EPA/600/iJ-92/015
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II, New York. New York 10278
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
July 31, 1992
Risk Assessment Review
Williarn J . ^
Deputy Regional A
nistrator
William Farland, Ph.D.
Director
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
fc&4~££
Attached is a copy of the Risk Assessment Review , a bimonthly
publication that is a cooperative effort between the Office
of Research and Development and the Regional Risk Assessment
Network.
The Review serves as a focal point for information exchange
among the EPA risk assessment community on both technical and
policy issues related to' risk assessment. It is currently in
its fourth year of publication and we are pleased at the
positive feedback we've received on the Review's usefulness
to staff across the Agency.
Thanks to all of you who continue to contribute articles and
are involved with production efforts. If you have an article
to contribute or any suggestions for further issues, contact
one of the Committee members listed on page 1 of the Review.
Attachment
-------
June 1992
Highlights
Update on Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines
Development p. 1
New Members for EPA's Risk Assessment Forum p. 1
Publications from the Office of Research and
Development p. 2
Water Issues in the Southern States p. 3
Update on Risk Training Activities p. 7
Region V Activities in Krasnodar, Russia p. 9
Risk and Decision-Making Course Schedule p. 10
L
I. Special Features
Update on Ecological Risk Assessment
Guidelines Development
BUI van der Schalie (202) 260-6743
The first step in a long-term effort to develop Agency-wide
ecological risk assessment guidelines was recently accom-
plished through publication of the "Framework for Ecologi-
cal Risk Assessment" (EPA/630/R-92/001). Until substantive
guidance is available, the Framework report offers a simple,
flexible structure for conducting and evaluating ecological
risk assessments within EPA, and it provides a foundation
for future guidelines. Consistent with peer review recom-
mendations, the Framework report focuses on basic features
of the ecological risk assessment process, with substantive
risk assessment guidance reserved for study and develop-
ment in future guidelines. As a result, while the Framework
Risk Assessment Review Committee
Bill Farland - ORD, (202) 260-7317
Maureen McClelland - Region I, (617) 565-4885
Maria Pavlova - Region II, (212) 264-7364
Marian Olsen - Region II, (212) 264-5682
Suzanne Wuerthele - Region VIII, (303) 293-1714
Dana Davoli - Region X, (206) 553-2135
report can provide a basis for improved consistency and
science quality in ecological risk assessments within the
Agency, it is just a beginning.
While the ecological risk assessment framework is ex-
pected to evolve with experience, the Framework report
now recommends a three phase approach to ecological risk
assessment that includes:
• problem formulation, a planning and scoping process
that establishes the goals, breadth, and focus of the risk
assessment;
an analysis phase that uses scientific information to
develop profiles of environmental exposure and ad-
verse effects; and
• risk characterization, where exposure and effects data
are integrated to describe the expected risk.
(see Guidelines p. 2)
II. Headquarters
New Members for EPA's Risk Assessment
Forum
by Clare Stint (202) 260-6743
In April 1992, the Risk Assessment Council approved the
Risk Assessment Forum's new membership roster. In addi-
tion to the Forum's three existing oversight groups includ-
ing Cancer, Noncancer, and Exposure, a new oversight
group, Ecological Effects, has been established. The Forum
was expanded to include expertise in this discipline because
of its current involvement in developing guidelines for
ecological risk assessment.
The Risk Assessment Forum has also broadened its mem-
bership by nominating additional regional and laboratory,
as well as headquarters, scientists. Many of these new
members have extensive Forum experience, some serving
for years on existing committees or as designated represen-
tatives. The Risk Assessment Forum welcomes its new
members and is looking forward to a productive working
relationship over the next several years.
A list of the Forum Oversight Group members, including
office or region, are listed below (an * indicates new forum
members):
Cancer Oversight Group
Dorothy Canter* Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment
Bill Farland
Dick Hill*
Amie Kuzmack*
Vanessa Vu
Jeanette Wiltse
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Office of Water
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment
(see Members p. 2)
-------
Guidelines (continued from p. 1)
The Framework report was prepared by a Risk Assessment
Forum technical panel co-chaired by Sue Norton (Office of
Research and Development), Don Rodier (Office of Pre-
vention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances), and Suzanne
Marcy (Office of Water). It was extensively reviewed by
many experts within EPA, other federal and state agencies,
academia, and private second groups. In addition, the Frame-
work report is based in part on discussions summarized in
two recently published reports resulting from Risk Assess-
ment Forum-sponsored workshops. The "Peer Review Work-
shop Report on a Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment" (EPA/625/3-91/022) includes peer review com-
ments on a draft of the "Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment." The "Report on the Ecological Risk Assess-
ment Guidelines Strategic Planning Workshop" (EPA/630/
R-92/002) discusses issues for future ecological risk assess-
ment guidelines.
Copies of the Framework report and the two workshop
reports are available from EPA's Center for Environmental
Research Information at (513) 569-7562 or FAX (513) 569-
7566. For additional information, contact Sue Norton (202)
260-6955, Don Rodier (202) 260-1276 or Bill van der
Schalie (202) 260-6743.
