UNITED STATES ENVIROhMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II, New York, New York 10278
DATE
SUBJECT
FRCM
March 22, 1988
Risk Assessment Review
JZ ¦
rm i aim/J .	y n s k i
Deputy Regiona1 Administrator
Office of Regulatory Support and Scientific 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
Ne twork.
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 second 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 future issues,
contact one of the Committee members listed on page 1 of
the review.
At t achmen t

-------
February 1988
Highlights
o More on EPA's New Risk Communication
Program	 p. 1
o News from the Risk Assessment Council
and Forum 	 p. 3
o New Approach for the Establishment
of Fish Consumption Advisories 	 p. 7
® Volatilization of PCB's From Soil 	 p. 8
« Quartz Hill Ecological Risk Assessment ... p. 8
• Next Meeting of Regional Risk Assessors . p. 10
I. Special Feature:
MORE ON EPA'S NEW RISK COMMUNICATION
PROGRAM
Risk communication can help in achieving EPA's
mission to reduce environmental risk. This is in part
because people tend to worry about some risks that are
relatively small, while at the same time not worrying
about other risks that are much larger. It takes an effort
in terms of time and resources to reduce both large and
small risks. Risk communication can help people put
various risks in perspective, so that they can understand
the trade-offs that must be made in reducing any
particular cause of risk. Some of these trade-offs
include actions individuals can choose to manage their
own risks. Other trade-offs involve regulatory action.
Because the public ultimately drives the EPA's
regulatory agenda, improved understanding of relative
risks is likely to result in pressure for the Agency to
address the largest environmental risks.
The increased need for careful attention to risk
communication as part of EPA's risk management
strategies has led to many new risk communication
activities across the Agency. The Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) is managing a Risk
Communication Program to assure coordination among
the diverse risk communication efforts across the
programs and regions, so that we can learn as much as
possible about how to make these efforts more
effective.
Substantive input from the programs and regions is
essential to making the Risk Communication Program
serve its purpose well. Sometimes this input can be as
simple as sharing workplans and reports on studies.
Other times the input includes contributing dollar and
staff resources to a study initiated by OPPE but
designed to assist a program or region. The last two
issues of the Risk Assessment Review described why
risk communication is so important and gave details
about two of the four functions under the Risk
Communication Program. (These two functions were
facilitating and evaluating the effectiveness of actual risk
communication activities and developing improved
methods for communicating risks.) This issue covers the
outreach and clearinghouse function, and the next one
will cover risk communication training.
CLEARINGHOUSE
The most important part of the outreach and
clearinghouse function for EPA staff is the
Risk Assessment Review Committee
Peter Preuss - ORD, FTS 382-7669
Sally Edwards - Region I, (617) 565-2993
Maria Pavlova - OTS, FTS 382-3801
Marian Olsen - Region II, FTS 264-5682
Susan Deihl - Region IV, FTS 257-5065
Suzanne Wuerthele - Region VIII, FTS 564-1743
Dana Davoli - Region X, FTS 399-2135
clearinghouse component. One example of this is the
annotated list of risk communication and risk training
projects that is maintained on the E-Mail Risk
Assessment/Risk Management Bulletin Board. Anyone
who missed the last two issues of the Risk Assessment
Review or wants an immediate preview about risk
training can consult this list. (Once in E-Mail, type
"PRPOST" at the > prompt, and "RISK" when asked
for a category. Occasionally the list is removed for
updating.)
Clearinghouse activities also include a risk
communication hotline. The number is FTS 382-5606.
The person answering the hotline will respond directly
to questions or refer the caller to whoever on EPA's
staff can provide the needed expertise in risk
communication. Sometimes the hotline provides
information about external experts at universities or
consulting firms. The main purpose of the hotline is to
provide assistance to EPA program offices and regions.
However, we also try to answer questions raised by
those in state and local government, universities, and
private organizations that are working on risk
communication problems.
The Risk Communication Program maintains a library as
part of its clearinghouse component. The library
includes both professional and popular press articles
about various risk communication activities at EPA and
elsewhere, with an emphasis on the evaluation of how
well the risk communication efforts achieved their
objectives. The library includes unpublished reports on
risk communication studies and descriptions of studies
that are underway. It also maintains a file on
conferences and workshops related to risk
communication.
OUTREACH
The issues raised in the first paragraph indicate that a
greater level of understanding of risk issues is needed if
we are going to have informed public input and
individual decisions for risk management. Several
activities have been initiated that will contribute to this
understanding. These include a series of "invitation
only" conferences for key opinion leaders from
government, industry, public interest groups, and the
media, focusing on specially written case studies; a
major conference on risk communication in January
1986; partial support and participation in a series of
workshops with the media on reporting of risk issues;
partial sponsorship of the new Center for Risk
Management at Resources for the Future; and
1

