EPA/600/N-93/011
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II, New York. New York 10278
DATE: May 25, 1993
SUBJECT: Risk Assessment Review
FROM: William J. Ik&zl
Deputy Regional Administrator
William Farland, Ph.D.
Director
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
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
-------
Risk Assessment Review
April 1993
Highlights
• Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis
Committee (FSTRAC) Meeting on Water
Issues in the Mid-Atlantic States p. 1
• Risk Assessment Forum Colloquium on the
Use of Reactive Metabolites Data in Cancer
Risk Assessments p. 1
• Risk Communication Research—Applied Research p. 7
• IRIS Highlights p. 7
I. Special Feature
Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis
Committee (FSTRAC) Meeting on Water Issues
in the Mid-Atlantic States
by Bob CantiUi, 202-260-5546
Ed Ohanian, 202-260-7571
Representatives from twelve states, four EPA regions, and
four federal agencies gathered at the fall Federal-State
Toxicology and Risk Analysis Committee (FSTRAC) meet-
Risk Assessment Review Committee
BUI 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
ing in Bethesda, Maryland. FSTRAC is an organization
composed of state and federal regulators concerned with
water quality issues, sponsored by the EPA Office of Water's
Office of Science and Technology (OST). Members gather
twice each year to exchange information, address common
problems, and provide feedback to EPA staff. After an
update on EPA drinking and ambient water regulations and
criteria, representatives from the EPA Office of Research
and Development reviewed activities in their office. During
presentations from state and regional representatives, at-
tendees learned about issues facing the Mid-Atlantic states
seeFS77t4C,p.2
II. Headquarters
Risk Assessment Forum Colloquium on the Use
of Reactive Metabolite Data in Cancer Risk
Assessment
by Lee D. Gorsky, 312-353-5598
On Tuesday, March 30,1993, the Risk Assessment Forum
hosted a colloquium on the use of reactive metabolite data
in cancer risk assessment The purpose of the colloquium
was threefold:
1. to discuss the general biochemical and toxicologi-
cal principles involved in the metabolism of chemi-
cals to reactive metabolites,
2. to discuss how these principles can and have been
applied by EPA through specific case examples,
and
3. to determine whether general principles on using
reactive metabolite data to assess carcinogenic
hazard can be identified.
The colloquium began with a presentation by Jim McKinney
on "Reactive Metabolic Intermediates: Basic Principles."
This was followed by presentations of four specific case
studies:
Ethylene/Ethylene Oxide Lorenz Rhomberg
Trichloroethylene/Trichloro- Tony DeAngelo
acetic Acid
EDBC Pesticides/ETU Albin Kocialski
Styrene/Styrene Oxide David Reese
The colloquium concluded with an open discussion on the
principles and policies involved in the use of metabolite
data in cancer risk assessment
The colloquium was very well attended, and those involved
stated that objectives were met. A full workshop to include
both EPA and non-EPA scientists is in the planning phase.
>• For further information on the colloquium, contact Lee
D. Gorsky at 312-353-5598.
see Headquarters, p. 7
-------
FSTRAC (continued from p. 1)
and regions. FSTRAC subcommittees met to review ac-
complishments over the past six months and to plan for the
next six months. Finally, the group discussed several hot
issues, including revision of EPA's methodology for deriv-
ing human health criteria, FDA's fish advisory program,
developing monitoring waivers under Phase II drinking
water regulations, and new research on the presence of
radium in drinking water distribution systems that might
change the way that radon is regulated.
This article summarizes the presentations by state and EPA
regional representatives, as well as the hot issues discus-
sion.
Region HI Overview
Region in encompasses two types of regions: a rural west-
em region and a highly developed eastern corridor that
includes Baltimore, Philadelphia, and the District of Co-
lumbia. Each region has different water-quality issues that
must be addressed, although those in the west are relatively
isolated and more easily characterized. Numerous compel-
ling demands are made on the water resources in the eastern
portion. For example, historical pollution events have re-
sulted in ground-water degradation, estuarine decline, and
sediment loading. New industrial development increases
the demand for clean water and further increases the rate of
degradation. Suburban expansion increases demand for
drinking water and encroaches on water resources. Critical
habitats like the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware estuary
continue to need clean water.
Historically, no water shortages exist in Region III, but the
possibility is becoming more real. Saline ground waters are
encroaching on freshwater aquifers because of overuse, and
regional and local contamination has rendered some aqui-
fers unusable. In an effort to promote sustainable develop-
ment, the Region Ill's Water Management Division is
working to improve cooperation and coordination among
programs to promote integrated environmental manage-
ment and planning for the future. Each branch within the
Water Management Division manages specific programs.