Members (continued from p. 1)
Health Effects Other Than Cancer
Kerry Dearfield*
Mike Dourson
Suzanne Giannini*
Carole Kimmel*
Ed Ohanian
Suzanne Wuerthele
Hal Zenick*
Ecological Effects
Steve Bradbury*
Pat Cirone*
Ron Landy*
Suzanne Marcy
Sue Norton
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Environmental Criteria and Assess-
ment Office, Office of Research and
Development
Office of Policy, Planning and Evalu-
ation
Human Health Assessment Group,
Office of Research and Development
Office of Water
Region VIII
Office of Research and Development,
Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina
Office of Research and Development,
Duluth, Minnesota
Region X
Office of Technology Transfer and
Regulatory Support, Office of Re-
search and Development
Office of Water
Exposure Assessment Group, Office
of Research and Development
Don Rodier*
Ron Preston*
Harvey Simon*
Mike Slimak
Dan Vallero*
Doug Urban*
Exposure
Gerry Akland*
Don Barnes
Jerry Blancato
Elizabeth Bryan
Michael Callahan
David Bennett*
Lee Mulkey
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Region III
Region II
Office of Research and Development
Office of Research and Development,
Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Office of Research and Development,
Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina
Science Advisory Board, Office of
the Administrator
Office of Research and Development
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Exposure Assessment Group, Office
of Research and Development
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response
Office of Research and Development
Publications from the Office of Research and
Development
by Linda BaUey-Becht (202) 260-7345
The Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA) has completed the Science Advisory Board Re-
view Draft of "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smok-
ing: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" (EPA/600/6-90/
006B). Copies are available from the Center for Environ-
mental Research Information (513) 569-7562 or FAX (513)
569-7566) and from the National Technical Information
Service (NTiS number PB92-182344). Please note that the
document is still in draft form and does not represent
Agency policy. The EPA Science Advisory Board reviewed
the document at an open meeting on July 21 and 22.
This draft report addresses the weight of evidence on the
potential associations between passive smoking or Environ-
mental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and
1) lung cancer in nonsmoking adults, and
2) noncancer respiratory disorders, primarily in children.
With respect to lung cancer, the draft report concludes that
1) ETS is causally associated with lung cancer in non-
smoking adults and is an EPA Group A (known hu-
man) carcinogen, and
-------
2) Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among
nonsmokers of both sexes in the United States are
attributable to ETS.
With respect to noncancer respiratory effects, the report
concludes that ETS exposure to children from parental
smoking is causally associated with:
1) respiratory symptoms of irritation (cough, sputum, and
wheeze);
2) middle ear effusion;
3) reduced lung function;
4) lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs), particularly in
infants; and
5) additional episodes and increased severity of asthma in
asthmatic children.
The evidence also suggests that ETS exposure induces
asthma in previously asymptomatic children. In addition,
passive smoking causes some respiratory discomfort and
reduced lung function in adults. This report estimates that
ETS exposure contributes 150,000 to 300,000 LRIs annu-
ally in children under 18 months, resulting in 7,500 to
15,000 hospitalizations, and 8,000 to 26,000 new cases of
asthma in previously asymptomatic children, as well as
aggravating symptoms in approximately 20% of asthmatic
children.
For additional information contact, Steven Bayard at (202)
260-5722.
The Office of Health and Environmental Assessment also
published the "Draft Report A Cross-Species Scaling Fac-
tor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on Equivalence
of mg/kg"4/day" (EPA/600/Z-92/002) in the Federal Regis-
ter (57 FR: 24152-24173) on June 5, 1992. The draft
document will undergo public review and comment through
August 4, 1992. Comments should be mailed to: Project
Officer for the Cross-Species Scaling Factor Report, c/o
Technical Information Staff, Office of Health and Environ-
mental Assessment (RD-689), U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., (Room M3703),
Washington, D.C. 20460. Reprints are also available from
the Center for Environmental Research Information (tele-
phone: (513) 569-7562 or FAX (513) 569-7566).
The document represents a joint proposal by three federal
regulatory agencies, EPA, the Food and Drug Administra-
tion (FDA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), forged by the Interagency Pharmacokinetics Group,
a workgroup that considers matters of mutual concern to the
federal regulatory agencies in the application of pharmaco-
kinetics to risk assessment. The report is intended to serve
as the basis for a common and unified scientific policy
among the participating agencies on a default methodology
for determining equivalence of doses when extrapolating
results of rodent carcinogen bioassays to humans. This
policy is to be used when existing agent-specific data are
insufficient for a case-by-case determination. The report
comprises an analysis of empirical and theoretical aspects
of the cross-species dose-scaling questions, together with
an argument for adopting the method of scaling daily ad-
ministered doses by body mass raised to the 3/4 power to
achieve presumed equivalence in lifetime carcinogenic risk
in different mammalian species. If such a policy is adopted,
it would replace the current practices in carcinogen risk
assessment of scaling daily administered amounts by body
mass (as at FDA) or by body surface area (as at EPA).
For more information, contact Lorenz Rhomberg (202)
260-5723.