-------
preparation and dissemination of papers, articles, and
reports on risk communication. EPA also has worked
with other agencies through the Task Force on
Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease to
conduct a conference on the role of government in
communicating about health and environmental risks
(January 1987) and one on evaluating risk
communication efforts (June 1988).
It has been suggested that EPA should reach out to
civic and professional groups and the educational
establishment as a way to raise the general awareness
level and understanding of risk issues. Because this will
potentially absorb many resources, we are working
through the 14-agency Interagency Task Force on
Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease on a
small project to outline what the federal government is
doing and might do in this area.
The project list below briefly describes clearinghouse
and outreach activities that are complete, ongoing, or
proposed. A contact name and phone number are
included, so that you can find out more about a specific
study. For more information on the Risk Communication
Program in general, call its hotline number, FTS 382-
5606.
PROJECT LIST: CLEARINGHOUSE, OUTREACH AND
GENERAL PUBLIC EDUCATION
Ongoing/ Completed
1.	Hotline for Regions and Program Offices: To serve
as an up-to-date resource for information on risk
communication research, skill building,
implementation, and evaluation: FTS 382-5606 (in
place 4/87)
2.	Risk Assessment Review includes articles about
Agency activities in risk assessment, risk
management, and risk communication. (Peter
Preuss, FTS 382-7315 or William Muszynski, FTS
264-0396)
3.	E-mail updates of Agency's risk communication
activities. (Elaine Danyluk, FTS 382-5606)
4.	"Tidewater" conferences for key public opinion
leaders from government, industry, public interest
groups, media, etc, focusing on case studies
("Dinitrochickenwire") on risk assessment and risk
management. (Pam Stirling, FTS 382-2747)
5.	National Conference on Risk Communication,
Washington, D.C., January 1986: proceedings
published, Fall 1987. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-4012)
6.	Seminars for the press on risk communication (with
Georgetown University and other universities). Six
held so far, with more planned. (OPPE and Public
Affairs). (Derry Allen, FTS 382-4012)
7.	Integrated Environmental Management Program
(OPPE): various special risk assessment/
management/communication efforts at Philadelphia.
Baltimore, Santa Clara. Denver, Kanawha Valley,
Regions I. Ill, X, and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (ongoing). (Dan Beardsley, FTS 382-
2747)
8.	Comparative Risk Project: report widely circulated,
publicized and discussed; follow-up conference
planned for April 1988. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-
4012)
9.	Article comparing results from Comparative Risk
Project with rankings of environmental problems by
the public, examining reasons for and implications
of differences; accepted for publication in Risk
Analysis. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-4012).
10.	Article on New York State radon risk communication
study for Science, Technology and Human Values.
(Ann Fisher, FTS 382-5500)
11.	Center for Risk Management (at Resources for the
Future). EPA's agency-wide contribution is
providing approximately one-third of the funding
(with the rest coming from foundations and
industry). Functions include research, analysis,
education and outreach on risk management and
risk communication. Initiated April 1987. (Ann
Fisher, FTS 382-5500)
12.	Interagency workshops on risk communication,
sponsored by the Task Force on Environmental
Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease (composed of
14 federal agencies and chaired by EPA). The first
workshop was held in January 1987. The second
will focus on evaluating risk communication and is
planned for June 1988. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-
4012, Ann Fisher, FTS 382-5500, Maria Pavlova,
FTS 382-3580)
13.	National Conference on Environmental Gridlock,
Princeton, NJ, November 1987. Report being
drafted. (Margaret Randol, FTS 264-4535).
14.	National Institute of Chemical Studies: OPPE
helped plan and participated in a risk
communication conference in Charleston, WV,
March 1987. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-4012)
15.	Texas Risk Communication Project: Multiple
sponsors included Texas Chemical Council and
EPA's Region VI. A two-day workshop was held
October 16-17, 1987, focusing on a
communications package that can be used for
presenting chemical risks to diverse audiences.
(Ellen Greenay or Tim Underwood, FTS 255-6735)
16.	EPA speakers and panels on risk communication at
various conferences, including Society for Risk
Analysis (11/86, 11/87), Public Relations Society of
America (11/86), APCA (10/87, 6/88), Hazardous
Materials Spills Conference, Environmetrics 87, etc
(OPPE, ODW, OSWER).
Contact: Ann Fisher, FTS 382-5500
2

