UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II, New York, New York 10278
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
January 12, 1990
Risk Assessment Review
P.E.
nistrator
William J. Merszyns
Deputy Regional A
William Farland, Ph.D. / / st\
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

-------
December 1989
Highlights
•	Risk Modeling and Geographic
Information Systems(GlS) 	 1
•	Interagency Task Force Sponsors
Environmental Health Education Workshop ... 1
•	ORD Regional Scientist Activities - Region 10 4
•	New Superfund Risk Assessment Course .... 6
•	Region 6 - Less-Than-Lifetime Exposures ... 6
•	Ecological Risk Assessment in Region 10 .... 7
•	Principles of Route-to-Route Extrapola-
tion for Risk Assessment Conference 	 7
Risk Assessment Review Committee
Bill Farland - ORD, FTS 382-7317
Sally Edwards - Region 1, FTS 835-3696
Maria Pavlova - Region 2, FTS 264-7364
Marian Olsen - Region 2, FTS 264-5682
Suzanne Wuerthele - Region 8, FTS 330-1714,
Dana Davoli - Region 10, FTS 399-2135
I. Special Features
Risk Modeling and Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)
by Dave Reieskl (FTS 382-2418)
Jacques Kapuscinski (FTS 382-2418)
Since the early 1980s, the EPA has been moving slowly
towards what many have termed "risk-based decision
making." This trend has recently been accelerated by an
attempt to prioritize EPA programs at federal and some
regional levels on a risk reduction basis.
This process solidified significantly in 1987 with the
publication of EPA's report "Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems,"
and continues with the follow-up work of The Relative
Risk Reduction Strategies Committee organized by the
EPA Science Advisory Board. In addition, a number of
the regions (1,3, and 10) have been asked to critically
assess their programs' funding levels based on "Cross
Media or "In Media" risk. The message that is beginning
to emerge from these activities is that risk-based priority
setting is here to stay. The search for new
methodologies and tools to support this effort will
intensify.
Paralleling this increased emphasis on risk as a
decision-making tool has been the widespread
dissemination of Geographic Information Systems, which
have revolutionized the way we think about and
manipulate spatial data. For many "risk managers," the
use of GIS for risk assessment or analysis is intuitively
obvious and offers many advantages including: the
modeling of distributive health and ecological impacts,
the potential for risk forecasting, and the possibility for
improving risk communication with powerful graphics.
Many people are now contemplating how GIS can play a
role in risk projects, and a few people have already
begun to think about the pitfalls and dangers of this
approach (See: Timothy L. Amsden, "GIS and Risk
Assessment: Dangerous and Wonderful Tools," Office of
Ground Water Protection, E.P.A., Kansas City, Kansas.)
(see GIS p.2)
Interagency Task Force Sponsors
Environmental Health Education Workshop
by Maria Pavlova (FTS 264-7364)
In the past year and a half, there has been a major shift
in attitude and awareness about environmental issues.
The public is becoming increasingly concerned about
environmental issues and increasingly willing to make
individual contributions to resolving them. At the same
time, there is often a fundamental lack of understanding
about risks to human health and the environment that
affect choices about lifestyles and priorities.
A substantially increased commitment to environmental
health education is essential to creating an "environ-
mental health literacy" that will enable informed
involvement and decision making concerning the many
environmental factors that potentially affect the health of
U.S. citizens. There is a strong need for educators to
promote critical thinking to help individuals grapple with
scientific uncertainty regarding environmental risks, put
risks into proper perspective, and develop skills for
managing and reducing a range of health risks over a
lifetime/This kind of education is especially important at
the primary and secondary school levels, since many
beliefs about environmental health issues are formed at
an early age.
Currently, very little classroom time is devoted to
environmental health education in grades Kindergarten
to 12. Most children are taught little or nothing about
assessing health risks. Most children appear to have
little or no basis for putting risks into perspective and for
understanding debates about national environmental
health issues. Current barriers to effective environmental
health education include: 1) the low priority given to the
topic by administrators and urban students: 2) lack of an
adequate "niche" in, schools: 3) problems of
coordination due to the decentralized nature of U.S.
education; 4) lack of scientific literacy; 5) lack of teacher
training; 6) lack of adequate "off-the-shelf" instructional
materials; and 7) lack of funding.