Water Issues in the Southern States (A Report
On the Spring Federal-State Toxicology and
Risk Analysis Committee)
Bob CantiW (202) 260-5546
Ed Ohanian (202) 260-7571
Representatives from 13 states and 4 EPA regions gathered
at the spring Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis
Committee (FSTRAC) meeting held April 1-3, 1992, at
EPA Region VI in Dallas, Texas. Attendees learned about
issues facing the southern states and regions, such as imple-
menting the myriad rules being promulgated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SOWA) and the Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule (SWTR); setting water quality standards for
Superfund sites; and blood-lead testing for children. The
group also discussed several "hot" issues, including assess-
ing the vulnerability of drinking water sources to pesticide
contamination; microbial risk assessment; and use of a
physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for estimat-
ing dermal and inhalation exposure to VOCs (volatile or-
ganic compounds) while showering and bathing. This article
reviews the central issues discussed at the meeting.
Region VI
Region VI's Water Supply Branch oversees more than
16,000 public water supplies (PWSs), more than 100,000
Class II (saline discharge) injection wells, and 45 Class I
(hazardous waste) injection wells. The states encompassed
in Region VI—New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisi-
ana, and Texas—all maintain primacy for drinking water
regulations. Fifty percent of the population in the region
uses private wells.
High regional priorities are: oversight of state programs,
data integration and verification, and outreach efforts. En-
forcement is also a priority for the region: Region VI is first
in the nation for the number of federal actions taken. The
region also must address issues focused along the U.S./
Mexico border, where immigrants have established small
encampments, or colonias. Cholera outbreaks have oc-
curred in these areas due to lack of disinfection and poor
sanitation. These settlements often have no water or other
utilities. These areas are also prone to issues of environ-
mental equity: poorer communities that either are targeted,
or are chosen by default, as sites for environmentally ques-
-------
tionable uses. Other regional activities include use of the
Geographic Information System (CIS) for locating wells
and developing comprehensive ground-water plans; multi-
media enforcement; pollution prevention efforts; and ground-
water protection.
Region VI has taken a holistic approach to environmental
regulation with a region-wide "cluster" program. Nine prob-
lem areas, or clusters, have been identified nationally, and
committees with diverse members from different back-
grounds and expertise are called upon to consider the prob-
lem areas as they pertain to Region VI. Although only
regional staff are included in final decision-making at present,
state representatives will be asked to participate once the
program is established. The program has resulted in a more
well-rounded review of regional issues. One of the most
important clusters considers problems related to small com-
munity water systems. "Small water systems are trying
hard," the Water Supply Branch reported, "but they can see
more regulation coming, and recognize that they will be
paying more money for questionable improvement in pro-
tection."
Comparative Risk Analysis in Region VI
In 1990 all EPA Regional Administrators were directed to
conduct comparative risk projects to rank risk problems in
their regions. In response, Region VI produced the docu-
ments ranking 24 of the region's human health, ecological,
and economic risks, as well as risk management factors. An
additional document provided an overview of the four areas
and risk rankings within each.
To compare risks, a steering committee used subcommittee
reports to generate combined risk category rankings and put
each problem into one of four categories: high, medium-
high, medium-low, or low comparative risk. Then, dollars
spent in each area were tabulated. Region VI found that the
problems representing medium-low to low comparative risk
were receiving most of the resources in terms of full-time
equivalents and contract and grant dollars.
Many agreed that EPA should encourage state agencies to
conduct comparative risk analyses. Managers could benefit
from such a study and use the results to allocate resources
and improve overall environmental management State rep-
resentatives wondered now difficult it would be for a state
to adapt the region's procedure for a state-wide comparative
risk analysis. Region VI representatives reported that the
process would not be difficult, as long as compatible com-
puters for data analysis were available to take advantage of
existing databases. Also, state-specific data may already be
available in the comparative risk assessment for the region.
Over the 9-month duration of the comparative risk project
in Region VI, 15 people worked full time, 50 worked a
moderate amount, and 25 worked for some time on the
project. Region VI encouraged states to consider perform-
ing a similar analysis, in spite of the cost Not only has the
region been able to rank the relative impact of perceived
problems in the area, but they also can use the maps and
data gathered to assess equity issues, for example. Alterna-
tively, Rhode Island has used a semi-quantitative approach
(rather than the quantitative approach used in Region VI) to
perform a successful comparative risk analysis.
Arkansas
An Arkansas lexicologist explained that many of the drink-
ing water issues addressed by the State Department of
Public Health (DPH) relate to the poor economic conditions
in some regions of the state. Arkansas is 49th of all the
states in average income. Forty percent of the population
uses private wells and septic tanks, a dangerous combina-
tion because wells drilled in the limestone underlying the
state are easily contaminated by septic tank leachate. DPH
is encouraging homeowners to establish community water
systems, but the costs and complexities involved are pro-
hibitive. On the other hand, closing drinking water supplies
leaves most with no alternative water source, leading to
serious hygiene and other problems.
According to blood samples collected through the Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) program, blood-lead levels and
lead in drinking water are not substantial problems. There is
concern that if schools are required to reinstall plumbing,
then some school systems may go bankrupt.
