UNITED STATES ENVIROMiNTAL PROTECTICN A3ENCY
Region II, New York, New York 10271
DATE
SUBJECT
FRCM
September 12, 1988
Risk Assessment Review
Deputy Regioni1 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 coninunity 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 Comsittee members listed on page 1 of
the rev i ew.
At t achment

-------
August 1988
Highlights
•	Third Regional Risk Assessment
Conference 		p. 1
•	News from the Risk Assessment Forum ...	p. 1
•	Section 313 Risk Screening Guide 		p. 2
•	OSWER Bulletin Board System		p. 3
•	Proposed Agenda for the Next
Risk Assessment Meeting 		p. 5
I. Special Feature
The Third Regional Risk Assessment
Conference
by Roy L Smith (FTS 597-9857)
Region III hosted the Third Regional Risk Assessment
Conference on June 27-29, 1988, in Philadelphia. EPA
participation was impressive: 180 people attended, 100
of whom traveled from other Regional offices or from
Headquarters. Everyone enjoyed the area's historic
sites and fine food and judged the hotel facilities to be
first-rate. The conference was further blessed with the
finest June weather in the memory of any living
Philadelphian.
The conference had dual goals: (1) to present current
information and research pertaining to risk assessment,
and (2) to encourage the exchange of ideas among
conference attendees. An ad hoc body of Regional
scientists planned the event over a six-month period.
This committee first designed a rough agenda with five
major topics, then expanded each topic into a half-day
session. One committee member volunteered to
moderate each session, which included developing the
agenda and recruiting speakers. The phone and E-mail
charges from this process remain a well-kept secret.
Despite an early start on a Monday morning, the
conference was crowded. The first session took aim at
the formidable dilemma of assessing exposure to
pollutants in soil. Speakers described research into
amounts of soil actually eaten by children, proportion of
contaminants absorbed through the gut, effects of metal
speciation on absorption, and prediction of soil toxicity
by biomonitoring. This highly technical session
showcased new research for those already familiar with
soil exposure.
The Monday afternoon session featured selected risk
assessments performed by Regions, emphasizing
precedent-setting work. These talks described risk
from chemicals volatilized from tap water, PAH
mixtures, and contaminated seafood. The status of
Headquarters' draft guidance for fish tissue risk
assessment was discussed, and Region V proposed a
new approach for seafood consumption advisories. This
session introduced agency scientists to the broad range
of possibilities of risk assessment, and to precedents
already set by other Regions.
On Tuesday morning, we discussed risk-related
organizational issues, including quality assurance, use
of the new Regional positions, training, providing the
(See Conference p.2)
Risk Assessment Review Committee
Peter Preuss - ORD, FTS 382-7669
Sally Edwards - Region I, FTS 835-3387
Maria Pavlova - Region II, FTS 264-0764
Marian Olsen - Region II, FTS 264-5682
Suzanne Wuerthele - Region VIII, FTS 564-1714
Dana Davoli - Region X, FTS 399-2135
II. Headquarters
News From the Risk Assessment Forum
By Una a C. Tuxen (FTS 475-6743)
ARSENIC - In November 1987, the Risk Assessment
Forum (Forum) completed a reassessment of the cancer
risk associated with the ingestion of inorganic arsenic.
The "Special Report on Ingested Inorganic Arsenic:
Skin Cancer; Nutritional Essentiality" focused on
arsenic-induced skin cancer, including some aspects
of the pathology of arsenic-associated skin lesions, the
genotoxicity of arsenic, metabolism, body burden and
distribution, and the possibility of threshold effects. The
Report, which was extensively peer-reviewed by
outside experts, concluded that, based on the scientific
data available and in keeping with the Agency's Risk
Assessment Guidelines, the cancer potency (slope
factor) for human ingestion of inorganic arsenic should
be in the range of 3 to 7 x 10"5 (yg/L)"1.
Based on its review of the Forum's Report, the Risk
Assessment Council (Council) developed guidance for
Agency decisions on the skin cancer risk from ingestion
exposure to arsenic. The Council recommended that to
facilitate implementation of the reassessment, and for
the purposes of consistency in risk assessment, a single
cancer potency value of 5 x 10-5 (jig/L)-1 be used.
The Administrator requested Science Advisory Board
(SAB) review of the Council's science policy statement
at a February 1988 SAB meeting.
The SAB's Environmental Health Committee advised
the Council that the issue, as presented, was primarily a
policy question and was beyond the scope of SAB
activities. The SAB declined comment for these
reasons.
In a June 21, 1988, memorandum to all Assistant
Administrators, the Administrator adopted the Council's
recommendation that a single cancer potency value of 5
x 10"5 (ug/L)*t be used for ingested inorganic arsenic
cancer risk assessments. Also, the memorandum states
that "... the Council believes that the uncertainties which
are currently unresolvable on a scientific basis are best
accounted for in the risk management portion of the
decision-making process. Specifically, on a case-
specific basis, the Council recommends that risk
managers reach their judgments in light of the
knowledge that:
1. Ingested inorganic arsenic is a class A carcinogen
resulting in an increased incidence of skin cancers.
(See Forum p.2)
1