-------
II. From Headquarters
NEWS FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT COUNCIL
By Don Barnes (FTS 382-4126)
1.	Risk assessment for the ingestion of inorganic
arsenic -- or "Just how bad is arsenic, anyway?"
"Ask Napoleon!"
In 1987 the Risk Assessment Forum produced a report
on the hazard identification and dose-response
assessment of ingested inorganic arsenic. This update
of a 1984 Agency assessment confirmed the association
between the ingestion of the chemical and the risk of
skin cancer. Based upon a reanalysis of the exposure
information of the human studies that were the basis of
the assessment, the report presented a potency which
was about 10-fold lower than the 1984 estimate.
The Risk Assessment Council adopted the report. In
addition the Council addressed the science policy issue
of how the Agency should view the skin cancer
response vis a vis its view of other cancer (e.g., internal
organ) responses. After examining a series of
considerations (e.g., skin cancers are generally easily
detected, simply treated, and rarely fatal), the Council
recommended that, as a matter of science policy, the
Agency modify the potency estimate downward by an
additional 10-fold factor. The Council forwarded the
Forum report, which now includes the Council
recommendation, to the Science Advisory Board (SAB),
asking for a review of the science policy
recommendation. The Executive Committee of the SAB
expressed some unease in addressing the policy issue
but referred the matter to the SAB's Environmental
Health Committee for their views on whether the SAB
should accept the request to review the policy
recommendation. The Environmental Health Committee
discussed the issue at their meeting in late January and
is preparing a response to the Executive Committee at
this time.
A number of Regions have situations in which inorganic
arsenic plays a significant role. Therefore, they are
following developments with interest.
2.	Examining Assumptions in Risk Subcommittee
(EARS) -- or "He who has ears, let him hear!"
The Risk Assessment Council has established a
subcommittee to take a close look at some of the
assumptions which are inherent in the way the risks are
generally assessed. Lists of such assumptions have
been generated in the last few years by groups both
inside and outside the Agency. The goal of the
subcommittee, chaired by Ken Sexton, Director of the
Office of Health Research in the Office of Research and
Development, is to identify those assumptions (both in
the toxicity and exposure areas) which have the greatest
impact on the estimates of risk. These assumptions will
be examined in some detail, considering alternatives
and the possibfe compounding of conservativeness
which results.
The subcommittee will report back to the Council at its
meeting in May. In addition to their near-term results,
their efforts should also provide useful guidance for the
preparation of longer-term research activities.
NEWS FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT FORUM
By Linda C. Tuxen (FTS 475-6743)
NEW FORUM MEMBERS - The Risk Assessment
Council has appointed several new members from
Regional Offices, EPA Laboratories, and Headquarters
to the 1988 Risk Assessment Forum. The Forum is
pleased that membership is more representative of
offices beyond Headquarters and enthusiastically
welcomes all its new members. The new Forum
members are: lla Cote (OAQPS/RTP), Lee Mulkey
(Athens Lab), Roy Smith (Region III), Mike Callahan
(EAD/OHEA/Hq), and Elizabeth Bryan (ERD/OTS/Hq).
In 1987, the Risk Assessment Council recommended
that the Forum's membership be enlarged from 10 to 13
to allow more exposure expertise. This was approved
by the Administrator and the Forum's Charter was
amended to reflect this change. Consistent with this,
three of the new members are experts in the field of
exposure analysis and assessments.
REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS GUIDELINES - Proposals
for two new risk assessment guidelines will soon be
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER for public
comment. "Proposed Guidelines for Assessing Female
Reproductive Risk" and "Proposed Guidelines for
Assessing Male Reproductive Risk," were developed by
interoffice work groups that report to the Risk
Assessment Forum. Following Risk Assessment Council
review, the proposals have been forwarded tp the
Administrator and to Science Advisory Board for review.
These proposed guidelines describe the procedures
that EPA would follow in evaluating potential toxicity to
the human female and male reproductive systems.
ARSENIC - A notice of availability of the Risk
Assessment Forum's report on ingested inorganic
arsenic was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
January 22, 1988 (53 FR 1835). The notice announces
that EPA has asked the Science Advisory Board to
review the Risk Assessment Council's policy statement
that recommends modification of the Forum's skin
cancer risk estimate and sets a March 15, 1988
deadline for any public comments.
To obtain a single copy of the Forum document
(Document Number EPA-625/3-87/013A) contact:
ORD Publications Office, CERI-FRN, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Martin Luther King
Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, Telephone: (513) 569-
7562 (FTS 684-7562). The document will be
distributed from the Cincinnati office only.
RISK ASSESSMENT FORUM COLLOQUIA - The Risk
Assessment Forum has scheduled several colloquia on
risk assessment issues of Agency-wide interest. These
discussions are undertaken to identify issues for later
in-depth study by the Forum or some other Agency
group, and to obtain input across Agency programs on
3

-------
the issue. Recent colloquia are described below, along
with information about future events.
•	Showering Risk Colloquium - On January 12, 1988
the Forum sponsored an all-day colloquium on the
evaluation of risks from showering with water
contaminated with volatile organic chemicals (VOCs).
The objective of the colloquium was to determine
whether the Forum should study risks from
showering and other uses of VOC-contaminated
water. The meeting was chaired by Suzanne
Wuerthele of Region VIII, and was attended by
scientists from Headquarters, Regional offices and
other Agencies. The colloquium chair and attending
Forum members will develop recommendations
regarding future study of the topic by the Forum or
some other Agency group.
•	RfD Apportionment Colloquium - On January 26,
1988 the Risk Assessment Forum sponsored a half-
day colloquium on the issue of reference dose (RfD)
apportionment. The meeting was well attended, with
representatives from many EPA program offices.
Colloquium participants focused on issues relating to
apportioning the RfD among media and matrices and
to identifying decision criteria on apportionment to
meet the regulatory needs of different EPA offices.
These issues are of interest because the Agency
studies exposure from all sources to avoid exposure
in excess of the RfD. RfD apportionment involves
reserving a portion of the total RfD that will then be
fractionated among different media where exposure
may result.
Forum members attending the colloquium will
develop a "sense of the meeting" statement and
make recommendations to the Forum.
•	Colloquia scheduled for February and March are
listed below.
	TOPIC	DATES/TIME/PLACE
Quantitative Low Dose	February 26, 1988, 9:00-4:30 p.m.
Extrapolation - New Methods Headquarters, Room 1, North WIC
Soil Exposure Assessment March 23,1988, 9:00-4:30 p.m.
Headquarters, Room 1, North WIC
THYROID NEOPLASIA - A Risk Assessment Forum
Technical Panel draft report entitled "Thyroid Follicular
Cell Carcinogenesis: Mechanistic and Science Policy
Considerations" proposes a new approach to EPA
analysis of carcinogenic agents that induce thyroid
neoplasia Specifically, the report proposes that
carcinogenesis in thyroid follicular cells be analyzed as
a threshold phenomenon, and that end points other than
neoplasia can be used for cancer risk for chemicals that
induce thyroid follicular cell neoplasia. The draft report
has been forwarded by the Risk Assessment Council
Chairman to the Agency's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) for revitew. The Council also recommended that
an appropriate chemical be identified to use as a case
study of the principles and procedures set forth in the
report. Dr. Richard Hill of OTS chaired this project.
The scientific analysis and policy recommendations in
this report are based in the main on laboratory studies
in which thyroid tumors in animals exposed to chemical
substances were linked to disruption of the normal
function of the thyroid and pituitary glands. These
findings were largely described in a 1986 Office of
Pesticide Programs report, which was favorably
reviewed by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)
and independent outside reviewers. The Forum analysis
enlarges upon some of the issues developed in the OPP
paper and provides analyses of additional topics.
The science policy proposal for chemicals that induce
thyroid follicular cell neoplasia builds upon guidance in
the EPA cancer guidelines. The guidelines call for use
of mechanistic and other relevant information in making
choices about the models to be used in extrapolating
from high to low exposures. The thyroid neoplasia
report proposes that under clearly specified conditions,
human risk for thyroid follicular cell neoplasia should be
evaluated in accordance with risk assessment principles
for analyzing "threshold" phenomena, as is done with
reproductive or neurologic effects. This method is
proposed in lieu of linear extrapolation methods which
generally have been employed by the Agency in
assessing carcinogenic substances. In the case of the
thyroid gland, EPA scientists would use metabolic,
toxicological, and other ancillary data on preneoplastic
endpoints to identify NOAELs and LOAELs as estimates
of potency, rather than using data on tumor incidence
as is customary for carcinogenic compounds.
A notice of availability of the draft document and a date
for the SAB meeting on this topic will be published in
future FEDERAL REGISTER notices.
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
By Maria Pavlova (FTS 382-3801)
The provisions of Title III of SARA require programs to
prepare Federal, State and local decision-makers,
citizens' groups, and individuals to understand emerging
information about the presence of toxic substances and
to use this information as a basis for action where
necessary. The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) is
developing a public education and communication
program to improve understanding of toxic substances,
to provide a context for interpreting the potential impact
of new information on a community, and to allow for
more informed public participation on toxic substance
related issues. The needs assessment project will
provide information regarding the current state of public
knowledge and opinion, credible messages, and
delivery channels needed to develop educational
programs.
The goals of the project are:
4