Eighty percent of DPH funding goes to supporting EPA
regulations. As a result, there is a battle under way in the
state legislature to decide whether the state should maintain
primacy. Some EPA regulations address issues considered
lesser problems in Arkansas. For example, according to a
small-scale comparative risk analysis for the state, risk due
to exposure to cigarette smoke outweighs the risks posed by
radon. (In Arkansas, only a few hot spots exist for radon.)
Texas
Because many aquifers in Texas are deep and highly miner-
alized with sulfates, chlorides, and bicarbonates, ground
water is not widely used for drinking water. For example, in
the Lower Rio Grande
-------
Radon and radium are found at high levels in some regions
of the state; significant resources will be required to meet
EPA's proposed standards for radon. Many in Texas are
concerned that the standard for radon, which is set very low
to protect smokers, is too conservative. Some present sug-
gested that the money spent mitigating radon in drinking
water may be better spent on smoking cessation programs.
Texas has a fee system in place to help fund program
activities; however, utilities are only willing to pay a fee if
they receive a service. Therefore, Texas is now evaluating a
modified fee schedule that would connect the fee with
testing or other services.
Region IV
North Carolina
A lexicologist from North Carolina's Department of Envi-
ronment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), de-
scribed "what it's like" in North Carolina. His department's
public service approach to health risk assessments works
well to gain the public's confidence in the agency. This
approach, however, sometimes results in a less defined line
between risk assessment and risk management, as most of
the work is done on the spot, in the field. The loose
boundaries between assessment and management also have
helped DEHNR to promote policy changes and enforce
standards at the local level.
Finally, North Carolina is participating in a regional effort
to establish more uniform standards for dioxin in air, fish,
ambient water, and sediments. Several paper mills along
four major waterways have had a significant impact on the
health of the rivers, resulting in the posting of fish con-
sumption advisories along the shores. In a recent success
story, the state was able to remove a posted warning of
mercury contamination on one river.
South Carolina
South Carolina's drinking water program is about SO years
old, reported a representative from the Department of Health
and Environmental Control (DHEC). The program oversees
more than 2,700 water systems. The costs of implementing
federal drinking water regulations will increase dramati-
cally over the next few years:
The state spends $800,000 annually to implement the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Phase I Rule. DHEC
estimates that it will cost $1 million to $1.25 million to
carry out Phase II requirements.
• The Surface Water Treatment Rule will probably force
many systems to install booster disinfection systems,
change disinfection methods, and increase finished water
storage capacity to comply with contact time provi-
sions.
• Promulgation of the Total Coliform Rule has resulted
in increased noncompliance—the state recorded 85
actual MCL violations (not monitoring violations) over
the first 7 months of 1991.
DHEC data indicate that as many as 85 percent of all
water systems in the state may not meet the action level
for lead established under the Lead and Copper Rule.
Recent studies suggest that regions of the state will
exceed the proposed (300 Pci/L) standard for radon by
11 to 93 percent.
DHEC's Drinking Water Program has grown to keep up
with increasing regulation. To maintain primacy, the state
will need 36 new full-time equivalents and $5 million in
additional funding. The state is considering a user fee of
$0.50 per service connection each month to raise the funds
required to retain primacy.
Tennessee
Recent developments in the Tennessee drinking water pro-
gram include establishment of a new Environmental Protec-
tion Fund that uses fee for service funds to support state
environmental activities. For example, the funds will supple-
ment enforcement efforts and program administration in the
Department of Environment and Conservation, increase
salaries for environmental regulatory program staff, and
fund additional positions. In addition to fees on the regu-
lated community, the state will consider $100 access fees
for domestic water wells. Via a phased-in approach, the
state hopes to raise $18 million per year by fiscal year 1994/
1995. Even so, the state will hold a public hearing to discuss
whether to retain primacy on the Lead and Copper Rule and
synthetic and inorganic chemical rules.
Tennessee also is taking some initiatives to expand water
quality standards. For example, the Division of Water Pol-
lution Control promulgated SDWA MCLs as water quality
criteria (WQC) for domestic water supplies; all stream
segments are now classified for recreational (fishing) use.
Presently, several streams have fish advisories, primarily
due to chlordane, PCB, mercury, and dioxin contamination;
and criteria for protecting recreational uses are very simi-
lar to federal WQC for human health from fish consump-
tion alone; for carcinogens, criteria are set at 10"5 rather
than 10*.
The Superfund Division developed a draft list of uniform
soil and ground-water cleanup standards; the ground-water
standards are the same as federal MCLs, while soil stan-
dards are similar to Washington's proposed soil standards.
Both sets of standards are now under review.
Hot Issues
Lead in Drinking Water: What States Are Doing
When ATSDR listed lead at the top of their list of danger-
ous chemicals, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
recommended that all children 6 to 72 months old be
screened for lead poisoning via blood tests. The states are
being asked to prioritize populations for screening. CDC's
findings may require costly follow-up by state agencies. In
fact, the 10-ppb blood level chosen by CDC for first-tier
-------
action (testing other children in the house) is controversial,
and has generated some debate as to whether 10 ppb in
blood implies an adverse effect.