(see Task Force p.3)
1

-------
GIS (continued from p.1)
Given this background, the Information and Technology
Integration Branch within OIRM in headquarters is
collecting information from all regions to find out "who is
doing what" with GIS and risk. Based on an initial phone
survey, we found that many regions are either in the
early stages of developing risk models for GIS or are
discussing how to integrate these two techniques. OIRM
wants to facilitate the coordination of information among
regions on the various types of GIS systems and risk
assessment/analysis approaches that are being contem-
plated across the country. By gathering and
disseminating information on the status of GIS-based
risk modeling, we hope to help regions identify problems
early and share information on successes they are
experiencing.
Though not an exhaustive list, here are some examples
and general descriptions of the status of GIS/Risk
projects:
Region 1 views GIS as a mapping tool and not a
definitive decision model. The "Comparative Risk
Project" in New Hampshire is developing a decision
tool to integrate with GIS to help set priorities for
Superfund, LUST, and RCRA sites.
Region 3 is conducting a pilot project with forty
facilities utilizing Toxic Release Inventory data with
GIS in order to identify levels of ground water
contamination and prioritize sites for cleanup.
Region 5 is currently discussing how to integrate
GIS with Risk. A pilot project on Lake Erie is utilizing
GIS with TRI data to plot information on Superfund
Sites utilizing all of the medias, fish tissue
information, and human health effects.
Region 6 GIS and Risk specialists met in mid-
December to discuss how to integrate risk
assessment with GIS.
Region 7 is conducting a pilot project utilizing GIS
with Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution
(AGNPS) Model to identify critical non-point
pollution areas to place priorities on planning
resources for Best Management Practices for non-
point source pollution control.
Based on our initial survey, we will be putting together a
fuller summary of GIS/risk projects in the regions for an
upcoming edition of Risk Assessment Review.
As part of this project, we have also tried to identify
issues and areas which need to be addressed, clarified,
and debated by those involved in GIS-based risk work.
In each case we have attempted to describe
opportunities for GIS as well as potential problems and
pitfalls. We invite your additions and comments.
1. Modeling approaches
Many of the more common analytical risk models will be
difficult to implement in existing GIS environments.
There are two possible approaches to this problem:
c Use GIS to add cartographic output capabilities to
existing computer models (for instance, mapping
the calculated risk values around a hazardous waste
site), or.
•	Develop models appropriate to the GIS technology.
This will necessarily involve a shift from
"deterministic process" to "empirical" models using
threshold, proximity, and/or indicator approaches.
Though quantitatively less precise, such models
offer considerable cost savings while often providing
enough precision for broad policy decisions. Much
work needs to be done to support model
development, evaluation, and dissemination to
potential end users.
Two ways of dealing with the modeling problem come to
mind. One is to set up an informal consulting group of
people inside and outside of EPA who have done
modeling with GIS and are willing to share their insights
with others. A second, longer term approach would be to
establish a model library or clearinghouse containing
useful and proven models either in hardcopy:or macro
form. In connection with the modeling issue, we are also
interested in evaluating the appropriateness of certain
GIS systems for model development and implementa-
tion. For instance, are people having trouble using
ARC/INFO for risk modeling?
2. Dealing with increases in uncertainty
Those contemplating the use of GIS for risk work need
to realize that the use of GIS will introduce new sources
of uncertainty into an already "messy" process. Three
types of uncertainty need to be more fully addressed:
parameter, locational, and linguistic.
Parameter uncertainty. Much of the work in risk
assessment is fraught with uncertainty about critical
input parameters such as ambient pollution levels, unit
risk factors, demographic patterns, etc. In addressing
parameter uncertainty, GIS offers two diametrically
opposed options:
•	Hide the uncertainty behind pretty maps (common
approach),
•	Carry the uncertainty on secondary "shadow maps"
which allow the statistical error to be calculated
through each step of the model and displayed with
the final results map (preferred option).
Locational uncertainty. Though not the primary cause of
locational errors, the use of GIS is likely to compound
this problem by introducing errors arising from digitizing
or the rasterization of vector data. In the long term; this
problem will be aided by the adaption of locational data
standards and the use of new geopositioning tools such
as the Global Positioning System. In the near future,
however, low locational data quality will affect all
analyses.
Linguistic uncertainty. Hardly addressed up to now are
issues of linguistic uncertainty (uncertainty of descrip-
tion) common to any approach, GIS-based or not. Much
of the debate about risk is waged with linguistic
descriptors such as: acceptable, tolerable, high, and low.
Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement
among scientists, policy makers, and lay people about
the quantitative limits and thresholds associated with
these terms. Few risk analyses take into account
differential risk perceptions in the population and allow
2

-------
for a consideration of the inherent imprecision in
describing risk.
In mapping risk, the boundaries between risk categories
can never be sharp lines. New techniques need to be
developed which allow a cartographic representation of
our descriptive uncertainty through the mapping of
"fuzzy" boundaries. The ability to map differential risk
perceptions would also be of tremendous value (for
instance, how do an epidemiologist, policy maker, and
lay person view a given risk situation).
Basic to all the uncertainty problems outlined above is
the need to incorporate robust mathematical measures
of uncertainty and imprecision into every step of the
analytical process. The EPA needs to carefully assess
the marginal economic utility of increased investments in
data quality, versus the development and increased use
of uncertainty measures. These should be based on
techniques such as decision analysis or fuzzy set theory
which force us to define our certainty/uncertainty and
incorporate these measures into our analyses.
3. Questions of social equity
GIS is not likely to solve the problems of setting limits to
acceptable or tolerable risks. It will, in fact, add an
additional area of concern to an already murky science
by "regionalizing" the risk assessment process.
Because of the ability of GIS to display spatial
distribution patterns, difficult political and ethical
questions will arise concerning the equitable distribution
of risk across populations in space.
The redistribution of risk will be a political act, requiring
tough political decisions that the EPA should, and must,
face. If the political will exists, GIS may aid in
addressing the equity issue. GIS techniques could be
used to support risk-based land use planning or to target
pollution prevention strategies at the historically "risk
disadvantaged." In the long term we will have a choice:
to sidestep or confront the issue of risk equity.
We realize that we have raised more questions than we
have answered. We hope that you will join us in
addressing some of these issues. If you can provide any
information on the types of risk modeling you are doing,
and/or if you have thoughts to share on integrating Risk
Assessment with GIS with respect to potential benefits
and drawbacks, please contact Dave Rejeski or Jacques
Kapuscinski at FTS 382-2418 or E Mail Box EPA30435.
Task Force (continued from p.1)
The Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer
and Heart and Lung Disease will sponsor a workshop in
the spring of 1990 on environmental health education.
The task force was established by Congress in 1977 to
promote coordination and cooperation in efforts to
reduce or prevent environmentally related diseases. The
task force currently includes representatives from 16
federal agencies and is chaired by the EPA Administra-
tor. Its Subcommittee on Public Education and Risk
Communication works to enhance the ability of the
public to participate in decisions affecting its health and
welfare, and to make personal decisions concerning
risks.
The goals of the spring 1990 workshop on environmental
health education will include:
•	Bringing together participants from the fields of
education, environment and health to identify
common goals for a comprehensive program. Most
environmental education in the schools has focused
on ecology issues rather than the relationship
between environmental degradation and health; this
conference will aim to forge closer links between
environmental and health educators.
•	Developing a network of practitioners and decision
makers in the field of environmental health
education and promoting cooperation among federal
agencies that include education as part of their
mission.
•	Reviewing existing environmental health .education
programs and curricula, to identify successful
approaches to infusing environmental health
education into existing courses, to better understand
research needs in this area, and to avoid duplication
of effort.
•	Establishing pilot programs to evaluate the
effectiveness of environmental health education
programs.
•	Identifying barriers to establishing environmental
health education in the schools and strategies for
overcoming these barriers.
•	Determining ways to provide teachers with guidance
and training on what to teach and how to teach it.
The task force held a one-day mini-workshop in
Washington, D.C. on November 29, 1989, to plan the
spring 1990 workshop. Forty education, communica-
tions, and environmental and health science specialists
representing federal governmental agencies, univer-
sities, educational and health associations, and. private
organizations attended the workshop and discussed
needs, options, and recommendations for increasing the
national commitment to environmental health education.
Lewis Crampton, Associate Administrator for
Communications and Public Affairs at EPA, presented
the Agency's perspective on the importance of
environmental health education. He informed the group
about a proposed Office of Environmental Education
within EPA's Office of External Affairs- to promote
environmental health education in the schools.
The spring 1990 workshop will be the third risk
communication meeting sponsored by the Interagency
Task Force. The first one, held in January 1987
discussed the role of government in risk communication
and public education. The second, held in June 1988,
looked at the issue of evaluating effective risk
communication.