-------
Conference (Continued from p.1)
deluge of information mandated by SARA Title III, and
EPA-state communication. Animated discussions
followed all the presentations. The most noteworthy of
these was a sharp exchange between Headquarters and
Regions regarding quality assurance. Headquarters
scientists urged improvements in the quality and
consistency of EPA's risk assessments; Regional
scientists fretted that decisions would be delayed or
second-guessed. The discussion suggested a need for
more communication before going further with quality
assurance.
On Tuesday afternoon, attendees heard about proposed
reductions in the carcinogenic potency slopes of
2,3,7,8-TCDD, arsenic, and methylene chloride,
chemicals which have loomed large in Regional risk
assessments. Listeners were conscious of implications
to past and future Regional decision-making. Each
proposal relied on new or re-evaluated chemical-
specific information, interpreted under little-used but
important flexibility provisions in the EPA Risk
Assessment Guidelines. We also had a glimpse of
RiskTools, a PC-based risk assessment program
under development by the Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. The program requested
expert input, then performed the exposure assessment
and risk characterization calculations, permitting the
expert to see immediately the effects of different input
assumptions.
The last session, Wednesday morning, centered on the
development of ecological risk assessment. Attendees
heard about projects to rank risk to ecosystems across
programs in Regions I, III, and X (the "Cross-Media"
projects), and the efforts of Headquarters program
offices (including Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation; Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, and the
Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia)
to develop guidance for ecological risk assessment.
One of the major accomplishments of this session was
to introduce these groups to one another, perhaps
reducing future wheel-reinvention.
The conference was judged a success on many levels,
and in need of improvement on others. It achieved its
goal of bringing EPA scientists and managers up to date
on a variety of topics, and also provided some
unforeseen Region-Headquarters dialogue. EPA's
science policy makers found time to attend, and to talk
with Regional policy fulfillers. Their dialogue will
hopefully continue, and influence the evolution of
Agency thinking.
Some things will be better next time. The conference
should have been longer or have had a less ambitious
agenda. There was too little time for discussion and no
time for informal meetings among those interested in
particular subsets of the risk assessment process. Some
sessions ran overtime, shortening breaks and removing
what small chance existed for impromptu discussion.
The Fourth Risk Assessment Conference, by the way, is
tentatively scheduled for Seattle in May, 1989. Contact
Pat Cirone (FTS-399-1597) with suggestions, or for
information. A proposed agenda and more information is
provided on p. 5 of this review.
I thank the dedicated people who prepared and
presented the conference. The session chairs, Jim
Baker (then of Region VIII, now of Jacobs Engineering
in Pasadena, CA), Pat Cirone (Region X), Milt Clark
(Region V), Bruce Molholt (Region III), and Bill
Muszynski (Region II) were superb. The other planning
committee members, who freely gave their time and
ideas, were Marian Olsen (Region II), Elmer Akin
(Region IV), Bob Fenemore (Region VII), Suzanne
Wuerthele (Region VIII), Arnold Den (Region IX), and
Dana Davoii (Region X). Stan Laskowski (Region III)
located funds for the conference, and delivered a fine
keynote address. Jayne Dahm (Region III), contract
wizard, obtained world-class facilities at government
rates. Thanks are also due to more than thirty speakers
for excellent talks and the prior hard work.
Pencil in Seattle for next May, and start thinking about
travel plans. We'll see you there!
FOfUtn (Continued from p.1)
2.	Only a fraction of the arsenic-induced skin
cancers are fatal.
3.	The non-fatal skin cancers remain of some
concern.
4.	The dose-response curve for the skin cancers
may be sublinear, in which case the cancer potency
in this Report will overestimate the risks.
5.	Arsenic may cause cancer in internal organs.
6.	Arsenic is a possible but not proven nutritional
requirement in animals. There are no direct data on
the essentiality of arsenic in humans."
A Forum publication containing the full text of the
Administrator's memorandum on the Council's policy
recommendations is being prepared for printing.
Announcement of its availability will be made in a future
issue of the Risk Assessment Review.
Section 313 Risk Screening Guide
David Klauder (FTS 382-3628)
In a previous article (March 22. 1988, Risk Assessment
Review), background was provided on the development
of The Risk Screening Guide by the Office of Toxic
Substances. As described earlier, this manual is
intended to provide guidance to those who will be
evaluating Section 313 emissions data for the purpose
of making statements about the potential for health
and/or ecological effects. Specifically, it suggests steps
that can be taken to answer two key issues of concern
regarding Section 313 emissions data.
•	How can one respond effectively to health and
ecological inquiries from the public?
•	How can the releases of greatest potential concern
from a public health or environmental standpoint be
2