State representatives from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Mas-
sachusetts, New Jersey, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, New
Mexico, and Washington exchanged information regarding
state policies for blood lead testing, water testing, and
abatement requirements. All of the states have applied for
or already have received CDC funding for blood-lead screen-
ing. Rhode Island reported the most comprehensive blood-
and water-lead testing program. The state requires blood-
lead testing for all children starting school (daycare as well,
as of January 1993). Preschools do not receive state funding
or licensing until they test the drinking water and take any
corrective actions necessary, which usually consists of daily
flushing. The state standard for lead in drinking water is 5
ppb. While both Rhode Island and New Mexico ask schools
to flush the water lines as a preventive measure, preliminary
results of a New Jersey study suggest that even after morn-
ing flushing, lead levels return to pre-flushing concentra-
tions by the end of the school day. Final results of the study
may be published.
The group discussed some of the differences in drinking
water- and blood-lead levels among the states. For example,
Rhode Island cities are full of older buildings with lead
paint and solder. In North Carolina, cities are newer and a
majority of the lead paint problem is found in rural areas.
Nebraska and Texas have more alkaline water so pipes are
quickly coated with calcium carbonate, preventing lead
from corroding from the pipes and entering the water col-
umn. In New Mexico, water and lead paint are not the only
sources of lead poisoning; children and adults are also
exposed to lead via lead-containing enamel on crockery,
mining wastes, and lead-contaminated alternative medi-
cines.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Toxicity Assess-
ment at a Federal Facility
An Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) representative
described a toxicity assessment under way at ORNL, a
Department of Energy (DOE) National Priority List site
located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (near Knoxville). Of pri-
mary concern is the potential for off-site migration from
contaminants in the White Oak Creek embayment. The
contaminants present in the sediment of the embayment
have come from White Oak Lake, a 17-acre manmade
reservoir which has historically received low-level radioac-
tive waste.
The Health and Safety Research Division of the Biomedical
and Environmental Information Analysis Section of ORNL
has developed their own toxicity profiles describing the
most prevalent contaminants at the site. These 15- to 25-
page documents summarize key toxicity studies, target
organs, and existing toxicity values. Also, as the need
arises, ORNL researchers use EPA's methods to develop
RfDs, RfCs, and cancer slope factors for contaminants not
yet addressed by EPA. This type of toxicity assessment is
more widely applicable than site-specific exposure assess-
ments. Many hazardous waste sites have compounds in
common; collaboration among federal agencies to perform
toxicity assessments will improve consistency and elimi-
nate redundancy of effort.
Setting Guidelines for Bathing and Showering in
Perchloroethylene-Contaminated Water
A lexicologist with the Connecticut Department of Health
Services described a PBPK methodology used in Connecti-
cut to set guidelines for advising residents when to refrain
from showering and bathing in perchloroethylene- (perc-)
contaminated water.
Exposure estimates and target organ concentrations were
determined for an adult bathing for 30 minutes or shower-
ing for 15 minutes, a 10-year-old child bathing or shower-
ing, and a 3-year-old bathing for 30 minutes or 15 minutes.
Most of the affected persons described eye and skin irrita-
tion and other neurological endpoints as a result of acute
exposure, hence the emphasis on neurologic concerns. Can-
cer and other chronic effects were not considered in the
model.
The PBPK model predicted that the highest perc concentra-
tions would be sequestered in the skin for all ages and for
both showering and bathing. The brain compartment would
show the next highest concentrations, followed by the blood
compartment. The model showed that all except skin con-
centrations would return to near-normal levels 4 hours after
exposure ceased. The most sensitive population from this
group would be a 3-year-old, bathing for 30 minutes. The
most significant route of exposure would be inhalation, and
not dermal, contact. Occupational studies validated the
results—the results agree with the dose-response data.
PBPK modeling is useful for assessing endpoints other than
cancer, and this approach in particular is applicable to
VOCs other than perc.
Microbial Risk Assessment
"We don't know what the risks are from microbial contami-
nation," said a member of the EPA committee that is
writing a section for new EPA drinking water regulations
on microbial risk assessment and acceptable risks. The
group discussed several issues in microbial risk assessment;
for example, what is an acceptable risk? Is it expressed in
number of illnesses per year? Is there a way to compare
microbial and chemical risks? Is there a set of acceptable
assumptions that can be used in microbial risk assessment?
Microbes pose some unique challenges to risk assessors.
For example, what is the measurable endpoiht? Infection
does not always lead to illness or disease, and laboratory
tests to detect infection are more easily quantifiable than
physical examinations to identify disease. Another variable
in microbial risk assessment is that the dose is not constant
and not predictable based on exposure. Even a single organ-
-------
ism can affect sensitive individuals. Microbial risk assess-
ment could therefore be modeled on cancer risk assessment,
where no threshold is assumed.
No single agent could serve as representative of the micro-
bial world and the factors that determine exposure, e.g.,
presence of the microbe, its resistance to disinfection. Al-
though E. coli serves as a good indicator of sewage con-
tamination, the organism does not indicate the presence of
other dangerous microorganisms.