The Drinking Water/Ground Water Protection Branch's
four sections develop wellhead protection plans, regulate
underground injection wells, support state drinking water
regulatory efforts, and administer state programs and en-
forcement strategies. The first of several priority areas for
Region Hi's Drinking Water Program is mobilization, work-
ing with small water suppliers to keep them operational in
spite of the heavy regulatory burden. Region in will aid the
states in developing their own programs. One person from
the branch is assigned to each state, and biannual meetings
are held to discuss upcoming regulations and how to meet
them. Finally, enforcement enhancement will depend on a
risk-based approach to prioritize situations for enforcement
action and develop alternatives to shutting down water
suppliers.
Increased coordination should occur between EPA and state
programs. In Region III, most environmental problems
cannot be addressed on the basis of just one medium or one
program. For example, a hazardous waste site in the region
was the focus of both the Drinking Water Program and
Superfund/Emergency Response Program. The programs
simultaneously assessed a source of tetrachloroethylene
contamination and a contaminated drinking-water supply.
The two programs worked to develop a well-balanced,
comprehensive, multipathway exposure assessment for the
site as a basis for deciding on the action needed.
An attendee from New Jersey wondered if Region III has
attempted to locate water supplies using the Geographic
Information System. New Jersey has not been able to obtain
consistent data to do this as a part of their wellhead protec-
tion program. Region III has encountered similar problems.
Data submitted by public water supplies are not consistent
or necessarily reliable, but extensive resources would be
required to conduct field evaluations to check the data.
Geoposib'oning (which uses satellites to pinpoint regional
hydrological resources) is a promising method that also can
be used, although it too is imperfect.
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay has a history of toxics contamination,
nutrient loading, and eutrophication that caused Congress,
in 1976, to fund research on the bay's condition and, in
1983, to fund planning for improvement The Chesapeake
Bay Program (CBP) is administered by Region III; its staff
works with states (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia), Wash-
ington, DC, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Energy, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission to look at the
primary factors affecting the bay ecosystem.
• Toxics
Using a submerged aquatic plant, CBP assesses the
extent of phytotoxicity in the bay. This information,
along with data regarding shellfish and wildlife tissue
concentrations, agricultural and urban runoff, and con-
tamination of sediments, will help direct a
toxics-reduction strategy. Thus far, researchers have
determined that urban runoff, atmospheric deposition,
and heavy herbicide application are contributing sig-
nificant loadings to the bay. The group is completing a
7-year study of the nature, magnitude, and extent of the
problem and will present the toxics-reduction strategy
to the public for review before submitting the plan to
the CBP Executive Council.
• Nutrient Loading/Eutrophication
A cause-and-effect evaluation is the primary activity in
this area. Researchers are evaluating nitrogen and phos-
phorus loading and light attenuation to locate problem
areas within the bay and its tributaries. Since the project
began, input of both nitrogen and phosphorus to the
bay have decreased because of measures taken by
neighboring states. Studies on the influence of nitrogen
treatment systems and the corresponding percent nitro-
gen reduction on the number of anoxic volume days
recorded helped determine the most efficient means for
nitrogen reduction.
-------
A participant asked how CBP was able to convince farmers
to reduce nitrogen and phosphate use. The Agricultural
Cooperative Extension Service conducts classes and semi-
nars for farmers; in addition, fertilizer companies are di-
rected to conduct soil testing before promoting addition of
nitrogen. Also, funding from CBP to the states is used to
help farmers establish reduction programs and treatment
systems. Some states might develop regulations requiring
farmers to have some son of pollution prevention plan in
place.
Another person wondered if sediment contamination is a
problem in Chesapeake Bay. Studies thus far have not
looked at sediments as a contaminant source. Sediments are
considered a suspended solids problem because of resus-
pension and erosion.
Pennsylvania
An engineer from Pennsylvania's Department of Environ-
mental Resources (DER) described activities in the Bureau
of Water Supply and Community Health's Division of
Drinking Water Management.
Pennsylvania was awarded primacy under the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act in 1985. Since that time, the state's safe
drinking water program has grown from 20 full-time equiva-
lent positions (FTEs) to 100 FTEs in 1992. Most of the
public water systems (PWSs) depend on ground water
sources. PWS permit actions have increased over the same
period from under 200 per year to nearly 800 per year. Six
regional offices monitor 10,860 PWSs, of which 2350 and
1,570 are community water systems and nontransient water
systems, respectively. A large majority of the population
(about 90 percent of the population on PWSs), more than 9
million people, is served by 290 medium and 30 large water
systems. In addition to public notification, VOC (Phase I),
and total coliform rules, DER also has promulgated a filter
rule. The rule requires all PWSs to provide the following:
• Filtration of surface waters by 1995, and
• An amended bottled water rule, which regulates bottled
water in 1/2-gallon or larger containers, vending ma-
chines, retail water systems, and bulk water dispensers.