The task force is also planning a national conference on
risk communication for the spring of 1991. For more
information on this conference or the upcoming
environmental health education workshop, contact Maria
Pavlova, Chairperson, Interagency Task Force
Subcommittee on Public Education and Risk
Communication at FTS 264-7364.
3

-------
II. Headquarters
ORD Regional Scientist Activities - Region 10
by Spencer A. Peterson (FTS 399-214$)
This is the fourth in a series of articles describing the
Regional Scientist Program out of the Regional
Operations Staff, ORD.
My responsibilities in Region 10 have been diverse like
those of other regional scientists. They have ranged
from assessing research needs, to assisting ORD to
coordinate research activities on bioremediation of the
Alaskan oil spill, to speaking on behalf of the region at a
National Water Quality Conference, to assisting the
Regional Administrator develop a travel itinerary to
explore pollution prevention in Japan, to equipping the
regional laboratory. Rather than try to highlight all
activities, I will focus on one fairly complex effort in
which I have played a key role.
Shortly after arriving in Region 10, I was introduced to a
concept completely foreign to me. It was laboratory
robotization. The region had been approached by an
outside research group with a proposal to "build" a
laboratory robot capability. It was attractive for a variety
of reasons. The proposal promised:
1)	To increase lab through-put of sediment samples by
robotizing the sample preparation phases,
2)	To improve precision and accuracy (Quality Control)
of analyses by making all steps of the sample
preparation uniform,
3)	To use lab technician time more efficiently, which,
in combination with number one above, reduces
overall analytical costs, and
4)	To minimize potential technician exposure to
hazardous chemicals in the soil samples.
The down side of the proposal was that it required
substantially more funds than the region could devote to
it. In addition, it was clear that the technology was not off
the shelf at this time and would require additional
research and development time. I was asked to explore
the proposal further. Roughly translated, this meant find
out everything you can about the potential for robots to
conduct soil sample preparation steps through acid
digestion, and, if it appears feasible, find the resources
to complete the project.
The feasibility exploration took me to both industrial and
laboratory robot manufacturers. This field was finally
narrowed to one commercial manufacturer of laboratory
robotic equipment. Their off-the-shelf capabilities came
closer to our perceived needs than any other
manufacturer. However, it also was clear that custom
design and fabrication would be necessary since we
were interested in up-scaling the digestion process to
microwave capability, which would greatly reduce
sample preparation time over the normal hot-plate
procedure. A major problem was the lack of computer
software to interface the robot with the microwave oven.
The oven was still under development by another
manufacturer working with the robot manufacturer. We
were truly dealing with the state of the art.
The National Bureau of Standards and Technology
(NBST) was testing prototype microwave equipment and
developing a standard software program. The region,
through EMSL-Las Vegas, bought into the NBST project.
Funding to acquire the robotics equipment and software
programs was eventually realized from four different
sources. The region received S125K from sources
outside the region for the project. These sources
included the National Environmental Services Office, the
Office of Program Management and Technology
(OSWER), the Quality Assurance and Methods
Development Division (EMSL-Las Vegas), and EMSL-
Cincinnati. As part of the agreement in procuring the
robotics equipment, Region 10 will participate with
EMSL-Las Vegas in an inter-laboratory quality
comparison test. The region and EMSL-Las Vegas will
have duplicate equipment.
We have now laid out a schedule for completion of the
project. If all goes well, this should turn out to be a win-
win situation for all participants. The region gets robotics
equipment to accomplish-the four initial "promises,"
EMSL-Las Vegas gets the highly controlled inter-
laboratory tests they wanted, the National Environmental
Services Office accomplishes one of its goals to assist
the regions, and EMSL-Cincinnati has bought into the
initial phase of procedures designed to standardize
software programing (NBST) for laboratory robotics
equipment in EPA. This was an extremely convoluted
project that has taken nearly one year of intermittent
effort to this point. It is not yet complete, but I have full
confidence it will be finished according to current
schedule. It has the potential to revolutionize soil sample
preparation and analysis, thereby making a contribution
far beyond the region.
The Federal-State Toxicology and Regulatory
Alliance Committee
by Bob CantUII (FTS 382-5546)
Ed Ohanian (FTS 382-7571)
The Federal-State Toxicology and Regulatory Alliance
Committee, or FSTRAC, first met in April 1985 to begin
a cooperative effort between federal and state regulators
and risk assessment programs to address drinking water
issues. FSTRAC is made up of representatives from
state health and environmental agencies, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Drinking Water, and regional EPA programs. FSTRAC
brings together professionals with many different areas
of expertise to develop well-rounded, integrated
approaches to risk assessment and for drinking water
contaminants standard setting issues. Representatives
from academia, industry, and consulting groups are also
welcome to participate - collaboration and exchange of
ideas between all these groups will improve the success
of regulatory programs.