Not all of the microbial risk is due to contaminated drinking
water. The group reviewed the numerous exposure routes
for microbes, including ingestion and inhalation while swim-
ming, from pets, and via vectors like fruit flies. The primary
route varies with the organism. One participant predicted
that microbial risks will dominate some currently regulated
chemical risks. FSTRAC members suggested that EPA look
at the incremental risk from drinking water exposure, and
allocate resources accordingly. In the end, the uncertainties
involved in a microbial risk assessment will be key, as there
are probably no data available for quantitative assessments.
Vulnerability Assessments under the Phase n
Rule
ity of the state's 46 surface water supplies (50 percent of
New Jersey's water supply comes from surface water
sources) and tested base flow and storm flow samples for
the 6 most vulnerable supplies to verify the assessment.
The next FSTRAC meeting will be in Washington, D.C., in
the fall of 1992. For further information about FSTRAC or
the teleconference series, contact Bob Cantilli or Ed Ohanian
(WH-568) at the Office of Science and Technology, Office
of Water, USEPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, D.C.
20460.
National Pesticide Survey Report
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs recently completed
Phase II of the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking
Water Wells.
Phase I of the study estimated the frequency of detection of
pesticides and nitrate in drinking water wells. Phase II
analyzed the data to learn how pesticides and nitrate in
wells are related to groundwater sensitivity to contamina-
tion, fertilizer and pesticide use, precipitation, farming prac-
tices, chemical characteristics of pesticides, and the age,
depth, construction, and location of drinking water wells.
The Phase n Rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act
allows states to grant waivers to the pesticide monitoring
portions of the rule if the water system meets specific EPA
criteria, or if water suppliers can prove that their source is
not vulnerable to pesticide contamination. Such waivers ID. Regions
will avoid unnecessary monitoring. States can perform the
assessments, or they can ask system operators to supply the
information.
Fact sheets and information on ordering the report are
available from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-
800426-4791. For information on the survey, contact EPA's
Office of Pesticide Programs Docket at (703) 305-5805.
Region II
New Jersey has gathered state-wide pesticide use data,
describing how pesticides are used, who uses them, and
which pesticides are used most often. Agricultural pesticide
use data are available in New Jersey from 1985 to 1991 at
the municipality level. Data on golf course, professional
lawn care, and aquatic pest control use are also available in
the state. The geographic distribution of the pesticide use
data have been entered onto a CIS system.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy (NJDEPE) and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) are now conducting sensitivity assessments for
each ground-water source. A statistical model incorporat-
ing a parameter weighting system will pinpoint the param-
eters (e.g., hydrogeology, well contact, soil characterization)
most important for assessing susceptibility. The parameters
will be gleaned from a number of databases developed for
determining hydrogeologic sensitivity. Finally, each ground-
water system's well (once their locations are mapped out)
will be ranked as high, medium, or low sensitivity to
contamination by pesticides.
Surface water vulnerability depends on pesticide applica-
tion rates, amount of agricultural land in the watershed, and
the runoff potential (e.g., soil type and slope) for the water-
shed. NJDEPE and USGS have determined the vulnerabil-
Update on Risk Training Activities
The Agency continues to make significant strides in provid-
ing training in risk assessment, risk management and risk
communication to both EPA and non-EPA staff in a cost-
effective manner. Since the beginning of FY'92 (October 1,
1991 through June 15, 1992) a total of 1,908 people were
trained. A listing of the total number of trainees by course is
shown in Table 1 on the next page.
In addition to the continuing training efforts, the Risk
Training Committee has concentrated during the past year
on updating the existing courses. The committee is co-
chaired by Bill Muszynski, Region ITs Deputy Regional
Administrator and Dan Esty, Deputy Director of the Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Members of the com-
mittee include representatives from each Program Office
and Regions II and ni.
In FY'92, with funds provided from the Office of Water,
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the
Office of Research and Development, the Office of Preven-
tion, Pesticides and Toxic Substances and the regions the
committee has updated various risk courses and developed
new courses in the areas of risk management and ecological
risk assessment. The committee appreciates the continuing
support from the program offices and the regions in this
-------
Table 1. Numbers of People Trained in Risk Assessment
Course
Workshop on Risk and Decision Making
IRIS
Risk Communication
Risk Guidelines
OW Risk Assessment, Risk
Prior
Trainees
5,781
2,123
2,871
1,959
2,445
FY'92
Trainees
394
468
356
250
150
Total
Trainees
6,175
2,591
3,227
2,209
2,595
Management and Communication
of Drinking Water Contamination
OSWER Risk Guidance 762
Risk* Assistant 200
Comparative Risk 624
TOTAL 16,765
290
1,908
1,052
200
624
18,673
important effort in making risk training available to EPA
and non-EPA staff. The following sections summarize the
current activities in updating courses, developing new
courses, and contacts for further information.
• Workshop on Risk and Decision Making—the intro-
ductory course in the principles of risk assessment, risk
management, and risk communication was updated by
Arnold Den, Gerry Hiatt, Alvin Chun and Bruce Macler
from Region IX. As indicated in the report from Re-
gion IX (see below) the revised course materials have
been distributed to each region and program office for
implementation. The contacts are Jerry Hiatt at (415)
744-1022 or Arnold Den at (415) 744-1018.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) course is
currently being updated to reflect the revisions to the
system. The coordinator for the project is Linda Tuxen,
the EPA IRIS coordinator, from the Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment (202) 260-5949.
