized, however, that in most
instances such data will not be available,  and
alternative means of evaluation will be required. In
such cases the Agency will evaluate the evidence
bearing on the agent's mutagenic activity and the
agent's ability to interact with or affect the
mammalian gonadal target. When evidence exists
that an agent possesses both  these attributes,  it is
reasonable to deduce that the agent is a potential
human germ-cell mutagen.

   While mammalian  germ-cell  assays  are
presently primarily performed on male  animals, a
chemical cannot be considered to be a non-mutagen
for mammalian germ cells unless it is shown to be
negative in both sexes. Furthermore, because most
mammalian germ-cell assays are performed in mice,
it  is noteworthy  that  the data  from  ionizing
radiation suggest that the female mouse immature
oocyte may not be an appropriate surrogate for the
same stage in the  human female in mutagenicity
testing. However,
                 [51 FR 34010]
                               mutagenicity
data on the maturing and mature oocyte of the
mouse may provide a useful model  for human risk
assessment.

A. Mutagenic Activity

   In evaluating chemicals for mutagenic activity,
a number of factors will be considered: 1) genetic end
points (e.g., gene mutations, structural or numerical
chromosomal  aberrations) detected by the test
systems, 2) sensitivity and  predictive value of the
test systems  for  various  classes of chemical
compounds, 3) number of different test systems used
for detecting each genetic end point, 4) consistency of
the results obtained in different test systems  and
different species, 5) aspects of the dose-response
relationship, and 6) whether the tests are conducted
in accordance with appropriate test protocols agreed
upon by experts in the field.

B. Chemical Interactions in the Mammalian Gonad

   Evidence  for  chemical  interaction in  the
mammalian gonad spans a range of different types
of findings. Each chemical under consideration
needs to be extensively reviewed since  this type of
evidence  may be part  of testing exclusive of
mutagenicity per se (e.g., reproduction, metabolism,
and mechanistic investigations). Although it is not
possible to classify clearly each type of information
that may  be available on a chemical, two possible
groups are illustrated.

    1. Sufficient evidence of chemical interaction is
given by the demonstration that an agent interacts
with  germ-cell  DNA or  other chromatin
constituents, or that it induces  such end points as
unscheduled  DNA synthesis, sister-chromatid
exchange, or chromosomal aberrations in germinal
cells.

    2. Suggestive evidence will include the finding of
adverse gonadal effects such as sperm abnormalities
following acute, subchronic, or chronic toxicity
testing, or findings of adverse reproductive effects
such as decreased fertility, which  are  consistent
with the chemical's interaction with germ cells.

C. Weight-of-Evidence Determination

   The evidence for a chemical's ability to produce
mutations and to interact with the  germinal target
are integrated into a weight-of-evidence judgment
that the agent may pose a hazard as  a potential
human germ-cell mutagen. All information bearing
on the subject,  whether indicative of  potential
concern  or not,  must  be  evaluated. Whatever
                                               2-6

-------
evidence may exist from humans must also be
factored into the assessment.

   All germ-cell stages are important in evaluating
chemicals because some chemicals have been shown
to be positive in postgonial stages but not in gonia
(18). When human exposures  occur,  effects on
postgonial stages should be weighted by the relative
sensitivity and the duration of the stages. Chemicals
may show positive effects for some end points and in
some test systems, but negative responses in others.
Each review must take into account the limitations
in the testing and in the types of responses that may
exist.

   To provide guidance as to the categorization of
the weight of evidence, a classification scheme is
presented to illustrate, in a  simplified sense, the
strength of the information bearing on the potential
for human germ-cell mutagenicity. It is not possible
to illustrate all potential combinations of evidence,
and considerable judgment  must be exercised in
reaching conclusions. In addition, certain responses
in tests that do not measure direct mutagenic end
points (e.g., SCE induction  in  mammalian  germ
cells)  may provide a basis for raising the weight of
evidence from one category  to  another.  The
categories are presented in decreasing order of
strength of evidence.
    1. Positive data derived from human germ-cell
mutagenicity studies,  when available,  will
constitute the  highest level of evidence for human
mutagenicity.
    2.  Valid  positive results  from  studies on
heritable mutational events  (of any kind) in
mammalian germ cells.
    3. Valid positive results from mammalian germ-
cell chromosome aberration studies that do not
include an intergeneration test.
    4.  Sufficient evidence for  a chemical's
interaction  with mammalian germ cells, together
with valid positive mutagenicity test results from
two  assay  systems, at least one of which is
mammalian (in. vitro or in uiuo). The positive results
may  both be for gene  mutations or both for
chromosome  aberrations;  if one is  for  gene
mutations  and  the other for chromosome
aberrations,  both must be from mammalian
systems.
    5.  Suggestive evidence for a  chemical's
interaction with mammalian germ cells, together
with valid positive mutagenicity evidence from two
assay systems as described under 4, above.
Alternatively, positive mutagenicity evidence of less
strength than defined  under 4,  above,  when
combined with sufficient  evidence for a chemical's
interaction with mammalian  germ cells.
    6.  Positive mutagenicity test results of less
strength than defined under 4,  combined  with
suggestive evidence for a chemical's interaction with
mammalian germ cells.
    7. Although definitive proof of non-mutagenicity
is not possible, a chemical could be classified
operationally as a non-mutagen for human germ
cells, if it gives valid negative test results for all end
points of concern.
   8.Inadequate  evidence  bearing  on  either
mutagenicity or  chemical  interaction with
mammalian germ cells.

///. Quantitative Assessment

   The preceding section addressed primarily the
processes  of hazard identification, i.e., the
determination of whether a substance is a potential
germ-cell mutagen.  Often, no further data will  be
available, and judgments will need to be based
mainly on qualitative criteria. Quantitative risk
assessment is a two-step process: determination of
the heritable effect per unit  of exposure (dose-
response) and the relationship between mutation
rate and disease incidence. The procedures that are
presently accepted for the estimation of an increase
in disease resulting from increased mutation have
been described (3,7, 8). Dose-response information is
combined with anticipated levels and  patterns of
human exposure in order to  derive a quantitative
assessment (risk characterization).

A. Dose Response

   Dose-response assessments can presently only
be performed using data  from in uiuo, heritable
mammalian germ-cell tests, until such time as other
approaches can be demonstrated to have equivalent
predictability. The  morphological specific-locus and
biochemical specific-locus assays can provide data
on the frequencies of recessive mutations induced by
different chemical exposure levels, and similar data
can be obtained for heritable chromosomal damage
using the heritable  translocation test. Data on the
frequencies of induced mutations resulting in health
disorders in the first generation may be obtained
from mouse  systems designed to detect skeletal
abnormalities, cataracts, or general morphological
abnormalities. Assays that directly detect heritable
health effects in the first generation may provide the
best basis for predicting human health risks that
result from mutagen exposure. The experimental
data on induced mutation frequency are usually
obtained at exposure levels much higher than those
that will be experienced by  human beings. An
assessment of human  risk  is  obtained  by
extrapolating the induced mutation frequency or the
observed phenotypic
                 [51FR34011]
                               effect downward
to- the approximate level of anticipated  human
exposure. In  performing these extrapolations, the
Agency will place greater weight on data derived
from exposures and exposure rates that most closely
simulate  those  experienced  by the  human
population under study.

   The Agency will  strive  to use the most
appropriate extrapolation  models for risk analysis
                                               2-7

-------
and will be guided by the available  data and
mechanistic considerations in this  selection.
However, it is anticipated that for  tests involving
germ cells of whole mammals, few dose points will
be available to define dose-response functions. The
Agency is aware that for at least one chemical that
has been tested for mutations in mammalian germ
cells, there exist departures from linearity at low
exposure and exposure rates in a fashion similar to
that seen for ionizing radiation that has a low linear
energy  transfer (19). The Agency will consider all
relevant  models for  gene and  chromosomal
mutations in performing low-dose  extrapolations
and will choose the most appropriate model. This
choice will be consistent both with the experimental
data available and  with current knowledge of
relevant mutational mechanisms.

    An  experimental approach for quantitative
assessment of genetic risk, which may have utility
in the future, uses molecular dosimetry  data from
intact mammals in conjunction with mutagenicity
and dosimetry data from  other  validated  test
systems (20). The intact mammal is used primarily
for relating the exposure level for a given route of
administration of a chemical to germ-cell dose, i.e.,
the level  of  mutagen-DNA interactions. This
information is then used in conjunction with results
obtained from  mutagenicity test systems in which
the relationship between the induction of mutations
and chemical interactions with DNA can be derived.
With mutagen-DNA interactions as the common
denominator, a relationship can be constructed
between mammalian exposure and the  induced
mutation frequency.  The amount of DNA binding
induced by a particular chemical agent may often be
determined at levels of anticipated human exposure.

    For  some mutagenic events,  DNA  may  not
necessarily be  the critical  target.  Interaction of
chemicals with other  macromoleeules,  such  as
tubulin, which is involved in the  separation of
chromosomes during nuclear division, can lead to
chromosomal  nondisjunction. At present, general
approaches are not  available for dose-response
assessments for these types of mutations.  Ongoing
research should provide the means to make future
assessments on chemicals causing aneuploidy.

B. Exposure Asssessmen.t

    The exposure  assessment identifies populations
exposed to  toxic chemicals;  describes their
composition  and size; and presents  the types,
magnitudes, frequencies, and durations of exposure
to  the  chemicals. This component is developed
independently of the  other components of the
mutagenicity assessment (2).

C. Risk Characterization

    In performing mutagenicity risk assessments, it
is important to consider each genetic  end point
individually.  For  example, although certain
chemical substances that interact with DNA  may
cause both point and chromosomal mutations, it is
expected that the  ratio of these events may differ
among chemicals  and between doses  for a given
chemical. Furthermore, transmissible chromosomal
aberrations are recoverable with higher frequencies
from  meiotic and postmeiotic germ-cell  stages,
which have a brief life span, than in spermatogonial
stem  cells, which  can  accumulate genetic damage
throughout the reproductive life of an individual.
For these  reasons, when  data are available, the
Agency, to the best extent possible, will assess risks
associated with all genetic end points.

    Any  risk assessment should clearly delineate
the strengths and weaknesses of the data,  the
assumptions made,  the uncertainties in  the
methodology, and the rationale used in reaching the
conclusions, e.g., similar or  different routes of
exposure and metabolic differences between humans
and test animals.  When possible, quantitative risk
assessments should  be expressed in terms of the
estimated increase of genetic disease per generation,
or  the fractional increase in  the  assumed
background spontaneous mutation rate of humans
(7). Examples of quantitative  risk estimates have
been published (7, 8, 21); these examples may be of
use in performing  quantitative risk assessments for
mutagens.

IV. References
    1. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of
the Risks to Public Health. 1983. Risk assessment in the Federal
government:  managing the process. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
    2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986, Sept. 24.
Guidelines for estimating exposures. Federal Register  51(185):
34042-34054.
    3. Committee  on Chemical Environmental Mutagens,
National Academy of Sciences. 1982. Identifying and estimating
the genetic impact of chemical mutagens. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
    4. Committee 1 Final Report. 1983. Screening strategy for
chemicals that are potential germ-cell mutagens in mammals.
Mutat. Res. 114:117-177.
    5. A complete reference of all  Gene-Tox publications is
available from the TSCA Industry Assistance Office (TS-794),
Office of Toxic Substances,  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC 20460.
    6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986, Sept. 24.
Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register
51(185):33992-34003.
    7. National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the
Biological  Effects of Ionizing  Radiations. 1972.  The effects on
populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. tBEIR
I) Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
    National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. 1977. Considerations of
health benefit-cost analysis for activities involving ionizing
radiation exposure and alternatives. {BEIR II) Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences.
    National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the
Biological Effects of Ionizing  Radiations. 1980.  The effects on
populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. (BEIR
III) Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
    8. United Nations General  Assembly. 1958. Report of the
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
                                                  2-8

-------
   Radiation. Official records of the General Assembly. Thirteenth
  • Session. Supplement No. 17 (A/3838)'. New York: United Nations
       United Nations General Assembly.  1962. Report of the
   United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
   Radiation. Official records of the General Assembly. Seventeenth
   Session. Supplement No. 1 6 (A/52 1 6). New York: United Nations.
       United  Nations General Assembly.  1966. Report of the
   United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
   Radiation. Official records of the General Assembly. Twenty-first
   Session. Supplement No. 14 (A/63 14). New York: United Nations.
      United  Nations General Assembly.  1969.  Report of the
   United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic
   Radiation. Official records of the General  Assembly Twenty-
  fourth Session. Supplement No. 13 (A/7613). New York: United
  Nations.
      United Nations General Assembly. 1972. Report of the
  United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
  Radiation. Ionizing radiation: levels and effects. Vol. II  Official
  records of the General Assembly. Twenty-seventh Session
  Supplement No. 25 (A/8725). New York: United Nations
      United Nations General Assembly. 1982. Report of the
  United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
  Radiation. Sources and  biological effects.  New York-  United
  Nations.
      9. McKusick. V.A. 1983. Mendelian inheritance in man-
  catalogs of autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive and x-linked
                      [51 FR 34012]
                                   phenotypes
  Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
      10. Crow, J.F., and C. Denniston. 1981. The mutation
  component of genetic damage. Science 2 1 2:888-893
      11. Musilova, J., K.  Michalova, and J.  Urban. 1979 Sister
  chromatid  exchanges and chromosomal breakage in patients
  treated with cytostatics. Mutat. Res. 67:289-294.
      12. Strauss, G.H., and R J. Albertini. 1979. Enumeration of
  6- thioguanme-resistant peripheral blood lymphocytes in man as
  a potential test for somatic cell mutations arising in. viuo. Mutat.
  Kes. 61:353-379.
      13. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1983  OTS
  health effects test guidelines. EPA 560/6/82-001. Natl Tech
  Inform. Serv. PB82-232984.
  ioQo14nU'S" Environmental Protection Agency. November 24
  1982. Pesticides registration; proposed data requirements'
 Federal Register 47:53 192- 53 203.
     1 5. Parker, D.R., and J.H. Williamson. 1974. Some radiation
 effects on segregation in Drosophila. Genetics 78-163-171
     16 Grell, R F. 1979. Origin of meiotic nondisjunction in
 Drosophila females. Environ. Health Perspect. 31 -33-39
     17. Russell^ L B  C.S. Aaron, F. de Serres, W.M. Generoso,
 K.L  Kannan, M. Shelby, J.  Springer, and P. Voytek.  1984
 Evaluation  of existing mutagenicity bioassays for purposes of
 genetic risk assessment. Mutat. Res. 134:143-157.
     18. Russell, L.B.,  R.B. Gumming, and P.R. Hunsicker  1984
 bpecilic locus mutation rates in the mouse following inhalation of
 ethylene oxide, and application of results to estimation of genetic
 risk. Mutat. Res. 129:381-388.
     19. Russell, W.L., P.R. Hunsicker,  D.A. Carpenter, C V
 Cornell, and G.M. Gum. 1982. Effecl of dose fractionation on the
 ethylmtrosourea induction of specific-locus mutations in mouse
 spermatogonia. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. 79:3592-3593.
    20. Lee, W.R. 1979. Dosimetry of chemical mutagens in
 eukaryote germ- cells. In. A. Hollaender and F.J. de Serres, eds
 Chemical mutagens: principles and methods for their detection
 Vol. 5, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 177-202.
 • j 21J Ehlini' U-H- and A- Neuhauser. 1979. Procarbazine-
 L« o«trslec  lc"locus mutations »n male mice. Mutat. Res.
     5-256.
Part  B:  Response to  Public  and Science
Advisory Board Comments

    This section summarizes  some of the issues
raised in public and Science Advisory Board (SAB)
comments  on  the  Proposed Guidelines  for
   Mutagenicity Risk Assessment published on
   November 23, 1984 (49 FR 46314). Unlike the other
   guidelines published on the same date, the Proposed
   Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment
   contained a detailed section dealing with  public
   comments received in response  to  the original
   proposal of 1980  (45  FR 74984). Several  of the
   comments received in response  to the proposed
   guidelines of 1984 were similar to those received in
   response to the proposed guidelines of 1980. Those
   comments  are not addressed here  because the
   position of the Agency on those issues has been
   presented in the responses included with the 1984
   proposed guidelines (49 FR 46315- 46316).

      A  total  of 44 comments were  received in
  response to the proposed guidelines of 1984: 21 from
  manufacturers of regulated  products,  10  from
  associations, 9 from government agencies, 2 from
  educational institutions, 1 from an individual, and 1
  from a private consulting firm. The  proposed
  guidelines and the public comments received were
  transmitted to  the Agency's SAB prior to its public
  review of the proposed guidelines held April 22-23,
  1985. The majority of the comments were favorable
  and  expressed the opinion  that  the proposed
  guidelines accurately represent the existing state of
  knowledge in the  field of mutagenesis.  Several
  commentors  offered  suggestions  for further
  clarification of particular issues, and many of the
  suggestions have been incorporated.

     The  two  areas thai received  the  most
  substantive comments were the sections concerning
  Weight-of-Evidence Determination and  Dose
  Response. The comments on the proposed weight-of-
 evidence scheme ranged from suggestions for the
 elimination of a formal scheme  to the expansion of
 the  scheme to cover  more  potential data
 configurations.  The SAB recommended an eight-
 level rank ordering scheme to define levels of
 evidence relating to human germ-cell mutagenicity
 The Agency has incorporated this scheme into the
 Guidelines. Some commentors  and the  SAB
 suggested that the molecular dosimetry approach to
 dose-response data be presented as a concept that
 may be useful  in  the future rather than being
 available for use now. The Agency  agrees that the
 data base  at the present time  is  too sparse to
 recommend a general application of this approach to
 a wide range of chemical classes, and the Guidelines
 have been changed to reflect this. It should be noted,
 however, that the  Agency strongly supports  the'
 development of molecular dosimetry methodologies
 as they  relate to both an understanding of dose-
 response relationships and to methods for studying
 human exposure. A number of comments suggesting
clarifications and editorial changes  have  been
incorporated and  the  references have  been
expanded.
                                                  2-9
                                                                I
                                                              Hill

-------
-*
3=1
•
I
                  51 FR 34014

GUIDELINES FOR THE HEALTH  RISK
ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL MIXTURES

SUMMARY: On September 24,  1986,  the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency issued  the
following five guidelines for assessing the health
risks of environmental pollutants.

   Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for Estimating Exposures

   Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
   Developmental Toxicants

   Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of
   Chemical Mixtures

This section contains the Guidelines for the Health
Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.

   The Guidelines  for the Health Risk Assessment
of Chemical Mixtures (hereafter "Guidelines") are
intended to guide Agency analysis of information
relating to health effects data on chemical mixtures
in line with the policies and procedures established
in the statutes  administered by the EPA. These
Guidelines were developed as part of an interoffice
guidelines development program  under the auspices
of the Office  of  Health  and Environmental
Assessment (OHEA) in  the Agency's  Office of
Research and Development. They reflect Agency
consideration of public and Science Advisory Board
(SAB) comments on the Proposed Guidelines for the
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
published January 9,1985 (50 FR 1170).

   This publication completes the first round of risk
assessment guidelines  development.  These
Guidelines will  be revised, and new guidelines will
be developed, as appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Richard Hertzberg
Methods Evaluation and Development Staff
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7582

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1983,
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published
its book entitled Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the  Process. In that book,
the NAS recommended that Federal  regulatory
agencies establish "inference guidelines" to ensure
consistency and technical  quality in  risk
assessments and to ensure that the risk assessment
process was  maintained  as a scientific effort
separate from risk management. A task force within
EPA accepted that recommendation and requested
that Agency scientists begin  to  develop  such
guidelines.

General

   The guidelines  are products of a two-year
Agencywide  effort,  which has included many
scientists from the  larger  scientific community.
These guidelines set forth principles and procedures
to guide EPA scientists in the conduct of Agency risk
assessments, and to inform Agency decision makers
and the public about these procedures. In particular,
the guidelines emphasize that risk assessments will
be conducted  on a case-by-case basis, giving full
consideration  to all relevant scientific information.
This case-by-case approach means that Agency
experts review the scientific information on  each
agent and use the most scientifically appropriate
interpretation to assess risk. The guidelines also
stress that this information will be fully presented
in Agency risk assessment documents, and that
Agency scientists  will identify the strengths and
weaknesses of each  assessment by describing
uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations, as well
as the scientific basis and rationale for  each
assessment.

   Finally, the guidelines are formulated in part to
bridge  gaps in risk assessment methodology and
data. By identifying these gaps and the importance
of the missing information to the risk assessment
process, EPA wishes to encourage  research and
analysis  that will lead to  new risk assessment
methods and data.

Guidelines for the  Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures

   Work on the Guidelines for the  Health  Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures began in January
1984. Draft guidelines were developed by Agency
work groups  composed of expert scientists  from
throughout the Agency. The drafts were peer-
reviewed  by expert scientists in the fields  of
toxicology, pharmacokinetics, and statistics  from
universities, environmental groups, industry, labor,
and other governmental agencies. They were then
proposed for  public comment in the FEDERAL
REGISTER (50 FR 1170). On November 9,1984, the
Administrator directed that Agency offices use the
                                                       3-1

-------
proposed guidelines in performing risk assessments
until final  guidelines become available.  After the
close of the public comment period,  Agency  staff
prepared summaries of the comments, analyses of
the major issues presented by the commentors, and
preliminary Agency  responses to those comments.
These analyses were presented to review panels of
the SAB  on March 4 and April 22-23, 1985, and to
the Executive Committee of the SAB on April 25-26,
1985. The  SAB meetings were  announced in the
FEDERAL REGISTER as follows: February 12,
1985 (50 FR 5811) and April 4, 1985  (50 FR 13420
and 13421).

    In a letter to  the Administrator dated June 19,
1985, the Executive Committee generally concurred
on  all  five of the guidelines, but recommended
certain revisions, and requested that any revised
guidelines  be submitted  to  the  appropriate  SAB
review panel chairman for review and concurrence
on behalf of the Executive Committee. As described
in the responses to comments (see Part B: Response
to  the  Public  and Science  Advisory  Board
Comments), each guidelines document was revised,
where appropriate, consistent with the  SAB
recommendations, and revised draft guidelines were
submitted  to the panel chairmen. Revised draft
Guidelines for the  Health  Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures were concurred on in  a letter
dated August 16, 1985. Copies of the letters are
available at the Public Information Reference Unit,
EPA Headquarters Library, as indicated elsewhere
in this section.

    Following this Preamble  are two  parts: Part A
contains the Guidelines and Part B, the Response to
the Public and Science Advisory Board Comments (a
summary  of the major  public comments,  SAB
comments, and Agency responses to those
comments).

    The SAB requested that the Agency develop a
technical support document  for these Guidelines.
The SAB  identified the  need  for  this  type of
document  due  to  the limited knowledge on
interactions of chemicals in biological systems.
Because  of this, the  SAB commented that progress
in improving risk assessment will be particularly
dependent  upon progress in the science of
interactions.

    Agency staff  have begun preliminary work on
the technical support document and expect it  to be
completed  by early 1987. The Agency is continuing
to study  the risk assessment issues  raised in the
guidelines  and will revise these Guidelines in line
with new information as appropriate.
                  [51 FR 340151
    References, supporting  documents,  and
comments  received on the proposed guidelines, as
well as copies of  the final guidelines, are available
for inspection and copying at the Public Information
Reference  Unit (202-382-5926), EPA  Headquarters
Library, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

   I certify that these Guidelines are not major
rules as defined by Executive Order 12291, because
they are nonbinding policy statements and have no
direct effect on the regulated community. Therefore,
they will have no effect on costs or prices, and they
will have no other significant adverse effects on the
economy. These  Guidelines  were reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget  under Executive
Order 12291.

August 22,1986

Lee M. Thomas,

Administrator


CONTENTS

Part A: Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures

I. Introduction

II. Proposed Approach

   A.Data Available on the Mixture of Concern
   B .Data Available on Similar Mixtures
   C.Data Available Only on Mixture Components
      1. Systemic Toxicants
      2. Carcinogens
      3. Interactions
      4. Uncertainties
        a. Health Effects
        b. Exposure Uncertainties
        c. Uncertainties Regarding Composition of
           the Mixture

///.Assumptions and Limitations

   A,Information on Interactions
   B.Additivity Models

IV. Mathematical Models and the Measurement of Joint Action

   A.Dose Addition
   B.Response Addition
   C.Interactions

V, References

Part B: Response  to Public and Science Advisory Board
Comments

/. Introduction

//.Recommended Procedures

   A.Definitions
   B.Mixtures of Carcinogens and Systemic Toxicants

///. Additivity Assumption

   A.Complex Mixtures
   B.Dose Additivity
   C.lnterpretationof the Hazard Index
   D.Use of Interaction Data

IV. Uncertainties and the Sufficiency of the Data Base

V. Need for a Technical Support Document
                                                3-2

-------
^^m^^m
T
            Part A: Guidelines for  the Health Risk
            Assessment of Chemical Mixtures

            I. Introduction

               The primary purpose  of  this document  is to
            generate a consistent Agency  approach for
            evaluating  data  on  the chronic and subchronic
            effects of chemical mixtures. It is a procedural guide
            that emphasizes broad underlying principles of the
            various  science  disciplines   (toxicology,
            pharmacology, statistics) necessary for assessing
            health  risk from chemical  mixture exposure.
            Approaches  to be used with respect to the analysis
            and evaluation  of  the various data  are also
            discussed.

               It is not the intent of these Guidelines to
            regulate any social or economic aspects concerning
            risk of injury to human health or the environment
            caused by exposure to a chemical agent(s). All such
            action is addressed in specific statutes and federal.
            legislation and is independent of these Guidelines.

               While some  potential  environmental hazards
            involve significant exposure to  only  a single
            compound, most instances of environmental
            contamination involve concurrent  or sequential
            exposures to a mixture of compounds that may
            induce similar or dissimilar effects  over exposure
            periods ranging from short-term to lifetime. For the
            purposes of these Guidelines, mixtures  will be
            defined as any combination of two or more chemical
            substances  regardless of  source or of spatial or
            temporal proximity. In some instances, the mixtures
            are highly complex consisting of scores of compounds
            that are generated simultaneously as by-products
            from a  single source or process (e.g., coke oven
            emissions and diesel  exhaust). In other cases,
            complex mixtures  of related compounds are
            produced as commercial products (e.g., PCBs,
            gasoline and pesticide formulations)  and eventually
            released  to the  environment. Another class of
            mixtures consists of compounds, often unrelated
            chemically or commercially, which are placed in the
            same area for disposal or storage, eventually come
            into contact with each other, and are released as a
            mixture  to the  environment. The quality  and
            quantity of pertinent information available for risk
            assessment varies  considerably  for different
            mixtures. Occasionally, the chemical composition of
            a mixture is well characterized, levels of exposure to
            the population are known, and detailed toxicologic
            data on the  mixture are available. Most frequently,
            not all components  of the mixture  are  known,
            exposure data are uncertain, and toxicologic data on
            the known components of the mixture are  limited.
            Nonetheless, the Agency may be required to take
            action because of the number of individuals at
            potential  risk or because of the known toxicologic
            effects of these compounds that have been identified
            in the mixture.
   The prediction of how specific mixtures of
toxicants will  interact  must  be based  on an
understanding of the  mechanisms  of such
interactions. Most reviews and texts that discuss
toxicant interactions attempt to discuss  the
biological or chemical bases of the interactions (e.g.,
Klaassen and Doull, 1980; Levine, 1973; Goldstein
et al., 1974; NRC, 1980a; Veldstra, 1956; Withey,
1981). Although different authors  use somewhat
different classification schemes when discussing the
ways in which toxicants interact, it generally is
recognized that toxicant interactions  may occur
during any of the toxicologic processes that take
place with a  single  compound: absorption,
distribution, metabolism, excretion,  and activity at
the receptor site(s).  Compounds  may  interact
chemically, yielding a new toxic  component or
causing a change in the biological availability of the
existing component. They may also interact by
causing different effects at different receptor sites.