.State regulations to implement EPA's Phase II, IIB, and V
rules and the lead and copper rule are under development.
The safe drinking water program faces several issues, for
example:
• The onslaught of federal regulations is becoming too
much for the state to handle.
• Up to 75 percent of Pennsylvania's community and
nontransient water supplies using ground water will
exceed the proposed radon MCL of 300 Pci/L.
• Small water systems have inadequate funds, facilities,
and operation management to keep up with regulatory
requirements.
• Pennsylvania, like many other states, is facing a severe
shortage of staff and monetary resources.
The speaker proposed that requirements for monitoring be
left up to the states, which have a better idea of which
contaminants are most likely to occur. An EPA representa-
tive pointed out that an amendment to the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SOWA) asks EPA to submit to Congress a
process for identifying contaminants proposed for regula-
tion. This amendment potentially would release the Agency
from the current requirement to regulate 25 contaminants
every three years.
Maryland
A representative from the Maryland Department of the
Environment described activities in Maryland's Water Man-
agement Administration.
The Water Management Division administers both the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the SDWA. Under the CWA, states
have discretion to choose which contaminants will be regu-
lated. Maryland has promulgated ambient water standards
for 12 metals and 15 organic compounds known to occur in
state waters. The state may set standards equal to EPA
criteria, or can set other, defensible, standards. Maryland
did not adopt a human health fish consumption criterion for
arsenic, for example, because the form of arsenic in fish
tissue is not the same as that in drinking water, it is the
exposure to arsenic in drinking water that EPA has used for
derivation of both its drinking water and fish consumption
criteria. The state water quality standard for dioxin is higher
than that published by EPA, because the state used a higher
risk level and lower potency factor than did the Agency.
Maryland's surface water regulations were the subject of a
lawsuit, and several modifications to their application have
been proposed as part of the settlement of that suit
• Chemical and biological procedures have been pro-
posed to enable the translation of aquatic life criteria
(applied as dissolved metal or bioavailable portion
instream) to total recoverable permit limits.
• Acute mixing zones will be used, as stated in the March
1991 TSD.
• A "corrosion/erosion credit" is allowed in exchange for
pipe replacement: if noncontact cooling water dis-
charge contains metals, the discharger is allowed a
5-year discharge permit.
• Dischargers who take from and discharge to the same
stream are allowed "intake credits" if they can show
that the source and receiving water have the same water
quality after discharge.
An attendee asked whether Maryland's use of 6.5 g per day
for the fish consumption variable in calculating the dioxin
standard has been challenged. The level has been deemed
"reasonable" by the Department of the Environment and is
considered relatively safe for the general population.
-------
District of Columbia
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes care of drinking
water treatment in Washington, DC, while the Department
of Public Works maintains the distribution system. The
primary concern currently is lead in drinking water at the
tap: 11 percent of houses in a random sample showed
water-lead levels greater than 15 ppb. Public notification is
underway. Since the Washington, DC, Water Management
Division is not responsible for monitoring or treatment
under the SDWA, many present wondered how their states
could enlist COE to treat their water. Finally, a FSTRAC
member asked whether Washington, DC, has a water con-
servation plan. Such a plan is not necessary because ample
water is available.
Virginia
The Director of the Bureau of Toxic Substances at the
Virginia Department of Health (VDH) discussed issues in
the state drinking and ambient water programs. The Bureau
of Toxic Substances conducts assessments of health hazard
and risk and develops guidelines and standards when EPA
MCLs are not available for a particular contaminant. Risk
assessors in the state face several issues while developing
state-specific standards and guidelines. Most recently, a
conflict pointed out the need for new ambient water quality
standards for aluminum and zinc. Publicly Owned Treat-
ment Works (POTWs) in the state were having trouble
meeting the existing ambient water quality standards for the
metals due to aluminum and zinc use during treatment
VDH assessors observed the following issues and factors:
• Ambient water quality criteria (WQQ are set to protect
human health via drinking water and fish consumption
but sometimes conflict with drinking water standards,
probably because a relative source contribution is not
included in WQC.
• If Reference Doses (RfDs) are chosen from IRIS to
develop the standards, a possibility exists that the RfD
will be reevaluated and changed, but there is no mecha-
nism for changing water quality standards.