-------
identified from the thousands of forms submitted so
that these critical cases can be further investigated?
Concerning the first issue, this manual offers guidance
in responding to risk-related questions that the public
will likely ask when the data are made available (e.g.,
"How dangerous for my health are these specific
releases?"). General strategies for handling inquiries,
tracking phone calls, assembling resources, and
disseminating information are presented.
To address the second issue, the manual describes an
approach for using Section 313 data as a supplement to
existing federal, state and local programs to set
priorities for follow-up data collection. The approach
should also provide the user with an understanding of
what kinds of information need to be collected in order
to do a more detailed quantitative risk assessment.
While health officials want to be responsive to every site
that poses a potential problem and every question from
a concerned citizen, it would be impossible to treat
them all equally. Therefore, this manual presents an
approach to prioritize those chemicals or sites that
appear to pose the most immediate or serious
concerns.
The Risk Screening Guide (Interim Final) contains a set
of appendices which comprise a directory of resources
including EPA Region and state Section 313 contacts,
guidance on estimating likely rates of release for certain
chemical uses, and a toxicity ranking matrix for Section
313 chemicals.
In addition, a hard copy version of Roadmaps, a
supplementary Section 313 chemical information
directory, is attached to the guidance manual.
Roadmaps also exists as a menu-driven PC data base
on five floppy diskettes. This tool was designed by the
Office of Toxic Substances as a pointer to pertinent
Section 313 chemical-specific information including
health and ecological effects data, federal and state
regulations and standards, and state air and water
program contacts.
A final version of The Risk Screening Guide is to be
prepared and widely distributed prior to EPA's release
of the 1987 emissions data to the public in the spring of
1989. The current version of the guidance manual
(September 1, 1988, Interim Final) is under field test in
the EPA Regions, selected state and local governments,
and in community service organizations. The final
document will reflect comments and suggestions for
improvement from participants in the field test. For
further information on what risk-related conclusions
can and cannot be drawn from Section 313 data alone
or for copies of The Risk Screening Guide (Interim
Final), contact Dr. David S. Klauder, TS-778, U.S. EPA,
401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.. (202) 382-3628.
The OSWER Bulletin Board System - Update for
the Risk Conference
Larry J. Zaragoza (FTS 475-9829)
In order to better serve the needs of Agency risk
assessment specialists, the Risk Conference of the
OSWER bulletin board is making several changes. First,
information of general interest on risk-related issues
that should or will be available to the public is to be
moved to the main board. This will complement
information from other risk related areas such as the
activities of the Contract Lab Program. Second, the risk
conference will have a membership requirement that all
members be Federal employees. Contractors who wish
to access the board will need the name and password of
their sponsor in order to access the conference. This
modification should aid in targeting material in this
conference for the regional risk assessment contacts
and risk assessment specialists that exist within the
Agency.
We would like to encourage users to place questions on
the Risk Conference. General and specific questions
can either be directed to the members of the
conference (public message) or can be directed to the
System Operator (SYSOP). The SYSOP has the ability
to redirect questions to specific specialists.
Currently, Peter Tong and other members of the Toxics
Integration Branch (Superfund) address a number of
risk-related questions by phone. It is our hope that we
will be able to address questions using the risk
conference more efficiently through a combination of
phone and bulletin board responses. As such, we would
like to encourage users to leave information requests so
that they might be directed to Peter and other OSWER
staff who can offer their experience and expertise. It
should also be noted that other offices may be brought
in to better address some questions.
The figure provided on the next page is a sample PC
screen for accessing the bulletin board using
CROSSTALK. The initial settings may require some
adjustment for your needs. For example, if you are in
one of the regions, the first digit 9 in the phone number
(NU) should be replaced with 4 digits 8202 or 8301. In
addition, should you have a 1200 baud modem rather
than a 2400 baud modem, in which case the baud rate
(SP) would require adjustment. User support for
Crosstalk questions can be obtained from the
Washington Information Center at 202-488-5900.
User support for questions related to the bulletin board
should be directed to Environmental Management
Support Incorporated at 301-589-5318. Suggestions
relating to the contents of the risk conference should be
directed to Larry Zaragoza at 202-475-9829 or
through a message on the bulletin board system.
Finally, we are in the process of upgrading the system
so that more lines will be available and busy signals
unlikely.
Pat Mundy
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Larry J. Zaragoza
Office of Program Management and Technology
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
3