   Because of the uncertainties inherent in
predicting the magnitude and nature of toxicant
interactions, the assessment of health risk from
chemical mixtures  must include a  thorough
discussion of all assumptions. No single approach is
recommended  in  these Guidelines.   Instead,
guidance is given for the use of several approaches
depending on the nature and quality of the data.
Additional  mathematical details are presented in
section IV.

   In addition to these Guidelines, a supplemental
technical  support document is being developed
which will contain a thorough review of all available
information on the toxicity of chemical mixtures and
a discussion of research needs.

//. Proposed Approach

   No single approach can be recommended to  risk
assessments for multiple chemical exposures.
Nonetheless,  general  guidelines  can  be
recommended depending on the type of mixture, the
known  toxic effects of  its components,  the
availability of  toxicity data on the mixture or
similar mixtures,
                [51 FR 34016]
                               the known  or
anticipated interactions among components of the
mixture, and the quality of the exposure data. Given
the complexity of this issue and the relative paucity
of empirical data from which sound  generalizations
can be constructed, emphasis must be placed on
flexibility, judgment, and a clear articulation of the
assumptions and limitations in any risk assessment
that is developed.  The proposed approach is
summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1 and is detailed
below.  An alphanumeric scheme for ranking the
quality  of the data used in the risk assessment is
given in Table 2.
                                                          3-3

-------
A. Data Available on the Mixture of Concern

    For predicting the effects of subchronic or
chronic  exposure to mixtures, the preferred
approach usually will be to use subchronic or chronic
health effects data on the mixture of concern  and
adopt procedures similar to those used for single
compounds, either systemic toxicants or carcinogens
(see U.S. EPA, 1986a-1986c). The risk assessor must
recognize, however, that dose-response models used
for single compounds are often based on biological
mechanisms of the toxicity of single compounds, and
may not be as  well justified when applied to the
mixture as a whole. Such data are most likely to be
available on highly complex mixtures, such as coke
oven  emissions  or  diesel  exhaust,  which  are
generated in large quantities and associated with or
suspected of causing adverse  health  effects.
Attention should also be given to the persistence of
the mixture in the environment as  well as to the
variability of the  mixture composition over time or
from  different  sources of emissions. If  the
components of the mixture are known to partition
into different environmental compartments or to
degrade  or transform at different rates in  the
environment, then those factors must also be taken
into account, or the confidence in and applicability of
the risk assessment is diminished.

TABLE 1.-- RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH FOR
CHEMICAL MIXTURES

    1. Assess the quality of the data on interactions,
health effects, and exposure (see Table 2).
    a. If adequate, proceed to Step 2.
    b. If inadequate, proceed to Step 14.

    2. Health effects information is available on the
chemical mixture of concern .
    a. If yes, proceed to Step 3.
    b. If no, proceed to Step 4.

    3. Conduct  risk assessment on the  mixture of
concern based on health effects data on the mixture.
Use the same procedures as those  for single
compounds. Proceed to Step 7 (optional) and Step 12.

    4. Health effects information  is available on a
mixture that is similar to the mixture of concern.
    a. If yes, proceed to Step 5.
    b. If no, proceed to Step 7.

    5. Assess the similarity of the mixture on which
health effects data are available to  the mixture of
concern,  with emphasis on  any differences in
components or proportions of components, as well as
the effects that such differences would have on
biological activity.
    a. If sufficiently similar, proceed to Step 6.
    b. If not sufficiently similar, proceed to Step 7.

    6. Conduct  risk assessment on the  mixture of
concern based on health effects data  on the similar
mixture. Use the same procedures as those for single
compounds. Proceed to Step 7 (optional) and Step 12.
   7.  Compile health effects and exposure
information on the components of the mixture.

   8.  Derive  appropriate  indices of acceptable
exposure and/or risk on the individual components
in the mixture. Proceed to Step 9.

   9. Assess data on interactions of components in
the mixtures.
   a. If sufficient quantitative data are available on
the interactions of two or more components in the
mixture, proceed to Step 10.
   b.  If sufficient  quantitative data are  not
available, use  whatever information is available to
qualitatively  indicate  the nature  of potential
interactions. Proceed to Step 11.

   10. Use an appropriate interaction model to
combine risk assessments on compounds for which
data are adequate, and use an additivity assumption
for the remaining  compounds.  Proceed to  Step 11
(optional) and Step  12.

   11. Develop a  risk assessment  based on an
additivity approach for all compounds in  the
mixture. Proceed to Step 12.

   12. Compare risk  assessments conducted in
Steps 5, 8, and 9. Identify and justify the preferred
assessment, and quantify uncertainty, if possible.
Proceed to Step 13.

   13. Develop an  integrated summary of the
qualitative  and quantitative  assessments with
special emphasis on uncertainties and assumptions.
Classify the overall quality of the risk assessment,
as indicated in  Table 2. Stop.

   14. No risk assessment can be conducted because
of inadequate data on interactions, health effects, or
exposure.  Qualitatively assess the nature of  any
potential hazard and detail the types of additional
data necessary to support a risk assessment. Stop.

   Note.  -- Several decisions used here, especially
those concerning adequacy  of data and similarity
between  two mixtures,  are not  precisely
characterized and will  require considerable
judgment. See text.
                                               3-4

-------
                                                  51 FR 34017
    1. Assess quality of data using Table 2.
         I. Interactions
         II.Health Effects
         III. Exposure
                        Adequate
    2. Data on mixture of concern?
   3. Risk assessment using data
     on mixture of concern.
      Inadequate
                                     14. Qualitatively assess hazard.
                                     No quantitative risk assessment.


1
ilar mixture?
Y
S.Mixtures sufficiently similar?
1 Y
N

N


1
lixture components

8. Indices of acceptability and
risk based on component data.
	 1

6. Risk assessment using data
 on similar mixtures.
9.Sufficient information to
quantify interactions?
                                                                              10.Risk assessment with interactions
                                                                              quantified where appropriate.
                                                                              Use additivity for all components.
                                                                                                  Optional
                                                                              11. Risk assessment using additivity
                                                                              for all components.
                                           12. Compare risk assessment from
                                           steps 3,6,10,11 as appropriate.
                                           Identify preferred assessment.
                                        13. Develop integrated summary including
                                         discussion of uncertainties.
Figure 1.  Flow chart of the risk assessment approach in Table 1. Note that it may be desirable to conduct all three
          assessments when possible (i.e., using data on the mixture, a similar mixture ,orthe components) in order to make
          the fullest use of the available data. See text for further discussion.
                                                           3-5

-------
                  51 FR 34018

TABLE  2. -- CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR THE
QUALITY OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE
                   MIXTURE*

Information on Interactions

    I. Assessment is based on data on the mixture of
concern.
    II. Assessment is based on data on a sufficiently
similar mixture.
    III. Quantitative interactions of components are
well characterized.
    IV.  The assumption of additivity  is justified
based on the  nature of the health effects and on the
number of component compounds.
    V.  An assumption of additivity  cannot be
justified, and no quantitative risk assessment can be
conducted.

Health Effects Information

    A. Full health effects data are available and
relatively minor extrapolation is required.
    B. Full health effects data  are available but
extensive extrapolation is required for route or
duration of exposure or for species differences. These
extrapolations are supported by pharmacokinetic
considerations, empirical observations, or other
relevant information.
    C. Full health effects data are available, but
extensive extrapolation is required for route or
duration of exposure or for species differences. These
extrapolations are not  directly supported by the
information available.
    D. Certain important health effects data are
lacking and extensive extrapolations are required
for route or  duration of exposure or  for species
differences.
    E. A lack of health  effects information on the
mixture and  its components in the mixture
precludes a quantitative risk assessment.

Exposure Information1'
    1. Monitoring information either alone or in
combination with modeling information is sufficient
to accurately characterize human exposure  to the
mixture or its components.
    2. Modeling  information  is sufficient to
reasonably characterize  human exposure to the
mixture or its components.
    3. Exposure estimates for some components are
lacking, uncertain, or  variable. Information on
health effects or environmental  chemistry suggest
that this limitation  is not likely to substantially
affect the risk assessment.
    4. Not all components in the mixture have been
identified or levels of exposure are highly uncertain
or  variable.  Information on  health  effects or
environmental chemistry is not sufficient to assess
the effect of this limitation on the risk assessment.
    5. The available exposure information is
insufficient for conducting a risk assessment.
B. Data Available on Similar Mixtures
   If the risk assessment is based on data from a
single mixture that is known to be generated with
varying compositions depending on time or different
emission  sources, then the  confidence in the
applicability of the data to a risk assessment also is
diminished. This can be offset to some degree if data
are available on several mixtures of the  same
components that have different component ratios
which encompass the temporal or spatial differences
in composition of the mixture of concern. If such data
are available, an attempt should be made to
determine if significant and  systematic differences
exist among the chemical mixtures. If significant
differences are noted, ranges of risk can be estimated
based  on the toxicologic data  of the various
mixtures.  If no significant differences are noted,
then a single risk assessment may be adequate,
although the range of ratios of the components in the
mixtures  to which the  risk assessment  applies
should also be given.

   If no data are available on the mixtures of
concern, but health effects data are available on a
similar mixture  (i.e., a mixture having the same
components but in slightly different ratios, or
having several common components but lacking one
or more components,  or having one or  more
additional components),  a decision must be made
whether the mixture on which health effects data
are available is or is not "sufficiently similar" to the
mixture of concern to permit a risk assessment. The
determination of "sufficient similarity" must be
made on a case-by-case basis, considering not only
the uncertainties associated  with using data on a
dissimilar mixture but  also the uncertainties  of
using  other approaches such as  additivity. In
determining reasonable similarity, consideration
should be given to any information  on the
components that differ or are contained in markedly
different proportions between the mixture on which
health effects data are available and the mixture of
concern. Particular emphasis should be  placed on
any toxicologic or pharmacokinetic data on the
components or the mixtures which  would be  useful
in assessing  the significance of  any  chemical
difference between the  similar mixture and the
mixtures of concern.
   Even if a risk assessment can be made using
data on the mixtures of concern or a reasonably
similar mixture, it may be desirable to  conduct a
risk assessment based on  toxicity data on the
    a See text for discussion of sufficient similarity,
 adequacy of data, and justification for additivity
 assumptions.
    b See the Agency's Guidelines for Estimating
 Exposures (U.S. EPA, 1986d) for  more complete
 information on  performing exposure assessments
 and evaluating the quality of exposure data.
                                               3-6

-------
i
   ft
components in the mixture using the procedure
outlined in section II.B. In the case of a mixture
containing carcinogens and toxicants, an approach
based  on the mixture data alone may  not be
sufficiently protective in all cases. For example, this
approach for a two-component  mixture of one
carcinogen and one toxicant would use toxicity data
on the mixture of the two compounds. However, in a
chronic study of such a mixture, the presence of the
toxicant could mask the activity of the carcinogen.
That is to say, at doses of the mixture  sufficient to
induce a carcinogenic effect,  the toxicant could
induce mortality so that at the maximum tolerated
dose of the mixture, no carcinogenic effect could be
observed. Since carcinogenicity is considered by the
Agency to be a nonthreshold effect, it may not be
prudent to construe the negative results of such a
bioassay as indicating the absence of risk at lower
doses.  Consequently, the mixture  approach should
be modified to allow the risk assessor to evaluate the
potential for masking, of one effect by another, on a
case-by-case basis.

C. Data Available Only on Mixture Components

    If data are not available on  an identical or
reasonably similar mixture, the  risk assessment
may be based on the toxic or carcinogenic properties
of the components in the mixture. When little or no
quantitative  information  is  available  on  the
potential interaction among the components,
additive models (defined in the next section)  are
recommended for systemic toxicants. Several studies
have demonstrated that dose additive models often
predict reasonably well the  toxicities of mixtures
composed of a substantial variety of both similar and
dissimilar compounds (Pozzani el al., 1959; Smyth et
al., 1969, 1970; Murphy, 1980).  The problem of
multiple toxicant exposure has been addressed by
the American Conference  of  Governmental
Industrial   Hygienists (ACGIH,  1983), the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA, 1983), the World Health Organization
(WHO, 1981), and the National Research  Council
(NRC, 1980a, b). Although the focus and purpose of
each group was somewhat different, all groups that
recommended an approach elected to  adopt some
type of dose additive  model.  Nonetheless,  as
discussed in  section IV, dose additive models are not
the most  biologically plausible approach if  the
compounds do not have the same mode of toxicologic
action. Consequently, depending on the nature of the
risk assessment and the available information on
modes of action and patterns of joint action, the
                  [51 PR 34019]
                                most reasonable
additive model should be used.

    1. Systemic Toxicants. For systemic toxicants,
the current  risk assessment methodology  used by
the Agency for single compounds most often results
in the derivation of an exposure level which is not
anticipated  to cause  significant  adverse  effects.
Depending on the route  of exposure, media of
concern, and the legislative mandate guiding the
risk assessments,  these exposure levels may be
expressed  in a variety of ways such as acceptable
daily intakes (ADIs) or reference doses (RfDs), levels
associated with various margins of safety (MOS), or
acceptable concentrations in various media. For the
purpose of this discussion, the term "acceptable
level" (AL) will be used to indicate any such criteria
or advisories  derived by  the  Agency.  Levels of
exposure (E) will be  estimates obtained following
the most current Agency Guidelines for Estimating
Exposures (U.S. EPA, 1986d). For  such  estimates,
the "hazard index" (HI) of a mixture based on the
assumption of dose addition may be defined as:
HI =
where:
            + E2/AL2 +...+
                                                                                                      (H-l)
                                                            Ej = exposure level to the ith toxicant* and
                                                            ALj = maximum acceptable level for the ith
                                                                          toxicant.

                                                            Since the assumption of dose addition is most
                                                            properly applied to compounds that induce the same
                                                            effect by similar modes of action, a separate hazard
                                                            index should be  generated for each end point of
                                                            concern. Dose addition for dissimilar effects does not
                                                            have strong scientific support,  and, if done, should
                                                            be justified on a case-by-case basis in terms of
                                                            biological plausibility.

                                                               The assumption of dose addition is most clearly
                                                            justified  when the mechanisms of  action of the
                                                            compounds under consideration are known to be the
                                                            same. Since the mechanisms of action for most
                                                            compounds are not well understood, the justification
                                                            of the assumption of  dose addition will often be
                                                            limited to similarities  in pharmacokinetic and
                                                            toxicologic characteristics. In any event, if a hazard
                                                            index is generated, the quality of the experimental
                                                            evidence supporting the assumption of dose addition
                                                            must be clearly articulated.

                                                               The hazard index provides a rough measure of
                                                            likely toxicity and requires cautious interpretation.
                                                            The hazard index is only a numerical indication of
                                                            the nearness to acceptable limits of exposure or the
                                                            degree to which acceptable exposure levels are
                                                            exceeded.  As this index  approaches unity,  concern
                                                            for the potential hazard of the mixture increases. If
                                                            the index exceeds unity, the concern is the same as if
                                                            an individual chemical  exposure  exceeded its
                                                            acceptable level by the same proportion. The hazard
                                                            index does not define  dose-response  relationships,
                                                            and its numerical value  should not be construed to
                                                            be a direct estimate of risk. Nonetheless, if sufficient
                                                            data are available to derive  individual acceptable
                                                            levels for a spectrum of effects (e.g., MFO induction,
 *See the Agency's guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1986d) for
 information on how to estimate this value.
                                                         3-7

-------
variabilities of the acceptable levels are known, or if
the acceptable levels are given as  ranges (e.g.,
associated with different margins of safety), then the
hazard  index  should be  presented  with
corresponding estimates of variation or range.  Most
studies on systemic toxicity report only descriptions
of the effects in each dose group. If dose-response
curves  are estimated  for  systemic toxicants,
however,  dose-additive or  response-additive
assumptions can be used, with preference given to
the most biologically plausible assumption (see
section IV for the mathematical details).

   2. Carcinogens.  For carcinogens,  whenever
linearity of the individual dose-response curves has
been assumed (usually restricted to low doses), the
increase in risk P (also called excess or incremental
risk),  caused by exposure d, is related  to
carcinogenic potency B, as:
                  P = dB
(H-2)
For multiple compounds, this equation may be
generalized to:
                  P =
(H-3)
This equation assumes independence of action by
the several carcinogens and is equivalent to the
assumption of dose addition as well as to response
addition with completely negative correlation of
tolerance, as long as  P  < 1 (see section IV).
Analogous to the procedure used in equation II-1 for
systemic toxicants, an index for n carcinogens can be
developed by dividing exposure  levels (E) by doses
(DR) associated with a set level of risk:

      HI = Ei/DR1 + E2/DR2+...-l-En/DRn    (II-4)

Note that the less linear the dose-response curve is,
the less appropriate equations H-3 and  II-4 will be,
perhaps even at low doses.  It should be emphasized
that because of the uncertainties in estimating dose-
response relationships for single compounds, and the
additional uncertainties in combining the individual
estimate to  assess  response from exposure to
mixtures, response rates and hazard indices may.
have merit in comparing risks  but should not be
regarded as measures of absolute risk.

    3.Interactions. None of the above equations
incorporates any form of synergistic or antagonistic
interaction. Some  types of information, however,
may be available  that suggest that two or more
components in the mixture may interact. Such
information must be assessed in terms of both its
relevance to subchronic or chronic hazard and its
suitability for quantitatively  altering the risk
assessment.

    For example, if chronic  or subehronic toxieity or
carcinogenicity studies have been conducted that
permit a quantitative estimation of interaction for
two chemicals, then it may be desirable to consider
using  equations detailed in  section IV, or
modifications of these equations,  to treat the two
compounds as a single toxicant with  greater or
lesser potency than would be predicted from
additivity. Other components of the mixture, on
which no such interaction data are available, could
then be separately treated in an additive manner.
Before such a procedure is adopted, however, a
discussion should be presented of the likelihood that
other compounds in the mixture may interfere with
the interaction of the two  toxicants on which
quantitative interaction data  are available. If the
weight of evidence suggests that  interference  is
likely, then a quantitative alteration  of the risk
assessment may not be justified. In such cases, the
risk assessment may only indicate the likely nature
of interactions,  either synergistic or antagonistic,
and not quantify their magnitudes.

   Other types of information,  such as those
relating to mechanisms of toxicant interaction, or
quantitative estimates of interaction  between two
chemicals derived from acute studies, are even less
likely to be of use in the quantitative assessment of
long-term health risks. Usually it  will be
appropriate only  to discuss these types  of
information, indicate the  relevance of the
information to subchronic or chronic exposure, and
indicate,  if possible, the nature of potential
interactions, without attempting to quantify their
magnitudes.

   When the interactions  are expected to have a
minor influence  on the mixture's toxicity, the
assessment should  indicate, when possible, the
compounds  most responsible  for the predicted
toxicity. This judgment should be based on predicted
toxicity of each component,
                 [51 PR 34020]
                               based       on
exposure and toxic or carcinogenic potential. This
potential alone should not be used as an  indicator of
the chemicals posing the most hazard.

   4.Uncertainties.  For each  risk assessment, the
uncertainties should be clearly  discussed and the
overall quality  of the risk assessment should be
characterized. The scheme outlined in Table 2
should be used to express the degree of confidence in
the quality of the data on interaction, health effects,
and exposure.
   a. Health Effects—In some cases,  when health
effects data are incomplete, it may be  possible  to
argue by analogy or quantitative structure-activity
relationships that the compounds on which no
health effects data are available are  not  likely  to
significantly affect the toxicity of the mixture. If a
risk  assessment includes such  an argument, the
limitations of the  approach  must be  clearly
articulated.  Since a methodology has not been
adopted for estimating an  acceptable  level (e.g.,
ADI) or carcinogenic potential for single compounds
based either on quantitative structure-activity
relationships or on  the  results  of short-term
screening tests, such methods are not at present
                                               3-8

-------
recommended as the sole basis of a risk assessment
on chemical mixtures.

    b.  Exposure Uncertainties—The general
uncertainties in exposure assessment  have been
addressed in the Agency's Guidelines for Estimating
Exposures (U.S. EPA, 1986d). The risk assessor
should discuss these exposure uncertainties in terms
of the strength of the evidence used to quantify the
exposure. When appropriate,  the assessor should
also compare monitoring and modeling data and
discuss  any inconsistencies as a source  of
uncertainty. For mixtures, these uncertainties may
be increased as the number of compounds of concern
increases.

    If levels of exposure to certain compounds known
to be  in the  mixture are not  available, but
information  on  health effects and  environmental
persistence and transport suggest that  these
compounds  are not likely to be  significant  in
affecting the toxicity of the mixture, then a risk
assessment can be  conducted  based  on the
remaining  compounds  in the mixture,  with
appropriate caveats. If such an argument cannot be
supported,  no  final risk assessment  can  be
performed until adequate monitoring data are
available.  As  an  interim procedure, a  risk
assessment may be conducted for those components
in the  mixture  for which adequate exposure and
health effects data are available. If the interim risk
assessment does not suggest a hazard, there is still
concern about the risk from such a mixture because
not all components in the mixture have  been
considered.

    c.  Uncertainties Regarding Composition  of the
Mixture—In perhaps a  worst case  scenario,
information may be lacking  not  only  on  health
effects and  levels of exposure, but also on the
identity  of some  components of the mixture.
Analogous to the procedure described in the previous
paragraph,  an  interim risk  assessment can  be
conducted on those components of the mixture for
which adequate health  effects  and exposure
information  are available.  If the risk is considered
unacceptable, a conservative approach is to present
the quantitative estimates of risk, along with
appropriate  qualifications regarding the
incompleteness of the data. If no hazard is indicated
by this partial assessment, the risk assessment
should not be quantified until better health effects
and monitoring data are available to adequately
characterize the mixture exposure and potential
hazards.

777. Assumptions and Limitations

A. Information on Interactions

    Most of the data available on toxicant
interactions are derived from acute toxicity studies
using experimental animals in which mixtures of
two compounds were tested, often  in only a  single
combination. Major areas of uncertainty with the
use of such data involve the appropriateness of
interaction data from an acute toxicity study for
quantitatively altering a  risk  assessment for
subchronic or chronic exposure, the appropriateness
of interaction data on two component mixtures for
quantitatively altering a risk assessment on a
mixture of several compounds, and the accuracy of
interaction data on experimental animals for
quantitatively predicting interactions in humans.

   The use of interaction data from acute toxicity
studies to  assess the potential  interactions  on
chronic exposure is highly questionable unless the
mechanism(s) of the interaction on acute exposure
were known to apply to low-dose chronic exposure.
Most  known biological mechanisms for toxicant
interactions,  however, involve some form of
competition between the chemicals or phenomena
involving saturation of a receptor site or metabolic
pathway. As the doses of the toxicants are decreased,
it is likely that these mechanisms either no  longer
will exert a significant effect or will be decreased to
an extent that cannot be measured or approximated.

   The use of information from two-component
mixtures to assess the  interactions  in  a  mixture
containing more than  two compounds also is
questionable from a mechanistic  perspective. For
example, if two compounds  are known to interact,
either synergistically or antagonistically, because of
the effects of one compound on the metabolism or
excretion  of the other, the addition of a third
compound  which either chemically alters or affects
the absorption of one of the first two compounds
could substantially alter the degree of the toxicologic
interaction. Usually, detailed studies quantifying
toxicant  interactions are not available  on
multicomponent mixtures, and the few studies that
are available on such mixtures (e.g.,  Gullino et al.,
1956)  do not provide sufficient information to assess
the effects of interactive interference.

   Concerns with the use of interaction  data on
experimental mammals  to  assess interactions in
humans is based on the increasing appreciation for
systematic differences among  species in their
response to individual chemicals. If systematic
differences in toxic sensitivity to  single chemicals
exist among species, then it seems  reasonable to
suggest that the magnitude  of toxicant interactions
among species also may  vary  in  a systematic
manner. Consequently, even if excellent chronic
data are available on the magnitude of toxicant
interactions in a species of experimental mammal,
there  is uncertainty that the magnitude of the
interaction will be the same  in humans. Again, data
are not available to properly assess the significance
of this uncertainty.

   Last, it should be emphasized that none of the
models for toxicant interaction  can predict the
magnitude of toxicant interactions in  the absence of
extensive data. If sufficient data  are available to
                                              3-9

-------
estimate interaction coefficients as described  in
section  IV,  then the  magnitude of the  toxicant
interactions for various proportions of the same
components can be predicted. The availability of an
interaction  ratio (observed response divided by
predicted response) is useful only in assessing the
magnitude of the toxicant interaction for the specific
proportions of the mixture which was used  to
generate the interaction ratio.

   The basic assumption in the  recommended
approach is that risk assessments on chemical
mixtures are best conducted using toxicologic data
on the mixture of concern or a reasonably similar
mixture. While such risk
                 [51 FR 34021}
                                assessments do
not formally consider toxicologic interactions as part
of a mathematical model, it is assumed  that
responses in experimental mammals or human
populations  noted after  exposure to the chemical
mixture can be used to conduct risk assessments on
human  populations.  In bioassays of chemical
mixtures using experimental mammals, the same
limitations  inherent  in species-to-species
extrapolation for  single  compounds apply  to
mixtures. When using health effects  data on
chemical mixtures from studies on exposed human
populations, the limitations of epidemiologic studies
in the risk assessment  of single compounds also
apply to mixtures. Additional  limitations may be
involved when using health effects data on chemical
mixtures if the components in the mixture are not
constant or if the  components  partition  in the
environment.

B. Additivity Models

   If sufficient data are not available on the effects
of the chemical mixture of concern or a reasonably
similar mixture, the proposed approach is £o assume
additivity.  Dose additivity is based  on the
assumption  that the  components in the mixture
have the same mode of action and elicit the same
effects. This assumption will not hold true in most
cases, at least for mixtures of systemic toxicants. For
systemic toxicants, however, most single compound
risk assessments will result in  the derivation of
acceptable levels,  which,  as currently defined,
cannot be adapted to the different forms of response
additivity as described in section IV.

   Additivity models can be modified to incorporate
quantitative data on toxicant interactions from
subchronic or chronic studies using the models given
in section IV or modifications of these models. If this
approach is  taken,  however, it will be under the
assumption that other components in the mixture do
not interfere  with the  measured interaction. In
practice, such subchronic or chronic interactions
data seldom will be available. Consequently, most
risk assessments (on mixtures) will  be based on an
assumption of additivity, as long as the components
elicit similar effects.

   Dose-additive   and   response-additive
assumptions can lead  to substantial errors in risk
estimates if synergistic or antagonistic interactions
occur. Although dose additivity has been shown to
predict the acute toxicities of many  mixtures of
similar and dissimilar compounds (e.g., Pozzani et
al., 1959; Smyth et al., 1969, 1970; Murphy, 1980),
some  marked exceptions have  been noted. For
example, Smyth et al. (1970) tested the interaction
of 53  pairs of industrial chemicals based on  acute
lethality in rats. For most pairs of compounds, the
ratio of the predicted LDso to observed LDso did not
vary by more than a factor of 2.  The greatest
variation was seen with an equivolume mixture of
morpholine and toluene, in which the observed LDso
was about five times less than the LDso predicted by
dose addition. In a study by Hammond et al. (1979),
the relative  risk of lung cancer attributable to
smoking was 11, while the relative risk associated
with asbestos exposure was 5.  The relative risk of
lung  cancer from  both smoking and asbestos
exposure  was 53, indicating a substantial
synergistic effect. Consequently, in some  cases,
additivity assumptions  may substantially
underestimate risk. In  other  cases, risk may be
overestimated.  While  this is certainly an
unsatisfactory situation, the available data on
mixtures are insufficient for estimating  the
magnitude of these  errors.  Based  on current
information, additivity assumptions are expected to
yield generally neutral risk estimates  (i.e., neither
conservative nor lenient)  and are  plausible for
component compounds that induce similar types of
effects at the same sites of action.
TV. Mathematical Models and the Measurement of
Joint Action

   The simplest mathematical  models for joint
action assume no interaction in any mathematical
sense. They describe either dose addition or response
addition and  are motivated by data on acute  lethal
effects of mixtures of two compounds.