-------
•	To identify state and public awareness and
understanding of the presence of toxic substances
in communities,
•	To identify public needs and wants for information
related to toxic substances and associated risks,
and
•	To provide educational materials and a context for
understanding toxic chemicals and their potential
effects targeted to different audiences within local
communities.
The program will include the following activities:
1.	Assessing public needs and identifying channels
and intermediaries for message delivery,
2.	Identifying and evaluating existing educational
materials,
3.	Developing messages and new or modified
educational materials,
4.	Pretesting educational materials and identifying
dissemination channels, and
5.	Developing and recommending how to organize
communication programs on toxic substances
including design and evaluation.
The needs assessment will be designed to reveal how
specific segments of the public, opinion leaders, and
potential intermediaries (i.e., citizens in affected
communities, environmentalists, teachers, health
professionals, local officials, and members of interested
organizations) think about issues related to
environmental risks, and specifically about the presence
of toxic substances in their communities. Areas of
inquiry will include:
•	Knowledge and awareness of the existence and
risks of toxic substances,
•	Misconceptions, unwarranted anxiety, apathy and
other obstacles to the productive application of
information about toxic substances,
•	Concerns, interests and desires for information,
•	Sources of information perceived as credible by
specific segments of the public,
•	Interest in community involvement and potential
participation concerning toxic substances, and
•	Characteristics of specific target audiences which
influence communication (i.e., attitudes, knowledge,
demography, interest, and relationship to the
problem).
A series of focus groups will be convened to assess
knowledge levels and information needs about risks
from toxic substances. The results from the focus
groups will be used to get feedback about tools and
techniques EPA is preparing for the toxic release
inventory users and to develop informational materials.
An inventory of Public Education Materials related to
toxic substances and associated risks is being
prepared. These educational materials will be used to
explain the meaning and implications of toxic
substances and to enhance public understanding in
local communities of terms such as emission, risk,
toxicity, dose, exposure and health effects. We want to
include any materials that you have produced, used or
recommended to the public. A copy of the Inventory will
be available in early Spring of 1988.
TITLE III RISK SCREENING GUIDE
By David Klauder (FTS 382-3628)
As one component of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (Title III) of 1986, the
Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) is managing the
development of a Risk Screening Guide designed to
assist Regional, state, and local health and
environmental officials to respond to risk-related
questions concerning routine releases of certain toxic
chemicals. Under Section 313 of Title III, certain
industries are required to report to EPA and the states
annual releases into air, water, and land, including
publicly owned treatment works, landfills, and off-site
disposal of each chemical on a list of toxic chemicals.
For calendar year 1987 these emission estimates are to
be submitted on or before July 1, 1988. EPA is required
to establish a national data base to make these
emissions data available to the public. OTS has
undertaken a program to assist Federal, state, and local
decision-makers, citizens' groups, and individuals in
identifying and using appropriate tools for interpreting
Section 313 emissions data. One component of this
program is a project to develop a Risk Screening Guide
to assist first-line responders in answering questions
regarding toxicity, exposure, and risk.
Two steering committees have been set up to provide
guidance to this project: an external committee with
representation from EPA Regional, state and local
governments and public interest groups, and an internal
cross-program EPA committee. The primary
responsibility of the external steering committee, the
Section 313 Risk Screening Workgroup, is to generate
sample risk-related questions which could reasonably
be expected to be asked by concerned citizens when
the emissions data are publicly available and to
describe the technical needs for responding to these
questions. The internal steering committee, the Section
313 Expression of Risk Workgroup, will provide
guidance on matching available risk screening tools with
the expressed technical needs.
After three meetings of the internal and one of the
external steering committees, an outline of the Risk
Screening Guide is under development. The body of the
Guide is expected to be in question-and-answer
format. The responses to many of the questions will
point the user to additional information available for a
more in-depth response, e.g., (1) qualitative and
possibly semi-quantitative risk screening methods
5