• Ground water standards and WQC often may be differ-
ent. This could pose a problem when ground water
becomes surface water.
• When gathering information from EPA, each program
office sometimes has a different answer to the same
question. Various offices at EPA often use different
data bases.
• EPA requires states to have stricter ground water and
surface water standards when compared with drinking
water standards from municipal sources.
• Some regulated compounds are present at background
levels that are higher than the standard (e.g., arsenic).
• WQC do not take into account the analytical methods
available.
• It is impossible to enforce state Water Quality Stan-
dards (WQS) in many instances when the standard is
well below the limit of detection.
• The theoretical incremental risk is lower in drinking
water standards than in WQC (e.g., chloroform).
• Finally, states receive conflicting information from
different federal agencies (e.g., FDA's level of 2 ppm
PCB in fish versus EPA's level of 0.15 ppm).
Other states reported having the same difficulties, com-
menting especially on the final point Michigan revises its
fish advisories each year, Massachusetts uses the FDA level
to evaluate fish in restaurants, while EPA's level is used to
protect subsistence anglers.
An EPA participant pointed out that some people view
MCLs as inappropriate for use as WQC because of the
manner in which they are derived (i.e., they may factor in
the technical and economic feasibility for drinking water
treatment facilities). WQC are applied to prevent the need
for treatment later, while MCLs are "cleanup" levels.
Hot Issues
Representatives from the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), EPA, and states presented current "hot" issues.
FDA's Action Levels for Fish Contamination
A representative from FDA's Office of Seafood stated that
13 out of 14 action levels enforced by FDA were recom-
mended by EPA in the 1970s. One tolerance level, for
PCBs, and an action level for methyl mercury were derived
at FDA.
Five chemical contaminant programs at FDA have a sea-
food component. The programs cover imported foods, do-
mestic foods, domestic aquaculture programs, canned tuna,
and the national total diet study, which looks at contami-
nants in food after it is prepared. FDA's compliance pro-
gram focuses on interstate commerce. Sampling is biased
toward areas of known problems. FDA monitors samples of
edible tissue for specific pesticides, industrial chemicals,
heavy metals, and dioxins. Fish taken from the open ocean
are usually tested only for methyl mercury. While 60 per-
cent of seafood eaten in the United States is imported, fewer
samples are taken from imported seafood than domestic.
Domestic and imported fish show the same frequency of
violation (0.2 percent), although imported seafood is less
likely to show any level of contamination. FDA tests prima-
rily for those contaminants for which there is an action or
tolerance level The contaminants and their action levels are
methyl mercury
aldrin and/or dieldrin
chlordane
chlordecone (kepone)
DDT, DDE, TDE
endrin
1.0 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm in fish, shellfish
0.4 ppm in crabmeat
5.0 ppm
0.3 ppm
-------
heplachlor and its epoxide
mirex
pesticides
paralytic shellfish toxin
histamine in canned tuna
0.1 ppm
5.0 ppm
levels recommended by
EPA
80 mg/100 g
50 mg/100 g
FDA has no plans to develop additional action levels;
however, they are providing guidance to states for deriv-
ing their own tolerance levels for lead, cadmium, chro-
mium, nickel, and arsenic. FDA is also funding research
on methyl mercury at the University of Rochester to
conduct a reproductive/developmental dose-response study
in fish.
A participant pointed out that 50 mg histamine may be too
high for sensitive persons. The speaker explained that the
level is being reevaluated at FDA.
Another participant asked if a wider range of contaminants
was surveyed periodically to ensure that no potential con-
tamination problems are overlooked. About 100 contami-
nants are surveyed, but if any are detected, little can be
done without enforceable action levels. If a sample ex-
ceeds the action level for a contaminant, the product
should be removed from the market, but often it already
has been distributed.
The speaker presented a table summarizing findings of
total PCBs in salmon and lake whitefish from 1989 to
1991. The mean concentrations of PCBs in both species
decreased over that time. Another chart showed that mean
total DDT concentrations in catfish, whitefish, and salmon
have stayed significantly lower than the action level. Me-
thyl mercury is a problem in swordflsh and shark, how-
ever, with an action level violation rate of 26 percent
Massachusetts monitors total mercury levels and measures
the results against FDA's methyl mercury action level.
That method may not be accurate for some species for
methyl mercury.
Radium in Drinking Water Distribution Systems
Radium present in drinking water distribution systems
may be a potential source of radon in drinking water,
according to preliminary research findings described by a
FSTRAC member from Region VH.