A. Dose Addition

   Dose addition assumes that the  toxicants in a
mixture behave  as  if they  were dilutions or
concentrations of each other, thus the true slopes of
the dose-response curves for the  individual
compounds are  identical, and the response elicited
by the mixture can be predicted by summing the
individual doses after adjusting for  differences in
potency; this is defined as the ratio  of equitoxic
doses, Probit transformation typically makes this
ratio constant at all doses when parallel straight
lines are obtained. Although this assumption can be
applied to any model (e.g., the one-hit model in NRC,
1980b), it has been most often used in toxicology
with the log-dose probit  response model, which will
be used to illustrate the assumption of dose addition.
                                               3-10

-------
Suppose that two toxicants show the following log-
dose probit response equations:


             Y2= l."2 + 31ogZ2           (IV-2)

where Yj is the probit response associated with a
dose of Z, (i = 1,2). The potency, p, of toxicant #2 with
respect to  toxicant #1 is defined by the quantity
7,1/7,2 when Yi = Y2 (that  is what is meant by
equitoxic doses). In this example, the potency, p, is
approximately 2. Dose addition assumes  that the
response, Y, to any mixture of these two toxicants
can be predicted by:
           = 0.3 + 31og(Zl + pZ2)
                                         (IV-3)
Thus, since p is defined as Zi/Z2, equation IV-3
essentially converts Z2 into an equivalent dose of Z
by adjusting for the difference  in potency. A more
generalized form of this equation for any number of
toxicants is:
    Y = ai + b log(fi 4- S f;
where:
                             + blogZ    (IV-4)
ai = the y-intercept of the dose-response equation
      for toxicant #1
b = the slope of the dose-response lines for the
      toxicants
fi = the proportion of the ith toxicant in the mixture
Pi = the potency of the ith toxicant with respect to
      toxicant #1 (i.e., Zi/Zi), and
Z = the sum of the individual doses in the mixture.

A more detailed discussion of the derivation of the
equations for dose addition is presented by Finney
(1971).

B. Response Addition

   The other form of additivity is referred to as
response addition. As detailed by Bliss (1939), this
type of joint action assumes that the two toxicants
act on different  receptor systems and that the
correlation of individual tolerances may range from
completely negative  (r = -l) to completely positive
(r=+l).  Response  addition assumes  that the
response to a given concentration of a mixture of
toxicants is completely determined by the responses
to the components and  the pairwise correlation
coefficient. Taking P as the proportion of organisms
responding to a mixture of two toxicants  which
evoke individual responses of PI and P2, then
P = PI if r = 1 and PI S: P2
P = P2 if r = 1 and P! < P2
P = Pl + P2(l-P1)ifr = 0
               = -landP<;
                                         (IV-5)
                                         (IV-6)
                                         (IV-7)
                                         (IV-8)

More generalized mathematical models for this form
of joint action have been given  by Plackett and
Hewlett (1948).
C. Interactions

    All of the above models assume no interactions
and therefore do not incorporate measurements of
synergistic or antagonistic effects.  For measuring
toxicant interactions for mixtures of two compounds,
Finney (1942) proposed the
                 [51 FR 34022]
                                following
modification of equation IV-4 for dose addition:

Y = ai + b logto + pf2 + K[pfif2]0-5) + b logZ
                                          (IV-9)

where ai, b, fi, fa, p, and Z are defined as before, and
K is the coefficient of interaction. A positive value of
K indicates synergism, a negative value indicates
antagonism, and a value of zero corresponds to dose
addition as in equation IV-4. Like other proposed
modifications of dose addition (Hewlett, 1969),  the
equation  assumes  a consistent  interaction
throughout the entire range of proportions of
individual components. To  account  for such
asymmetric patterns of interaction as those observed
by Alstott et al. (1973), Durkin (1981) proposed  the
following modification to equation IV-9:

Y = ai + b log(fi + Pf2 + Kif1[pfif2]0-5
        + K2f2[pfif2]0-5) + b log Z         (IV-10)

in which K(pfif2)°-5  is divided into two components,
Kifi(pfif2)0-5 and K2f2(pf!f2)0.5. Since KI and  K2
need not have the same sign, apparent instances of
antagonism at one receptor site and synergism at
another receptor site can be estimated. When KI and
K2 are equal, equation IV-10 reduces to equation  IV-
9.  It should be noted  that to obtain a reasonable
number of degrees of freedom in the estimation of K
in equation IV-9 or KI and K2 in equation IV-10,  the
toxicity of several different combinations of the two
components must be assayed along with  assays of
the toxicity of the individual components. Since this
requires experiments with  large  numbers  of
animals, such analyses have been  restricted for  the
most part to data from acute bioassays  using insects
(e.g., Finney, 1971)  or aquatic organisms  (Durkin,
1979).  Also, because  of  the  complexity  of
experimental design and the need for large numbers
of animals, neither equation IV-9  nor  equation  IV-
10 has been generalized or applied to mixtures of
more than two toxicants. Modifications of response-
additive models to include interactive terms have
also been proposed, along with appropriate
statistical tests  for the assumption of additivity
(Korn and Liu, 1983; Wahrendorf et al., 1981).

    In the epidemiologic literature, measurements
of the extent of toxicant interactions, S, can  be
expressed  as the ratio  of observed relative risk to
relative risk predicted by some form of additivity
assumption. Analogous to the ratio of interaction in
classical toxicology studies, S = 1 indicates  no
interaction, S >  1 indicates synergism, and S < 1
indicates antagonism. Several models  for both
                                               3-11

-------
additive  and multiplicative risks have been
proposed  (e.g., Hogan et al.,  1978;  NRC,  1980b;
Walter, 1976). For instance, Rothman (1976)  has
discussed the use of the following measurement of
toxicant interaction based on the assumption of risk
additivity:
where RJQ is the relative risk from compound #1 in
the absence of compound #2, RQJ is the relative risk
from compound #2 in the absence of compound #1,
and RH is the relative risk from exposure to both
compounds. A multiplicative risk  model adapted
from Walter and  Holford (1978, equation 4) can be
stated as:
                    S— 13  /{T}  O  \           f t\T 1 O\
                    — JtviiAK}Qiv0i/           ilv-lAJ

As discussed by both Walter and Holford (1978) and
Rothman (1976),  the  risk-additive  model is
generally  applied to agents causing diseases while
the  multiplicative model  is more appropriate to
agents that prevent disease. The relative merits of
these and other indices  have been the subject of
considerable discussion  in the  epidemiologic
literature (Hogan et al.,  1978; Kupper and Hogan,
1978; Rothman, 1978; Rothman  et al.,  1980; Walter
and Holford, 1978). There seems to be a consensus
that for public health concerns regarding causative
(toxic)  agents,  the additive model  is  more
appropriate.

    Both  the additive  and  multiplicative models
assume statistical  independence in that the risk
associated with exposure to both compounds in
combination can be predicted by the risks associated
with separate exposure to the individual compounds.
As illustrated by Siemiatycki and Thomas (1981) for
multistage  carcinogenesis, the  better fitting
statistical model  will depend not only upon actual
biological interactions, but also upon  the stages of
the disease process  which  the compounds affect.
Consequently, there is no a priori basis for selecting
either type  of model  in a  risk assessment.  As
discussed by Stara et al.  (1983), the concepts of
multistage  carcinogenesis and  the  effects of
promoters and cocarcinogens on risk are extremely
complex issues. Although risk models for promoters
have been proposed (e.g., Burns et al.,  1983), no
single approach can be recommended at this time.

V. References
ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial
    Hygienists). 1983. TLVs: threshold  limit values for chemical
    substances and physical agents in the work  environment
    with intended changes for 1983-1984. Cincinnati, OH, p.58.
Alstott, R.L., M.E. Tarrant, and R.B. Forney. 1973. The acute
    tosicities  of  1-methylxanthine,  ethanol, and  1-
    methylxanthine/ ethanol combinations in the mouse. Toxieol.
    Appl. Pharmacol, 24:393-404.
Bliss, C.I. 1939. The toxicity of poisons applied jointly. Ann. Appl.
    Biol. 26:585-615.
Burns, F., R. Albert, E. Altschuler, and E. Morris. 1983. Approach
    to risk  assessment for genotoxic carcinogens based on data
    from the mouse skin initiation-promotion model. Environ.
    Health Perspect. 50:309-320.
Durkin, P.B. 1979. Spent chtoruiation liquor and chlorophenotics:
    a study in detoxication and joint action using Daphnia
    magna.Ph.D, Thesis, Syracuse, NY: State University of New
    York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, p. 145.
Durkin, P.R. 1981. An approach to the analysis of toxicant
    interactions in the aquatic environment. Proceedings of the
    4th  Annual  Symposium on Aquatic Toxicology. American
    Society for Testing and Materials, p.388-401.
Finney, D.J. 1942. The analysis of toxicity tests on mixtures of
    poisons. Ann. Appl. Biol. 29:82-94.
Finney, D.J. 1971. Probit analysis, 3rd ed. Cambridge, Great
    Britain: Cambridge University Press, 333 p.
Goldstein, A., L, Aronow, and S.M. Kalman. 1974. Principles of
    drug action: the basis of pharmacology, 2nd ed. New York,
    NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 854 p.
Gullino, P., M. Winitz, S.M. Birnbaum, J. Cornfield, M.C. Otey,
    and J.P. Greenstein. 1956. Studies on the metabolism  of
    amino acids and related compounds in vino. I. Toxieity  of
    essential amino acids, individually and in mixtures, and the
    protective effect of L-arginine. Arch. Biochem. Biophys.
    64:319-332.
Hammond, E.G., I.V. Selikoff.and H.Seidman. 1979. Asbestos
    exposure, cigarette smoking and death rates. Ann. NY Acad.
    Sci. 330:473-490.
Hewlett, P.S. 1969. Measurement of the potencies of drug
    mixtures. Biometrics. 25:477-487.
Hogan, M.D., L. Kupper, B. Most, and J. Haseman. 1978.
    Alternative approaches to Rothman's approach for assessing
    synergism  (or antagonism) in cohort  studies. Am.  J.
    Epidemiol. 108( 1 ):60-67.
Klaassen, C.D., and J. Doull. 1980. Evaluation of safety:
    toxicologic evaluation. In: J. Doull, C.D. Klaassen, and M.O.
    Amdur, eds. Toxicology: the basic science of poisons. New
    York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., p. 11-27.
Korn, E.L., and P-Y. Liu. 1983. Interactive effects of mixtures of
    stimuli in life table analysis. Biometrika. 70:! 03-110.
Kupper, L., and M.D. Hogan. 1978. Interaction in epidemiologic
    studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 108(6):447-453.
Levine, R.E. 1973. Pharmacology: drug actions and reactions.
    Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 412 p.
                     [51 PR 340231
Murphy, S.D. 1980. Assessment of the potential for toxic
    interactions among environmental pollutants. In: C.L. Gallt,
    S.D. Murphy, and R. Paoletti, eds. The principles and
    methods in modern toxicology.  Amsterdam, The
    Netherlands: Elsevser/North 1 loiland Biomedical Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 1980a. Drinking water and
    health,  Vol.3. Washington, DC: National  Academy Press,
    p.27-28.
NRC(National Research Council). 1980b. Principles of
    lexicological interactions associated with  multiple chemical
    exposures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, p.204.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1983.
    General Industry Standards,  Subpart 2,  Toxic  and
    Hazardous  Substances.  Code of Federal Regulations.
    40:1910.1000 (dX2Xi). Chapter XVH  Occupational Safety
    and Health Administration, p.667.
Plackett, R.L., and P.S. Hewlett. 1948. Statistical aspects of the
    independent joint action of poisons. Ann. App!. Biol. 35:347-
    358.
Pozzani, U.C., C.S. Weil, and C.P. Carpenter. 1959. The
    lexicological basis of threshold values: 5. The experimental
    inhalation of vapor mixtures by rats, with notes upon the
    relationship between single dose inhalation and single dose
    oral data. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 20:364-369.
Rothman, K. 1976. The estimation of synergy or antagonism. Am.
    J. Epidemiol. 103<5):506-511,
Rothman, K. 1978. Estimation versus detection in the assessment
    of synergy. Am. J. Epidemiol. 108(1 ):9-l 1.
Rothman, K., S. Greenland, and A. Walker. 1980. Concepts of
    interaction. Am. J. Epidemiol. 112(4):467-470.
Siemiatycki, J., and D.C. Thomas. 1981. Biological models and
    statistical  interactions: An example from  multistage
    carcinogenesis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 10(4):383-387.
                                                     3-12

-------
        Smyth, H.F., C.S. Weil, J.S. West, and C.P. Carpenter. 1969. An
            exploration of joint toxic action: I. Twenty-seven industrial
            chemicals intubated in rats in all possible pairs. Toxicol.
            Appl. Pharmacol. 14:340-347.
        Smyth, H.P., C.S. Weil, J.S. West, and C.P. Carpenter. 1970. An
            exploration of joint toxic action. II. Equitoxic versus
 j           equivolume mixtures. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 17:498-503.
        Stara, J.P., D. Mukerjee, R. McGaughy, P. Durkin, and M.L.
 '           Dourson. 1983. The current use of studies on promoters and
            cocarcinogens in quantitative risk assessment. Environ.
            Health Perspect. 50:359-368.
 i       U.S. EPA. 1986a. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment.
            FederalRegister.51(185):33992-34003.
        U.S. EPA. 1986b. Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment.
            FederalRegister.51(185):34006-34012.
        U.S. EPA. 1986c. Guidelines for the health assessment of suspect
 •           developmental toxicants. Federal Register 51(185): 34028-
            34040.
        U.S. EPA. 1986d. Guidelines for estimating exposures. Federal
            Register 51 (185): 34042-34054.
 ,       Veldstra, H. 1956. Synergism and potentiation with special
            reference to the combination  of structural analogues.
            Pharmacol. Rev. 8:339-387.
        Wahrendorf, J., R. Zentgrof, and C.C. Brown. 1981.
            Optimal designs for the analysis of interactive effects of two
 |           carcinogens or other toxicants. Biometrics. 37:45-54.
        Walter, S.D. 1976. The estimation and interpretation of
 !           attributable risk in health research. Biometrics. 32:829-849.
        Walter, S.D., and T.R. Holford. 1978. Additive,multiplicative,
 I           and other models for disease  risks. Am. J. Epidemiol.
 j           108:341-346.
 4       Withey, J.R. 1981. Toxicodynamics and biotransformation. In:
i|           International Workshop on the Assessmentof Multichemical
            Contamination.Milan, Italy. (Draft copy courtesy of J.R.
            Withey)
        WHO (World Health Organization). 1981. Health effects of
            combined exposures in the work environment. WHO Tech.
            Report Series No. 662.

        Part  B: Response  to Public and Science
        Advisory Board Comments

        /. Introduction

            This section summarizes some of the major
        issues raised in public comments  on  the Proposed
        Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of
        Chemical Mixtures published on January 9, 1985
        (50 FR 1170). Comments were received from 14
        individuals  or organizations. An  issue paper
        reflecting public and external  review comments  was
        presented to the Chemical Mixtures Guidelines
        Panel of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) on March
        4, 1985. At its April 22-23, 1985, meeting, the SAB
        Panel  provided the  Agency  with  additional
        suggestions and recommendations concerning the
        Guidelines. This section also summarizes the issues
        raised by the SAB.

            The SAB and public commentors expressed
        diverse opinions and addressed issues from a variety
        of perspectives. In response to comments, the Agency
        has modified  or clarified many  sections  of  the
        Guidelines, and is planning to develop a technical
        support  document  in line  with  the  SAB
        recommendations. The  discussion  that follows
        highlights significant issues raised in the comments,
        and  the Agency's response to them.  Also,  many
minor recommendations, which do not warrant
discussion here, were adopted by the Agency.

//. Recommended Procedures

A. Definitions

    Several comments were received concerning the
lack of definitions for certain key items and the
general understandability of certain sections.
Definitions have been rewritten for several terms
and the text has  been significantly  rewritten to
clarify the Agency's intent and meaning.

    Several commentors noted the lack of a precise
definition of "mixture," even though several classes
of mixtures are discussed. In the field of chemistry,
the term "mixture" is usually differentiated from
true solutions,  with the former  defined  as
nonhomogeneous  multicomponent systems. For
these Guidelines,  the term "mixture"  is defined as
"...any combination of  two or more chemicals
regardless of spatial or temporal  homogeneity of
source" (section 1). These Guidelines are intended to
cover risk assessments  for any situation where the
population is exposed or potentially exposed to two
or more compounds of concern. Consequently, the
introduction has been revised to clarify the intended
breadth of application.

    Several commentors  expressed concern  that
"sufficient similarity" was difficult to define and
that the Guidelines should give more  details
concerning similar mixtures. The Agency agrees
and is planning research projects to improve on the
definition. Characteristics such as composition and
toxic end-effects are certainly important,  but the
best indicators of similarity  in terms  of  risk
assessment have yet to be  determined.  The
discussion in the  Guidelines emphasizes case-by-
case judgment  until the necessary  research can be
performed. The Agency  considered but rejected
adding an example, because it is not likely that any
single example would be  adequate  to illustrate the
variety in the data and types of judgments that will
be required in  applying this concept.  Inclusion of
examples is being considered  for the  technical
support document.

B. Mixtures of Carcinogens and Systemic Toxicants

    The applicability of the preferred approach for a
mixture  of  carcinogens   and   systemic
(noncarcinogenic) toxicants was a concern of several
public commentors as well as the SAB. The Agency
realizes that the preferred approach of using test
data on the mixture itself may not be sufficiently
protective in all cases. For example, take a simple
two-component mixture of one carcinogen and one
toxicant. The preferred approach would lead to using
toxicity data on the mixture of the  two compounds.
However, it is possible to set the proportions of each
component so that in a chronic bioassay of such a
mixture, the presence of the toxicant could mask the
activity of the carcinogen.  That is to say, at doses of
                                                         3-13

-------
the mixture sufficient for the carcinogen to induce
tumors in the small
                 [51FR34024]
                               exper imenta 1
group, the  toxicant could induce mortality. At a
lower dose in the same study, no  adverse effects
would be observed, including no carcinogenic effects.
The data would then suggest use of a threshold
approach. Since carcinogenicity is considered by the
Agency to be a nonthreshold effect, it may not be
prudent to  construe the negative results of such a
bioassay as indicating the absence  of risk at lower
doses. Consequently, the Agency has revised the
discussion of the preferred approach to allow the risk
assessor to evaluate the potential  for masking of
carcinogenicity or other effects on a case-by-case
basis. Another difficulty occurs with such a mixture
when the risk assessment needs to be based on data
for the  mixture components.  Carcinogens and
systemic toxicants  are evaluated  by the Agency
using different approaches and  generally  are
described by different types of data: response rates
for carcinogens vs. effect descriptions for toxicants.
The Agency  recognizes  this difficulty  and
recommends research to develop  a new assessment
model for combining these dissimilar data sets into
one risk estimate. One suggestion in the interim is
to present separate risk estimates for the dissimilar
end points, including carcinogenic, teratogenic,
mutagenic, and systemic toxicant components,

///. Additivity Assumption

    Numerous comments were received concerning
the assumption of additivity, including:
    a. the applicability of additivity to "complex"
    mixtures;
    b. the use of dose additivity for compounds that
    induce different effects;
    c. the interpretation of the Hazard Index; and
    d. the use of interaction data.

Parts of the discussion in the proposed  guidelines
concerning the use of additivity  assumptions  were
vague and have been revised in the  final  Guidelines
to clarify the Agency's intent and position.

A. Complex Mixtures

    The issue of the applicability of an assumption of
additivity to complex mixtures containing tens or
hundreds of components was raised  in several of the
public comments. The Agency and its reviewers
agree that as the number of compounds in the
mixture  increases, an assumption of additivity will
become less reliable in estimating risk. This is based
on the fact that each component estimate of risk or
an acceptable level is associated with some error and
uncertainty.  With current  knowledge,  the
uncertainly  will  increase  as the number of
components increases.  In any  event, little
experimental data are available to determine the
general change in the error as the mixture contains
more components. The Agency has decided that a
limit to the number of components should not be set
in these Guidelines.  However,  the  Guidelines do
explicitly state that as the number of compounds in
the mixture increases,  the uncertainty associated
with the risk assessment is also likely to increase.

B. Dose Additivity

    Commentors  were  concerned about  what
appeared to be a recommendation of the use of dose
additivity for compounds that induce different
effects. The discussion following the  dose additivity
equation was clarified  to indicate that the act of
combining all  compounds,  even if they induce
dissimilar effects, is a screening procedure and not
the preferred procedure in  developing a hazard
index. The Guidelines were further clarified to state
that dose (or response) additivity is theoretically
sound, and  therefore best applied  for assessing
mixtures of similar acting components that do not
interact.

C. Interpretation of the Hazard Index

    Several comments addressed the potential for
misinterpretation of the hazard index, and some
questioned its validity, suggesting that it mixes
science and  value judgments by using "acceptable"
levels in the calculation. The Agency agrees  with
the possible confusion  regarding its use and has
revised the Guidelines for clarification. The hazard
index is an easily derived  restatement of dose
additivity, and is, therefore,  most accurate when
used with mixture components that have similar
toxic  action. When used with components of
unknown or dissimilar action, the hazard index is
less accurate and should be  interpreted only as a
rough indication of concern. As with dose addition,
the uncertainty associated with the hazard index
increases as the number of components increases, so
that it is less appropriate for evaluating the toxicity
of complex mixtures.

D. Use of Interaction Data

    A  few  commentors suggested  that any
interaction data should be used to  quantitatively
alter the risk assessment. The Agency disagrees.
The current information on interactions is meager,
with only a few studies comparing response to the
mixture with that predicted by studies on
components.  Additional uncertainties  include
exposure variations due to changes in composition,
mixture dose, and species differences in the extent of
the interaction. The Agency is constructing  an
interaction data base in an attempt to answer some
of these issues. Other comments concerned the use of
different types of interaction data. The Guidelines
restrict the use of interaction data to that obtained
from  whole animal  bioassays of a  duration
appropriate to the risk  assessment. Since such data
are frequently lacking, at least for chronic or
subchronic effects, the issue is whether to allow for
the use of other information such as acute data, in
                                               3-14

-------
vitro data, or structure-activity relationships  to
quantitatively alter the risk assessment, perhaps by
use of a safety factor. The Agency believes that
sufficient scientific support does not exist for the use
of such data in any but a qualitative discussion  of
possible synergistic or antagonistic effects.

TV. Uncertainties and the  Sufficiency of the Data
Base

    In the last two paragraphs of section II of the
Guidelines, situations are  discussed in which the
risk assessor is presented with incomplete toxicity,
monitoring, or exposure data. The SAB, as well as
several public commentors, recommended that the
"risk management" tone of this section be modified
and that the option of the risk assessor to decline  to
conduct a risk assessment be made more explicit.

    This is a difficult issue that must consider not
only the quality of  the available data for risk
assessment, but also the needs of the Agency in risk
management. Given  the types of poor data often
available, the risk assessor may  indicate that the
risk assessment is based on limited information and
thus contains no quantification of risk. Nonetheless,
in any risk assessment, substantial uncertainties
exist.   It is the obligation of the risk assessor  to
provide an assessment, but also to ensure that all
the assumptions and uncertainties  are  articulated
clearly and quantified whenever possible.

    The   SAB  articulated   several   other
recommendations  related  to  uncertainties, all  of
which  have  been followed in the revision of the
Guidelines.  One  recommendation  was that the
summary procedure table also be presented as a flow
chart so that all options are clearly displayed. The
SAB further recommended the development of a
system to express the level  of confidence  in the
various steps of the risk assessment.

    The Agency has revised the summary table  to
present four major options: risk assessment using
data on the mixture
                  [51FR34025]
                               itself, data on a'
similar mixture, data on the mixture's components,
or declining to quantify the risk when the data are
inadequate. A flow chart of this table has also been
added to more clearly depict the various options and
to suggest the combining of the several options  to
indicate the variability and uncertainties in the risk
assessment.

    To  determine the adequacy of the data, the SAB
also recommended the development of a system  to
express the level  of confidence associated with
various steps in the  risk assessment process. The
Agency has developed a rating scheme to describe
data quality in three  areas: interaction,  health
effects, and exposure. This classification provides a
range of five levels of data quality for each of the
three areas. Choosing  the last level in any area
results in declining to perform a quantitative risk
assessment due to  inadequate data.  These last
levels are described as follows:

Interactions:
   An assumption of additivity cannot be justified,
   and no quantitative risk assessment can be
   conducted.
Health effects:
   A lack  of health effects information on the
   mixture  and  its components precludes a
   quantitative risk assessment.
Exposure:
   The  available  exposure information  is
   insufficient for conducting a risk assessment.

   Several commentors, including the  SAB,
emphasized the importance of not losing  these
classifications and uncertainties farther along in the
risk management process. The discussion  of
uncertainties has  been expanded in the  final
Guidelines and includes the recommendation that a
discussion of uncertainties and assumptions be
included at every step of the regulatory process that
uses risk assessment.

   Another SAB comment was that the Guidelines
should include additional procedures for mixtures
with more than  one end point or effect. The Agency
agrees that these  are  concerns and revised the
Guidelines to  emphasize these  as additional
uncertainties worthy of further research.

V. Need fora Technical Support Document

   The third major SAB comment concerned the
necessity for a separate  technical support document
for these Guidelines. The SAB pointed out that the
scientific and technical background from which
these Guidelines must draw their validity is so
broad and  varied  that it cannot reasonably be
synthesized within the framework of a brief set of
guidelines. The  Agency is developing a technical
support document that will summarize the available
information  on health effects from chemical
mixtures, and on interaction mechanisms, as well as
identify and  develop mathematical models and
statistical techniques to support these Guidelines.
This document will also identify critical gaps and
research needs.

   Several  comments addressed the  need for
examples on the Use of the Guidelines. The Agency
has decided to include examples in the technical
support document.

   Another issue raised by the SAB concerned the
identification of research  needs. Because  little
emphasis has been placed on the toxicology of
mixtures until recently, the  information on
mixtures is limited. The  SAB pointed out that
identifying research needs is critical to  the risk
assessment process, and the EPA should ensure that
these needs are considered in the research planning
process. The Agency will include a section in the
  ifl
iff
                                                                                                             if
                                                                                                          ill
                                              3-15

-------
technical support document that identifies research
needs regarding both methodology and data.
                                               3-16

-------
HI
                 51 FR 34028

GUIDELINES FOR THE HEALTH
ASSESSMENT OF SUSPECT
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICANTS

SUMMARY:On September 24, 1986, the U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency issued the
following five guidelines for assessing the health
risks of environmental pollutants.

   Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for Estimating Exposures

   Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
   Developmental Toxicants

   Guidelines for the Health Risk  Assessment  of
   Chemical Mixtures

This section contains the Guidelines for the Health
Assessment of Suspect Developmental Toxicants.

   The Guidelines for the Health Assessment  of
Suspect Developmental  Toxicants (hereafter
"Guidelines") are intended to guide Agency analysis
of developmental toxicity data in  line with the
policies and procedures  established  in the statutes
administered by the EPA.  These Guidelines were
developed  as  part of an  interoffice guidelines
development program under the auspices  of the
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA) in  the Agency's Office of Research and
Development. They reflect Agency consideration of
public and Science Advisory Board (SAB) comments
on the Proposed  Guidelines for the Health
Assessment of Suspect Developmental Toxicants
published November 23,1984 (49 FR 46324).