• Risk Communication Workshop is currently being re-
vised by the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
to incorporate updated videotapes and other refine-
ments. The coordinator is Jim Cole from the Risk
. Communication staff (202) 260-4538.
• Risk Assessment Guidelines Training is being updated
to reflect revisions to the documents and to provide
new means (i.e., computer technology) to deliver the
training. The coordinator is Clare Stine (202) 260-
6743.
New courses being developed include:
• Ecological Risk Assessment—an introductory level
course in the principles of ecological risk assessment
This course will serve as the foundation for other
training activities in ecological risk assessment. The
course is being coordinated by Pat LaFornara, (908)
340-6988, and Anita Street, (212) 264-1926, from Re-
gion n, and Jim Cole, (202) 260-4538, from OPPE.
• Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment—an inter-
mediate level course that uses case studies to illustrate
ecological risk assessment principles contained in the
report, "Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment."
The course coordinator is Bill van der Schalie at (202)
260^191.
• Risk Management—an intermediate level course in the
principles of risk management that builds on the prin-
ciples presented in the Workshop on Risk and Decision
Making. The course coordinator is Deny Allen (202)
260^335.
The committee has also developed a Risk Training Curricu-
lum and summary of activities in FY'91. For copies of these
documents and additional information on the committee's
activities contact Marian Olsen at (212) 264-5682.
Publications of Interest
EPA has released an "Air Quality Atlas" (400-K-92-002)
comprising 21 different color maps and narrative showing
how air quality varies across the country, including areas
both violating and meeting the six federal atmospheric
(ambient) air quality standards. The report also includes
color-coded maps showing highway travel increase from
1970 to 1990 by state, U. S. population density by county,
and the nation's air quality monitoring network. Copies are
available from Helen Hinton at (919) 541-5558.
The Office of Pesticide Programs's "National Home and
Garden Pesticide Use Survey, Final Report" is available.
The Report (H7506C) provides results of national sampling
of the non-agricultural use of pesticides in and around
-------
homes. The document is available by contacting (703) 305-
5017.
Contact: Marian Olsen (212) 264-5682
Region V
Region V Risk Training And Discussions in
Krasnodar, Russia
Under the USA-USSR (currently the Eastern European
nations) environmental cooperation program (Project
02.02.11), three staff members from EPA Region V con-
ducted a Risk Assessment and Risk Management Work-
shop in Krasnodar, Russia, from May 25 through May 28,
1992. The delegation consisted of Robert Springer, Region
V's Assistant Regional Administrator, J. Milton Clark,
Chief, and Lee D. Gorsky, Assistant Regional Health Advi-
sor from Region V's Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment.
The workshop consisted of:
1) An introductory session—to introduce the U. S. EPA
organization and the basic relationship between risk
assessment and risk management
2) An overview of EPA's Risk Assessment process—
including a detailed presentation of risk assessment in
terms of the science and the methodologies underlying
the risk assessment process.
3) Several case studies illustrating the use of risk assess-
ment and its relationship to risk management The case
studies included:
Dioxin and a site in Michigan;
The "Estimation and Evaluation of Cancer Risks
Attributed to Air Pollution in Southeast Chicago";
Asbestos; and
- Lead.
4) Introduction to the Comparative Risk Process—includ-
ing a presentation on the use of the comparative risk
process in risk-based strategic planning. This session
was started with a short slide presentation on the Re-
gion V comparative risk exercise and some of the
significant results. The introduction was followed by a
comparative risk discussion among the participants of
the workshop facilitated by Leonid Yarmak, First Vice-
Chairman of the Ministry of Ecology and Nature Use,
Krasnodar Regional Committee of Nature Conserva-
tion.
The trip and workshop were very successful. The materials
presented were well received by participants. The discus-
sions ranged from the purely organizational to the highly
technical. For instance, many participants expressed inter-
est in the structural organization and divisions of legal
authorities in areas pertaining to the use of natural resources
and environmental protection. Unlike EPA, the Russian
Ministry of Ecology and Nature Use has a mandate regard-
ing environmental protection and the use of natural re-
sources. Other questions were very detailed concerning the
methodologies used in the risk assessment process.
One immediate benefit of the workshop was providing an
area for cooperation between the Russian academic com-
munity and the Russian environmental ministry. As a direct
response to information presented on the use of risk assess-
ment and the comparative risk process in the United States,
interactions between the academic and the environmental
ministry were established regarding cooperation on a com-
parative analysis of environmental problems in the Krasnodar
region of Russia.
Contact: Lee D. Gorsky (312) 353-5598
Region IX
The New Workshop on Risk and Decision Making
The new Workshop on Risk and Decision Making training
manual was completed, and original copies of the facilitator
guide and student manual were sent to each regional office
and program office for their use. Some highlights in the new
manual are a new case study involving a leaking under-
ground storage tank, an expanded risk management section,
and a new introductory section on risk communication. The
new manual was presented at the recent Regional Risk
Assessors Meeting held in June in Dallas, Texas. Region IX
appreciates the suggestions from the various regional of-
fices and the California Environmental Protection Agency
on the draft manual, and the support of the Risk Training
Committee.