-------
Sample Status Screen for accessing the bulletin board system
CROSSTALK - XVI STATUS SCREEN



NAme OSWERBBS

LOaded C:OSWERBBS.XTK
^Umber95898366

CApture Off

Communication Parameters

Filter settings
SPeed 2400 PArity None
Duplex Full
DEbug Off
LFauto Off
DAta 8 STop 1
EMulate VT-100
TAbex Off
BLankex Off
POrt 1
MOde Call
INfilter Off
Outfitter On
Key Settings

SEnd control
settings
ATten Esc COmmand ETX ("C)

CWait
None
SWitch Home BReak End

LWait
None
Available command files



1) OSWERBBS 2) E-Mail



Research on Risk Communication from Tufts
University Center for Environmental
Management
By Margaret Chu (FTS 382-7335)
Risk communication - the way in which people learn
and express concern about environmental hazards, such
as a contaminated water supply or a waste dump site -
- has recently emerged as an important environmental
issue with far-reaching social and political effects.
Research sponsored by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency at the Center for Environmental
Management is looking at the various factors that play a
role in the processing of risk information, and will
suggest effective strategies for government, industry
and community response to environmental risks.
In Phase I of the research, Ors. Sheldon Krimsky and
Alonzo Plough, both of the Tufts University Urban and
Environmental Policy Department, conducted extensive
review of the literature of 5 cases where citizens were
involved in environmental-risk situations.
The five case studies are:
(1)	The release of genetically modified organisms into
the environment: The Case of Ice Minus,
(2)	A Natural Environmental hazard: The Case of Radon,
(3)	Pesticide Residues in Food: The Case of EDB,
(4)	An Industrial Plant: The case of the
ASARCO/Tacoma Copper Smelter Tacoma,
Washington, and
(5)	A Hazardous Waste Site: The Case of Nyanza.
The outcome of the five case studies will be published
in the book "Environmental Hazards: Communicating
Risks as a Social Process" scheduled for October 1988
release. Please contact Kurt Fischer (CEM) at (617)
381-3466 for ordering information, or place orders
from the Auburn House Publishing Company at 1-
800-223-BOOK.
In Phase II of their research, Krimsky and Plough will
test the effectiveness of citizen-derived risk
communication.
Using radon as a case, the project will test a citizen-
derived risk communication model. The model involves
developing risk information that is based on community
interests and guided by citizen perceptions, using
personal narratives in conjunction with technical
information.
Current approaches to risk communication focus on the
timeliness and clarity of the message, and seek to
improve the scientific literacy of the target group by
teaching people about comparative risk assessment.
However, this tends to overlook the fact that people do
not make decisions on a cognitive basis alone, but need
time to absorb the information, to "reckon with the risk."
In this phase of the study, focus groups, made up of
representatives of risk groups, will be guided by
experts, facilitators and others to identify the key issues
and produce an approach to risk notification.
The approaches developed by these experts, and by
the public, will be compared for the amount of trust
citizens place in the process. The researchers also hope
to determine how well citizens understand the risk, how
well citizens are able to act on the information, and
overall satisfaction with the process.
The next phase of the research will apply the findings to
further develop the model for effective risk
communication under SARA Title III.
For further information, please contact the EPA
Technical Monitor Dr. Margaret Chu at FTS 382-7335.
4