   This publication completes the first round of risk
assessment guidelines  development. These
Guidelines will be revised,  and new  guidelines will
be developed, as appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION  CONTACT:

Dr. Carole A. Kimmel
Reproductive Effects Assessment Group
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(RD-689)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7331

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In  1983,
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published
its book entitled Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process. In that  book,
the NAS recommended that Federal regulatory
agencies establish "inference guidelines" to ensure
consistency and technical  quality  in  risk
assessments and to ensure that the risk assessment
process was  maintained as a scientific  effort
separate from risk management. A task force within
EPA accepted that recommendation and requested
that Agency scientists begin to develop  such
guidelines.

General

   The guidelines  are products of a two-year
Agency wide  effort, which has  included  many
scientists from the  larger scientific community.
These guidelines set forth principles and procedures
to guide EPA scientists in the conduct of Agency risk
assessments, and to inform Agency decision makers
and the public about these procedures. In particular,
the guidelines emphasize that risk assessments will
be conducted  on a case-by-case basis, giving full
consideration to all relevant scientific information.
This case-by-case approach means that Agency
experts review the scientific information on each
agent and use the most scientifically  appropriate
interpretation to assess risk. The guidelines also
stress that this information will be fully presented
in Agency risk assessment documents, and that
Agency scientists will identify  the strengths and
weaknesses of each assessment by describing
uncertainties, assumptions, and  limitations, as well
as the scientific basis  and rationale for  each
assessment.

   Finally, the guidelines are formulated in part to
bridge gaps in risk assessment methodology and
data. By identifying these gaps and the importance
of the missing information to the risk assessment
process, EPA wishes to encourage research and
analysis that will lead to new risk  assessment
methods and data.

Guidelines  for the Health Assessment  of
Suspect Developmental Toxicants

   Work  on the Guidelines for the Health
Assessment of Suspect Developmental Toxicants
began  in January 1984.  Draft guidelines  were
developed by Agency work groups composed  of
expert scientists from throughout the Agency. The
drafts were peer-reviewed by expert scientists in the
field of developmental toxicology from universities,
environmental groups, industry, labor, and  other
governmental agencies. They were then proposed for
public comment in the FEDERAL REGISTER (49
FR 46324). On November 9,1984, the Administrator
directed  that Agency offices  use  the proposed
guidelines in performing risk  assessments  until
final guidelines become available.
                                             4-1

-------
    After the close of the public comment period,
Agency staff prepared summaries of the comments,
analyses of the  major  issues presented by the
commentorsj and preliminary Agency responses to
those comments. These analyses were presented to
review panels of the SAB on March 4 and April 22-
23, 1985, and to the Executive Committee of the
SAB on April 25-26, 1985. The SAB meetings were
announced in the FEDERAL REGISTER as follows:
February 12, 1985 (50 FR 5811) and April 4, 1985
(50 FR 13420 and 13421).

    In a letter to the Administrator dated June 19,
1985, the Executive Committee generally concurred
on  all five of the guidelines, but  recommended
certain revisions,  and requested that any revised
guidelines  be submitted to the appropriate SAB
review panel chairman for review and concurrence
on behalf of the Executive Committee. As described
in the responses to comments (see Part B: Response
to  the  Public  and Science  Advisory Board
Comments), each guidelines document was revised,
where appropriate, consistent with the SAB
recommendations, and revised draft guidelines were
submitted  to the  panel chairmen. Revised draft
Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
Developmental Toxicants were concurred on  in a
letter dated July 26, 1985. Copies of the letters are
available at the Public Information Reference Unit,
EPA Headquarters Library, as indicated elsewhere
in this section.

    Following this Preamble are two parts: Part A
contains the Guidelines and Part B, the Response to
the Public and Science Advisory Board Comments (a
summary  of the  major public comments, SAB
comments,  and  Agency responses to  those
comments).

    The SAB suggested that the Agency pursue
additional  follow-up work on quantitative  risk
assessment. Several efforts are currently underway
within the  Agency on quantitative risk assessment
models and procedures, the relationship of maternal
and developmental toxicity, and the evaluation and
interpretation of postnatal  studies. In addition, a
document  addressing research needs  is being
prepared to highlight those areas that are in need of
further study.

    The Agency is continuing to  study the  risk
assessment issues raised in the guidelines and will
revise these Guidelines in line with new information
as appropriate.

    References,  supporting documents,  and
comments received on the proposed
                  [51 FR 34029}
                                guidelines, as
well as copies of the final guidelines, are available
for inspection and  copying at the Public Information
Reference  Unit (202-382-5926), EPA Headquarters
Library, 401  M Street, S.W.,  Washington,  DC,
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

    I certify that these Guidelines are not major
rules as defined by Executive Order 12291, because
they are nonbinding policy statements and have no
direct effect on the regulated community. Therefore,
they will have no effect on costs or prices, and  they
will have no other significant adverse effects on the
economy. These Guidelines were  reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive
Order 12291.

August 22,1986

Lee M. Thomas,

Administrator

CONTENTS

Part A: Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
Developmental Toxicants

I.Introduction

II. Definitions and Terminology

III.Qualitative Assessment (Hazard Identification of
Developmental Toxicants
    A. Laboratory Animal Studies of Developmental Toxicity:
    End Points and Their Interpretation
      1. End Points of Maternal Toxicity
      2. End Points of Developmental Toxicity
      3. Functional Developmental Toxicity
      4. Overall Evaluation of Maternal and Developmental
        Toxicity
      5. Short-term Testing in Developmental Toxicity
       &Jn Vivo Mammalian Developmental Toxicity Screen
       b. In Vitro Developmental Toxicity Screens
      6. Statistical Considerations
    B. Human Studies
    C. Other Considerations
      1. Pharmacokinetics
      2. Comparisons of Molecular Structure
    D. Weight-of- Evidence Determination

TV. Quantitative Assessment
    A. Dose-Response Assessment
    B. Exposure Assessment
    C. Risk Characterization

V, References

Part B: Response to Public and Science Advisory Board
Comments

I. Introduction

II. Coordination With Other Guidelines
    A. Other Risk Assessment Guidelines
    B. Coordination With Testing Guidelines

///. Definitions

TV. Qualitative Assessment
    A. Maternal and Developmental Toxicity
    B. Functional Developmental Toxicity
    C. Short-Term Testing
    D. Comparisons of Molecular Structure

V. Quantitative Assessment
                                                 4-2

-------
it
-J
Part A: Guidelines for the Health Assessment of
Suspect Developmental Toxicants

I. Introduction

   These Guidelines describe the procedures that
the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency will
follow in evaluating potential developmental
toxicity  associated with human  exposure to
environmental toxicants.  In  1980,  the Agency
sponsored a conference that addressed issues related
to such evaluations (1)  and provided some of the
scientific basis for these risk assessment Guidelines.
The Agency's authority to regulate substances that
have  the potential to  interfere adversely with
human development is derived from a number of
statutes which are implemented through multiple
offices within the Agency. Because many different
offices evaluate developmental toxicity, there is a
need for intra-Agency consistency in the approach to
assess these types  of effects. The procedures
described  here will  promote consistency in  the
Agency's assessment of developmental toxic effects.

   The developmental toxicity assessments
prepared pursuant to these Guidelines will be
utilized within the  requirements and constraints of
the applicable statutes to arrive at regulatory
decisions concerning developmental toxicity. These
Guidelines provide a general format for analyzing
and organizing the available data for conducting
risk assessments. The Agency previously has issued
testing guidelines (2, 3) that provide protocols
designed to  determine the potential of a test
substance to induce  structural and/or other
abnormalities in the developing conceptus. These
risk  assessment Guidelines do not change  any
statutory or regulatory prescribed standards for the
type of data necessary for regulatory action,  but
rather provide guidance for the interpretation of
studies that follow the testing guidelines, and in
addition,  provide limited  information  for
interpretation of other studies  (e.g., epidemiologic
data, functional developmental toxicity studies, and
short-term tests) which are not routinely required,
but which may be encountered when reviewing data
on particular agents. Moreover, risk  assessment is
just one component of the regulatory process  and
defines the adverse health consequences of exposure
to a  toxic agent. The other component,  risk
management, combines risk assessment with the
directives of the enabling regulatory legislation,
together with socioeconomic, technical,  political,
and other considerations, to reach a decision as to
whether or how much to control future exposure to
the suspected toxic agent. The issue of risk
management will not be addressed  in these
Guidelines.

   The background incidence of developmental
defects in the human population is quite large. For
example, approximately 50% of human conceptuses
fail to reach term (4); approximately 3% of newborn
children are found to have one or more significant
congenital malformations at birth, and by the end of
the first postnatal year, about 3% more are found to
have serious developmental defects (5,6). Of these, it
is  estimated that 20% of human developmental
defects are of known genetic transmission, 10% are
attributable to known environmental factors, and
the remainder result from unknown  causes (7).
Approximately 7.4% of children are  reduced in
weight at birth (i.e., below 2500 g) (8). Exposure to
agents affecting development can result in multiple
manifestations  (malformation, functional
impairment, altered growth, and/or lethality).
Therefore, assessment efforts should encompass a
wide array of adverse developmental  end  points,
such as spontaneous abortions, stillbirths,
malformations, early postnatal mortality,  and other
adverse functional  or physical changes that are
manifested postnatally.

   Numerous agents have  been shown to  be
developmental toxicants in animal test systems (9).
Several of them have also been shown to be the cause
of adverse developmental effects in  humans,
including alcohol,  aminopterin,  busulfan,
chlorobiphenyls, diethylstilbestrol, isotretinoin,
organic mercury, thalidomide, and valproic acid (10,
11, 12, 13). Although a number of agents found to be
positive in animal studies have  not shown clear
evidence of hazard in humans, usually the human
data available are inadequate to determine a cause
and effect relationship. Comparisons of human and
animal data have been made for a limited number of
agents that are positive in humans (13, 14). In these
comparisons, there was almost always concordance
of effects between humans and at least one species
tested; also, the minimally effective dose (MED)  for
the  most  sensitive  animal species  was
approximately 0.5 to 50 times the human
                 [51 FR 34030]
                                  MED,  not
accounting for differences in the incidence of effect
at the  MED. Thus, there is some  limited basis  for
estimating the  risk of exposure  to human
development based on data from animal studies.

   The National Research Council (15) has defined
risk assessment as being comprised of some or all of
the following components: hazard identification,
dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and
risk  characterization. In general,  the process of
assessing the risk of human developmental toxicity
may  be adapted to this format. However, due to
special considerations in assessing developmental
toxicity, which will be discussed later in these
Guidelines, it is not always possible to follow the
exact standards as defined for each component.

   Hazard identification is the  qualitative  risk
assessment in which all available experimental
animal and human data are used to determine if an
agent is likely to cause developmental toxicity. In
considering developmental toxicity,  these
Guidelines will address not only malformations, but
                                                        4-3

-------
also fetal wastage, growth alteration, and functional
abnormalities that may result from developmental
exposure to environmental agents.

    The dose-response assessment defines  the
relationship of the dose  of an agent and  the
occurrence of developmental toxic effects. According
to the  National  Research Council (15), this
component would usually include the results of an
extrapolation from high doses administered to
experimental animals or noted in epidemiologic
studies to the low exposure levels expected for
human contact with the agent in the environment.
Since at  present there are no mathematical
extrapolation models that are generally accepted for
developmental  toxicity, the Agency, for the most
part, uses uncertainty (safety) factors and margins
of safety, which will  be discussed in these
Guidelines. Appropriate models are being sought by
the Agency for application to data in this area.

    The exposure assessment identifies populations
exposed to the agent, describes  their  composition
and size, and  presents the types, magnitudes,
frequencies, and durations of exposure to the agent.

    In risk  characterization,  the exposure
assessment and the dose-response assessment are
combined to estimate some measure of the risk of
developmental  toxicity. As  part  of risk
characterization, a summary of the strengths  and
weaknesses in each component of the assessment are
presented along with major assumptions, scientific
judgments, and, to the extent possible, estimates of
the uncertainties.

//. Definitions and Terminology

    The Agency recognizes that there are differences
in the use of terms in the field of developmental
toxicology. For the purposes of these Guidelines the
following definitions and terminology will be used.

    Developmental Toxicology—The study of adverse
effects on the developing organism that may result
from exposure prior to conception (either parent),
during prenatal development, or postnatally to the
time of sexual  maturation. Adverse developmental
effects may be detected at any point in the life span
of the organism. The major manifestations of
developmental toxicity include: 1) death of the
developing organism, 2) structural abnormality, 3)
altered growth, and 4) functional deficiency.

    Embryotoxicity and Fetotoxicity—A.ny toxic effect
on the conceptus as a result of prenatal exposure; the
distinguishing feature between the two terms is the
stage of development during which the  injury
occurred. The terms,  as used here, include
malformations and variations, altered growth,  and
in utero death.

    Altered Growth—An alteration in offspring
organ or  body weight or size.  Changes in body
weight may or may not be accompanied by a change
in crown-rump length and/or in skeletal ossification.
Altered growth can be induced at any  stage  of
development, may be reversible, or may result in a
permanent change.

   Functional Developmental Toxicology—The study
of the causes, mechanisms, and manifestations  of
alterations or delays in functional competence of the
organism or organ system following exposure to an
agent during critical periods of development pre-
and/or postnatally.

   Malformations and Variations—A malformation
is usually defined as a permanent structural change
that may adversely affect survival, development,  or
function. The term teratogenicity,  which is used  to
describe these types of structural abnormalities, will
be used in these Guidelines to refer  only  to
structural  defects. A variation is used to indicate a
divergence beyond the usual range of structural
constitution that may not adversely affect survival
or health.  Distinguishing between variations and
malformations is  difficult since there  exists a
continuum of  responses from the normal  to the
extreme deviant. There is no generally  accepted
classification of malformations and variations.
Other terminology that is often used, but no better
defined, includes anomalies,  deformations, and
aberrations.

///. Qualitative Assessment (Hazard Identification of
Developmental Toxicants)

   Developmental toxicity is expressed as one  or
more of a number of possible end points that may  be
used for evaluating the potential of an agent to cause
abnormal development. The four types of effects on
the  conceptus  that  may  be  produced  by
developmental exposure to toxicants include death,
structural abnormality, altered  growth,  and
functional deficits.  Of these, the first three types of
effects are traditionally measured  in laboratory
animals using the conventional developmental
toxicity (also called teratogenicity or Segment II)
testing protocol as  well as in other study protocols,
such as the multigeneration study. Functional
deficits are seldom evaluated in routine studies of
environmental agents. This section will discuss the
end points examined in routinely used protocols  as
well as the evaluation of data from other types  of
studies, including functional studies and short-term
tests. Transplacental carcinogenesis, another type of
developmental effect, will not be discussed in detail
here since, at present, it  is considered more
appropriate  to use the  Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment (16) for assessing the human risk
for these types of effects. Also, mutational events
may occur as part of developmental toxicity, and  in
practice, are difficult to discriminate from other
possible mechanisms of developmental toxicity. The
Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk  Assessment (17)
should be consulted in cases where genetic damage
is suspected.
                                               4-4

-------
A. Laboratory Animal Studies of Developmental
Toxicity: End Points and Their Interpretation

   The most commonly used protocol for assessing
developmental toxicity  in laboratory animals
involves the administration of a test substance to
pregnant animals (usually mice, rats, or rabbits)
during the period of  major organogenesis,
evaluation of maternal responses throughout
pregnancy, and examination of the dam and  the
uterine contents just prior to term (2, 3, 18, 19, 20).
Other protocols may use exposure periods of one to a
few days to  investigate periods of particular
sensitivity for induction  of anomalies in specific
organs or organ systems (21).In
                 [51 FR 34031]
                                addition,
developmental toxicity  may be evaluated in studies
involving exposure of one or both parents prior to
conception, of the conceptus during pregnancy and
over several generations,  or of offspring during the
late prenatal and early postnatal periods. These
Guidelines are intended to provide information for
interpreting developmental effects related to any of
these types of exposure. Since many of the end points
evaluated also are related to effects on the parental
reproductive systems, these Guidelines will be used
in conjunction with those to be published in  the
future by EPA on  male and female reproductive
toxicity.

   Study designs should include a high dose, which
produces some maternal or adult toxicity (i.e., a level
which  at  the least  produces marginal but
significantly reduced body weight, weight gain, or
specific organ toxicity,  and at the most produces no
more  than 10% mortality); a low dose,  which
demonstrates a no observed effect level (NOEL) for
adult  and  offspring effects;  and  at least one
intermediate dose level. A concurrent control group
treated with the  vehicle  used  for agent
administration should be included.  The  route of
exposure should be based on expected  human
exposure considerations, although data from other
routes may sometimes  be useful, especially if
supported by pharmacokinetic information. Test
animals should be selected based on considerations
of species, strain, age, weight, and health status, and
should be randomized  to dose groups in  order to
reduce bias and provide a  basis for performing valid
statistical tests.

   The next three sections discuss individual end
points of maternal and developmental toxicity as
measured  in  the  conventional developmental
toxicity study, the multigeneration study, and, on
occasion, in postnatal studies.  Other end points
specifically related to reproductive toxicity will be
covered in the  relevant reproductive  toxicity
guidelines. The fourth  section deals with the
integrated evaluation  of all data, including  the
relative effects of exposure on maternal animals and
their offspring, which is important in assessing the
level of concern about a particular agent.

1. End Points of Maternal Toxicity.  A number of end
points that may be observed as possible indicators of
maternal toxicity are listed in Table 1. Maternal
mortality is an obvious end point of toxicity;
however, a  number of other end points can be
observed which may give an indication of the subtle
effects of an agent. For example, in well-conducted
studies,  the  fertility and gestation indices provide
information on the general fertility  rate of the
animal stock used and are important indicators of
toxic effects  if treatment begins prior to mating or
implantation. Changes in gestation length  may
indicate effects on the process of parturition.

Table l.-End Points of Maternal Toxicity

Mortality
Fertility Index (no. with seminal plugs or sperm/no.
    mated)
Gestation Index (no. with implants/no, with seminal
    plugs or sperm)
Gestation Length (when allowed to deliver pups)
Body Weight
    Treatment days (at least first, middle, and last
      treatment days)
    Sacrifice day
Body Weight Change
    Throughout gestation
    During treatment (including increments of time
      within treatment period)
    Post-treatment to sacrifice
    Corrected maternal (body weight change
      throughout gestation minus gravid uterine
      weight or litter weight at sacrifice)
Organ Weights (in cases of suspected specific organ
      toxicity)
    Absolute
    Relative to body weight
Food and Water Consumption (where relevant)
Clinical Evaluations (on days of treatment and
      at sacrifice)
    Types and incidence of clinical signs
    Enzyme markers
    Clinical chemistries
Gross Necropsy and Histopathology

    Body weight and the change in body weight are
viewed collectively as indicators of maternal toxicity
for most species, although these end points may not
be as useful in rabbits, because body weight changes
in rabbits are not  good  indicators  of pregnancy
status.  Body weight changes may  provide more
information than a daily body weight measured
during treatment or during gestation. Changes in
weight during treatment could occur  that would not
be reflected  in the total weight change throughout
gestation, because of compensatory weight gain that
may occur following treatment but before sacrifice.
For this reason, changes in weight during treatment
                                               4-5

-------
 can be examined as another indicator of maternal
 toxicity.

    Changes in maternal body weight corrected for
 gravid uterine  weight at sacrifice may indicate
 whether the effect is primarily maternal or fetal. For
 example,  there  may be a significant reduction  in
 weight gain throughout gestation and in gravid
 uterine weight, but no change in corrected maternal
 weight gain which would indicate primarily an
 intrauterine effect.  Conversely, a change  in
 corrected weight gain and no change  in  gravid
 uterine weight suggests primarily maternal toxieity
 and little or no intrauterine effect. An alternate
 estimate of maternal weight change  during
 gestation can be obtained by subtracting the sum of
 the weights of the fetuses. However, this weight does
 not include the  uterine tissue, placental tissue,  or
 the amniotic fluid.

    Changes in other end points should  also be
 determined. For example, changes in relative and
 absolute organ weights may be signs of a maternal
 effect when an agent is suspected of causing specific
 organ toxicity. Food and water consumption data are
 useful, especially if the agent is administered in the
 diet or drinking water. The amount ingested (total
 and relative to body weight) and the dose of the
 agent (relative to body weight) can then be
 calculated, and changes in  food  and  water
 consumption related to treatment can be evaluated
 along with changes in body weight and body weight
 gain. Data on food and water consumption are also
 useful when an agent is suspected of affecting
 appetite, water intake, or excretory  function.
 Clinical evaluations of toxicity may also be used  as
 indicators of maternal toxicity.  Daily clinical
 observations may be useful in describing the profile
of maternal toxicity. Enzyme markers and clinical
chemistries may be useful indicators of exposure but
 must be interpreted carefully as to whether or not a
change constitutes  toxicity. Gross necropsy and
 histopathology data (when specified in the protocol)
 may aid in determining toxic dose levels.

2. End Points of Developmental Toxicity. Because the
maternal  animal, and not the conceptus, is the
 individual treated during gestation, data generally
should be calculated as incidence per litter or as
number and percent of litters with particular end
points.Table 2 indicates the way in which offspring
and litter end points may be expressed.

Table  2.--End Points of Developmental Toxicity.

Litters with implants
    No. implantation sites/dam
    No. corpora lutea (CL)/dama
    Percent preimplantation loss

            (CL - implantations) x IQQa
                       CL
    No. and percent live offspring/litter
    No. and percent resorptions/litter
    No. and percent litters with resorptions
                  [51 PR 34032]
    No, and percent late fetal deaths/litter
    No. and percent nonlive (late fetal deaths +
      resorptions) implants/litter
    No. and percent litters with nonlive implants
    No. and percent affected (nonlive + malformed)
      implants/litter
    No. and percent litters with affected implants
    No. and percent litters with total resorptions
    No. and percent stillbirths/litter

Litters with live offspring^

    No. and percent litters with live offspring
    No. and percent live offspring/litter
    Viability of offspring*:
    Sex ratio/litter
    Mean offspring body weight/litter0
    Mean male body weight/litter^
    Mean female body weight/littere
    No. and percent externally malformed
      offspring/litter
    No. and percent visceral ly malformed
      offspring/litter
    No. and percent skeletally malformed
      offspring/litter
    No. and percent malformed offspring/litter
    No. and percent litters with malformed offspring
    No. and percent malformed males/litter
    No. and percent malformed females/litter
    No. and percent offspring with
      variations/litter
    No. and percent litters having offspring with
      variations
    Types and incidence of individual malformations
    Types and incidence of individual variations
    Individual offspring and their malformations
      and variations (grouped according to litter
      and dose)
    Clinical signs0
    Gross necropsy and histopathology

    a Important when treatment begins prior to
implantation. May be difficult in mice.
    b Offspring refers both to fetuses observed prior
to term or to pups following birth. The end points
examined depend on the protocol used for each
study.
    « Measured at selected intervals until
termination of the study.

    When treatment begins prior to implantation,
an increase in preimplantation loss could  indicate
an adverse effect either on the developing blastocyst
or on the process of implantation itself. If treatment
begins around the time of implantation (i.e., day 6 of
gestation in the mouse, rat, or rabbit), an increase in
preimplantation loss probably reflects normal
variability in the animals being used, but the data
should be examined carefully to determine whether
or not the effect is dose related.  If preimplantation
                                                4-6

-------
loss is related to dose in either case, further studies
would be necessary to determine the mechanism and
extent of such effects.

   The number and percent of live offspring per
litter, based on all litters, may include litters that
have no live implants. The number and percent
resorptions or late fetal deaths per litter gives some
indication of when the conceptus died, and the
number and percent nonlive implants  per litter
(postimplantation  loss) is a  combination  of
resorptions and late fetal deaths. The  number and
percent of litters showing an increased incidence for
these end points is  generally useful but may be less
useful than incidence per litter because, in the
former case, a litter is counted whether it  has one or
all resorbed, dead, or nonlive implants.

   If a significant increase in postimplantation loss
is found after exposure to an agent, the data may be
compared not only with concurrent controls, but also
with recent  historical control data, since there is
considerable interlitter variability in the incidence
of postimplantation loss (22). If a given study control
group exhibits an unusually high or low incidence of
postimplantation  loss compared to historical
controls, then scientific judgment must be used to
determine the  adequacy of the studies for  risk
assessment purposes.

   The end point  for affected implants (i.e., the
combination of nonlive and malformed  conceptuses)
gives an indication of the total intrauterine response
to an agent and sometimes reflects a  better dose-
response relationship than does the incidence of
nonlive or malformed offspring taken individually.
This is especially true at the high end of the dose-
response curve in cases  when  the incidence  of
nonlive implants per litter is greatly increased.  In
such cases, the malformation rate may  appear to
decrease because only unaffected offspring have
survived.  If the incidence of prenatal  death  or
malformation is unchanged, then the incidence of
affected implants will not provide any additional
dose-response  information.  In studies where
maternal  animals are allowed to deliver pups
normally, the number of stillbirths per  litter should
also be noted.

   The number of live offspring per litter, based on
those litters that have one or more live  offspring,
may be unchanged even  though the incidence of
nonlive in all litters  is increased. This could occur
either because of an increase in the number of litters
with no live offspring, or an increase in the number
of implants per litter. A decrease in the  number of
live offspring per litter should be accompanied by an
increase in the incidence of nonlive implants per
litter, unless the implant numbers differ among dose
groups. In postnatal  studies,  the viability of live
born offspring  should be determined at selected
intervals until termination of the study.
   The sex ratio per litter, as well as the body
weights of males and females, can be examined to
determine whether or not one sex is preferentially
affected by the agent. However, this is an unusual
occurrence.

   A change in offspring body weight is a sensitive
indicator of developmental toxicity, in part because
it is a continuous variable. In some cases, offspring
weight  reduction may be the  only indicator of
developmental  toxicity; if so, there is always  a
question remaining as to whether weight reduction
is a permanent or transitory effect. A permanent
weight change may be considered more severe than
a transitory change, although little is known about
the long-term consequences of short-term fetal or
neonatal weight changes. When fetal or neonatal
weight reduction  is  the only indicator  of
developmental toxicity, data from  the two-
generation reproduction study (2), if available, may
be useful for evaluating these parameters.  Ideally,
follow-up studies to evaluate postnatal viability,
growth, and survival through weaning should be
conducted. There are other factors that should be
considered in the evaluation of fetal or neonatal
weight changes. For example, in polytocous animals,
fetal and neonatal  weights are usually inversely
correlated with  litter size, and the upper end of the
dose-response curve may be confounded by  smaller
litters and  increased fetal  or  neonatal weight.
Additionally, the average body weight of males is
greater than that of females in the more commonly
used laboratory animals.