-------
suitable for use on the Section 313 emissions data in
order to identify follow-up information-gathering
priorities, (2) chemical hazard profiles, (3) existing
federal and state chemical standards, (4) additional
sources of data on environmental releases or ambient
concentrations of Section 313 chemicals which might be
linked to facility releases, (5) information on likely
release patterns (duration, frequency, etc.) by industry
type, and (6) a description of available quantitative risk
assessment models including their data input
requirements, appropriate for more detailed risk
analyses and control option decision-making purposes.
A draft Risk Screening Guide is expected to be
completed in time to be presented at the five Title III
data management and evaluation workshops for
Regional, state, and local officials to be held in the
Regions during May and June. Revisions in the draft
Guide will be undertaken based upon the comments
and recommendations offered by participants at these
training workshops and from other "tool evaluation"
projects currently under development.
REVISED VERSION OF IRIS ON-LINE
By Jacqueline Patterson (FTS 684-7574)
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA's
primary data base of risk assessment information, has
been revised. IRIS is available to EPA personnel and
state agencies on EPA's Electronic Mail (E-Mail)
system. This spring IRIS should be available to those
outside of EPA.
IRIS contains summary risk assessment information on
over 260 chemicals. The previous format of IRIS has
been revised to assure greater consistency among
sections and to reduce the amount of time needed to
scroll through or download a file. The appearance of the
chemical files has changed, but the types of information
remain the same. The regulatory action sections have
been expanded and 24 drinking water health advisories
have been added. In addition, the background
documents have been edited.
When accessing IRIS, the user can determine the latest
changes by reading the opening banner message and
typing INFO MORE at the "Enter a Service code"
prompt. Users should refer to Service Code 2 to find out
which chemicals have been added or revised, and
Service Code 3 for details about specific revisions to the
chemical file.
Comments and questions on IRIS are welcome; contact
IRIS User Support, FTS 684-7254 or Jacqueline
Patterson, ECAO-Cincinnati, FTS 684-7574. Paper
copies of the background documents describing the
Reference Dose and Carcinogen Assessment review
process may also be obtained from IRIS User Support.
ACCESS TO STARA DATA BASE NOW
AVAILABLE
By Jacqueline Patterson (FTS 684-7574)
The STARA (Studies on Toxicity Applicable to Risk
Assessment) data base is now available on the
NCC/IBM mainframe using TSO. STARA contains
quantitative and qualitative toxicity data at the dose
group level. The data are from world-wide literature
searches of scientific publications but include only those
studies containing quantitative data useful for health risk
assessment.
Toxicity Files for 160 chemicals and Epidemiology Files
for 30 chemicals are available. The Toxicity Files
contain detailed data from laboratory animal studies and
brief summaries of human clinical and epidemiologic
studies. The Epidemiology Files contain detailed data
from epidemiology studies including study population
characteristics, exposure measures, statistical results,
and descriptions of observed effects.
This data base will be periodically updated and revised.
For more information or a Users Guide, contact Richard
Hertzberg, ECAO-Cincinnati, FTS 684-7582.
III. Around The Regions
Region III
WEST VIRGINIA REGULATIONS BASED ON RISK-
BASED SCREENING STUDY
The West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission has
recently begun development of statewide regulations
based on the results of a unique risk-based screening
study of the Kanawha Valley, WV. This study, finished
in 1987, resulted from a collaboration among Region III,
EPA Headquarters (OPPE, OAR, and ORD), and the
State.
The Kanawha Valley was selected for study because its
chemical-industrial complex ranks in size among the
top five in the country. Residents and officials in the
Valley have long been concerned about potential health
impacts of the more than 500 organic chemicals
routinely emitted in the Valley, only a few of which are
controlled under the Federal Clean Air Act. EPA and
WV jointly initiated the toxics screening study in 1985,
to estimate the general nature and magnitude of health
risks associated with long-term chemical exposures.
The study evaluated potential exposures by four routes,
with the primary focus on air exposure.
The State's new regulations will control, through Best
Available Technology (BAT), air emissions of several
chemicals which the study suggested pose long-term
risks to the public. The regulatory controls will
complement those achieved by the Commission
through voluntary reductions. Selection of chemicals (all
class A and B carcinogens) and control levels will be
based on the study's risk estimates. The resulting
6