Because radium can form deposits on pipe walls much like
calcium does, Richard Valentine from the University of
Iowa argues that radium on pipe walls can decay to radon
and contribute to drinking water levels. Dr. Valentine and
his colleagues found increased concentrations of radon in
portions of several city distribution systems, even when
the treated water met radium and radon MCLs at the point
of entry. In preliminary results, he attributed the increased
radon to radium-containing deposits on the distribution
pipe walls. The findings suggest that the proposed in-
creased radium standard may influence radon concentra-
tions, raising them above "safe" levels. Dr. Valentine
suggests that the proposed radon rule is based on incom-
plete information regarding sources and proper monitoring
locations. Point-of-use water filters that remove and hold
radium also may contribute to radon at the tap. The findings
may affect the lead and copper rule because corrosion
control coatings may trap radium, and any attempt to scrape
radium-containing deposits from pipe walls increases the
potential for corrosion of lead and copper.
Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Kansas report the oc-
currence of radium in their drinking water. The group
agreed that the new research brings up more questions than
answers as to the next step.
Phase II Chemical Monitoring Waiver Request
A Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) toxicolo-
gist described Massachusetts' application for a waiver from
some Phase II monitoring. Under the provision for obtain-
ing monitoring waivers, the state must conduct a vulnerabil-
ity assessment to assure EPA that contamination will not be
a problem. Massachusetts' DEP looked at regionwide and
statewide justification for waivers from monitoring for sev-
eral drinking water contaminants based on environmental
fate, persistence, and occurrence.
First, DEP gathered data on the physical and chemical
characteristics of several Phase n chemicals, including the
contaminant sinks for each. Next, the state looked at state-
wide monitoring data to determine the contaminants' fre-
quency of occurrence. Finally, the state prepared background
data for each chemical, describing why they are not consid-
ered threats to human health in the state. Other New En-
gland states (New Hampshire and Maine) also have applied
for the same waiver.
When an attendee asked how intensive the study was, the
speaker said that the evaluations took two years to com-
plete, but because monitoring at each source would cost
about $8,000 per contaminant, the time spent on the waiver
application was well worth the effort. Massachusetts has
not received the waiver yet. New Jersey performed a similar
evaluation that has not been approved or denied at EPA. A
Region X representative reported that Alaska also had
inquired about waiver applications.
Fish Contamination Activities at EPA
A scientist from the OST Standards and Applied Science
Division, Fish Contamination Section, described current
efforts at EPA concerning fish contamination, a hot topic
for many FSTRAC members.
EPA has no direct statutory authority to regulate fish con-
tamination, but the Agency has become involved as a result
of the mandate in the CWA that EPA maintain "fishable"
waters. A 1989 survey showed many inconsistencies in
states' fish contamination programs, including a lack of
consistent approach to issuing fish consumption advisories.
Following the survey, EPA developed a federal action plan
to assist states in their efforts. Activities include
-------
• Development of an electronic bulletin board to
collect chemical-specific advisories from state
agencies. Part of the Nonpoint Source Information
Exchange, the Fish Consumption Special Interest
Group (SIG) Forum allows users to search for
advisories by state or contaminant, and to access
bibliographic data for supporting documents. For
_ information regarding the Fish Consumption SIG
bulletin board, contact Alison Greene at 202-
260-7053.
• Review and analysis of survey methods for con-
sumption of fish and shellfish (EPA 822/R-92/
001; call 202-260-7786). The report is a critical
assessment of fish tissue consumption rate survey
approaches and their applicability for estimating
consumption rates in recreational and subsistence
fishing populations. It also provides guidance for
developing appropriate surveys.
• Development of a guidance document describing
fish sampling and analysis, including field proce-
dures, choosing target analytes, quality assurance/
quality control considerations, etc. A joint
EPA-state workgroup will finish the document in
early 1993.
• Funding risk communication research at Cornell
University. Barbara Knuth at Cornell will deter-
mine the fish advisories that are most effective at
preventing people from consuming more fish than
is indicated.
• Quarterly federal interagency meetings to discuss
fish contamination and consumption issues.
• A workshop May 10 to 11, 1993, in which EPA,
state, and academic representatives will look at
PCBs in fish tissues.
Deriving Lead Standards in Rhode Island
Rhode Island's Department of Health (DOH) uses a "bot-
tom up" approach to develop lead standards for dust, soil,
and drinking water.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, 10 ug/ decili-
ters (Dl) is the highest acceptable blood-lead level in chil-
dren. DOH subtracted the average background blood-lead
level in state children, 4 jag/Dl, to determine how much
additional blood lead is "allowable." Combining that with
estimated relative source contributions for water, soil, and
dust, each source is assigned a portion of the 6 |ig/DI
allowable blood lead. Finally, DOH used EPA's biokinetic
model to calculate limits on lead concentrations in dust,
soil, and water.