   Live offspring should be examined for external,
visceral, and skeletal  malformations.  If only  a
portion of the litter is examined, then it is preferable
that those examined be randomly selected from each
litter. An increase in the incidence  of malformed
offspring may be indicated by a change in one or
more of the following end points: the incidence of
malformed offspring per litter, the number and
percent of litters with malformed offspring, or  the
number of offspring or litters  with a  particular
malformation that appears to increase with dose as
indicated by the incidence of individual types of
malformations.
                 [51 PR 34033]
                               Other ways  of
examining  the data include  the  incidence  of
external,  visceral,  and skeletal malformations
which  may  indicate which general  systems are
affected. A listing of individual offspring with their
malformations and variations may give  an
indication  of  the  pattern  of developmental
deviations. All of these methods of expressing and
examining the data  are valid for determining the
effects of an agent on structural development.
However, care  must be taken  to avoid counting
offspring more than once in evaluating any single
end point based on number or percent of offspring or
litters. The incidence of individual types of
malformations and variations should be examined
                                               4-7

-------
for significant changes which may be masked if the
data on all malformations and variations are pooled.
Appropriate historical control data are helpful in the
interpretation of malformations and variations,
especially  those that normally occur at a low
incidence apparently unrelated to dose in an
individual study. Although a dose-related increase
in malformations is interpreted as an adverse
developmental effect of exposure to an agent,  the
significance of anatomical variations  is  more
difficult to determine, and must take into account
what is known about developmental stage (e.g., with
skeletal  ossification), background incidence of
certain variations (e.g., 12 or  13 pairs of ribs in
rabbits), or other strain - or species-specific factors.
However, if variations are significantly increased in
a dose-related manner, these should also be
evaluated as a possible indication of developmental
toxicity. The Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group
noted that dose-related increases in defects, which
may occur spontaneously, are as relevant as dose-
related increases in any other developmental
toxicity end points (23),

    3.  Functional Developmental Toxicology.
Developmental effects, which are inducible by
exogenous agents,  are not  limited to death,
structural abnormalities, and altered growth.
Rather, it has been demonstrated in a  number of
instances that subtle alterations in the functional
competence of an organ or a variety of organ systems
may  result from  exposure during critical
developmental  periods  that may occur  between
conception and sexual maturation. Often,  these
functional defects are observed  at dose levels below
those at which gross malformations are evident (24).
At present, such testing is not routinely required in
the United States. However, data from postnatal
studies, when available, are considered very useful
for the assessment of the relative importance and
severity of findings in the fetus and neonate. Often,
the  long-term  consequences  of  adverse
developmental outcomes at birth are unknown, and
further data on postnatal development and function
may contribute valuable information. When
regulatory statutes  permit, studies designed to
evaluate  adverse fetal or neonatal outcomes have
been  requested  (e.g.,  the Office of Pesticide
Programs  has sometimes requested postnatal
studies where the reversibility of study findings
were at issue).  In some cases,  useful data can be
derived from well-executed multigeneration studies.

    Much of the early work in functional
developmental toxicology was related to behavioral
evaluations, and the term "behavioral teratology"
became prominent in the mid 1970s. Less work  has
been done on other functional systems, but sufficient
data  have  accumulated  to  indicate that  the
cardiopulmonary, immune, endocrine, digestive,
urinary, nervous, and reproductive systems  are
subject to alterations in functional competence (25,
26). Currently, there  are no standard, testing
procedures, although some attempts are being made
to standardize and evaluate tests and protocols (27).
The functional evaluation of specific systems often
involves highly specialized training and equipment.
The routine use of such test procedures may not
always be  practical, but may be extremely
important in determining the nature of a suspected
alteration in terms of its biological significance and
dose-response relationship.

   The interpretation of  data  from functional
developmental  toxicology studies is limited due to
the lack of knowledge  about  the underlying
toxicological mechanisms and their significance.
However,  since  such  data  are sometimes
encountered in the risk assessment of particular
agents, some guidance is provided here concerning
general concepts of study design and evaluation.

   a. Several aspects of study design are similar to
those important in standard developmental toxicity
studies (e.g., a dose-response approach with the
highest dose producing minimal overt maternal or
perinatal toxicity, number of litters large enough for
adequate statistical  power, randomization of
animals to dose groups, litter generally considered
the statistical unit, etc.).

   b. A  replicate study design provides  added
confidence in the interpretation of data.

   c. Use of a pharmacological  challenge may be
valuable  in evaluating function  and "unmasking"
effects not otherwise detectable, particularly in the
case of organ  systems that are endowed with a
reasonable degree of functional reserve capacity.

   d. Use of functional tests with a moderate degree
of background  variability may be more sensitive to
the effects of  an  agent than are tests with low
variability  that  may  be  impossible to disrupt
without being  life-threatening. Butcher et al. (28)
have discussed this with relation to behavioral end
points.

   e. A battery of functional tests usually provides
a more thorough evaluation of the functional
competence of an animal; tests conducted at several
ages  may provide more information  about
maturational changes.
   f. Critical periods for the disruption of functional
competence include both  the prenatal  and the
postnatal periods to the time of sexual maturation,
and the effect is likely to vary depending on the time
and degree of exposure.

   Although interpretation of functional data may
be difficult at present, there are at least three ways
in which  the data from these studies may be useful
for risk assessment purposes: 1) to help elucidate the
long-term  consequences of fetal and neonatal
findings;  2) to indicate the potential for an agent to
cause functional alterations, and the effective doses
relative to those that produce other forms of toxicity;
                                               4-8

-------
f
f
           and 3) for existing environmental agents, to focus on
           organ systems to be evaluated in exposed human
           populations.

           4.  Overall  Evaluation  of  Maternal  and
           Developmental Toxiclty. As discussed previously,
           individual   end  points  are  evaluated  in
           developmental toxicity  studies, but an integrated
           evaluation must be done considering  all maternal
           and developmental end  points in order to interpret
           the data fully. Developmental toxicity is considered
           to  be an  increase in the incidence of malformed
           offspring,  decreased viability (prenatal  or
           postnatal), altered growth, and/or functional
           deficits.

              The level of concern for a developmental toxic
           effect is  related to  several  issues, including the
           relative toxicity of an agent to the offspring versus
           the adult animal, and the long-term consequences of
           findings in the fetus or neonate. Those agents which
           produce developmental  toxicity at a dose that is not
           toxic to the maternal animal are of greatest concern
           because the developing organism appears to be
           selectively affected or more sensitive than the adult.
           However, when developmental effects are produced
           only
                            [51 FR 34034]
                                           at   maternally
           toxic doses, the types of developmental effects should
           be examined carefully,  and not discounted as being
           secondary to maternal toxicity. Current information
           is  inadequate to assume that developmental effects
           at maternally  toxic doses result only from the
           maternal toxicity; rather, when the lowest observed
           effect level is the same  for  the adult and developing
           organisms,  it may simply indicate that both are
           sensitive to that dose level. Moreover, the maternal
           effects may be reversible while effects on the
           offspring may be  permanent. These are important
           considerations for agents to which humans may be
           exposed at minimally toxic levels either voluntarily
           or in the  workplace, since several agents are known
           to produce  adverse  developmental effects at
           minimally toxic doses in  adult humans (e.g.,
           smoking, alcohol).

                 Approaches for  ranking agents for  their
           selective developmental  toxicity are being
           developed; Schardein (10)  has reviewed several of
           these. Of current interest  are approaches that
           develop ratios relating an adult toxic dose to  a
           developmental toxic dose (29, 30,31, 32). Ratios near
           unity indicate that developmental toxicity occurs
           only at doses producing maternal toxicity; as the
           ratio increases, there is  a  greater  likelihood of
           developmental  effects occurring without maternal
           manifestations. Although further exploration and
           validation  are necessary, such approaches may
           ultimately help in identifying those agents that pose
           the greatest threat and should be given higher
           priority for further testing (33).
5. Short-term Testing in Developmental Toxicity. The
need for short-term tests for developmental toxicity
has arisen from the large number of agents in  or
entering the environment, the interest in reducing
the number of animals used for routine testing, and
the expense of testing. Two  approaches are
considered here in terms of their contribution to the
overall testing process: 1) an in  vivo mammalian
screen, and 2) a  variety  of in vitro systems.
Currently,  neither approach is  considered as a
replacement for routine in. vivo developmental
toxicity testing in experimental animals, and should
not be used to make the final decision as to whether
an agent is a positive or negative developmental
toxicant; rather, such tests may be useful as tools for
assigning priorities for further, more  extensive
testing. Although such short-term tests are not
routinely required, data are sometimes encountered
in the review of chemicals; the  comments are
provided here for guidance in the  evaluation of such
data.

   a. In Vivo Mammalian Developmental Toxicity
Screen. The most widely studied in vivo approach is
that developed by Chernoff and Kavlock (34) which
uses the pregnant mouse. This approach is based on
the hypothesis that a prenatal injury, which results
in altered development, will be manifested
postnatally  as reduced  viability and/or impaired
growth. In general,  the  test substance  is
administered over the period of major organogenesis
at a single dose level that will elicit some degree of
maternal toxicity. A second lower dose level may be
used which  potentially will reduce the chances of
false positive results. The  pups are counted and
weighed shortly after birth, and again after 3-4
days.  End  points that are considered  in the
evaluation include:  general maternal toxicity
(including survival and weight gain), litter size, and
viability, weight,' and gross malformations in the
offspring. Basic priority-setting categories for more
extensive testing have been suggested:  1) agents
that induce perinatal  death should receive  highest
priority, 2) agents inducing perinatal weight
changes should be ranked lower  in priority, and 3)
agents inducing no effect should  receive the lowest
priority (34). Another scheme that has been
proposed applies a numerical ranking to the results
as a means of prioritizing agents  for further testing
(35,36).

    The mouse was chosen  originally  for this test
because of its low cost, but the procedure should be
easily applicable to other species. However, the test
will only predict the  potential for  developmental
toxicity of an agent in the species utilized and does
not improve the ability to extrapolate risk to other
species, including humans. The Office of Toxic
Substances has developed testing guidelines for this
procedure (37). Although the testing guidelines are
available,  such  procedures are  not routinely
                                                          4-9

-------
required, and further validation is currently being
carried out (38).

    b. In Vitro Developmental Toxicity Screens. Test
systems  that fall under the general heading of "in
vitro" developmental  toxicity screens include any
system that employs  a test subject other than the
intact pregnant mammal. These systems have long
been used to assess events associated with normal
and abnormal development, but only recently have
they been considered for their potential as screens in
testing (39, 40, 41). Many of these systems are now
being evaluated for  their ability  to predict  the
developmental toxicity of various agents in intact
mammalian  systems.  This validation  process
requires certain considerations in study  design,
including defined end points for toxicity  and an
understanding of the system's ability to  handle
various test agents (40,42). A list of agents for use in
such validation studies has been developed (43).

    6. Statistical Considerations. In  the assessment
of developmental  toxicity  data, statistical
considerations require special attention. Since the
litter is generally considered the experimental unit
in  most developmental toxicity studies, the
statistical analyses should be designed  to analyze
the relevant data based on incidence per litter or on
the number of litters with a particular end point.
The analytical procedures used and the results, as
well as an indication of  the  variance in each end
point, should be clearly indicated in the presentation
of data. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques,
with litter nested within dose in the model, take the
litter  variable  into  account  but allow  use  of
individual offspring data and an evaluation of both
within and between litter variance  as well  as dose
effects. Nonparametric and  categorical procedures
have also been widely  used for binomial or incidence
data. In addition, tests for dose-response trends can
be applied. Although  a single statistical approach
has not  been agreed upon,  a  number of  factors
important in the analysis of developmental  toxicity
data have been discussed (23,44).

    Studies that employ  a replicate experimental
design (e.g., two or three replicates with 10 litters
per dose per replicate rather than a  single
experiment with 20-30 Utters per dose group) allow
for broader interpretation of study results since the
variability between replicates can be accounted for
using ANOVA techniques. Replication of effects due
to a given agent within a study, as well as between
studies or laboratories, provides added strength in
the use of data for the estimation of risk.

    An important factor to determine in evaluating
data is the power of a study (i.e., the probability that
a study will  demonstrate a true effect), which is
limited by  the sample size used  in the study, the
background incidence of the end point observed, the
variability in the incidence of the end point, and the
analysis method. As an example, Nelson and Holson
(45) have shown that the number of litters needed to
detect a 5 or 10% change was dramatically lower for
fetal  weight (a continuous variable with low
variability)  than for resorptions (a binomial
response with high variability).  With the current
recommendation in
                 [51 FR 34035J
                                testing protocols
being 20 rodents per dose group (2, 3), it is possible to
detect an increased incidence of malformations  in
the range of 5 to 12 times above control levels, an
increase of 3 to 6 times the in utero death rate, and a
decrease of 0.15 to 0.25 times the fetal weight. Thus,
even within the same study, the ability to detect a
change in fetal  weight is much greater than  for the
other end  points measured. Consequently, for
statistical reasons only, changes in fetal weight are
often observable at doses below those producing
other signs of developmental toxicity. Any  risk
assessment should present the detection sensitivity
for the study design used and for the end point(s)
evaluated.

      Although statistical analyses are important
in determining the effects of a particular agent, the
biological  significance  of data  should  not be
overlooked. For example, with the number  of end
points that can be observed  in  developmental
toxicity  studies, a few statistically  significant
differences may occur by chance. On the other hand,
apparent trends with dose may be biologically
relevant even though statistical analyses  do not
indicate a  significant effect. This may be  true
especially for the incidence of malformations or  ire
utero death where a relatively large difference  is
required to be statistically significant. It should be
apparent from  this  discussion that  a great deal  of
scientific judgment  based on  experience with
developmental toxicity data and with principles of
experimental design and statistical analysis may be
required to adequately evaluate such data.

B. Human Studies

    Because of  the ethical considerations involved,
studies  with deliberate dosing of humans are not
done. Therefore, dose-effect developmental toxicity
data from humans are limited  to  those available
from occupational, environmental,  or  therapeutic
exposures. While  animal studies provide dose-
response data that can be used in the extrapolation
of risk to humans, good epidemiologic data provide
the best information for assessing human risk.

    The category of "human studies" includes both
epidemiologic studies and other reports of cases  or
clusters of events. While case  reports  have  been
important in identifying several human  teratogens,
they are potentially of greater value in identifying
topics for further investigation (46). The data  from
case reports  are often of an anecdotal or  highly
selected nature, and thus are of limited usefulness
for risk assessment except when a unique defect is
produced, as with thalidomide, or when the agent is
                                               4-10

-------
so potent as to greatly increase the incidence of a
particular defect(s).

   As there  are many different designs for
epidemiologic  studies,  simple rules for their
evaluation do not  exist.  The assessment of
epidemiologic studies requires a sophisticated level
of understanding of the appropriate epidemiologic
and statistical methods and interpretation of the
findings. Factors that increase a study's usefulness
for risk assessment include such things as the
examination of multiple end points and exposure
levels, the validity of the data, and proper control of
other risk factors, effect modifiers, and confounders
in the study design and/or analysis. A more in-depth
discussion can be found elsewhere (47).

   As described earlier, a single developmental
toxicant can result  in multiple end  points
(malformations, functional  impairment,  altered
growth, and/or lethality). These end points can be
thought of as sequential  competing risks. For
example, a malformed fetus spontaneously aborted
would not be observed in a study of births with
malformations (48). Very early conceptus losses may
not be identified in human populations, whereas in
most laboratory animal studies, all resorption sites
can be identified. Many epidemiologic studies,
especially of the case-control design, have focused on
one end point, possibly  missing a true effect of
exposure. Furthermore, some studies have  selected
one type or class of malformations to study. Since an
agent can result in  different spectra of
malformations following exposure at different times
in the pregnancy (49), limiting a study to one class of
malformation may give  misleading results.
Malformations can be meaningfully grouped only if
there is a logical underlying teratogenic mechanism
or pathogenetic pathway.  As  a  minimum,
malformations, deformations, and disruptions
should be separated.

   The power, or probability of a study to  detect a
true  effect, is dependent upon the size of the study
group, the frequency of the outcome in the general
population, and  the level  of excess risk to be
identified. Rarer outcomes,  such as malformations,
require  thousands of pregnancies to have a high
probability of detecting an  increase in risk. More
common outcomes, such as fetal loss,  require
hundreds  of  pregnancies to have the same
probability (8, 23, 50, 51, 52, 53). The confidence one
has in the results of a study with negative findings is
directly related to the power of the study to detect
clinically meaningful differences in incidence for the
end points studied.

   As in animal studies, pregnancies within the
same family (or litter)  are not independent events.
In animal studies, the litter is generally used as the
unit of measure. This approach is difficult in
humans since the pregnancies are sequential,  with
the  risk  factors changing for  the different
pregnancies (23, 51, 54). If more than one pregnancy
per family is included, and this is often necessary
due  to  small study groups,  the use of non-
independent observations  overestimates the  true
size  of  the  population at risk and  artificially
increases the significance level (54).

   Other criteria for evaluating epidemiologic
studies include the following (23, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57,
58):

   1. The potential for complete  or relatively
complete ascertainment of events for study. This can
vary by  outcome and by data source; for example, if
hospital records are used, early  fetal losses will be
underascertained, but a  more complete list  of
pregnancies  could be obtained by interviewing the
women. Congenital malformations can  be more
completely ascertained using hospital records  than
birth certificates.  Studies with relatively complete
ascertainment of events, or    at    least    low
probability of unbiased ascertainment, should carry
more weight.

   2. Validity (accuracy) of the data. Recall of past
events in interviews may be faulty,  while hospital
files contain data  recorded at the time of the event
(but may be incomplete). Validation of interview
data with an independent  source, where possible,
increases confidence in the results of the study.

   3. Collection of data on other risk factors, effect
modifiers, and confounders. Data on  smoking,
alcohol consumption, drug use,  and environmental
and occupational exposure, etc., during pregnancy
should be examined and controlled for in the study
design and/or analysis  where  appropriate. The
analytic techniques used to control for these factors
require  careful consideration in their application
and interpretation.

C. Other Considerations

1. Pharmacokinetics. Extrapolation of data between
species can be aided considerably by the availability
of data  on the  pharmacokinetics of a particular
agent in the species  tested and, if possible,  in
humans. Information on  half-lives, placental
metabolism and transfer, and concentrations of the
parent compound and metabolites in the
                 [51 FR 34036]
                               maternal animal
and conceptus may be useful in  predicting risk for
developmental toxicity. Such data may also be
helpful in defining  the  dose-response  curve,
developing a more accurate comparison  of species
sensitivity  including that of  humans (59, 60),
determining dqsimetry  at target  sites,  and
comparing pharmacokinetic profiles  for  various
dosing  regimens  or routes  of  exposure.
Pharmacokinetic studies  in developmental
toxicology are most useful if conducted in pregnant
animals at the stage when developmental  insults
occur.  The  correlation  of pharmacokinetic
parameters and developmental toxicity data may be
                                              4-11

-------
 useful in determining the contribution of specific
 pharmacokinetic parameters to the effects observed
 (61).

 2. Comparisons of Molecular Structure. Comparisons
 of the chemical or physical properties of an agent
 with those of known developmental  toxicants  may
 provide  some indication of a potential for
 developmental toxicity. Such information may be
 helpful in setting priorities for testing of agents or
 for evaluation of potential toxicity when only
 minimal  data are 'available. Structure/activity
 relationships have not  been well  studied in
 developmental toxicology,  although  data  are
 available that  suggest  structure-activity
 relationships for certain classes of chemicals (e.g.,
 glycol ethers,  steroids, retinoids). Under certain
 circumstances  (e.g., in the case of new chemicals),
 this is one of several procedures used to evaluate the
 potential for  toxicity when  little or no data are
 available.

 D. Weight-of-Evidence Determination

    Information available  from studies discussed
 previously, whether indicative of potential concern
 or not, must be evaluated and factored into the  risk
 assessment. The types of data may vary from
 chemical to chemical, and certain types of data may
 be  more relevant than other types in performing
 developmental  toxicity assessments. The primary
 considerations are  the human data  (which  are
 seldom available)  and  the experimental animal
 data. The qualitative assessment for developmental
 toxicity should include statements concerning the
 quality of the data, the resolving power of the
 studies, the number and types of end points
 examined, the relevance of route and timing of
 exposure, the appropriateness of the dose selection,
 the replication  of the effects, the number of species
 examined, and the availability of human case
 reports, case series, and/or epidemiologic study data.
 In addition, pharmacokinetic data and structure-
 activity considerations, as well as other factors that
 may affect the quality, should be taken into account.
 Therefore, all  data pertinent to  developmental
 toxicity should be examined in the evaluation of a
 chemical's potential to cause developmental toxicity
 in humans, and sound scientific judgment should be
 exercised  in interpreting the  data  in terms of the
 risk for adverse human  developmental health
 effects.

 IV. Quantitative Assessment

    Risk assessment involves  the description of the
 nature and often the magnitude of potential human
 risk,  including a description of any attendant
 uncertainty.  In the final  phase  of the risk
 assessment (risk characterization), the results of the
qualitative evaluation (hazard identification),  the
dose-response, and the exposure assessments  are
combined  to give qualitative and/or quantitative
estimates of the developmental toxicity risk. A
 summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the
 hazard identification, dose-response assessment,
 and exposure assessment should be discussed. Major
 assumptions, scientific judgments, and, to the extent
 possible, estimates of the uncertainties in the
 assessment also should be presented.

 A. Dose-Response Assessment

    When quantitative human dose-effect data are
 available and  with sufficient range of exposure,
 dose-response relationships  may  be examined!
 However, such data have rarely been available;
 thus,  other  methods have  been used  in
 developmental toxicology for estimating exposure
 levels that are unlikely to produce adverse effects in
 humans. The dose-response assessment is usually
 based on the evaluation of tests performed in
 laboratory animals. Evidence for a dose-response
 relationship is an important  criterion  in the
 assessment of developmental toxicity, although this
 may be based on limited data from standard three-
 dose studies. As mentioned earlier (section III. A. 2.),
 however, traditional dose-response relationships
 may not always be observed for some end points. For
 example,  as  the exposure   level   rises,
 embryo/fetolethal levels may be  reached, resulting
 in an observed decrease in malformations with
 increasing dose (49, 51). The potential for this
 relationship  indicates that  dose-response
 relationships for individual  end  points as well as
 combinations of end  points  (e.g.,  dead and
 malformed combined) must be carefully examined
 and interpreted.

   Although dose-response data are important in
 this  area, the approaches frequently employed in
 attempts to extrapolate to  humans has involved
 simply the use of uncertainty (safety) factors and
 margins of safety, which in some respects are
 conceptually similar. However, uncertainty factors
 and margins of safety are computed differently and
 are often used in different regulatory situations. The
 choice of approach is dependent upon many factors,
 including the statute involved, the situation being
 addressed, the data  base used, and the needs of the
 decision-maker. The final uncertainty factor used
 and the acceptability of the margin of safety are risk
 management decisions, but the scientific issues that
 must be taken into account are addressed here.

   The uncertainty factor approach results in a
 calculated exposure level believed to be  unlikely to
 cause any toxic developmental response in humans.
 The size of the uncertainty factor will vary from
 agent to agent and will require the exercise of
 scientific judgment (10, 62), taking into account
 interspecies differences,  the nature  and extent of
 human exposure, the slope of the  dose-response
 curve, the types of developmental effects observed,
and the relative  dose levels  for maternal and
developmental  toxicity  in the test species. The
 uncertainty factor selected is then divided into the
NOEL for the most sensitive end point obtained from
                                              4-12

-------
" I
12 i
K
E
the most appropriate and/or sensitive mammalian
species examined to obtain an acceptable exposure
level. Currently, there is no one laboratory animal
species that can be considered most appropriate for
predicting risk to humans (10). Each agent should be
considered on a case-by-case basis.

    The margin of safety approach derives a ratio of
the NOEL from  the most  sensitive species to  the
estimated human exposure level from all potential
sources (63). The adequacy of the margin of safety is
then considered, based on  the weight of evidence,
including the nature and quality of the hazard and
exposure data, the number of species affected, dose-
response relationships, and other factors such as
benefits of the agent.

    Although the standard  study design for a
developmental toxicity study calls for a low dose that
demonstrates a NOEL, there may be circumstances
where a risk assessment is based on the results of a
study in which a NOEL for developmental  toxicity
could not be identified. Rather, the lowest dose
administered caused significant effect(s) and was
identified as the lowest observed effect level (LOEL).
In circumstances where only a LOEL is available, it
may be appropriate to apply
                 [51FR34037]
                               an  additional
uncertainty factor. The magnitude of this additional
factor is dependent upon  scientific judgment. In
some  instances, additional studies may be needed to
strengthen the confidence in  this additional
uncertainty factor.

B. Exposure Assessment

    The results of the dose-response assessment are
combined with an estimate of human exposure in
order to obtain a quantitative estimate of risk. The
Guidelines for Estimating  Exposures  are published
separately  (64) and will not be discussed in detail
here.  In general, the exposure assessment describes
the magnitude,  duration, schedule,  and route of
exposure.  This  information is developed  from
monitoring data and  from  estimates  based on
modeling of environmental exposures. Unique
considerations relevant  to developmental toxicity
are duration  and period of exposure  as  related to
stage of development (i.e., critical periods),  and the
possibility that a single exposure may be sufficient
to produce adverse developmental  effects (i.e.,
chronic exposure is not a necessary prerequisite for
developmental toxicity to be manifested). Also, it
should be recognized that  exposure of almost any
segment  of the human  population (i.e., fertile men
and women, the  conceptus, and the child up to  the
age of sexual maturation) may lead to risk to  the
developing organism.

    Data on exposure to humans may  be qualitative
or quantitative.  The qualitative data could be
surrogate data, such as employment or residence
histories; quantitative or dose data are frequently
not available. Exposures at different stages of the
reproductive process can result in different outcomes
(49). In laboratory studies, these time periods can be
carefully controlled. In human studies, especially
retrospective ones, linking of specific time periods
and specific exposures, even on a qualitative level,
may be difficult due  to errors of recall or record
keeping (where records are available). The increased
probability of misclassification of exposure status
may affect the ability of a study to recognize a true
effect (8, 23,52, 65,66).

    Exposure may be defined at a specific point in
time, or the cumulative lifetime  exposure  up to  a
specific point in time. Each of  these  definitions
carries an implicit assumption about the underlying
relationship between  exposure and outcome.  For
example, a cumulative exposure  measure assumes
that total lifetime  exposure is important, with  a
greater probability of effect with greater total
exposure; a dichotomous exposure measure (ever
exposed versus  never  exposed) assumes an
irreversible effect of exposure; and exposure at  a
specific time in the reproductive process assumes
that only concurrent  exposure is important. The
appropriate  exposure depends on  the  outcome(s)
studied, the biologic  mechanism affected by
exposure, and the half-life of the exposure. Unbiased
misclassification of exposure, due either to poor data
or to an inappropriate exposure variable, may result
in missing an effect of the agent under study.

C. Risk Characterization

    Many uncertainties have  been pointed out in
these Guidelines which are  associated with  the
toxicological and  exposure  components  of risk
assessments in developmental toxicology. In the
past, these uncertainties have often not been readily
apparent  or  consistently presented.  The
presentation  of any  risk assessment  for
developmental toxicity should be accompanied by
statements concerning the strength of  the hazard
evaluation (see section III. D. for more detail) as well
as dose-response relationships, estimates of human
exposure, and any other factors that affect  the
quality and precision  of the assessment. The dose-
response  and exposure data are combined to
estimate risk based on  a NOEL for any adverse
developmental effect.  The  uncertainty  factor
selected or margin of safety calculated should be
sufficiently qualified as to the assumptions used and
the accuracy of the estimates.

    At present,  there  are no mathematical models
that are generally  accepted  for estimating
developmental toxicity responses below  the applied
dose range. This is  due primarily to a  lack of
understanding of the biological mechanisms
underlying    developmental     toxicity,
intra/interspecies differences  in the types of
developmental events, the  influence of maternal
effects on the dose-response curve,  and  whether or
not a threshold  exists  below which no effect will be
                                                        4-13

-------
produced  by an  agent.  Many developmental
lexicologists assume a threshold  for most
developmental effects; this assumption is based
largely on the biological rationale that the embryo is
known to have some  capacity for  repair of the
damage or insult (49), and that most developmental
deviations  are probably multifactorial  in nature
(67). The existence of a NOEL in an animal study
does not prove or disprove the existence or level of a
true threshold; it only defines the highest level of
exposure under the conditions of the test that are not
associated with a significant, increase in effect. The
use of NOELs and uncertainty factors or margins of
safety are attempts to ensure that  the  allowable
levels are below those that will produce a significant
increase in developmental effects.