-------
control priorities should be more accurate and equitable
than those based on gross emissions alone.
We are hopeful that the success of this effort may
convince other state and local agencies to manage risks
based on similar geographic analyses.
Contact: Thomas A. Slenkamp (FTS 597-9861)
Region IV
RISK ASSESSMENT AND DECISION-MAKING
TRAINING
Region IV scheduled its second FY-88 presentation of
the workshop "Risk Assessment and Decision Making"
for March 1-2 in Atlanta. This was our first presentation
with an all Region IV facilitator staff. We anticipated an
attendance of about 34 persons, half from the states and
half representing EPA project or unit managers.
Facilitator training was also provided for appropriate
state employees and all members of the Region's Risk
Advisory Committee. Future plans call for this basic risk
course to be given each quarter until all appropriate
EPA employees have been reached. Also, some states
have requested our assistance to their facilitators in
providing the course at state locations.
Contact: Elmer W. Akin (FTS 257-2234)
Region V
A NEW APPROACH FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES
Many current fish consumption advisories are based
upon the Food and Drug Administration's chemical
contaminant action levels, which were not always
developed using modern risk assessment techniques.
Moreover, these action levels were not intended to
apply to sport fisheries. A new method has been
developed that provides a more rigorous scientific basis
for developing fish consumption advisories for the Great
Lakes region. Unlike previous approaches used by
regulatory agencies, the proposed approach
incorporates the dissemination of comparative risk
information to the public and thus permits fully informed
decisions regarding the consumption of fish. The
method translates the total calculated carcinogenic risk
of chemical residues found in a particular fish species
over various size ranges into point values for a single
meal of fish. Therefore, a meal of fish is worth a
specified number of points. The method is very similar
to counting calories. The fish consumer selects a
desired excess lifetime cancer risk that corresponds to
a given number of total points of fish meals per year.
The approach permits individuals to keep track of their
fish consumption and potential risks and readily identify
fish having reduced human health risks. This new
advisory approach could also be extended to the
regulation of commercial fisheries and could prevent the
intermittent closing and reopening of some commercial
fisheries.
Reprints of this report, published in the September
issue, Journal of Great Lakes Research, are available
upon request.
Contact: Milt Clark (FTS 886-3388)
Region VI
REGION VI PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY ENFORCEMENT
PRIORITIES
Region VI had the task of initiating enforcement actions
against violators of chemical and radiological maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) in drinking water. Because
we lacked resources to enforce against all 612 MCL
violators, the first step was to prioritize the violations. To
do this, we applied EPA risk assessment concepts.
In the initial phase, the dose-response data presented
a problem in that for carcinogens, at any concentration,
a risk exists, whereas for non-carcinogens at
concentrations below the threshold, there is no risk. At
contaminant concentrations above the threshold, a risk
exists for the sensitive portion of the population, but the
distribution of the risk with concentration is not known.
Since we were unable to reconcile the risks of
carcinogens versus non-carcinogens, each group was
treated independently. Because carcinogens are a
health risk at any concentration, they were given a
"level one" health effects priority. The non-
carcinogens, with four exceptions, were given a "level
two" health effects priority. One exception was to
elevate nitrate to "level one" because the uncertainty
factor is virtually one and because the effects can be
manifested in a matter of days. Another exception was
to place lead in "level one" because of the high priority
it has been given by the Agency.
The two remaining exceptions are selenium and fluoride
which were given a "level three" health effects priority.
Selenium was given this priority because of the
uncertainty implicit in the proposal to raise the MCL
from 0.010 milligrams per liter to 0.045 milligrams per
liter and because the final Health Advisory has not been
issued by the Office of Drinking Water. Fluoride was
given a "level three" health effects priority because the
MCL is based on two case histories involving water
systems, populations, and water intake rates that are
atypical in this Region.
These three priority levels were used to characterize the
contaminants by health effects only. To ultimately
determine the enforcement priorities, additional factors
were considered. These were: exposed population, risk
factors for carcinogens, the extent to which the
contaminant concentrations exceed the MCL for non-
carcinogens, the complexity of treatment facilities,
maintenance and operation, and other factors, including
the ability of the customers to finance the required
improvements.
The result of melding these factors together was a
priority list that generally includes the "level 1" priority
contaminants at the top of the list, and the "level three"
priorities at the bottom. Several fluoride violations were,
7

-------
however, included in the upper quartile and one nitrate
violation in the lower quartile. The state agencies in
Region VI reviewed the procedure and suggested some
changes. The Region is currently using the list in
selecting the drinking water system having the chemical
and radiological MCL violations against which
enforcement actions are initiated.
Contact: Dr. Edgar Jeffrey (FTS 255-7155)
Region IX
ASBESTOS RISK
Region IX assembled a panel of asbestos experts and
an audience of well informed participants to assist the
Region in addressing asbestos risk issues that have
been raised related to several Superfund asbestos sites
in Region IX. Three major topics were discussed at the
all day workshop held on February 2, 1988: definition of
asbestos (counting and analytical techniques), definition
of background and risk characterization. The following
recommendations were agreed to at the workshop:
1)	Risk assessment, should be done based on the
mass of respirable (3 micron diameter cutoff) fibers
present.
2)	Mass calculation should be done by summing the
mass (fiber length and width) for all fibers, not by
calculating an average volume.
3)	Samples should be analyzed by both direct and
indirect preparation methods, making sure the
same filter type is used.
4)	Background should be determined on a site-by-
site basis.
Contact: Arnold Den (FTS 454-0906)
VOLATILIZATION OF PCBs FROM SOIL
The inhalation pathway from contaminated soil should
not be overlooked in a risk assessment, even for
chemicals considered not to be very volatile. Recently,
Region IX used an EPA model for assessing emissions
from PCB-contaminated soil (Development of Advisory
Levels for PCB Cleanup, ORD, May 1986.) This model
predicts the maximum individual risk for exposure to
volatilized PCB compounds as a function of soil
contamination level. Region IX used the model to
predict the potential risk from soil contaminated with an
average of 200 ppm of PCBs. The predicted inhalation
risk was in the range of 10E-4 to 10E-3. Later when
preliminary air monitoring was conducted to verify the
model prediction, the inhalation risk was found to be in
the range of 10E-5 to 10E-4. Thus the model
predicted actual risks within an order of magnitude.
Contact: Rick Crume (FTS 454-7109)
Region X
OLD ARSENIC LACES WELLS
In the spring of 1987, a case of peripheral neuropathy in
Washington alerted the state health department to
arsenic contamination in some of the drinking water
wells in central Snohomish County. This patient had
high levels of arsenic in his urine and his well water
contained 25 parts per million (ppm) of arsenic (500
times EPA's Drinking Water Standard). Since the spring,
7 other individuals in this area who have elevated
urinary arsenic have been diagnosed as having
symptoms consistent with peripheral neuropathies.
Tests of over 700 wells in the area have found that
about 4% of the wells (34 wells) have arsenic levels
above the drinking water standard and 11 wells have
levels above 1.0 ppm.
A widespread source of this arsenic contamination of
wells is suspected to be mineralization of natural
deposits which produced arsenic-bearing ores in the
area. However, some clusters of highly contaminated
wells may also be affected by increased mobilization of
arsenic as a result of mining activities. People with
contaminated wells are now using bottled water and
state and local officials are discussing the feasibility of
constructing a public water supply. However, the cost of
such a system may be prohibitive in an area as remote
as this one.
The state health department has alerted the local health
agencies in Washington that wells in other parts of the
state with similar geology may be contaminated with
arsenic. Because previous studies (in Oregon) and
results from Snohomish County suggest that arsenic
levels in drinking water wells may vary seasonally as
the water table varies, a subset of wells will be sampled
monthly for a year. This should provide information as
to whether one time sampling of a well is sufficient to
indicate violations of the drinking water standard. More
extensive sampling of wells in suspect geologic areas in
the state may then be done.
Contact: Dana Davoli (FTS 399-2135)
QUARTZ HILL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
EPA Region X completed an ecological risk assessment
for a proposed mining project at Quartz Hill in Alaska.
The purpose of this risk assessment was to compare
the two proposed alternatives for disposal of tailings
generated during the mining operation and to
characterize the uncertainty about the data and possible
impacts. Decision analysis was used as a framework for
describing this risk assessment because it allows for
quantitative and qualitative estimates of risk. This
process incorporates data or information from three
levels: 1) experimental results from the project, 2)
experimental results from other projects with similar
characteristics, and 3) professional judgment based
upon experience and knowledge of physical, chemical
and biological phenomena. If the individual decisions
8