-------
III. Around the Regions
Region X
Region li Bioassessment Work Group
A Bioassessment Work Group has been formed in
Region II to provide Superfund Site Managers with
technical support in the assessment of ecological and
environmental effects at sites within the Region. The
group offers expertise in evaluating potential biological
receptors, extent of contamination, environmental fate,
migration pathways, and overall environmental impacts
of pollutants at sites, it also assesses potential
ecological impacts of proposed remedial and removal
actions.
The Bioassessment Work Group is comprised of staff
from Region li s Environmental Services, Water
Management, Emergency and Remedial Response
Divisions and Office of Policy and Management, as well
as representatives from the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Interior
and involved state agencies. The group is chaired by
Roland Hemmett, Chief of the Environmental Services
Division's Ambient Monitoring Section.
The Region II group is patterned after Region Ill's
bioassessment group, which has been operating for
about two years. Regions I, IV, VIII, and IX are in the
process of establishing similar work groups.
For further information or to seek input on a specific
site, contact the group's coordinator, Mark Sprenger, at
FTS 340-6998 or (201) 906-6998.
Contact: Mark Sprenger (FTS) 340-6998
Regional Risk Assessment Meeting, Seattle
Washington, May 1989
The next regional risk assessment meeting is tentatively
scheduled for May, 1989 in Seattle, Washington. The
following is a proposed agenda for the meeting and we
would appreciate any comments or suggestions for
other topics you might wish to discuss at the next
meeting.
PROPOSED AGENDA
DAY 1 Headquarters Guidance and Scientific
State of Art
Examples: RCRA-CERCLA Interphase
Thyroid Neoplasia
Superfund Research Centers
IRIS Update
Technical Centers
DAY 2 Regional Human Health Risk Assessment
Issues
Examples: Acceptable Risk: NESHAP
Rule on Benzene
Bioavailability: Metals in Soil
Dose Response Estimates for
Lead in Soil
Region IV
The third presentation of the Risk Assessment and
Decision Making Workshop in Region IV was held
August 23-25, 1988. All lecturers and facilitators were
regional staff members with expertise in risk
assessment, risk management, and risk communication.
In addition to regional staff attendees, the seven Office
of Research and Development (ORD)
laboratories/programs in Region IV were invited to send
a participant to foster ORD/regional interaction. Five
sent technical or managerial persons from their
organizations. Facilitators from seven of the eight states
in Region IV were trained during the March Workshop.
The state of Florida will present the workshop on site in
September with the assistance of two Region IV
facilitators.
A Public Health Evaluation (PHE), a risk assessment,
has been conducted by Region IV staff for a National
Priorities List site in Tennessee as part of the Remedial
Investigation (Rl) performed inhouse. The Rl document
containing the PHE is now under review.
Contact: Elmer Akin (FTS 257-3454)
DAY 3 Regional Ecological Risk Assessment
Issues
Examples: Sediment Criteria
Short Term Bioassays
DAY 4 AM Training and Administration
Chaired by Lead Region
Examples: State Risk Assessment
Procedures
Risk Communication
Training
Please submit ideas to P. Cirone or D. Davoli at E-Mail
box EPA9050.
Contact: Dana Davoli (FTS 399-2135)
5

-------
IV. Announcements
Contacts:
Schedule for Risk and Oec/sion-Mafring
Courses
The following is the schedule for the Risk and Decision
Making Courses through September.
Headquarters
Region IV
Region VII
Region VII*
Region VII
Headquarters
Region VI
Headquarters
Region IX
Region VIII (Utah)
August 17-18
August 23 - 25
August 24 - 25
September 6
September 7 - 8
September 13-14
September 14 - 15
September 21 - 22
September 27 - 29
September 28 - 29
" Special seminar for clericals.
Contact: Pam Stirling (FTS 382-2747)
Jerome Puskin
OAR-Rad.
FTS
475-9640
Linda Tuxen
ORD-RAF
FTS
475-6743
Dick Hill
OPTS

FTS
382-2897
Don Barnes
SAB

FTS
382-4126
Dean Hill
NEIC

FTS
776-8138
Marian Olsen
Region
II
FTS
264-5682
Roy Smith
Region
III
FTS
597-9857
Elmer Akin
Region
IV
FTS
257-3454
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
Dana Davoli
Region
X
FTS
399-2135
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 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.	
6

-------