    Discussions of risk extrapolation procedures
have noted that further work is needed to improve
mathematical  tools for  developing estimates of
potential human developmental risk (62, 68). Gaylor
(69) has suggested an approach for controlling risk
that combines the  use of mathematical models for
low-dose  estimation of risk with the application of
an uncertainty factor based on a preselected level of
allowable risk. This approach  is  similar  to
approaches proposed for carcinogenesis, but does not
preclude  the possibility of a threshold, and may
provide a more quantitative approach to controlling
risk.  Several such  approaches are being  examined.
For the most part, the Agency will continue to  use
uncertainty factors  and  margins of  safety as
described above. Other appropriate methods  for
expressing risk are being sought and  will be applied
if considered acceptable.

    These Guidelines  summarize the procedures
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will
follow in evaluating the potential for agents to cause
developmental toxicity. These Guidelines  will be
reviewed and updated as advances are made in the
field, since it is evident that our ability to evaluate
and predict human  developmental  toxicity is
imprecise.  Further studies that 1) delineate  the
mechanisms of developmental  toxicity  and
pathogenesis,    2)    provide   comparative
pharmacokinetic data,  and  3) elucidate  the
functional modalities that may be  altered by
exposure  to  toxic  agents  will  aid in  the
interpretation   of   data  and  interspecies
extrapolation. These types of studies, along with
further evaluation of the relationship between
maternal and fetal toxicity and  the concept  of a
threshold in developmental toxicity, will provide for
the development of improved mathematical models
to more precisely assess risk.
V. References
    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Assessment
of risks to human reproduction and to development of the human
conceptus from exposure to environmental substances, pp. 99-116.
Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA, DE82-007897.
    2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Pesticides
assessment guidelines, subdivision F. Hazard evaluation: human
and domestic animals. EPA-540/9-82-025. Available from: NTIS,
Springfield, VA.
                    [51 PR 34038]
    3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1985. Toxic
Substances Control Act Test Guidelines; Final Rules. Federal
Register 50:39426-39428 and 39433-39434.
    4. Hertig, A.T. 1967. The  overall problem in  man. In: K.
Benirschlce, ed. Comparative aspects of reproductive failure. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 11 -41.
    5. McKeown, T., and R.C. Record. 1963. Malformations in a
population observed for  five  years after birth. In:  G.E.W.
Wolstenholme and C.M. O'Conner, eds. Ciba  Foundation
symposium on congenital malformations. Boston, MA: Little
Brown, pp. 2-16.
    6. Mellin, G.W., and M.  Katzenstein.  1964. Increased
incidence of malformations-chance or change? J. Am. Med. Assoc.
187:570-573.
    7. Wilson, J.G. 1977. Embryotoxicity of drugs in man. In: J.G.
Wilson and F.C. Praser, eds. Handbook of teratology. New York,
NY: Plenum Press, pp. 309-355.
    8. Selevan, S.G. 1981. Design considerations in pregnancy
outcome studies of occupational populations. Scand. J. Work
Environ. Health 7:76-82.
    9. Shepard, T.H. 1980. Catalog of teratogenic agents. Third
edition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    10, Schardein, J.L, 1983. Teratogenic risk  assessment. In: H.
Kalter, ed. Issues and reviews  in teratology, Vol. 1. New York,
NY: Plenum Press, pp. 181-214.
    11. Shepard, T.H. 1984. Teratogens: an update. Hosp. Pract.,
Jan.,pp. 191-200.
    12. Brown, N.A., and S. Fabro. 1983. The value of animal
teratogenicity testing for  predicting human risk. Clin.  Obstet.
Gynecol. 26:467-477.
    13. Kimmel, C.A., J.F. Holson, CJ, Hogue, and G.L. Carlo.
1984. Reliability of experimental studies for predicting hazards to
human development. NCTR Technical Report for Experiment No.
6015. NCTR, Jefferson, Arkansas.
    14. Nisbet, I.C.T. and N.J. Karch. 1983. Chemical hazards to
human reproduction. Park Ridge: Noyes Data Corp.
    15, Committee on  the  Institutional Means for the
Assessment of Risks to Public Health. 1983. Risk assessment in
the Federal government: managing the process. Commission on
Life Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, pp. 17-83.
    16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986, Sept. 24.
Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment.  Federal Register
51<185):33992-34003.
    17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986, Sept. 24.
Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment. Federal Register
51(185):34006-34012.
    18. Food and Drug Administration. 1966. Guidelines for
reproduction and teratology of drugs. Bureau of Drugs.
    19. Food and Drug' Administration.  1970. Advisory
committee on protocols for  safety evaluations. Panel on
reproduction  report on reproduction  studies in the safety
evaluation of food additives and pesticide residues. ToxicoL Appl.
Pharmacol. 16:264-296.
    20. Organization  for  Economic Cooperation  and
Development  (OECD), 1981. Guideline  for testing of chemicals
teratogenicity.
    21. Symposium on effects of radiation and other deleterious
agents on embryonic development. 1954. J. Cell. Comp.  Physiol.
43(suppl. 1).
    22, Woo, D.C., and R,M. Hoar, 1979. Reproductive
performance and spontaneous malformations  in control  Charles
River rats. Ajointstudy for MARTA. Teratology 19.-54A,
    23. Kimmel, C.A., G.L. Kimmel, and V. Frankos, eds.  1986.
Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group workshop on reproductive
toxicity risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspcct. 66:193-221.
    24. Rodier, P.M. 1978. Behavorial teratology. In: J.G. Wilson
and F.C. Fraser, eda. Handbook of teratology,  Vol. 4. New York,
NY: Plenum Press, pp. 397-428.
    25. Buelke-Sam, J., and C.A.  Kimmel, 1979. Development
and standardization of screening  methods for behavorial
teratology. Teratology 20:17-29.
    26. Kavlock, R.J., and C.T. Grabowski, eds. 1983. Abnormal
                                                    4-14

-------
functional  development of the  heart,  lungs,  and kidneys:
approaches to functional teratology. Prog. Clin. Biol. Res., Vol.
140. New York, NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc.
    27. Buelke-Sam, J., C.A. Kimmel, and J. Adams, eds. 1985.
Design considerations in screening for behavioral teratogens:
Results of the Collaborative Behavioral  Teratology Study.
Neurobehav. Toxicol. Teratology 7<6):537-789.
    28. Butcher, R.E., V. Wootten, and C.V. Vorhees.  1980.
Standards in behavorial teratology testing: test variability and
sensitivity. Teratogenesis Carcinog. Mutagen. 1:49-61.
    29. Johnson, E.M. 1981. Screening for teratogenic hazards:
nature of the problem. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 21:417-
429.
    30. Johnson, E.M., and  B.E.G. Gabel.  1983. An artificial
embryo for detection of abnormal developmental biology.  Fund.
Appl. Toxicol. 3:243-249.
    31. Fabro, S., G. Schull, and N.A. Brown. 1982. The relative
teratogenic index and teratogenic potency: proposed components
of developmental  toxicity risk assessment.  Teratogenesis
Carcinog. Mutagen. 2:61-76.
    32. Brown, N.A., and S.J. Freeman. 1984. Aternative tests
for teratogenicity. Alternatives Lab. Anim. 12:7-23.
    33. Johnson, E.M. 1984. A  prioritization and biological
decision tree for developmental toxicity safety evaluations. J. Am.
Coll. Toxicol. 3:141-147.
    34. Chernoff,  N., and R.J. Kavlock. 1982. An in vivo
teratology screen utilizing pregnant mice. J.  Toxicol. Environ.
Health 10:541-550.
    35. Brown, J.M. 1984. Validation of an in vivo screen for the
determination of embryo/fetal toxicity in mice. SRI International.
EPA contract no. 68-01 -5079.
    36. Schuler R., B. Hardin, R. Niemeyer,  G.  Booth, K.
Hazelden, V. Piccirillo, and K. Smith. 1984. Results of testing
fifteen glycol ethers in a short-term, in vivo reproductive toxicity
assay. Environ. Health Perspect. 57:141-146.
    37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.  Toxic
Substances Control Act Test Guidelines; Final  Rules. Federal
Register50:39428-39429.
    38. National Toxicology Program. 1984.  Reproductive and
Developmental Toxicology Program. Fiscal year 1984 annual
plan.pp. 171-181.
    39. Wilson, J.G. 1978. Survey of in vitro systems: their
potential use in teratogenicity screening. In: J.G. Wilson and F.C.
Fraser,  eds. Handbook of teratology, Vol. 4. New  York, NY:
Plenum Press, pp. 135-153.
    40. Kimmel, G.L., K. Smith, D.M. Kochhar, and R.M.  Pratt.
1982. Overview of in vitro teratogenicity testing: aspects  of
validation and application to screening. Teratogenesis Carcinog.
Mutagen. 2:221-229.
    41. Brown, N.A., and S.E. Fabro. 1982. The in vitro approach
to teratogenicity testing. In: K. Snell, ed. Developmental
toxicology. London, England: Croom-Helm, pp. 31 -57.
    42. Kimmel, G.L. 1985. In vitro tests in screening teratogens:
considerations to aid the validation process. In:  M. Marois, ed.
Prevention of physical and mental congenital defects, Part C. New
York, NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp. 259-263.
    43. Smith, M.R., G.L. Kimmel, D.M. Kochhar, T.H. Shepard,
S.P. Spielberg, and J.G. Wilson. 1983. A selection of candidate
compounds for in  vitro  teratogenesis  test validation.
Teratogenesis Carcinog. Mutagen. 3:461-480.
    44. Haseman, J.K. and L.L. Kupper.  1979. Analysis  of
dichotomous response data  from certain  lexicological
experiments. Biometrics35:281-293.
    45. Nelson, C.J., and J.F. Holson. 1978. Statistical analysis of
teratogenic data: problems and advancements. J. Environ. Pathol.
Toxicol. 2:187-199.
    46. Hogue, C.J.R. 1985. Developmental risks. Presented  at
Symposium: Epidemiology and health risk assessment. Columbia,
MD.May 14,1985.
    47. Epidemiology Workgroup of the Interagency Regulatory
Liaison Group. 1981. Guidelines for documentation  of
epidemiologic studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 114(5):609-613.
    48. Stein, Z., M. Susser, D. Warburton, J. Wittes, and  J.
Kline. 1975. Spontaneous abortion as a screening device. The
effect of fetal surveillance on the incidence of birth defects. Am. J.
Epidemiol. 102:275-290.
    49. Wilson, J.G. 1973. Environment and birth defects. New
York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 30-32.
    50. Report of Panel II.  1981. Guidelines for reproductive
studies in exposed human  populations. In: Bloom, A.D., ed.
Guidelines for studies of populations exposed to mulagenic and
reproductive hazards. White Plains, NY: March of Dimes Birth
Defects Foundation, pp. 37-110.
    Sl.Selevan, S.G. 1985. Design of pregnancy outcome studies
of industrial exposure. In: Hemminki, K., M. Sorsa, and H. Vainio,
eds. Occupational Hazards and Reproduction. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere Pub., pp. 219-229.
    52. Sever,  L.E., and N.A.  Hessol. 1984. Overall design
considerations in male  and  female  occupational reproductive
studies. In: Lockey, J.E., G.K. Lemasters, and W.R. Keye, eds.
Reproduction: the new  frontier in  occupational  and
environmental research. New York, NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc. pp. 15-
48.
    53. Stein,  Z., J. Kline, and P. Shrout. 1985.  Power in
surveillance. In: Hemminki, K., M.  Sorsa, and H. Vainio, eds.
Occupational hazards  and reproduction. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere Pub., pp. 203-208.
    54. Kissling, G. 1981. A generalized model  for analysis of
nonindependent observations.
                       [51 FR 34039]
                                       Ph.D. Dissertation.
Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
    55. Selevan, S.G.  1980.  Evaluation of data sources for
occupational pregnancy outcome studies. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ann
Arbor, Ml: University Microfilms.
    56. Axelson, O. 1985. Epidemiologic methods in the study of
spontaneous abortions: sources of data, methods, and sources of
error.  In:  Hemminki, K., M. Sorsa, and H. Vainio, eds.
Occupational hazards  and reproduction. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere Pub., pp. 231-236.
    57. Tilley,  B.C., A.B. Barnes, E. Bergstralh, D. Labarthe,
K.L. Noller, T.  Colton,  and  E. Adam.  1985. A comparison of
pregnancy history recall and medical records: implications for
retrospective studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 121 (2):269-281.
    58. Wilcox, A.J. 1983.  Surveillance of pregnancy loss in
human populations. Am. J. Ind. Med. 4:285-291.
    59. Wilson, J.G., W.J. Scott, E.J. Ritter, and R.  Fradkin.
1975. Comparative distribution  and  embryotoxicity  of
hydroxyurea in pregnant rats and rhesus monkeys. Teratology
11:169-178.
    60. Wilson, J.G., E.J. Ritter, W.J. Scott, and R.  Fradkin.
1977. Comparative distribution  and  embryotoxicity  of
acetylsalicylic acid in pregnant rats and rhesus monkeys. Toxicol.
Appl. Pharmacol. 41:67-78.
    61. Kimmel, C.A., and J.F. Young.  1983. Correlating
pharmacokinetics and teratogenic  end points. Fund. Appl.
Toxicol. 3:250-255.
    62. Hogau, M.D.,and D.G. Hoel. 1982. Extrapolation to man.
In: A.W. Hayes, ed. Principles and methods of toxicology. New
York, NY: Raven Press, pp. 711-731.
    63. Chitlik, L.D., Q.Q.  Bui, G.J. Burin, and S.C. Dapson.
1985. Standard evaluation  procedures for teratology studies.
Toxicology Branch, Hazard Evaluation Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986, Sept. 24.
Guidelines for estimating  exposures.  Federal  Register
51(185):34042-34054.
    65. Lemasters, G.K., and S.G. Selevan. 1984. Use of exposure
data in occupational reproductive  studies. Scand.  J. Work
Environ. Health 10:1-6.
    66. Hogue, C.J.R. 1984. Reducing misclassification errors
through questionnaire design.  In: Lockey, J.E., G.K. Lemasters,
and  W.R.  Keye, eds. Reproduction: the new frontier  in
occupational and environmental health research. New York, NY:
Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp. 81-97.
    67. Fraser, F.C. 1977.  Relation of animal studies to  the
problem in man. In: J.G. Wilson and F.C. Fraser, eds. Handbook of
teratology, Vol. I. New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp.75-96.
    68. Environmental Health Criteria 30. 1984. Principles for
evaluating health risks to progeny associated with exposure to
chemicals during  pregnancy. World  Health Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 111-114.
                                                         4-15

-------
    69. Gaylor, D.W. 1983. The use of safety factors for
controlling risk. J. Toxicbl. Environ. Health 11:329-336.

Part B:  Response to  Public and Science
Advisory Board Comments

1. Introduction

    This section summarizes some of the  issues
raised  in public comments on the Proposed
Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
Developmental Toxicants published November 23,
1984 (49 FR 46324). Comments were received from
44 individuals or organizations. The Agency's initial
summary  of comments  was presented to the
Developmental Toxicity Guidelines  Panel  of the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) at its organizational
meeting on March 4, 1985. At its April 22-23, 1985,
meeting, the Panel provided the Agency with its
suggestions and recommendations concerning the
Guidelines.

    The SAB and public comments were diverse and
addressed issues from a variety of perspectives. In
general, the comments were  favorable and in
support of the Guidelines. The SAB Panel noted that
the field of developmental toxicology is particularly
weak with respect to quantitative assessment and
recommended that further efforts be given to
developing alternative  methods for  quantitative
estimates of risk for developmental toxicity. They
also indicated that further discussion of the
relationship of maternal toxicity to fetal toxicity
could be added. Concern was expressed that these
Guidelines be coordinated with the  reproductive
toxicity guidelines which are  currently  being
developed.

    In response to the comments, the Agency has
modified  or clarified  many sections of the
Guidelines. For purposes of this discussion, only the
most significant issues reflected by the public and
SAB  comments are discussed.  Several  minor
recommendations, which do not warrant discussion
here, were considered by the Agency in the revision
of these Guidelines.

77. Coordination With Other Guidelines

A. Other Risk Assessment Guidelines

    Several commentors raised  concerns about
aspects of developmental toxicity  (e.g., paternally-
mediated effects, effects of subchronic exposures,
transplaeental carcinogenesis, etc.) that were not
covered in these  Guidelines,  and how  these
Guidelines will integrate with those  on male and
female reproductive toxicity which are still under
development.

    The Guidelines  have been revised to indicate
that developmental toxicity may result from several
different types of exposure, including parental
exposure prior to conception, acute or subacute
exposure during organogenesis, perinatal and
postnatal  development to the  time of sexual
maturation, or subchronic exposure as would be the
case in multigeneration studies. These Guidelines
provide information for interpreting developmental
effects related to any of the  types of  exposure
mentioned above.  End points of developmental
toxicity, which are measured in multigeneration
studies, have been added to Table 2 and discussed in
the text.  Transplaeental carcinogenesis, although
considered a developmental effect, will be evaluated
and assessed in terms of human risk according to the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Careful
attention will be paid to integrating  these
developmental toxicity risk  assessment Guidelines
and the male and female reproductive toxicity risk
assessment guidelines, which are  currently being
written, so that overlapping material  is not in
conflict, and no pertinent information is overlooked.
Since the developmental and reproductive toxicity
guidelines are being developed by  Agency
committees that have overlapping membership
within the Agency, such integration will be ensured.

B. Coordination With Testing Guidelines

   Several commentors indicated that these
Guidelines did not make clear enough the fact that
testing guidelines  are already in place and  that
these guidelines were intended only for the purposes
of risk assessment.

   The Guidelines have been revised to indicate
that they do not constitute any changes in current
testing guidelines, but rather they are intended to
provide guidance for the interpretation of studies
that follow the testing guidelines. In  addition,
limited information is provided for  interpretation of
other studies (e.g., functional developmental toxicity
studies and short-term  tests) which are not routinely
required or for which  there are no current testing
guidelines, but which may be encountered when
reviewing data on particular agents.

7/7. Definitions

   Several questions were raised about definitions
of terminology, due to lack of clarity or inconsistency
with other parts of these Guidelines or the testing
guidelines.

   As indicated in the Guidelines, there are
differences in the use of  terms  in the field of
developmental toxicology, and the terms have been
defined so that the reader may understand how the
terms are being used. Several minor changes in the
definitions have been made
                [51 FR 34040]
                               to make  them
more consistent. For  example, the  definition for
developmental toxicology has been expanded to
include the wide range of exposure situations that
may result in developmental  effects.  The  term
functional teratology has been changed to functional
developmental  toxicology,  and  the  term
                                              4-16

-------
teratogenicity has been discussed in the section on
malformations and variations.

IV. Qualitative Assessment

A. Maternal and Developmental Toxicity

   Several commentors noted the need for a better
discussion of how maternal  toxicity  affects the
evaluation of developmental toxic effects.

   The Agency has taken the approach in these
Guidelines of discussing in detail the individual end
points of maternal and offspring toxicity, then
giving guidance relating to an overall evaluation of
the data in Part A, section III.A.4. This approach is
consistent with  the philosophy reflected in the
Guidelines as follows: Those agents  that cause
developmental effects  at doses lower than those
causing maternal toxicity are of greatest 'concern,
but developmental effects at doses that also produce
maternal toxicity shoud not be  discounted as
secondary to  maternal effects. Rather, when the
lowest observed effect level (LOEL) is the same for
maternal and developmental  toxicity, it may
indicate similar sensitivities to  the  agent,  and
maternal effects may be reversible while
developmental effects may be permanent.

B. Functional Developmental Toxicity

   Several commentors raised concern about the
premature use  of functional data in  the risk
assessment process. On the other hand, the SAB
Panel felt that these tests were very  valuable in
assessing developmental toxicity.

   The Agency does  not routinely require such
testing, and these Guidelines  do not suggest
requirements. However, in the review of data on
existing chemicals, such data are  sometimes
encountered and must be evaluated by  the Agency.
The  discussion in the Guidelines is intended to
delineate the current state of the art, and to indicate
to what extent the data currently  may be used for
risk assessment purposes.

C. Short-Term Testing

   Several commentors stressed the need for
further refinement, validation, and comparative
testing to determine the credibility of short-term
tests   for   developmental  toxicity.   The
appropriateness of single dose level screens for the
purpose of prioritization was endorsed  by the SAB
Panel with the reservation  that  too  many false
positives might occur, and that positive agents in
these screens would be permanently  labelled as
positive developmental toxicants.

   Since data from these types of test procedures
may be encountered in the assessment of chemicals,
the Agency felt it appropriate to give guidance as to
how these should be evaluated. The Guidelines have
been revised to clearly indicate that these tests are
not routinely  required, shoud  not be considered as a
replacement for routine in viuo developmental
toxicity testing in mammals, and should not be used
to make the final decision as to whether an agent is a
positive or negative developmental toxicant.

D. Comparisons of Molecular Structure

   Comments suggested that not much is known
about structure-activity relationships  for
developmental toxicants, and that this procedure
should not be used except in the  case of hormone
analogs.

   A statement has been  added  to indicate that
structure-activity relationships have not been well-
studied in developmental  toxicology, but  under
certain circumstances,  e.g., in  the case of the
premanufacturing notice process (TSCA, section 5),
the evaluation of molecular  structure is one of
several procedures used by the Agency to  evaluate
potential toxicity and to support requests for testing
of new chemicals.

V. Quantitative Assessment

   Most comments related to the appropriateness of
using uncertainty (safety) factors, margins of safety,
and  no observed effect levels (NOELs).  Some
commentors- felt that the concept of threshold was
not adequately discussed in the Guidelines.

   These Guidelines are intended to reflect current
Agency policy and practice.  Although  more
quantitative assessment of developmental toxicity
data are desirable, and efforts are currently ongoing
within the Agency to evaluate other approaches, the
current practice is to use the NOEL (or the LOEL if a
NOEL is not available), and to apply an uncertainty
factor or to calculate the margin of safety. This
practice is based in large part on the lack of
understanding of the  biological  mechanisms
involved.  The uncertainty factor used  or
acceptability of the margin of safety are considered
risk management decisions, but the scientific issues
that must be  taken into account  are discussed in
these Guidelines.  An experimentally determined
NOEL does not prove or disprove the existence of a
threshold,  although  many  developmental
toxicologists  assume a  threshold  for most
developmental  effects because of known repair
capabilities in developing systems and the  fact that
many developmental alterations are multifactorial
in nature.
                                              4-17

-------
                 51 FR 34042

GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING
EXPOSURES

SUMMARY: On September 24, 1986, the U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency issued the
following five guidelines for assessing the health
risks of environmental pollutants.

   Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for Estimating Exposures

   Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment

   Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect
   Developmental Toxicants

   Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment  of
   Chemical Mixtures

This section contains the Guidelines for Estimating
Exposures.

   The Guidelines  for Estimating Exposures
(hereafter "Guidelines") are intended to guide
Agency analysis of exposure assessment data in line
with the policies and  procedures established in the
statutes administered by the EPA. These Guidelines
were developed as part of an interoffice guidelines
development program  under the auspices of the
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA)  in the Agency's Office of Research and
Development. They reflect Agency consideration of
public and Science Advisory Board (SAB) comments
on  the Proposed  Guidelines  for  Exposure
Assessment published November 23, 1984 (49 FR
46304).

   This publication completes the first round of risk
assessment  guidelines development. These
Guidelines will be revised, and new guidelines will
be developed, as appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Richard V. Moraski
Exposure Assessment Group
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(RD-689)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-8923

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1983,
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published
its book entitled Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process. In that book,
the NAS recommended that Federal regulatory
agencies establish "inference guidelines" to ensure
consistency and technical  quality  in risk
assessments and to ensure that the risk assessment
process was  maintained as a scientific effort
separate from risk management. A task force within
EPA accepted that recommendation and requested
that Agency scientists begin to develop such
guidelines.

General

   The guidelines  are products of a two-year
Agencywide  effort, which has  included many
scientists from the  larger scientific community.
These guidelines set forth principles and procedures
to guide EPA scientists in the conduct of Agency risk
assessments, and to inform Agency decision makers
and the public about these procedures. In particular,
the guidelines emphasize that risk assessments will
be conducted  on a case-by-case basis, giving full
consideration to all relevant scientific information.
This case-by-case approach means that  Agency
experts review the scientific information on each
agent and use the most scientifically  appropriate
interpretation to assess risk. The guidelines also
stress that this information will be fully presented
in Agency  risk assessment documents, and that
Agency scientists  will identify  the strengths and
weaknesses of each assessment by describing
uncertainties, assumptions, and  limitations, as well
as the scientific basis and rationale for each
assessment.

   Finally, the guidelines are formulated in part to
bridge gaps in risk assessment methodology and
data. By identifying these gaps and the importance
of the missing information to the risk assessment
process, EPA wishes to encourage research and
analysis that will lead to new risk  assessment
methods and data.

Guidelines for Estimating Exposures

   Work  on the Guidelines for  Estimating
Exposures began in January 1984. Draft guidelines
were developed by Agency work  groups composed of
expert scientists from throughout the Agency. The
drafts were peer-reviewed by expert scientists in the
field of exposure assessment from universities,
environmental groups, industry, labor, and other
governmental agencies. They were then proposed for
public comment in the FEDERAL REGISTER (49
FR 46304). On November 9,1984, the Administrator
directed  that Agency  offices  use  the proposed
guidelines  in performing risk  assessments until
final guidelines become available.
                                              5-1

-------
    After the close of the public comment period,
Agency staff prepared summaries of the comments,
analyses of the major issues presented by the
commentors, and preliminary Agency responses to
those comments. These analyses were presented to
review panels of the SAB on March 4 and April 22-
23, 1985, and  to the Executive Committee of the
SAB on April 25-26, 1985. The SAB meetings were
announced in the FEDERAL REGISTER as follows:
February 12, 1985 (50 FR 5811) and April 4, 1985
(50 FR 13420 and 13421).

    In a letter to the Administrator dated June 19,
1985, the Executive Committee generally concurred
on  all five of the guidelines, but recommended
certain revisions, and requested that any revised
guidelines be  submitted to the appropriate SAB
review panel chairman for review  and concurrence
on behalf of the Executive Committee. As described
in the responses to comments (see Part B: Response
to  the Public  and  Science Advisory Board
Comments), each guidelines document was revised,
where appropriate, consistent  with the  SAB
recommendations, and revised draft guidelines were
submitted to the panel  chairmen. Revised draft
Guidelines for  Estimating Exposures were
concurred on in a letter  dated January 13, 1986.
Copies of the letters are available at the Public
Information Reference Unit, EPA Headquarters
Library, as indicated elsewhere in this section.

    Following this Preamble are two parts: Part A
contains the Guidelines and Part B, the Response to
the Public and Science Advisory Board Comments (a
summary of the  major public comments,  SAB
comments, and  Agency  responses to those
comments).

    The SAB requested  that the  Agency  develop
guidelines on the principles for the measurement of
pollutant  concentrations  in  the  various
environmental media and for the  uses of
environmental  measurements for exposure
assessment. This effort is currently underway.

    The Agency also will provide technical support
documents that contain detailed  technical
information needed to implement  the  Guidelines.
Two of  these  technical  reports entitled
"Development of Statistical Distributions or Ranges
of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments"
(available from the National Technical Information
Service, PB85-242667)  and "Methodology for
Characterization of Uncertainty  in Exposure
Assessments"  (available from the National
Technical Information Service, PB85-240455) are
currently available.  Technical support documents
will be revised periodically to reflect improvements
in exposure  assessment methods and  new
information or experience.
                  [51 FR 34043]
    The Agency is continuing to study  the  risk
assessment issues raised in  the Guidelines and will
revise  these  Guidelines  in  line  with  new
information, as appropriate.