-------
are carefully displayed, the final product is better
understood. The risk assessment was divided into five
steps: 1) description of the ecosystem and the potential
hazard, 2) selection of the sensitive populations (targets)
and factors which may cause harm (agents), 3) effects
assessment (concentration/response) estimates, 4)
exposure assessment (spatial and temporal interaction
of targets and agents), and 5) risk characterization
(uncertainty analysis).
The tailings disposal alternatives being evaluated are
two bays (Smeaton Bay and Boca de Quadra) with
similar biological communities but different physical and
chemical characteristics. The agent of concern is
copper. The targets include all aquatic organisms
observed in either bay. The effects assessment was
limited to a comparison to the EPA water quality
criterion for copper due to lack of site-specific toxicity
data. The probability of a response was therefore
predicted as 1.00 if the copper concentration in the bay
exceeded the water quality criterion (2.9 micrograms
per liter) and 0.00 if it was less than the water quality
criterion. The probability of exceeding the water quality
criterion for copper is greater in the upper water column
(above 100 meters) of Smeaton Bay than in the upper
water column (above 100 meters) of Boca de Quadra.
Since some of the most commercially valuable species
(herring, salmon) are only found in the upper water
column, the impacts are expected to be highest for
Smeaton Bay fish populations than for Boca de Quadra
fish populations. The uncertainty in these probability
estimates is very high due to the limited measurements
of the copper concentration and the limited
measurements of abundances of aquatic organisms.
Since this was only a statement of the likelihood of
harm due to exposure to copper, it must not be treated
as an absolute measure of impact. However, the
uncertainty analysis showed that there is greater
probability of impact in Smeaton Bay.
Contact: Pat Storm (FTS 399-1597)
IV. Announcements
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL
MIXTURES: RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
An International Symposium on "Chemical Mixtures:
Risk Assessment and Management" will be held on
June 7 to 9, 1988 at the Omni Netherland Plaza Hotel in
downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. The Symposium is being
sponsored by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency in cooperation with the American College of
Toxicology, Mobil Oil Corporation, the Society for Risk
Analysis, and the University of Cincinnati.
Recently, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
adopted guidelines for Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures. Assessment of risk from exposure
to environmental pollutants typically has been
conducted based on the co-individual constituents of
the mixture (on a chemical-by-chemical basis). The
need to evaluate potential effects of chemical mixtures
on human health extends across all media. The goal of
this symposium is to review the state-of-the-art
techniques and approaches to quantifying the potential
risks of exposure to chemical mixtures.
This timely symposium is also being held to recognize
the intense interest and pioneering efforts in this area of
the late Jerry F. Stara, D.V.M., Ph.D. This memorial in
his honor acknowledges the many scientific
contributions made by Dr. Stara in the field of health risk
assessment. Potential session titles include:
•	Emerging Methodologies
•	Specific Examples of Chemical Mixtures
-	Volatiles
-	Metals
•	Risk Assessment
•	Panel Discussions
For further information or to register for the symposium,
contact Kate Schalk or Cindi Altieri, Eastern Research
Group, Inc., 6 Whittemore Street, Arlington,
Massachusetts 02174, (617) 648-7809 or 7810 or
7800. There is no registration fee to attend the
symposium.
CONFERENCE ON TOXIC WASTES AND PUBLIC
HEALTH: THE IMPACT OF SUPERFUND
The Society for Occupational and Environmental Health
(SOEH) is presenting the 1988 Annual Conference on
Toxic Wastes and Public Health: the Impact of
Superfund on April 25 to 27, 1988 at the Dupont Plaza
Hotel in Washington, D. C. The conference will be co-
sponsored by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry and the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences.
Conference topics include: A panel of federal, state and
local programs; Epidemiology, Health Effects, Registries
and Risk Assessment: Issues, Methods and Reports on
Findings; Toxicology and Basic Research: Panel on
Future Directions; Protecting Hazardous Waste
Workers: Health Issues; Exposure Assessment;
Community Right to Know; Health Effects at Waste
Sites: Legal Issues; and How Can We Improve the
Public Health Impact of Superfund?
The Conference Committee is co-chaired by Denny
Dobbin of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences and Henry Falk from the Center for
Environmental Health and Injury Control at the Centers
for Disease Control.
Advance Registration fees for the conference are
$75.00 for SOEH members and $125.00 for non-
members. On site registration fees are $125.00 for
SOEH members and $175.00 for non-members. The
registration deadline is April 15, 1988.
For additional information on the conference please
contact the Society of Occupational and Environmental
Health at P. O. Box 42360, Washington, D. C. 20015-
0360. The Society can be reached at (301) 762-9319.
9