Although there is no specific legal mandate for FSTRAC,
interaction and cooperation between state and federal
agencies can lead to important exchanges of information
and experience on regulatory matters. EPA sponsors
FSTRAC to:
4

-------
•	Foster cooperation among states, and between the
states and EPA. State and federal officials can
discuss and understand risk assessment issues.
•	Provide a setting for informal and formal discussion
of common problems.
•	Improve consistency between federal and state
approaches to setting standards or guidelines for
drinking water contaminants.
•	Obtain feedback on proposed federal guidance and
standards.
•	Conduct research on factors influencing state risk
assessment and drinking water regulatory programs.
FSTRAC has two ongoing subcommittees, the Chemical
Communication Subcommittee and the Risk Assessment
Subcommittee, that break down further into workgroups
as the need arises. Members meet twice a year;
subcommittees often hold additional teleconferences to
discuss projects. Technical presentations on proposed
regulations, new research, and ongoing standard-setting
activities at EPA are presented at the biannual meetings.
FSTRAC members also meet with their subcommittees
to plan activities and projects. At every meeting there is
an opportunity for states and regions to discuss issues
of common interest, possible solutions, or to discuss
specific standard-setting procedures by the states or
EPA.
The meetings serve FSTRAC's goal of bringing together
officials from across the country to discuss issues of
mutual concern, establishing a national communication
network. This network provides states, regions and
federal government access to information that can
improve regulatory action and avoid duplication of effort.
Some of the topics that have been discussed at past
FSTRAC meetings are:
•	Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guidelines Update,
•	National Pesticide Survey - Pesticide Monitoring
Inventory,
•	Northeast Regional Environmental Public Health
Center - Current Research,
•	The Connecticut Radon Survey,
•	Potential Effects of Contaminants on the Immune
System,
•	Non-lngestion Exposures: Volatile and Dermal
Absorption.
•	What is an Adverse Effect?
•	How to Conduct Risk Assessments with Limited
Toxicological Data.
FSTRAC Products
The mix of expertise and experience among the federal,
regional, and state FSTRAC members has led to the
production of many useful outputs that are used for
setting standards:
•	Guidance Document for the Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures in Drinking Water. Provides
guidance to regions and states on how to establish
health goals for drinking water that has been
contaminated by a mixture of chemicals.
•	Summary of State and Federal Drinking Water
Guidelines and Standards. A report listing specific
standards and regulations for 312 drinking water
contaminants compiled from a FSTRAC-sponsored
survey. Forty-four states participated in the survey,
which was updated in 1989.
•	Guidance Document on the Assessment of Non-
lngestion Exposure to Drinking Water
Contaminants. This report, still in progress, will
provide guidance for assessing the risks from
dermal and inhalation exposure to contaminants in
drinking water.
•	Risk Communication Bibliography. Descriptions of
pamphlets and booklets that address drinking water
risk communication issues, and risk communications
materials, such as fact sheets, that address the risks
posed by specific chemicals. All of the documents
listed are available from FSTRAC's library at EPA
Headquarters.
•	Surveys. FSTRAC workgroups have compiled
information from states regarding risk assessment
methodologies, and occurrence data for drinking
water contaminants.- These are labor-intensive
projects that provide useful information concerning
different states! programs.
FSTRAC also provides peer review assistance to EPA
and the states, for example, by reviewing Office of
Drinking Water Health Advisories.
Future FSTRAC Meetings
The next FSTRAC meeting will be held in Washington,
D.C., in April 1990. This meeting will include a Risk
Assessment Methodologies workshop to instruct
participants in EPA and the states in risk assessment
methods and policies. A panel of FSTRAC members will
discuss practical solutions to hypothetical toxicological
problems encountered by states and EPA regions.
For information on joining FSTRAC, contact: Dr. Edward
Ohanian, Chief, Health Effects Branch (WH-550D), Office
of Drinking Water, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, FTS 382-7571.
The Co-chairs of the Chemical Communication
Subcommittee are: Carolyn Jean Dupuy, Connecticut
Department of Health Services, 150 Washington Street,
Hartford, CT. 06106, (203) 566-8167, and Leslie
McGeorge, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, CN-409, Trenton, N.J. 08625 (609) 292-4938.