An attendee asked if air was a significant source of lead
exposure. Rhode Island has found that air concentrations
are less significant than the other sources, especially soil,
which has been found in Providence soil at 3,000 ppb on
average. Further research in the state will assign more
accurate relative source contributions.
Miscellaneous Hot Issues
The group discussed several issues of interest to individual
states.
Drinking Water Standards for Sodium and Chloride
In Rhode Island, citizens are told that no health effects
result from moderate chloride exposure, but that persons on
salt-restricted diets to treat hypertension should avoid drink-
ing water with high sodium content. A Rhode Island DOH
representative asked if any states other than Rhode Island
have procedures for advising the public when high levels of
sodium or chloride are detected in their drinking water. The
group discussed whether salt-restricted diets would be af-
fected by low levels of sodium in water. Many in the
medical community question whether salt-restricted diets
are effective at lowering blood pressure. Other ions such as
calcium, potassium, and magnesium also control
sodium-induced hypertension.
New Jersey uses 250 ppm as a secondary standard for
chloride, which is enforced when new wells are brought on
line.
Health Effects of Fluoride in Drinking Water
The group briefly discussed a paper by researchers in New
Jersey that examines the association between drinking wa-
ter fluoridation and osteosarcoma. The report, published by
the state Department of Environmental Protection and En-
ergy and the Department of Health, described a cohort of
males aged 10 to 20 supplied with fluoridated water, who
showed excess incidence of osteosarcoma. The research is
not definitive; the cohort was not surveyed to determine
other risk factors or to correlate drinking the water with the
effect New Jersey is not recommending a halt to fluorida-
tion but does recommend that dentists help advise the state
on fluoridation practices based on the age range in their
community.
Minimum Data Sets
FSTRAC members held a lively discussion concerning the
need for guidance to determine the minimum amount of
data needed to produce a reliable risk estimate. One person
suggested that FSTRAC or a subcommittee or subgroup
prepare guidelines reflecting the group's best professional
judgement States already decide which additional contami-
nants deserve regulation; they should be provided with
guidelines for making that decision. Perhaps the format
could follow the waiver application developed in Massa-
chusetts: in order for the compound not to be regulated, the
applicant must show that a certain amount of research has
been done to support the recommendation.
EPA has been addressing that problem in the surface water
criteria program, and a report to Congress is due this
-------
summer. Currently, EPA must regulate certain compounds
based on the best available research data. The report may
convince Congress to allow EPA to choose the drinking
water contaminants to be regulated, rather than being forced
to regulate 25 compounds every three years by the SOW A.
FSTRAC member states may be able to help EPA in that
effort.
The next FSTRAC meeting was held May 19 to 21,1993, in
Albany, NY.
>• For more information about the meeting or FSTRAC in
general, call Bob Cantilli (202-260-5546) or Ed Ohanian
(202-260-7571) in the Office of Water's Office of
Science and Technology.
Headquarters (continued from p. 1)
Risk Communication—Applied Research
by Lynn Luderer, 202-260-6995
The Risk Communication Project (Office of Policy, Planr
ning and Evaluation) sponsors a limited number of applied
research projects each year through cooperative agreements
to advance the state of the art of environmental risk commu-
nication. The results are shared through reports, fact sheets'
and the Risk Communication Workshop. For example, un-
der a cooperative agreement with Columbia University,
studies of public perception of risk have provided many
useful insights into how people perceive risk and what
information sources they trust. This knowledge base has
been augmented by related work conducted by Rutgers,
Perm State, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute/State Univer-
sity. We have learned for example that most people rely on
the print and visual media for their information on environ-
mental risks, and that physicians are one of the most trusted
sources of risk information. We also have learned how
visual formatting of risk information can influence knowl-
edge about risks. These and other findings help us develop
more effective approaches to communicating with different
audiences about environmental risks.
Two new research projects are currently underway:
1. Rutgers University is interviewing risk communi-
cation experts across the country to identify the
main gaps in current understanding of how to
communicate effectively about risk. We expect
this will result in development of a set of research
agendas that governmental agencies, nonprofit, and
academic institutions will be able to use to priori-
tize and target their future research activities.