Contact: Gerry Hiatt (415) 744-1022
Region IX Risk Training Activities
Region IX recently trained over 250 staff members and
managers from Arizona, California, and Hawaii in the Risk
and Decision-Making Course (3 days) and Risk Communi-
cation and Public Involvement (2.5 days). In addition to the
usual attendance from the hazardous waste programs, there
were many attendees from the state departments of health,
air programs, water programs, pesticides programs, state
emergency services, and federal facilities. The reactions
from participants have been excellent, and our evaluations
have averaged about 3.6 out of a possible 4.0 rating scale
based on student evaluations at the end of the presentation.
Contact: Alvin Chun (415) 744-1019
IV. Meetings
International Meeting on Risks, and Benefits of
Water Disinfection
An "International Conference on Safety of Drinking Water
Disinfection: Balancing the Chemical and Microbial Risks"
will be sponsored by the International Life Sciences Insti-
tute, the World Health Organization, U. S. EPA, and others
from August 31 through September 3, 1992.
-------
0001H9591 BISK
flOBEET RETTIG
OSEPA
LIBfiAflr
NATI
KING DR
Gfi 45268
For additional information, contact the Conference Coordi-
nator, International Life Sciences Institute, 1126 16th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
National Environmental Health Association
Midyear Conference—Protecting Our Nation's
Waters (September 27 - 30,1992)
The National Environmental Health Association (NEHA)
will host their Midyear Conference, Protecting Our Nation's
Waters, from September 27-30,1992, in Norfolk, Virginia.
Conference topics will include: oil spill response, lessons
from Valdez and Kuwait, shell fish and seafood safety,
constructed wetlands for sewage disposal, and ocean pro-
tection—an international issue.
For additional information on the conference, contact: Deb
Belohlavy at (303) 756-9090.
Harvard School of Public Health Symposium
on the Medical Consequences of
Environmental Degradation—October 10-11,
1992
The Harvard School of Public Health, the United Nations
Environment Programme, International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War, Brown University School of
Medicine, and the Department of Medicine of Massachu-
setts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School will host
"Human Health and the Environment", a symposium on the
Medical Consequences of Environmental Degradation. The
meeting will be held from October 10 to 11, 1992, at the
Kresge Auditorium at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology in Boston, Massachusetts.
The objectives of this symposium are:
To educate physicians and other health care profession-
als so that they may participate in environmental deci-
sions,
• To inform environmentalists in order to broaden their
perspective and strengthen their arguments, and
To bring the medical and environmental communities
together to preserve the environment and protect hu-
man health.
For additional information, contact the Harvard School of
Public Health, Office of Continuing Education, 677 Hun-
tington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. The tele-
phone number is (617) 432-1177 or FAX (617) 432-1969.
U. S. Bureau of Census Annual Research
Conference—March 1993
The Bureau of Census is planning its 1993 Annual Research
Conference to be held in March 1993 in the Washington,
D.C. area. The conference will consist primarily of contrib-
uted papers, most of which will receive formal discussion at
the conference.
Possible topics include:
• Design of survey questionnaires:
Cognitive techniques
Computer-assisted interviewing
Quality measurements for automated surveys
• Modeling of social and economic phenomena
Research issues for 2000 census planning
Analysis of data from demographic censuses
• Regional variation in housing prices and affordability
To have a paper considered for presentation, send a 500-
word abstract to: Lynn Weldman, Conference Chair, Statis-
tical Research Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C. 20223.
To obtain registration information or to be included on the
mailing list, contact Maxine Anderson-Brown, Conference
Coordinator, Office of the Director, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D.C. 20233.
Risk and Decision-Making Course Schedule
The following is the schedule for the Workshop on Risk and
Decision-Making Courses through September:
August 26-28
September 16-18
New York City
Atlanta
The following is the schedule for the Risk Communication
Workshops through September:
September 1-3
San Francisco
Contacts: Jim Cole (202) 260-2747
Marian Olsen (212) 264-5682
Contacts:
Jerome Puskin
Linda Tuxen
Dorothy Patton
Dick Hill
Don Barnes
Dean Hill
Maureen McClelland
Marian Olsen
Jeffrey Burke
Elmer Akin
Milt Clark
Jon Rauscher
Mary Williams
Suzanne Wuerthele
Arnold Den
Dana Davoli
OAR-RAD
ORD-OHEA
ORD-RAF
OPTS
SAB
NEIC
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
(202) 260-9640
(202) 260-5949
(202) 260-6743
(202) 260-2897
(202) 260-4126
(202) 776-8138
(617) 565-4885
(212) 264-5682
(215)597-1177
(404) 347-1586
(312)886-3388
(214) 655-8513
(913) 551-7415
(303) 293-0961
(415) 744-1018
(206) 442-2135
If you would like to receive additional copies of this and
subsequent Reviews or to be added to the mailing list
contact:
CERI Distribution
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
10
------- |