The Co-chairs of the Risk Assessment Subcommittee
are: Lubow Jawa, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, 401 East State Street,
Trenton, N.J. 08619 (609) 633-1316, and Bela Matyas,
Rhode Island Department of Health, 206 Cannon
Building, 3 Capitol Hill, Providence, Rl 02909 (404) 277-
3424.
Risk Assessment Guidelines Training
by Bette Cantor (FTS 475-6743)
Risk assessment guidelines facilitators are presenting
guidelines training courses to staff in the Office of
Pesticide Programs this fall and winter. About 128
people in the Health Effects Division will take the
5

-------
training. This represents the largest group from a single
office to receive the guidelines training so far.
Six courses are being offered, which include the
Managers' Seminar and a course for each of the five risk
assessment guidelines issued in 1986: developmental
toxicity, cancer, mutagenicity, chemical mixtures, and
exposure. We are scheduling a total of 25 courses so
that each staff member may attend the courses that are
most relevant to his or her expertise.
New Superfund Risk Assessment Course
by Pat Mundy (FTS 475-9495)
The new Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Environmental Evaluation Manual and Human Health
Evaluation Manual has been incorporated into a course
offered by the Environmental Response Team in the
Hazardous Materials Incident Response Training
Program. The course has been given to Regions 4 and 5
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the team will
travel to the remaining regions this fiscal year. The
course is titled Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (165.6) and runs four and one-half days.
Toxics Integration Branch (TIB) members have been
attending and encourage Regional Toxics Integration
Coordinators to attend to lend regional perspective and
relate issues of current interest. For course scheduling
and registration information, contact Training Registrar,
EPA Training Registration, NUS Corporation, 3280 River
Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45204, (513) 251-7776. The
Toxics Integration Branch can be reached at FTS 475-
9486.
III. Around the Regions
Region 6 - Less-Than-Lifetime Exposures
Fred Hauchman (OAQPS) and Jon Rauscher (Region 6)
are conducting a survey to identify the airborne
chemicals of greatest concern in the Superfund
program. Risk analyses of less-than-lifetime exposures
to airborne contaminants have been of increasing
importance to the regions. This subject will be of
particular concern as projects move into the remedial
action phase. Remedial activities such as soil handling
can result in significant emissions of volatiles and dusts.
The final ranking will identify chemicals to be used by
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in
conducting a literature review of less-than-lifetime
exposures. This literature will be used to evaluate the
feasibility of developing less-than-lifetime risk estimates.
Contact: Jon Rauscher (FTS 255-6715)
Region 8 - Risk Training
Marilyn Null from the Region 8 Office of External Affairs
has developed a risk communication component for
inclusion in the Workshop on Risk and Decision Making.
The risk communication component provides presenta-
tions on risk communication tools and techniques and
involves participants in role playing at a mock meeting
between government agencies and the public.
This revised two-and-one-half day version of the
workshop was previewed for the first time to about 30
staff at the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) in September and was very well received.
In fact, the DEQ Administrator, Dennis Hemmer,
personally requested that the workshop be offered again
so that he and his senior managers could attend. This
second session took place in early December and was
again very well received. On both occasions, DEQ
personnel indicated that the risk communication
component made the workshop much more valuable.
The Risk Assessment Guidelines: Managers' Seminar
was presented three times in Region 8 during
December. Dorothy Patton (ORD/RAF) facilitated the
course in North Dakota on December-13 and twice at the~
Region 8 Institute on December 14. Region 8 plans to
offer the Workshop on Risk and Decision Making four
more times during FY90. These sessions are planned for
federal, state, and local government personnel in
Colorado, North Dakota, Montana, and Utah. Region 8
also plans to sponsor the Risk Communication
Workshop and the Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund training several times in FY90.
Contact: Patrick Cummins (FTS 330-1610)
OHEA Sabbatical
I am currently on a 120-day detail to the Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment's (OHEA) Human Health
Assessment Group. My project was to meet ORD's
scientists there, learn how they generate cancer risk
numbers, and translate some of the more confusing
aspects of that process into "regionalese." I'll let you
decide at the risk assessor's meeting in Chicago if my
"document" is helpful. I also promise to give you some
useful hints on how to find the scientists and get
information from them.
This mini-sabbatical has been an outstanding experience
that I highly recommend if you get the opportunity.