2. Decision Research is exploring whether explain- in. Regions
ing uncertainty affects people's trust in risk infor-
mation sources. Most risk communication manuals
emphasize the importance of discussing uncer-
tainty and expressing risk as a range rather than a
point estimate. The assumption underlying those
recommendations is that this approach will build
trust and credibility. Experience suggests, how-
ever, that this may not always be the case. The
result of this research has strong practical implica-
tions for EPA and other agencies that are trying to
better characterize the uncertainties in their risk
assessments.
>• To learn more about this research, contact Lynn Luderer,
Director of the Risk Communication Project, ORME/
OPPE at 202-260-6995.
IRIS Highlights
by Pat Daunt, 513-569-7596
Summarized below are the IRIS highlights for the months
of March and April. More detailed NEWS is available for
ERIS-2 users on the first screen of the system.
March 1993 Update
Oral RfD Added:
1,4-Dithiane; CASRN 505-29-3
Health Advisories Added:
2,4-Dinitrotoluene; CASRN 121-14-2
Diphenylarnine; CASRN 122-39^
1,4-Dithiane; CASRN 505-29-3
Isopropyl methylphosphonic acid; CASRN
1832-54-8
April 1993 Update
No assessments were added to IRIS. However, in the U. S.
EPA Regulatory Actions, the Ambient Water Quality Crite-
ria, Human Health section for 1,1,1-trichloroethane was
withdrawn. In addition, the Ambient Water Quality Crite-
ria, Aquatic Organisms section for heptachlor and hep-
tachlor epoxide were corrected (the acute and chronic
numbers in both the freshwater and marine sections had
inadvertently been switched).
As of April 1, 1992, IRIS contained 509 chemicals. This
includes 340 oral reference doses (RfDs), 78 inhalation
reference concentrations (RfCs), and 216 carcinogenicity
assessments, bringing the total number of risk information
assessments to 634. In addition, IRIS also contains 75
Drinking Water Health Advisories, 388 EPA regulatory
action sections, and 95 supplementary data sections (chemi-
cal/physical properties).
>• For additional information, contact Patricia Daunt, IRIS
Database Manager 513-569-7596.
Region H
EPA's Office of Research and Development issued a report
entitled "Electric and Magnetic Fields: An EPA Perspective
on Research Needs and Priorities for Improving Health
Risk Assessment" The report summarizes EMF research
-------
and identifies priorities for further research. The report
(EPA/600/9-91/016F) is available from the Center for Envi-
ronmental Research Information, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. The phone number is
513-569-7562, and the FAX is 513-569-7566.
The Federal Facility Environmental Restoration (EFER)
Dialogue Committee (established by EPA in March 1992)
has issued a report entitled "Recommendations for Improv-
ing the Federal Facility Environmental Restoration Deci-
sion Making Process and Setting Priorities in the Event of
Funding Shortfalls." Copies are available from the National
Tribal Environmental Council, 1225 Rio Grande, N.W.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871094 or 505-242-2175, FAX
505-242-2654.
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has issued
a report titled "Industrial Toxics and Pollution Prevention:
A National Report." The document includes data from the
Toxics Release Inventory, the 33/50 Program, the TSCA
Inventory, the New Chemicals Program, EPA's Pollution
Prevention Program, and other sources. Copies of the report
are available by writing to the Public Information Center
(PM-211B), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
DC 20460.
> For more information, contact Ellen Shapiro at 202-
260-9557 or Kent Benjamin at 202-260-1714.
IV. Meetings
Complying with New Federal Regulations for
Lead-Based Paint Abatement—A First Look,
June 10 •11,1993
The Society for Occupational and Environmental Health, in
conjunction with EPA, HUD, and OSHA, will host a meet-
ing entitled "Complying with New Federal Regulations for
Lead-Based Paint Abatement—A First Look." The meeting
will be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City. Topics at
the meeting will be as follows: New OSHA Interim Lead
Standard, EPA and HUD perspectives, EPA Accreditation
and Training, and discussion of current issues surrounding
accreditation and training under Title X.
> For additional information on the meeting, contact the
Society of Occupational and Environmental Health,
6728 Old McLean Village Drive, McLean, Virginia
22101. The phone number is 703-556-9222.
International Conference on Health and
Environment, June 20-23,1993
The 20th Annual National Council for International Health
Conference will be held in Arlington, Virginia. The confer-
ence will address the challenges of integrating political and
ecological solutions to human development The confer-
ence will take a close look at three major themes: exploring
population linkages to the environment, health, and devel-
opment; dissolving borders between health and environ-
ment; and empowering communities to achieve healthy
environments.
> For more information, contact Brit Saksvig at 202-
833-5903.