    References, supporting documents, and
comments received on the proposed guidelines, as
well as copies of the final guidelines, are available
for inspection and copying at the Public Information
Reference Unit (202-382-5926), EPA Headquarters
Library, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

    I certify that these Guidelines  are not major
rules as defined by Executive Order  12291, because
they are nonbinding policy statements and have no
direct effect on the regulated community. Therefore,
they will have no effect on costs or prices, and they
will have no other significant adverse effects on the
economy. These  Guidelines were  reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive
Order 12291.

August 22,1986

Lee M. Thomas,

Administrator

CONTENTS

Part A: Guidelines for Estimating Exposure

/. Introduction
II. General Guidelines and Principles
    A. Exposure and Dose
    B. Decision Path to Determine Scope of the Assessment
    C. Uncertainty
III.Organization and Contents of an Exposure Assessment
    A. Overview
    B. Detailed Explanation of Outline
      1. Executive Summary
      2. Introduction (Purpose and Scope)
      3. General Information for Each Chemical or Mixture
      4. Sources
      5. Exposure Pathways and Environmental Fate
      6. Measured or Estimated Concentrations
      7. Exposed Populations
      8. Integrated Exposure Analysis
      9, References
      10. Appendices
Part B: Response to Public and Science Advisory Board
Comments

/. Introduction

II. General Information
    A. Acceptable Latitude of Approach
    B. Technical Nature of Guidelines
    C. Measurements vs. Modeling

///. Data Aoailability and Uncertainty Analysis
    A. Information Uses
    B. Worst-Case Estimates

TV. Evaluation of Uncertainties
    A. Uncertainty Analysis
    B. Population Characterization
V. Clarification ofTerminology
    A. Exposure vs. Dose
    B. Mixtures and Synergism
    C. Removal and Creation Steps

VI. Purpose, Philosophy, and Results
                                                5-2

-------
Part A: Guidelines for Estimating Exposures

7, Introduction

    These Guidelines provide the Agency with  a
general approach and framework for carrying out
human or nonhuman exposure assessments for
specified  pollutants. The Guidelines have been
developed to assist future assessment activities and
encourage improvement in those EPA programs
that require, or could benefit from, the use of
exposure assessments. The Guidelines are
procedural. They should be followed to the extent
possible in instances where exposure assessment is a
required element in the regulatory process or where
exposure assessments are  carried out on  a
discretionary basis by EPA management to support
regulatory or programmatic decisions.

    This document, by laying out a set of questions
to be  considered in carrying out  an exposure
assessment, should help avoid inadvertent mistakes
of omission. Ideally, exposure assessments are based
on measured data. EPA recognizes that gaps in data
will be common, but the  Guidelines  will
nevertheless serve to assist in organizing  the data
that are available, including new data developed as
part of the exposure assessment. In the absence of
sufficient reliable data and the  time to obtain
appropriate measurements, exposure  assessments
may be based on validated mathematical  models.
Whenever possible, exposure assessments based on
modeling should be complemented by  reliable
measurements. Furthermore, it is  understood that
the level of detail found in the exposure assessments
depends on the scope of the assessment.

    These Guidelines  should  also promote
consistency  among various exposure assessment
activities that  are carried out by the Agency.
Consistency with respect to common physical,
chemical, and biological parameters, with respect to
assumptions about typical exposure situations, and
with respect to the characterization of uncertainty of
estimates, will enhance the comparability of results
and enable the Agency to improve  the state-of-the-
art of exposure  assessment over time through the
sharing of common data and experiences.

    It is recognized that the main  objective of an
exposure  assessment is to provide reliable data
and/or estimates for a risk assessment. Since a risk
assessment  requires  the coupling of exposure
information and toxicity or effects information, the
exposure assessment process should be coordinated
with the toxicity/effects assessment. This document
provides a common approach to  format, which
should simplify the process of reading and
evaluating exposure assessments and thereby
increase their utility in assessing risk.

   As the Agency  performs more exposure
assessments, the Guidelines will be revised to reflect
the benefit of experience.
71. General Guidelines and Principles

A. Exposure and Dose

    Exposure has been defined by Committee E-47,
Biological Effects and Environmental Fate, of the
American Society for Testing and Materials, as the
contact with a chemical or physical agent. The
magnitude of the exposure is determined by
measuring or estimating the amount of an agent
available at the exchange boundaries, i.e., lungs,
gut, skin, during some  specified time. Exposure
assessment is the  determination or estimation
(qualitative or quantitative) of the magnitude,
frequency,  duration, and route of exposure.
Exposure assessments may consider past, present,
and future exposures with varying techniques for
each phase, e.g., modeling of future  exposures,
measurements of existing exposure, and biological
accumulation  for  past exposures. Exposure
assessments are  generally  combined  with
environmental and health effects data in performing
risk assessments.

    In considering the exposure of a subject to  a
chemical agent, there are several related processes.
The contact between the  subject of concern and the
agent may lead to the intake of some of the agent. If
absorption occurs, this constitutes an uptake (or an
absorbed dose). When biological tissue or fluid
measurements indicate the presence of a chemical,
exposures  may be  estimated from  these data.
Presence of a chemical in such biological samples is
the most direct indication  that an exposure has
occurred. The route  of exposure generally  impacts
the extent of absorption and should be considered in
performing risk assessments.
                [51 FR 34044]
B.  Decision Path  to Determine Scope of the
Assessment

    The first  step  in preparing  an exposure
assessment should  be the circumscription of the
problem  at hand to  minimize effort by use  of  a
narrowing process. A decision path that describes
this process is shown in Figure 1. As illustrated in
Figure 1, the preliminary assessment and the in-
depth assessment are two major phases in this logic
path.
                [51FR34046]
    The preliminary assessment phase  should
commence by considering what risk is under study.
Within this framework, a  data base should be
compiled from readily available scientific data and
exposure information based on manufacturer,
processor, and user practices. Next, the most likely
areas of exposure  (manufacturing, processing,
consumer, distribution, disposal,  water and food,
etc.) should be identified.  The preliminary exposure
assessments should be based on data derived from
environmental measurements.  When a limited
amount of measurement data is available, estimates
may be based on modeling. Since a complete data
search may  not be possible, well identified
                                              5-3

-------
                                      51FR34045
                    REGULATORY CONCERN
                          SCIENTIFIC DATA:
                             ' POPULATION
                              EXPOSURE
                              PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
                                  GENERAL INFORMATION
                                       GATHERING
PRELIMINARY EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
                             MOST PROBABLE AREAS OF EXPOSURE
                             PRELIMINARY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
                HAZARD IDENTIFICATION:
                    TOXICITY
                    ENV. CONC, ETC,
                                PRELIMINARY RISK ANALYSIS
                                       DECISION
                         BEGIN IN-DEPTH
                      EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
                                              X
                  NO NEED FOR FURTHER
                  EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT


                    MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
                    PEER REVIEW
                               DESIGN ASSESSMENT STUDY PLAN
                              COMPREHENSIVE DATA GATHERING
IN-DEPTH EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
CONDUCT REFINED EXPOSURE MODELING
                              IN-DEPTH EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
                                        DECISION
                         SCIENCE PANEL
                            REVIEW
                    HAZARD INPUT
                     Figure 1. Decision path for exposure assessment.
                                        5-4

-------
assumptions and order of magnitude estimates may
be used to further narrow the exposure areas of
concern.

    Data from this preliminary exposure assessment
can then be coupled  with toxicity information to
perform a preliminary risk analysis. As a result of
this analysis, a decision will be made that either an
in-depth exposure assessment is necessary or that
there is no  need for further exposure information.
The organization and  contents of an in-depth
exposure  assessment are given in  the  following
section.

    In assembling the information base for either a
preliminary assessment or  a more  detailed
assessment, its adequacy should be ascertained by
addressing the following considerations:
    • Availability of information  in every area
    needed for an adequate assessment;
    • Quantitative and  qualitative  nature of the
    data;
    • Reliability of information;
    • Limitations on the ability to assess exposure.

C. Uncertainty

    Exposure  assessments  are  based  on
measurements, simulation model estimates, and
assumptions  about  parameters   used  in
approximating actual exposure conditions. Actual
measurements should be used whenever possible.
Both data and assumptions contain varying degrees
of uncertainty  which influence the accuracy of
exposure assessments. Consequently, evaluation of
uncertainty is an important part of all exposure
assessments.

    The uncertainty analyses performed will vary
depending  on the scope of the assessment,  the
quantity and quality of measurements, and the type
and complexity of mathematical models used. A
discussion  of the types  of analyses used  for
quantifying uncertainties in exposures is presented
in the next section.

///. Organization and Contents of an Exposure
Assessment

A. Overview

    A suggested outline for an exposure assessment
document is given in Exhibit 1. The five major topics
to be addressed within most exposure assessments
are as  follows: Source(s), Exposure  Pathways,
Measured  or Estimated Concentrations and
Duration, Exposed Population(s), and  Integrated
Exposure Analysis. These five topics are appropriate
for exposure assessments  in general, whether the
assessments are of global, national, regional, local,
site specific, workplace related, or other scope.  The
topics are appropriate for  exposure  assessments on
new or existing chemicals and radionuclides. They
are also applicable to  both single  media  and
multimedia  assessments.  Since  exposure
assessments are performed at different levels of
detail, the extent to which any assessment contains
items listed in Exhibit 1 depends upon its scope. The
outline is a guide to organize the data whenever they
are available.

Exhibit l.-Suggested Outline for an Exposure Assessment

1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
   a. Purpose
   b. Scope
3. General Information for Each Chemical or Mixture
   a. Identity
     (l)Molecular formula and structure, synonyms, and
     Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number
     (2) Description of grades, contaminants, and additives
     (3) Other identify ing characteristics
   b. Chemical and Physical Properties
4. Sources
   a. Characterization of Production and Distribution
   b. Uses
   c. Disposal
   d. Summary of Environmental Releases
5. Exposure Pathways and Environmental Fate
   a. Transport and Transformation
   b. Identification of Principal Pathways of Exposure
   c. Predicting Environmental Distribution
6. Measured or Estimated Concentrations
   a. Uses of Measurements
   b. Estimation of Environmental Concentrations
7. Exposed Populations
   a. Human Populations
     (1) Population size and characteristics
     (2) Population location
     (3) Population habits
   b. Nonhuman Populations (where appropriate)
     (1) Population size and characteristics
     (2) Population location
     (3) Population habits
8. Integrated Exposure Analysis
   a. Calculation of Exposure
     (1) Identification of-the exposed population and critical
     elements of the ecosystem
     (2) Identification of pathways of exposure
   b. Human Dosimetry and Biological Measurements
   c. Developmentof Exposure Scenarios and Profiles
   d. Evaluation of Uncertainty
     (1) Introduction
     (2) Assessments based on limited initial data
     (3)Assessments based on subjective estimates of input
     variable distributions
     (4) Assessments based on data for model input variables
     (5) Assessments based on data for exposure
     (6) Summary
9. References
10. Appendices

B. Detailed Explanation of Outline

   1.Executive  Summary.  The "Executive
Summary" should be written so that it can stand on
its own as a miniature report. Its main focus should
be on a succinct description of the procedures used,
assumptions employed,  and summary tables or
charts of the  results.  A brief discussion of the
uncertainties associated with the results should be
included.

   2. Introduction (Purpose and Scope). This section
should state the intended purpose of the exposure
assessment and identify  the  agent  being
                                                 5-5

-------
investigated, the types of sources and exposure
routes included, and the populations of concern.

   3. General Information for Each Chemical or
Mixture.
   a. Identity.
       (1)  Molecular formula and structure,
synonyms, and Chemical Abstracts Service number.
       (2) Description of grades, contaminants, and
additives.
       (3) Other identifying characteristics.
   b. Chemical and Physical Properties. This
subsection should provide a summary description of
the chemical and physical properties of the agent.
Particular attention should be paid to the features
that would affect its behavior in the environment.

   4, Sources. The points at which a substance is
believed to enter the environment should be
described, along with any known rates of entry.
(Points of entry may be indoors as well as outdoors;
environments include indoor settings such as offices
as well  as  outdoor environments.) A detailed
exposure assessment should include a study of
sources, production, uses, destruction/disposal, and
environmental release of a substance. The studies
                 [51FR34047]
                               should include a
description of human activities with respect to the
substance and the environmental releases resulting
from  those  activities. It should account  for the
controlled mass flow of the substance from creation
to destruction and  provide  estimates of
environmental releases at each step in this flow.
Seasonal variations  in environmental releases
should also be examined. All  sources of the
substance should be accounted for with the sum of
the uses, destruction, and the  environmental
releases. The  environmental releases  can be
described in terms of geographic and temporal
distribution and the receiving environmental media,
with  the form  identified at the various  release
points.
   a.Characterization of  Production and
Distribution. All sources of the substance's release
to the environment, consistent with the scope of the
assessment, should be included, such as production,
extraction,  processing, imports, stockpiles,
transportation, accidental/ incidental production as
a side reaction, and natural  sources. The  sources
should be located, and activities involving exposure
to the substance should be identified.
   b. Uses. The substance should be traced from its
sources through various uses (with further follow-up
on the products made to determine the presence of
the original material as an impurity), e.g.,  exports,
stockpile increases, etc.
   c. Disposal. This subsection should contain an
evaluation of disposal  sites and destruction
processes, such as  incineration of industrial
chemical waste, incineration of the  substance as
part  of  an  end-use  item in  municipal waste,
landfilling of wastes, biological  destruction, or
destruction in the process of using the end product.
Hazardous contaminants of the substance may be
included, and products containing the substance as a
contaminant may  be followed from  production
through destruction/disposal.
   d. Summary of Environmental Releases.
Estimates should be made of the quantities of the
substance released to the various  environmental
media. Sources of release to the environment include
production,  use, distribution/transport, natural
sources, disposal, and contamination of other
products. Environmental  releases should be
presented at a reasonable level of detail. Extremely
detailed exposure estimates would attempt to specify
the following information  for each  significant
emission source: location, amount of the  substance
being released  as a function of time to  each
environmental medium, physical characteristics of
the emission source, and the physical and chemical
form of the substance being released. Evaluation of
the uncertainties associated with the  emission
estimates should be given. A detailed discussion of
the procedures for  estimating uncertainty is
presented in section 8.d.

   5. Exposure Pathways and Environmental Fate.
The exposure pathways section should address how
an agent moves from  the source to  the exposed
population or subject. For a less detailed assessment,
broad generalizations on  environmental  pathways
and fate may be made.  In the absence of data, e.g.,
for new substances, fate estimates may have to be
predicted  by analogy with  data from  other
substances. Fate estimates may also be made by
using measurements and/or models  and laboratory-
derived process rate  coefficients. At any level of
detail, certain pathways may be judged insignificant
and not pursued further.
   For more  detailed assessments involving
environmental fate,  the analysis  of sources
described previously should provide the amount and
rate of emissions to the environment, and possibly
the locations and form of  the  emissions.  The
environmental pathways and fate analysis follows
the substance from its point of initial environmental
release, through the environment,  to its ultimate
fate. It may result in an estimation of the geographic
and temporal distribution of concentrations of the
substance  in  the   various  contaminated
environmental media.
   a. Transport and  Transformation.  The
substance, once released to the environment, may be
transported (e.g., convected downstream in water or
on suspended sediment, through the  atmosphere,
etc.) or  physically transformed (e.g., volatilized,
melted, absorbed/desorbed, etc.); may undergo
chemical  transformation,  such as  photolysis,
hydrolysis, oxidation, and reduction; may undergo
biotransformation, such as biodegradation; or may
accumulate in  one  or more  media. Thus, the
environmental behavior of a substance  should be
                                               5-6

-------
 evaluated before exposures are assessed. Factors
 that should be addressed include:
    • How does the agent behave in air, water, soil,
. and biological media?  Does  it bioaccumulate or
 biodegrade? Is it absorbed or taken up by plants?
    • What are the principal mechanisms for change
 or removal in each of the environmental media?
    • Does the agent react with other compounds in
 the environment?
    • Is there intermedia transfer? What are the
 mechanisms for intermedia transfer? What are the
 rates of the  intermedia transfer or reaction
 mechanisms?
    • How long might the agent remain in each
 environmental medium? How does its concentration
 change with time in each medium?
    • What  are  the products into which  the agent
 might degrade or change in the environment? Are
 any of these degradation products ecologically or
 biologically harmful? What is the environmental
 behavior of the harmful products?
    • Is a steady-state concentration distribution in
 the  environment, or in specific segments of the
 environment,  achieved? If not, can the nonsteady-
 state distribution be described?
    • What is the resultant distribution in the
 environment-for different media, different types or
 forms of the agent, for different geographical areas,
 at different times or seasons?
    b. Identification of Principal Pathways of
 Exposure. The principal pathway analysis should
 evaluate the sources, locations,  and types of
 environmental  releases,  together   with
 environmental behavioral factors, to determine the
 significant  routes of human and environmental
 exposure to the substance. Thus, by listing the
 important characteristics of the environmental
 release (entering media, emission rates, etc.) and the
 agent's behavior (intermedia  transfer, persistence,
 etc.) after release to each of the entering media, it
 should  be possible to follow the movement of the
 agent from its initial release to  its subsequent fate
 in the environment.  At  any  point in  the
 environment,  human or environmental exposure
 may occur.  Pathways  that  result in major
 concentrations of the agent and high potential for
 human or environmental contact are the principal
 exposure pathways.
    c. Predicting Environmental Distribution.
 Models may be used to predict environmental
 distributions  of chemicals.  Model estimates of
 environmental distribution of chemicals  are based
 on measurements whenever feasible. In predicting
 environmental distributions of chemicals, available
 measurements must be considered.
    In this section an estimation is made, using
 appropriate models, of representative concentrations
 of the agent in different environmental media, and
 its  time-dependence  in specific  geographical
 locations (e.g., river basins, streams, etc.).
   6. Measured or Estimated Concentrations.
   a. Uses of Measurements. Measurements are
used to identify releases (source terms) and, in the
                [51 PR 34048]
                               exposure
pathways and fate assessments,  to quantitatively
estimate both release rates and environmental
concentrations. Some  examples  of uses of
measurements are: sampling of stacks or discharge
pipes for emissions to the environment, testing of
products for  chemical or radionuclide content,
testing of products  for chemical or radioactive
releases, sampling of appropriate points within a
manufacturing plant to determine  releases  from
industrial  processes or  practices, sampling of
potentially exposed populations using personal
dosimeters, and sampling of solid waste for chemical
or radionuclide  content. These data  should be
characterized as to  accuracy, precision, and
representativeness. If  actual  environmental
measurements are unavailable, concentrations can
be estimated by various means, including the use of
fate models (see previous section) or, in the case of
new chemicals, by analogy with existing chemicals.
   Measurements are a direct source of information
for exposure analysis. Furthermore, reliable
measurements  can be  used  to  calibrate  or
extrapolate models or calculations  to  assess
environmental   distributions.    However,
environmental pathway and fate analysis may be
needed in addition to the measured data for the
following reasons: for most pollutants, particularly
organic and new chemicals,  measurements are
limited; analysis of measured data does not often
yield relationships between environmental releases
and environmental concentration distribution in
media or geographic locations that have not  been
measured;  analysis  of measurements does not
provide information  on  how and where biota
influence the environmental distribution  of a
pollutant; and measured concentrations may not be
traceable to individual sources.
   b. Estimation of Environmental Concentrations.
Concentrations of agents should be estimated for all
environmental media that might  contribute to
significant exposures. Generally, the  environmental
concentrations are estimated from measurements,
mathematical models, or a combination of the two. If
environmental measurements are not limited by
sample size or inaccuracies, then  exposure
assessments based on  measurements have
precedence over estimates based on models.
   The concentrations must be estimated and
presented in a format consistent with available dose-
response information. In some cases  an estimate of
annual average  concentration will be  sufficient,
while in other cases the temporal distribution of
concentrations  may be  required. Future
environmental concentrations  resulting from
current or past releases may also be projected. In
some cases, both the temporal and geographic
distributions of the concentration may be assessed.
                                              5-7

-------
Moreover, if the agent has natural sources, the
contribution  of  these  to   environmental
concentrations  may  be  relevant.  These
"background" concentrations may be particularly
important when the results of tests of toxic effects
show a threshold or distinctly nonlinear dose-
response.
    The uncertainties associated with the estimated
concentrations should be evaluated by an analysis of
the uncertainties of the model parameters and input
variables. When the estimates of the environmental
concentrations are based on mathematical models,
the model results must be compared to available
measurements, and any significant discrepancies
should be discussed. Reliable, analytically-
determined values must be given precedence over
estimated values whenever significant discrepancies
are found.

    7. Exposed Populations. Populations selected for
study may be done  a priori, but frequently the
populations will  be  identified  as a result of the
sources and fate studies. Prom  an analysis of the
distribution  of the  agent,   populations and
subpopulations (i.e., collections of subjects)  at
potentially high exposure can be identified, which
will then form the basis for the populations studied,
Subpopulations of high sensitivity, such as pregnant
women, infants, chronically ill, etc., may be studied
separately.
    Census and other survey data may be used  to
identify and describe the population exposed  to
various contaminated environmental  media.
Depending on the characteristics of  available
toxieological data, it may be appropriate to describe
the exposed population by other characteristics such
as species, subspecies-age-sex  distribution, and
health status.
    In  many cases, exposed populations can be
described  only generally. In some cases, however,
more specific  information may be available on
matters such as the following:
    a. Human Populations
    (1) Population size and characteristics (e.g.,
trends, sex/age distribution)
    (2) Population location
    (3) Population habits— transportation habits,
eating habits, recreational habits, workplace habits,
product use habits, etc.
    b. Nonhuman Populations (where appropriate)
    (1) Population size and characteristics (e.g.,
species, trends)
    (2) Population location
    (3) Population habits

    8. Integrated Exposure Analysis. The integrated
exposure analysis combines  the estimation  of
environmental concentrations  (sources and fate
information) with the description of the exposed
population to yield exposure profiles. Data should be
provided on the size of the exposed populations;
duration, frequency, and intensity of exposure; and
routes of exposure. Exposures should be related to
sources.
    For more detailed assessments, the estimated
environmental concentrations should be considered
in conjunction with the geographic distribution of
the human and  environmental populations.  The
behavioral and biological characteristics of the
exposed populations should be considered, and the
exposures of populations to various concentration
profiles should be estimated. The results can be
presented in  tabular or  graphic form, and an
estimate  of the uncertainty associated with them
should be provided.
    a. Calculation of Exposure. The calculation of
exposure involves two major aspects:
    (1) Identification of the exposed population and
critical elements of the ecosystem.
    The estimate of environmental concentrations
also should give the geographical areas  and
environmental media contaminated. The stated
purpose of the assessment should have described the
human and environmental subjects for which
exposures are to be calculated. If the subjects are not
listed, the contaminated geographical areas and
environmental media can be evaluated to determine
subject populations. The degree of detail to be  used
in defining the exposed population  distribution
depends on  the concentration gradient  over
geographic areas.
    (2) Identification of pathways of exposure.
    (a) Identification and description of the routes by
which the substances travel  from production  site,
through   uses,   through    environmental
releases/sources, through  transport and  fate
processes, to the target population.
    (b) Quantitative estimates of the amounts of the
chemical following each exposure pathway.  Such
estimates allow the various pathways ,to be put in
the perspective of relative importance.
    From the geographic and temporal distribution
of environmental
                 [51 FR 34049]
                               concentrations,
the exposed  population,  the   behavioral
characteristics, and  the critical elements of the
ecosystem, exposure distributions can be estimated.
The results of exposure  calculation should be
presented in a format that is consistent with the
requirements of the dose-response functions which
may later be used in a risk assessment. For example,
when health risks caused by exposure over extended
durations are considered, average daily  exposure
over the duration of exposure usually is calculated.
When lifetime risks are considered,  average daily
exposure over  a lifetime usually is calculated.  In
contrast,  when health risks  caused by exposures
over short durations are considered, exposure rates
are calculated over short time  intervals to ensure
that peak risks are defined.  Many exposure
assessments are  based on the average exposure
occurring over the exposure  period. The range  of
possible exposures Is usually divided into intervals,
                                               5-8

-------
and the exposures within each interval are counted.
The results can be presented in tabular form or as a
histogram.
   The population residing in a specific geographic
area may be exposed to a substance from several
exposure routes. For each exposure route, exposure
of individuals in these  populations  may be
determined by summing the contribution of all
sources to  the exposure route. When exposures
involve more than one exposure route, the relative
amounts  of a  substance absorbed is usually route
dependent. Consequently, total  absorbed dose
estimates  must account for these differences.
Because  EPA regulates sources of releases, the
contribution to exposures from each type  of source
being considered  should be displayed.  Exposure
estimates should be presented for each significant
exposure route, and the results should be tabulated
in such a way that total externally applied and
absorbed dose can be determined.
   b.  Human  Dosimetry  and  Biological
Measurements. Biological measurements of human
body fluids and  tissues for substances  or their
metabolites can be used to estimate current or past
exposure to chemicals. When analytical methods are
available, chemicals that have been absorbed into
the body  can be measured in body tissue and fluid.
   TABLE 1.-EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
 Such measurements may be used to estimate human
 exposure if the chemical substances leave in the
 body reliable indicators of exposure. Furthermore,
 although a compound may be relatively easy to
 detect in body tissue,  for some compounds,
 attributing body burdens to specific environmental
 releases may be difficult because of limited ability to
 obtain environmental measurements or appropriate
 metabolic data.
     c. Development of Exposure Scenarios and
 Profiles.  Depending on  the  scope of the exposure
 assessment, the total exposure may  be fractionated
 into one or more "exposure scenarios"  to facilitate
 quantification. As an example, Table 1  lists seven
 very broad scenarios: Occupational,  Consumer,
 Transportation, Disposal, Food, Drinking Water,
 and Ambient. For each of the scenarios, the major
 topics necessary to quantify exposure include
 sources, pathways, measurements, and  population
 characteristics.  Investigation of only one scenario
 may be necessary for the scope of some assessments.
 For example, a pesticide  application exposure
 assessment may consider the occupational scenario
 which would address the exposure to  applicators and
 populations in the vicinity of the site. An exposure
 assessment around a hazardous waste site may focus
 on the disposal  scenario. The exposure assessment
NEEDS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Exposure scenario
Occupational
(chemical
production).
Consumer (direct use
of chemical or
inadvertent use).
Transportation/
storage/spills.
Disposal (include
incineration,
landfill).
Food
Drinking water
Ambient
Sources
Site/plant locations,
in-plant/on-site
materials balance.
Consumption rates,
distribution pattern
amounts in
products.
Patterns of
distribution and
transportation;
models for spills.
Materials balance
around disposal
method,
efficiency, releases to
environment.
Food chain,
packaging,
additives.
Groundwater,
surface water,
distribution system.
Releases to
environment; air,
land, water.
Fate
Physical and
chemical properties
models.
Physical and
chemical properties,
shelf life release
rates, models.
Physical and
chemical properties,
environmental fate
models.
Fate within disposal
process;
environmental fate
of releases; models.
Food chain models,
fate during
preparation or
processing of food.
Leach rates from
pipes, chlorination
processes, fate in
water; models.
Environmental fate
models.
Population Characteristics
Workers, families, population
around sites/plants.
Consumers
Storage, transportation
workers, general population
in area.
Workers at site of disposal,
general population around
site.
General population,
nonhuman population.
General population.
General population,
nonhuman population.
Measurement
In-plant/on-site
releases, ambient
levels surrounding
site/plants; human
dosimetry.
Levels in products
releases.
Releases, ambient
levels.
Releases, levels at
various points within
process, ambient
levels.
Levels in food,
feedstuff; food
chain sampling.
Levels in drinking
water, groundwater,
surface water,
treatment plants.
Ambient air, water,
soil, etc.; human
dosimetry.
                                              5-9