There are some very good people here who specialize
in our most troublesome pollutants, are generous with
their time, and are willing to give us some scientific
insight both for our risk assessments and for risk
communication. In return, we can show them that their
work has a practical application.
Contact: Suzanne Wuerthele (FTS 330-1714).
Region 9
On December 15, 1989, Region 9's Toxicology Group
held an all day workshop for their ARCS contractors
involved in risk assessment. The focus of the workshop
was the new Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund;
discussions were held on human health and ecological
guidelines. Gerald Hiatt, Ph.D., and David Lewis, Ph.D.,
gave presentations covering the new human health risk
assessment guidelines, and Sharon Seidel, Ph.D.,
addressed the ecological assessment guidance. The
goals of the workshop were to promote consistency
6

-------
among the ARCS contractors in their approach to risk
assessment for Superfund and to provide guidance
concerning the Toxicology Group's interpretation of
these new guidelines from Headquarters.
Contact: Arnold Den (FTS 484-1776)
Ecological Risk Assessment in Region 10
First noticed by duck hunters in 1981, waterfowl dieoffs
have been documented yearly during annual migrations
through a 2500-acre wetland known as Eagle River Flats,
which occupies the northwest corner of Fort Richardson
Army Base, AK. The Flats consist of the main channel
and side channel of Eagle River as it forms tidelands
which intercept the Knick Arm of Cook Inlet, abo.ut 15
miles north of Anchorage. From the 1940s through the
present time, the central part of the Flats area has been
used as an "impact area" for mortar and artillery fire.
Consequently it now contains high concentrations of
unexploded ordnance materials and 6-foot impact
craters which make it unsafe for random access and
sampling.
From 1982 through 1988, an estimated 2000 dead birds
have been noted at the site, with several hundreds more
observed in 1989. However, because of off-limits access
constraints, area size and sampling/visibility problems,
these figures represent only about 8 per cent of the
entire Flats area. Almost all carcasses" anij' feather piles
are those of ducks, with pintails (Arias a'cutd) the most
common species affected. Several other dead avian taxa
have been found, including shorebirds and an occasional
raptor. Affected birds appear to die quickly, and:
predation on dying waterfowl by bald eagles is a major
occurrence. Sampling efforts and analytical/ pathologic
studies thus far have been uniformly inconclusive.
However, US Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have
ruled out disease and concussion from artillery fire as
causative agents, and current attention is increasingly
focused upon munitions chemicals which comprise the
on-site ordnance.
In 1987, a task force was formed to address the
problem, and consisted of The US Fish and Wildlife
Service, US Army, EPA Alaska Operations Office, Alaska
State Dept of Environmental Conservation, and Alaska
State Fish and Game. Under contract to the US Army
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), a
private Colorado firm has developed an expanded site
investigation scope of work to ascertain the cause of the
bird deaths. This will include residue and tissue
sampling, the use of sentinel birds, and other types of
studies. This important wetland is a significant issue in
terms of ecological risk assessment.
Contact: Dana Davoli (FTS 399-2135)
IV. Announcements
Principles of Route-to-Route Extrapolation for
Risk Assessment Conference
EPA and the ILSI Risk Science Institute in Washington,
D.C., will host a conference on the Principles of Route-
to-Route Extrapolation for Risk Assessment from March
19-21, 1990. The conference will be held at the
Mariner's Inn, in Hilton Head, South Carolina. The
conference will feature invited speakers and poster
presentations on:
•	Structure and function of barriers to uptake of
toxicants,
•	Physiological parameters associated with uptake of
toxicants,
•	Critical factors for modeling systemic dose of
toxicants,
•	Implications for route extrapolations, and
•	Implications for risk assessment and future research
needs.
Toxicologic data often exist for routes of exposure'other
than the route by which humans are environmentally
exposed. This conference is concerned with the
scientific issues related to route-to-route extrapolation as
it is applied in risk assessment.
The registration fee for the two-and-one-half day
conference is $150.00. For further information about
attendance contact: Janice Braswell, Conference
Coordinator, NSI-ES, P.O. Box 12313, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27709. Janice can be reached at
(919) 549-0611.
Society for Risk Analysis Course Announcement
The Society for Risk Analysis will hold their fifth annual
course, "New Directions in Cancer Risk Assessment" on
May 21-23, 1990, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Bethesda,
Maryland. The intent of the course it to provide an
introductory overview of methodologies, assumptions,
and new research in cancer risk assessment. Lecturers
will show how to perform and interpret risk assessments
and how to use them in risk management. Special
emphasis will be given to new developments in
pharmacokinetics, biomonitoring and reproductive,
immunological and neurological risks. Lecturers will be
Dr. Roy Albert, Professor and Chairman, Department of
Environmental Health and Kettering Laboratory,
University of Cincinnati; Dr. Elizabeth Anderson.