-------
SYMPOSIUM ON ASSESSING THE RISKS FROM
TOXICS IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENT
What can science tell us?
Friday, April 8 and Saturday, April 9, 1988
Sponsored by:
California Academy of Sciences, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Northern California Chapter of the
Society for Risk Analyses
This two-day symposium brings scientists from the
Science Advisory Board and the staff of EPA together
with California scientists to discuss problems of risk
assessment and risk management for toxic substances.
Contact California Academy of Sciences (415) 750-
7217
SCHEDULE FOR RISK AND DECISION-MAKING
COURSES
The following is the schedule for the Risk and Decision
Making Course through the end of May.
February 24 and 25
February 29 and March 1
March 1 and 2
March 24 and 25
March 30 and 31
April 6 and 7
April 13 and 14
April 20 and 21
April 26 and 27
May 11 and 12
May 18 and 19
May 25 and 26
Region V
Region VII
Region IV
Headquarters
Headquarters
Headquarters
Headquarters
Headquarters
Headquarters
Headquarters
Headquarters
Headquarters
Contact: Pam Stirling, FTS 382-2747
SYMPOSIUM ON
COMMUNICATION
EVALUATING RISK
What is your communication program trying to
accomplish? Is your communication program working?
What evaluation methods are most appropriate for your
program?
These and other questions will be addressed by the
Workshop on Evaluation of Effective Risk
Communication to be held on June 2 and 3,1988, at the
Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, D.C. The
Workshop is intended to provide guidance to
communication practitioners on how to evaluate their
programs. Dr. Vincent Covello of the National Science
Foundation, Dr. Ann Fisher of the EPA Office of Policy
Analysis, and Ms. Rose Mary Romano of the National
Cancer Institute are the Workshops Co-chair-
persons.
The Workshop is being held under the auspices of the
Interagency Group on Public Education and
Communication, chaired by Dr. Maria Pavlova (EPA
Region II, currently on detail to the Office of Toxic
Substances), which is a sub-committee of the Task
Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung
Disease. Congress established the Task Force to
promote interagency cooperation and coordination in
reducing and preventing environmentally related
diseases. Chaired by Lee Thomas, the Task Force now
includes 15 federal agencies as members.
The June 1988 Workshop is a continuation of the
Workshop on the Role of Government in Risk
Communication and Public Education, also sponsored
by the Task Force and held in January 1987. The earlier
Workshop focused on federal agency public education
and risk communication programs that communicate
information about health risks associated with exposure
to toxic substances. The proceedings of that Workshop
are now in press and should be available in the late
spring.
To provide the context for the June Workshop on
Evaluation and Effective Risk Communication, papers
have been commissioned from experts in both the
theory and practice of evaluation. Drs. Peter Rossi and
Richard Berk will review the purposes and procedures
of evaluation research as an introduction to the field of
evaluation and the methodology used in various
problem situations. Ms. Elaine Bratik Arkin will discuss
the application of evaluation in theory and methods to
risk communication programs in order to "demystify"
evaluation for practitioners and relate evaluation
processes to problems faced by risk communication
program planners.
The agenda for the Workshop on Evaluation and
Effective Risk Communication has been structured to
facilitate interactions among speakers and attendees.
Panels of practitioners will discuss how they used
evaluation methods in their programs, how evaluation
methods relate to risk communication programs, and
typical problems in evaluation of risk communication
programs. Small workshop sessions will feature
discussion of evaluation methods, using case studies,
and other practical aspects of evaluation, including
obstacles, understanding OMB procedures, matching
your needs with evaluators' capabilities, and deciding
on the extent of evaluation. Market researchers and
those who wish to share examples of evaluations of risk
communication programs will be invited to sponsor
poster sessions.
Contact: Maria Pavlova, FTS 382-3801.
NEXT MEETING OF REGIONAL RISK ASSESSORS
Region III is sponsoring the next Regional Risk
Assessment Conference, which will be held from the
morning of June 27 to mid-day June 29 in
Philadelphia. The conference will be at the Sheraton
Society Hill at 1 Dock Street in Philadelphia. The
Region has reserved a block of 70 rooms (at
government rates for EPA employees). The government
rate for food and lodging in Philadelphia is $107. To get
this rate, you must reserve by April 1 (at 215-238-
6000).
10

-------
A group of scientists from different Regions is
developing the conference agenda, a draft of which
includes these topics: (1) examples of Regional human
health risk assessments, (2) examples of Regional
ecological risk assessments, (3) Headquarters' new
directions in dose-response assessment, (4) examples
of how different Regional programs use risk
assessment, and (5) Regional risk assessment
organizational structures.
More details on the conference will be available soon.
Contact: Roy L. Smith (FTS 597-9857)
Contacts:
Jerome Puskin,
OAR-Rad.,
FTS
475-9640
Dorothy Patton,
ORD,

FTS
475-6743
Linda Tuxen,
ORD,

FTS
475-6743
Dick Hill,
OPTS,

FTS
382-2897
Don Barnes,
OPTS,

FTS
382-4126
Dean Hill,
NEIC,

FTS
776-8138
Marian Olsen,
Region
II.
FTS
264-5682
Roy Smith,
Region
III.
FTS
597-9857
Dave Dolan,
Region
V,
FTS
886-6195
Jill Lyons.
Region
VI.
FTS
255-7208
Bob Fenemore,
Region
VII,
FTS
757-2970
Arnold Den,
Region
IX,
FTS
454-0906
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 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Need Help?
If your office needs help in finding information or
assistance on a specific risk assessment problem,
you can announce that need on the Risk
Assessment/Risk Management Bulletin Board now
available on E-Mail. Your colleagues from other
offices who have information or advice will be able
to contact you with assistance. For assistance in
posting announcements or reading entries on the
Bulletin Board, contact Electronic Mail User's
Support at FTS 382-5639. Your colleagues from
other offices who have information or advice will be
able to contact you with assistance.
11

-------

-------