National Environmental Health Association
57th Annual Educational Conference, June
26-30,1993
The 57th Annual Educational Conference of the National
Environmental Health Association (NEHA) will be held in
Orlando, Florida. The conference will be held at the Hilton
at Walt Disney World Village, 1751 Hotel Plaza Boulevard,
Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830.
The conference will include presentations on onsite waste-
water management, environmental health management, solid
waste and recycling, environmental equity, air pollution
issues, hazardous and toxic substances, and injury preven-
tion/occupational health and institutional environmental
health. Keynote speakers will include Chris J. Wiant, Presi-
dent of NEHA, whose presentation will be titled "The Need
for Building Collaborative Links: Interdependence or Fail-
ure!" Dr. Barry Johnson, Assistant Surgeon General, Assis-
tant Administrator for ATSDR will speak on "Enhancing
Environmental Health in State and Local Health Depart-
ments."
>• For additional information on the conference and regis-
tration materials, contact the NEHA Meetings Depart-
ment, '93 AEC, 720 South Colorado Boulevard, South
Tower, #970, Denver, Colorado 80222-1925. The phone
number is 303-756-9090, and the FAX is 303-691-9490.
International Conference on Arsenic
Exposures and Health Effects, July 28-30,1993
The Society of Environmental Geochemistry and Health
will host an International Conference on Arsenic Exposures
and Health Effects to be held in New Orleans, Louisiana.
> For additional information, contact Dr. Willard
ChappeU, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado,
or 303-556-3460.
Biological Mechanisms and Quantitative Risk
Assessment, November 1-4,1993
The EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL-RTP)
will host the First Annual HERL Symposium, entitled
"Biological Mechanisms and Quantitative Risk Assessment,"
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The purpose of the symposium is to provide an opportunity
for active dialogue on the role of mechanistic biological
research in future risk assessment strategies. Specific goals
are to discuss the following issues:
• Current use of mechanistic biological data in quantita-
tive risk assessments,
• The changing face of health effects risk assessments in
response to increasingly sophisticated knowledge of
-------
the mechanisms of toxic effects and biological func-
tion, and
• The role of mathematical models of biological systems
in integrating research activities, identifying data gaps,
designing mechanistic studies, and reducing uncertain-
ties in the risk assessment process.
An opportunity will be provided to present posters on topics
related to the theme of the symposium. Guidelines for
submissions of abstracts will be sent upon request.
>• For more information concerning the meeting, contact
the conference coordinators: Research and Evaluation
Associates, Inc. 100 Europa Drive, Suite 590, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina 27514. The phone number is 919-
968^961, and the FAX number is 919-967-4098. Al-
ternatively, contact the Health Effects Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Mail Drop 51, Research Tri-
angle Park, North Carolina 27717.
Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting,
December 5-8,1993
The Society for Risk Analysis will host its 1993 Annual
Meeting at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Savannah, Georgia.
Currently, the society is accepting proposals for workshops
and papers for presentation at the meeting.
>• For additional information contact Dr. David McCallum,
Chair, Conference and Workshops Committee, Society
for Risk Analysis Secretariat, 8000 Westpark Drive,
Suite 130, McLean, Virginia 22101. The phone num-
ber is 703-790-1745, and the FAX number is 703-
790-0063. The deadline for submission of articles is
June 25,1993.
Seventh International Congress of Toxicology
Meeting, July 2-6,1995
The Seventh International Congress of Toxicology will be
held in Seattle, Washington. The program based on.the
theme "Horizons in Toxicology: Preparing for the 21st
Century," will include plenary sessions, symposia, posters,
workshops, continuing education courses, and scientific
exhibits.
The meeting will be hosted by the Society of Toxicology
and the International Union of Toxicology.
> For additional information, contact ICT/VII, c/o Soci-
ety of Toxicology, 1101 14th Street, N.W., Suite 1100,
Washington, DC 20005-5601. The telephone number
is 202-371-1393, and the FAX number is 202-371-1090.
Risk and Decision-Making Course Schedule
The following is the schedule for the Risk and
Decision-Making Courses through July:
May 11-12 Denver, Colorado
June 1-3 New York City
July 7-8 Denver, Colorado
The following is the schedule for the Risk Communication
Workshops through July:
June 8-10 Visalia, California
>• Contacts:
Jim Cole, 202-260-2747
Marian Olsen, 212-264-5682
Alvin Chun, 415-744-1022
Contacts:
Jerome Puskin
Linda Tuxen
Dorothy Fatten
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 VH
Region Vm
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
215-597-8327
404-347-1586
312-886-3388
214-655-8513
913-551-7415
303-293-0%!
415-744-1018
206442-2135
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
------- |