President, Clement Associates, Inc.; Dr: Mildred
Christian, President and Director, Argus Research
Laboratories. Inc.; Dr. Vincent Covello, School of Public
Health, Columbia University; Dr. Bernard Goldstein,
Professor and Chairman, Environmental and Community
Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; Dr.
Loren Koller, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon
State University; Dr. Lester Lave, Graduate School of
Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University; Dr.
Richard Reitz, Associate Scientist in Toxicology, CUT;
Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, Environmental Defense Fund; Dr.
Curtis Travis, Director, Office of Risk Analysis, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory; Dr. James Trosko, Professor
of Pediatrics and Human Development, University of
Michigan; Dr. Chris Whipple, Technical Manager, Risk
and Health Science Department, Electric Power
Research Institute. For further information, please call
7

-------
Dr. Curtis C. Travis, (615) 576-2107 or FTS 626-2107, or
Mary Oran, (615) 574-8438 or FTS 624- 8438.
The following is the schedule for the Risk
Communication Workshops through March:
Stormwater and
Group Meeting
Water Quality Model Users
The Stormwater and Water Quality Model Users Group
Meeting will be held on April 26-27, 1990, at the
Sheraton Eatontown Hotel and Conference Center
located at Hwy 35 and Industrial Way East, Eatontown,
New Jersey. The telephone number is (201) 542-6500.
Registration for the conference is $75.00. Further
information on the conference can be obtained from the
conference coordinator: Vajira Gunawardana, P.E.,
Najarian and Associates, Inc., One Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey 07724. The telephone number is
(201) 389-0220.
Abstracts of presentations on all aspects of Stormwater
and Water Quality Modeling are invited to be submitted
to the conference coordinator by February 1, 1990.
Authors will be notified of acceptance by March 1, 1990.
An agenda for the meeting will be available in March
1990 with further details and travel information.
2nd International Conference on Watermatex
'91
r
The International Association on Water Poll&tiain-^
Research and Control will host the 2nd International
Conference on Watermatex '91 from June 3-6, 1991, at
the New England Center, University of New Hampshire, l>!
Durham, New Hampshire. The Conference title is
"Systems Analysis in Water Quality Management/ and
Clinic on Computer Simulation of Environmental
Processes."
The goal of the meeting is to bring together research
and applications in system analysis to examine these
issues and bridge theory and practice. The association
is soliciting technical papers in the area of systems
analysis in water quality management with special
consideration being given to papers with special
emphasis on contemporary issues and computer
applications. Papers should be submitted by December
1, 1990.
For further information on the meeting, contact:
WATERMATEX '91, New England Center Program
Office, 15 Stafford Avenue, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824 at (603)
862-1900.
Risk and Decision-Making Courses Scheduled
The following is the schedule for the Risk and Decision-
Making Courses through March:
Headquarters -
Region 2
Headquarters -
Region 3
January 23-24
February 14-15
March 6-7
March 15
Contact: Marian Olsen (FTS 264-5682)
Jim Cole - Headquarters (FTS 382-2747)
Contacts:
Jerome Puskin
Linda Tuxen
Dorothy Patton
Dick Hill
Don Barnes
Dean Hill
Sally Edwards
Marian Olsen
Jeffrey Burke
Elmer Akin
vMtl{ Clark '\ ,
Jon Rao^eh^r^
Bob Fenemore
•• Suzanne \Mu^thele
Arnold Den'
Dana Davoli
.?A'S
OAR-RAD
ORD-OHEA
ORD-RAF
OPTS
SAB
NEIC
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
ion 5
ion 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
FTS 475-9640
FTS 382-5949
FTS 475-6743
FTS 382-2897
FTS 382-4126
FTS 776-8138
FTS 835-3696
FTS 264-5682
FTS 597-1177
FTS 257-2234
FTS 886-3388
FTS 255-6715
FTS 757-2970
FTS 330-1714
FTS 454-0906
FTS 399-2135
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.	
Region 6
Region 7
Region 2
Region 5
Region 3
January 23 and 24
February 21-11
March 7-9
March 13-14
March 14
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
8

-------