-------
also may consider other  scenarios. The more
extensive and comprehensive the scope,  the more
scenarios are usually involved.
    It will usually be advantageous in performing an
exposure assessment to identify exposure scenarios,
quantify the exposure in each scenario,  and then
integrate the scenarios to estimate total exposure. In
this "integrated exposure analysis," the summation
of independent exposures from different scenarios
(keeping exposure routes separate) often will result
in a breakout of exposure by subpopulations, since
the individual scenarios usually treat exposure by
subpopulation.  Therefore,  the integration of the
scenarios, or integrated exposure analysis, will often
result in an exposure profile.
    For each exposed subpopulation, exposure
profiles should include the  size of the group, the
make-up of the group (age,  sex, etc.), the source of
the agent, the exposure pathways, the frequency and
the intensity of exposure by each  route (dermal,
inhalation, etc.), the duration of exposure, and the
form of the agent  when  exposure occurs.
Assumptions and uncertainties associated with each
scenario and profile should be clearly discussed.
    d. Evaluation of Uncertainty.
    (1) Introduction. Often an exposure assessment
progresses through several stages of refinement. The
purpose of these Guidelines is to present methods
appropriate for characterization of uncertainty for
assessments at various stages of refinement, from
assessments based on  limited initial data to those
based on extensive data.
    The appropriate method for characterizing
uncertainty for an exposure  assessment depends
upon the underlying parameters being estimated,
the type and extent of data available, and the
estimation procedures utilized.
                 [51 FR 34050]
                               The uncertainty
of interest is always with regard to the population
characteristic being estimated. For example, when
the population distribution of exposures is being
estimated, characterization of uncertainty addresses
the possible  differences between  the estimated
distribution of exposure and the  true population
distribution of exposure.
      An exposure assessment quantifies contact of
a substance  with affected population members
(human or nonhuman subjects). The measure of
contact (e.g., environmental level or absorbed dose)
depends upon what  is needed to predict risk. An
integrated exposure assessment quantifies this
contact via all routes  of  exposure (inhalation,
ingestion, and dermal) and  all exposure pathways
(e.g., occupational exposure, exposure from
consumption of manufactured  goods, etc.). The
exposed population generally is partitioned into
subpopulations such that the likely exposure of all
members of a subpopulation is attributable to the
same sources. The exposure for each member of a
subpopulation is then the sum of exposures over a
fixed set of sources and pathways. The measured or
estimated exposures for members of a subpopulation
are ideally used to estimate the  subpopulation
distribution of exposure or characteristics thereof.
However, a lack of sufficient information sometimes
precludes estimation  of the subpopulation
distributions  of exposure and only summary
measures of this distribution, such as the  mean,
minimum, maximum, etc., are estimated. In each
case, characterization  of uncertainty for the
exposure assessment  primarily  addresses
limitations of the data  and the estimation
procedures. The  proportions  of  the population
members in the individual subpopulations are
usually estimated and can be used (by combining
estimated distributions for the  subpopulations) to
estimate  the distribution  of exposure for the total
population. Uncertainty concerning the sizes of the
subpopulations should  be  addressed by discussing
limitations of the data and  estimation methods as
well as by tabulating confidence interval estimates
for the population sizes whenever possible.
      (2) Assessments based on limited initial data.
The initial exposure assessment for a substance may
be based  on limited data for exposure and/or input
variables for an exposure  prediction model (i.e., an
equation that expresses exposure as a function of one
or more input variables). These data might be either
extant data or data produced by an initial  small-
scale study. The limited initial data frequently are
insufficient  to permit estimation of the  entire
distribution of exposure. Instead,  summary
measures of this distribution, such as the  mean,
minimum, and maximum, are usually estimated.
      If  the assessment is based on measured
exposures, the methods used to characterize
uncertainty depend mainly upon  whether or not the
data result from a probability sample for which the
probability of inclusion is known for each sample
member. Characterization  of uncertainty for an
assessment based on a  probability sample of
exposures is discussed later in section 8.d.(5). If the
measured exposures are not based  on a probability
sample, acknowledgement  that no strictly  valid
statistical inferences can be made beyond the units
actually in the  sample is one  aspect  of the
characterization of uncertainty. If inference
procedures are implemented, the assumptions upon
which these inferences are based (e.g., treatment of
the sample as if it were a simple  random sample, or
assumption  of an  underlying model) should be
explicitly stated and justified. The  data collection
methods and inherent limitations of the data  should
also be discussed.
      An initial exposure assessment also may be
based on  limited data, such as estimated ranges, for
input variables for an exposure prediction model.
The exposure prediction model  would be derived
from a postulated exposure scenario that describes
the  pathways from  sources  to  contact  with
population members. If the data were only sufficient
to support estimates of the ranges of the input
variables, the exposure assessment might be limited
                                              5-10

-------
to a sensitivity analysis. The purpose of the
sensitivity analysis would be to identify influential
model input variables and develop bounds on the
distribution of exposure.  A sensitivity analysis
would estimate the range of exposures that would
result as individual model input variables were
varied from their minumum  to their maximum
possible values with the other input variables held
at fixed values, e.g.,  their midranges.  The overall
minimum and maximum possible exposures usually
would be  estimated also.  For  an exposure
assessment of this type, the uncertainty would be
characterized by describing the limitations of the
data used to estimate possible ranges of model input
variables and by discussing justification for the
model. Justification of the model should include a
description of the exposure scenario, choice of model
input variables, and the functional form  of the
model. Sensitivity to the model formulation also can
be investigated by  replicating the  sensitivity
analysis for plausible alternative models.
      The sensitivity analysis  can be enhanced by
computing the predicted exposures that result from
all possible input variable combinations.  If each
input variable has only a finite set  of possible
values, the set of all possible combinations of the
input variables can be formed, and the predicted
exposure can be computed  for each combination.
These exposure predictions can be used to form a
distribution of exposures by counting the number of
occurrences at each exposure level  or interval of
exposures.  This is equivalent to estimating the
distribution of exposures that results from treating
all input variable combinations as equally  likely.
This procedure can also be applied by transforming
continuous  input variables into discrete ones and
representing them by equally spaced points. In the
limit, as the equal spaces become small and the
number of points becomes large, the distribution of
exposure that results from counting occurrences of
exposure levels is equivalent to estimating the
distribution  of exposures that  results  from
statistically  independent,  continuous  input
variables  with uniform distributions  on the
estimated  ranges. This estimated distribution of
exposure values can  be produced by Monte Carlo
simulation, one of the methods of  mathematical
statistics. The Monte Carlo  method  consists of
randomly generating input variate values and using
these to compute corresponding exposure  levels,
generating an exposure distribution via many
iterations. Interpretation of statistics based on this
exposure distribution would  be in terms  of the
equally likely input variable  combinations. For
example, the 95th percentile of this  distribution
would be the exposure level exceeded by only 5% of
the  exposures resulting from  treating all
combinations of input variable values as equally
likely. Although this distribution of exposures
cannot be interpreted as an estimate of the
population  distribution (unless the input variables
actually are statistically independent and uniformly
distributed), it provides additional information for
making regulatory decisions. Characterization of
uncertainty would  include  a discussion  of
limitations of the data  and justification for the
model  as discussed above. Sensitivity to  model
formulation could also be investigated by estimating
the distribution of exposure that results from using
the
                 [51FR34051]
                               same  uniform
input  variable distributions  with  plausible
alternative models and comparing the estimated
percentiles.
      (3) Assessments based on subjective estimates
of input variable distributions. If a model has been
formulated that expresses exposure as a function of
one or more input variables,  the methods  of
mathematical  statistics, such  as  Monte  Carlo
simulation, can be used to estimate the population
distribution of exposure from an estimate of the joint
distribution of the model input variables. Ideally,
model  input variables should be represented by
empirically-validated probability distributions.  In
some  cases, it  may be possible to  formulate an
estimate of the joint distribution of model input
variables  from discussions  with subject matter
experts (e.g., via histograms for  statistically-
independent input variables). The  estimated
population  distribution of exposure will be
equivalent to the distribution discussed in section
8.d.(2) for equally likely  combinations of input
variable values  only when the input variable
distributions supported are  independent uniform
distributions. When qualitative knowledge of input
variable distributions  is used to  estimate the
population distribution of exposure,  uncertainty is
characterized by discussing justification for the
presumed model and input variable  distributions.
Alternative  models  and/or alternative  input
variable distributions also should be  discussed.
Sensitivity to these alternatives can be investigated
by estimating the distributions  of exposure  that
result  from plausible alternatives and  comparing
the percentiles  of  the estimated  exposure
distributions. All available data, even if data are
limited, should  be used to validate  the presumed
input variable distributions and the predicted
distribution of exposure.
      (4) Assessments based on data for model input
variables. The exposure assessment based  on an
estimate of the joint probability distribution for
model  input variables  can be refined by collecting
sample survey data for model input variables for a
sample of population  members. The population
distribution of exposure can then be estimated by
computing the expected exposure for each sample
member based on the  model.  These  expected
exposures can be used to directly compute confidence
interval estimates for  percentiles of the exposure
distribution. Alternatively, the sample survey data
can be used to compute joint confidence interval
estimates  for percentiles of the input variable
                                              5-11

-------
distribution, which can then be used to generate
confidence interval estimates for percentiles of the
exposure distribution. In either case, the interval
estimates for percentiles of the exposure distribution
are a  useful  quantitative characterization of
uncertainty.
      Characterization of uncertainty for  the
exposure  assessment would contain a thorough
discussion of limitations of the data and justification
for the model used to compute expected exposures.
The design of the sample survey used to produce the
data base should also be discussed. If a probability
sample were not  used, the lack of  a probability
sample would be an additional source of uncertainty.
Any assumptions used in computing the confidence
interval estimates, such as independence of model
input variables,  should be explicitly stated and
justified. Sensitivity  to  model formulation can be
investigated by  estimating the distribution of
exposure  for plausible alternative models and
comparing the estimated  percentiles, if sample
survey data have been collected  for the input
variables  of the alternative models. Appropriate
available data for exposure should be used to
validate the predicted distribution of exposure. If
specific probability distributions have  been
presumed for any model input variables, the data for
these variables should be used to test for goodness of
fit for these distributions.
      (5) Assessments based on data for exposure. A
major reduction in the uncertainty associated  with
an exposure assessment can be achieved by directly
measuring the exposure for a sufficiently large
sample of members of the affected population.  This
reduction in uncertainty is achieved by eliminating
the use of a model to predict  exposure. The measured
exposure levels can be used to directly estimate the
population distribution  of exposure and confidence
interval estimates for percentiles of the exposure
distribution. Direct confidence  interval estimates
also can be computed for other characteristics of the
exposure distribution, such as the mean exposure.
      These confidence interval estimates are  then
the primary characterization of uncertainty for the
exposure assessment. Limitations of the data and
design of the sample  survey used to collect the data
also should be discussed. If the sample was not a
probability sample, this would again be an
additional source of uncertainty.
      (6)  Summary.  A summary of the primary
methods recommended   for characterizing
uncertainty in exposure assessments is presented in
Table 2. Virtually all exposure assessments, except
those based on measured  exposure levels for a
probability  sample of population members,  rely
upon a model to predict exposure. The model may be
any mathematical function, simple or complex, that
expresses an individual's exposure as a function of
one or  more input variables. Whenever a model that
has not been validated  is used  as the basis for an
exposure assessment, the  uncertainty associated
with the exposure assessment may be substantial.
The primary characterization of uncertainty is at
least partly qualitative in this case, i.e., it includes a
description of the assumptions inherent in the model
and their justification. Plausible alternative models
should be discussed. Sensitivity of the exposure
assessment  to  model  formulation  can  be
investigated by  replicating the assessment  for
plausible alternative models,
                 [51 FR 34052]
      When an exposure  assessment is based on
directly measured exposure levels for a  probability
sample of population members, uncertainty can be
greatly reduced and described quantitatively. In this
case, the primary sources of uncertainty are
measurement  errors  and sampling errors. The
effects of these  sources  of  error  are  measured
quantitatively  by confidence  interval estimates of
percentiles of the exposure distribution. Moreover,
the sampling errors can be limited by taking a large
sample.
      Whenever it is not feasible to take a  large
sample, it is sometimes possible to obtain at least
some data for exposure and model input variables.
These data should be used to assess goodness of fit of
the model and/or presumed distributions  of  input
variables. This substantially  reduces the amount of
quantitative  uncertainty for estimation of  the
distribution  of exposure  and  is  strongly
recommended. It is recognized, however,  that it may
not be feasible to collect such data.
   9.References. The references should contain a
listing of all reports, documents, articles,
memoranda, contacts, etc. that have been cited in
the report.
   10.Appendices. The appendices may contain
such items as memoranda and letters that are  not
readily accessible, other tables of measurements,
detailed lists of emission sources, detailed  tables of
exposures, process flow diagrams,  mathematical
model formulations, or any other item that may be
needed to describe or document the exposure
assessment.

Part B:  Response  to Public  and Science
Advisory Board Comments

/. Introduction

   This section summarizes some of  the issues
raised  in public comments on  the  Proposed
Guidelines for Exposure Assessment  published
November 23, 1984 (49 FR 46304). Comments were
received from 29 individuals or organizations. The
Agency's initial summary of comments was
presented to the Exposure Assessment  Guidelines
Review Group of the Science  Advisory Board (SAB)
on March 4, 1985. At its April 22-23,1985, meeting,
the panel provided the Agency with suggestions and
recommendations concerning the Guidelines.

   The SAB and public commentors  expressed
diverse opinions and addressed issues from  a variety
of perspectives. While most commentors supported
the Guidelines, two urged withdrawal of  the
                                              5-12

-------
 TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF PRIMARY METHODS FOR CHARACTERIZING UNCERTAINTY FOR ESTIMATING
                                        EXPOSURES
Type and extent of data
Measured exposures
fora large sample
of population
members.

Measured exposures for a
small sample of
population members.

Measured model input
variables for a large
sample of population
members.




Estimated distributions
of model input
variables.





Limited data for model
input variables.



Population characteristic
being estimated
Distribution of exposure.




Summary parameter(s) of
the exposure
distribution, e.g..
meanorapercentile.
Distribution of exposure.







Distribution of exposure.







Minimum, maximum, and
range of the exposure
distribution.


Primary methods for characterizing uncertainty
Qualitative methods
1. Limitations of the
survey design and
measurement
techniques.

1. Limitations of the
survey design and.
measurement
techniques.
1. Limitations of the
survey.designand
measurement
techniques.
2. Validity of the
exposure model.


1. Validity of the
exposure model.
2. Limitations of the data.
or other basis for the
input variable
distributions.


1 . Limitations of the data.
2. Validity of the
exposure model.


Quantitative methods
1 . Confidence interval estimates for
percentiles of the exposure
distribution.
2. Goodness of fit for exposure models.
if any have been postulated.
1 . Confidence interval estimate for the
summary parameter(s).
2. Goodness of fit for exposure models,.
if any have been postulated.
1. Confidence interval estimates for
percentiles of the exposure
distribution.
2. Goodness of fit for input variable
distribution functions, if any have
been postulated.
3. Estimated distribution of exposure
based on alternative models.
1 . Confidence interval estimates for
percentiles of the exposure
distribution.
2. Goodness of fit for input variable
distributions, if input variable data
are available.
3. Estimated distribution of exposure
based on alternative models.
If input variable data are very limited.
e.g., some extant data collected for
other purposes, quantitative
characterization of uncertainty may
not be possible.
document. The  SAB  Panel recommended that
supplementary guidelines be written on the use of
measurements in preparing exposure assessments.
In addition, the Panel wished  to see a greater
emphasis in the  current Guidelines on the use of
measured  data rather  than models in generating
exposure assessments. The Panel recommended that
the  technical  support  document  entitled
"Methodology for Characterization of Uncertainty in
Exposure Assessments" be expanded with additional
examples.

   In response to the  comments, the Agency has
modified  or clarified  many  sections  of the
Guidelines,  and  is  planning to  develop
supplementary guidance  in line with the SAB
recommendations. The discussion that  follows
highlights significant issues raised in the comments,
and the Agency's response to them. Also, many
minor recommendations, which do not warrant
discussion here, were adopted by the Agency.

//. General Information

A. Acceptable Latitude  of Approach

   Some commentors believe the Guidelines are too
general  and allow too  much latitude in choice of
approach and do not assure that "all" data, sources,
limitations, etc. are considered before  an exposure
assessment is conducted. Others suggested that the
Agency specify models to be used while others
thought that only measured data should be allowed.

   The Guidelines were developed to provide
assistance in carrying out exposure assessments.
The approach suggested is deliberately general in
order to accommodate the  development of exposure
assessments with different levels of detail depending
on the scope of the assessment. The Agency does not
agree  with the inclusion of such  restrictive
terminology as "in all cases." We cannot foresee all
possible cases. We believe reasonable flexibility is a
necessary ingredient for the proper implementation
of the Guidelines while relying on uncertainty and
sensitivity analyses  to put the quality of  the
approach in perspective.

B. Technical Nature of Guidelines

   Some commentors believe the language of the
document is too technical for the  lay person to
understand; one commentor expressed misgivings
concerning the "state-of-the-art" methods available
for conducting exposure assessments.
                                             5-13

-------
   While the Agency recognizes that the public has
an interest in the Guidelines and invites comments
from the public, the Guidelines are intended for use
by technical/professional people.  Providing
guidelines  written in lay terms would  result in
insufficient technical  specifications to  the
professionals in the development of scientifically
acceptable exposure assessments.

   The Agency believes that the  suggested
procedures and  methods  in the Guidelines are
commonly accepted. The Guidelines do not suggest
the use of ad  hoc,  untested, and unvalidated
procedures, but stress the use of the best scientific
methods available with  maximum analysis of
existing data. This  is both a scientific and practical
approach that reflects the level of consensus within
the Agency.
                 [51 PR 34053]
C. Measurements vs. Modeling

   Some  commentors  support  the  use  of
measurements  alone  to develop  an exposure
assessment. Some believed there should be no data
restraints; others thought all data should be
validated. Other commentors argued for the  use of
simulation  model estimates without measurements.
One commentor objected to the use of unvalidated
models  to  perform exposure assessments.  In  its
review, the SAB strongly encouraged the Agency to
develop a supplement to the current Guidelines on
the development and use of measurements for
exposure assessments.

   The Agency encourages the use of validated
measurements  when available.  The  Guidelines
specifically state that "Reliable,  analytically
determined values  should be given precedence over
estimated values. . ." and analytically determined
values ", . .can be used to calibrate. . . models. . .to
assess environmental distribution." Furthermore, in
practice, exposure  assessments performed by the
Agency use published models with varying degrees
of testing  and  validation. It is our  belief that
transport process  models have been  adequately
validated over many years in most cases.

   Furthermore,  the  Agency  has revised the
Guidelines to reflect the SAB suggestions that
exposure assessments based on reliable measured
data are preferred  over model estimates whenever
feasible.

III. Data Availability and Uncertainty Analysis

A. Information Uses

   Some commentors asked for guidance in the use
of information that may be false and how to deal
with the potential  situation when different models
give different results. Others asked for model
selection criteria.

   The Guidelines clearly state the considerations
that need to be  addressed when assembling
information bases for exposure assessments. Two
considerations are: qualitative and quantitative
nature of the data and the reliability of the
information. Whether the exposure assessment is
based on measurements or simulation model
estimates, an evaluation of uncertainties associated
with the  data  including source data and
.assumptions is necessary and important.

    When there is uncertainty in the scientific facts,
it is Agency policy to err on the side of public safety.
The Agency intends to be  realistic,  but will not
arbitrarily select midranges of environmental
distributions that may  compromise human health.
In addition, quality assurance is an important
matter that requires  detailed attention. The
collection of measured data and the development of
methods to collect measurements are done by
another office within the EPA. These issues will be
handled  by the  Office of Acid Deposition,
Environmental Monitoring,  and Quality Assurance
as they develop the supplemental guidelines for
measurement of exposure.

    Substantial work is  currently being done on the
development  of mathematical model selection
criteria. Results of these efforts will be published as
a technical support document containing detailed
information to further implement the Guidelines.

B. Worst-Case Estimates

    A few commentors  were concerned that worst-
case  estimates would be  used when data are
nonexistent or limited.  The Guidelines do not
encourage the  use  of worst-case assessments, but
rather the development of realistic  assessments
based on the best data available.

    A technical support  document and a substantial
section  of the Guidelines currently  discuss
evaluation of uncertainty in order to  produce
objective assessments using the best (not worst-case)
estimates available either for preliminary or in-
depth exposure assessments. However, the Agency
will err on the side of public health  when evaluating
uncertainties when data are limited or nonexistent.

IV. Evaluation of Uncertainties

 A. Uncertainty Analysis

    Many commentors felt that the sections of the
Guidelines that dealt  with uncertainty  needed
amplification while some sections  as written were
confusing. Some urged that  uncertainty evaluation
be presented and documented for each section within
a specific exposure scenario in order  to judge the
overall plausibility of the assessment in reaching
regulatory decisions.

    Since the accuracy of an  exposure assessment is
influenced by the degrees of uncertainty contained
in both data and assumptions, the Guidelines call for
the evaluation of these uncertainties. The technical
support    document,    Methodology   for
                                              5-14

-------
Characterization of Uncertainty in  Exposure
Assessments (available from the National Technical
Information Service, PB85-240455), describes in
detail how such  analyses can be performed. The
Guidelines  suggest  that the  uncertainty
characterization include a discussion  of  the
limitations of the data and estimation procedures as
the justification for the model chosen. A sensitivity
analysis of the exposure assessment is appropriate if
the data were only able to support the estimates of
ranges of the input variables. By identifying model
input variables that determine the bounds on the
distribution of exposure, the range of exposure,
which results as individual model input variables
are varied from minimum to maximum possible
values  as other variables remain  constant,
constitutes the sensitivity analysis. Further
sensitivity of model formulation can be examined by
repeating the sensitivity  analysis for plausible
alternative models.

   Nothing in the Guidelines precludes estimation
of uncertainty for each specific exposure scenario.
The  Agency  has encouraged  the  evaluation of
uncertainty in each  aspect of the  exposure
assessment, which could impact the  total risk
estimate.  It is important to estimate the level of
uncertainty in risk assessments so that decisions
based on risk  assessment will  reflect total
uncertainty.  The information presented in  the
Guidelines or the technical support documents
properly and adequately describes the extent  and
quality of appropriate  uncertainty analysis.
Recognizing that the basis for the decision to refine a
preliminary exposure assessment involves risk
management, the Agency, at the suggestion of many
commentors, decided to strike from the Guidelines
the paragraph beginning "If the maximum possible
exposure...." in section III.B.8.d.(2).

B. Population Characterization

   The Guidelines state that identification of
populations and subpopulations at potentially high
exposure forms the basis  of the populations to be
studied. Separate studies of sensitive subpopulation
can also be included.  Population characteristics,
such as age and/or sex distributions, can be derived
from the use of geographic and activity-specific data.
Uncertainty related to estimation of a  population
characteristic include a discussion of the  data
limitations and the estimation procedures. In
addition, uncertainty in estimating sizes of sensitive
subpopulations should  include  estimates of
confidence intervals.

   Some  commentors suggested the inclusion of
additional characteristics, such as occupational and
life style  factors, and the inclusion of additional
guidance concerning potential pitfalls when
conducting population exposure
                 [51 FR 34054]
                               assessments.
Others expressed concern that the exposure  of a
particular subpopulation would be combined with
other exposures to produce an average exposure
level for the general population.

   The   section   describing   population
characterization encompasses, in general terms, the
many characteristics that may be  available,
including life  style factors, to describe exposed
populations. The  Agency agrees that there are
difficulties associated with epidemiologic studies.
The relationship between exposure assessments and
epidemiologic  studies  is  currently  being
investigated and  will be the  subject  of a future
technical support document and the  further
refinement of the Guidelines.

V. Clarification of Terminology

A. Exposure vs. Dose

   Commentors expressed  concern with  the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
definition of exposure. Concern was  also raised
about the assertion that exposures can be estimated
when biological  tissues for fluid measurements
indicate  the  presence  of a chemical.  Some
commentors found difficulty in the wording of the
last sentence in section H.A., specifically "The route
of exposure.. .impacts.. .the overall exposure	"

   It is the Agency's opinion that the members who
served on the ASTM Committee E-47 had expertise
in exposure  assessment. The scientists  and
engineers cumulatively possessed many years of
experience in exposure assessment. In  addition, no
technical society has presented an alternate
definition of exposure. The Agency  will consider
changing  the definition if a reasonable alternate
definition is  written and agreed  upon by the
scientific community.

   The Agency agrees with the  commentors  who
were concerned that the wording provided  in the
Guidelines that the presence of a chemical in
biological tissue can be used to estimate exposure is
not correct in all cases.  Consequently, the word
"can" was changed to "may" to reflect the current
level of understanding between tissue  residue and
exposure (II.A., 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence). The
Agency agrees with several commentors' concerns
that the route of exposure impacts  the overall
absorbed dose, not the overall exposure, and the
Guidelines reflect this change (H.A., last sentence).

B. Mixtures and Synergism

   Some commentors thought more discussion was
necessary on the  effect of chemical  mixtures and
potential synergistic  effect on exposure.  The
Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures includes a discussion of chemical
synergism. The Agency recognizes the need to do
further work in the area of exposure to  mixtures. It
is recommended  that this be identified as an area
requiring further research.
                                              5-15

-------
   These Guidelines stress the need to determine
the products into which the chemical might degrade
or react in the environment and to determine if any
of these products are ecologically or biologically
harmful.

C. Removal and Creation Steps

   Some commentors urged that more emphasis be
placed on changes that occur once the materials
have  entered the  ambient environment.  Other
commentors argued that our current understanding
will  not allow a comprehensive  treatment,
particularly for metabolic processes.

   These Guidelines state the need to address how a
chemical agent moves from the source to the exposed
population, which may result in the estimation of
geographic  and temporal distributions in various
environmental media. The Guidelines also state the
need to know such factors as, for example, whether
the chemical agent  bioaccumulates  or by what
mechanism the agent is removed from each medium
and  the  role  of any degradation products on
ecological safety. We have already stated  that
guidance for analysis of metabolism data is an area
of ongoing research which includes consideration of
metabolism data  in the calculation of  whole
organism dose from one species to another.

VI, Purpose, Philosophy, and Results

   Several commentors raised questions related to
the basic style of the  Guidelines. Among the issues
raised were:
   • the role  of exposure assessment in  risk
assessment/risk management (many comments
directed to appropriateness of Figure 1);
   • statutory/regulatory authority  and uses of
results; and
   • the need for peer review of assessments and
periodic updating of Guidelines.

   A deliberate effort to separate risk assessment
from risk  management has been  made.  The
management of complex issues such as procedural
issues, which include coordination or linkage among
divisions in the Agency, are best dealt with by
management and not in Guidelines.

   The decision pathway (Figure 1) was included in
the Guidelines at the recommendation of the SAB. It
has drawn many comments. The changes suggested
would include additional detail and steps that would
diminish the value of the graphic. However, the
figure has been truncated  to  remove  risk
management steps.

   In order to remain consistent with the
separation of risk assessment and risk management,
any  directions  to consider applicable laws or
regulatory decisions  have been stricken from the
Guidelines.

   The Agency agrees that peer review is an
important  aspect of the  assessment process.
However, emergency cases may not allow peer
review in  preliminary assessments.  All
nonemergency exposure assessments have been peer
reviewed and will continue to be peer reviewed.
Finally, it is clearly stated in the Guidelines that
periodic revision of the document will  be done to
reflect the benefit of experience and knowledge.
                 7 - 748-121/67049
                                             5-16

-------