UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II, New York, New York 10278
DATE: November 23, 1990
SUBJECT: Risk Assessment Review
FROM:
William Farland, Ph.D. y /
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
-------
October 1990
Highlights
• The Great San Francisco Earthquake p. 1
Results in a Bake-Out
• Report on Risk Communication Training p. 1
• Inhalation RfCs on IRIS p. 2
• Risk Assessment Forum Activities p. 3
• Update on Risk Communication Projects p. 4
• From ECAO-CIN to Seattle and Back: p. 12
A Rotational Assignment in Regional
Risk Assessment
• Interagency Task Force Sponsor Environ- p. 12
mental Health Education Workshop
• Happenings in Region IX p. 14
I. Special Features
The Great San Francisco Earthquake Results
in a Bake-out
(What, you don't know what a bake-out is???)
By Winona Victory (FTS 484-2125)
This is the 9th in a series of articles written by Regional
Scientists who are in the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD's) Regional Scientist Program, spon-
sored by the Regional Operations Staff of the Office of
Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS).
October 17,1990, was the 1-year anniversary of the San
Francisco earthquake! By that date, the staff of Region IX
were about two-thirds moved into a brand new 20-story
high-risebuilding (75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA.
94105). The previous Fremont Street building suffered
structural damage in the quake, so that it was necessary to
house staff in three separate buildings, with about half the
staff working at home. As a new Regional Scientist (since
May 1990), this is a hard way to meet people and get the job
done.
However, aunique opportunity presented itself in early July.
Richard Taft, the Health and Safety Manager, asked me if I
could assist in a "bake-out" I said sure, thinking I was being
invited to a party.... I soon learned that this is a term used to
describe the process of elevating building temperatures over
a several day period to permit volatilization of the chemicals
in the new carpeting, paints, and other installed partitions.
The technique is experimental but is being tried in new
facilities to decrease the emission of organic vapors and
aldehydes which may produce "sick building syndrome."
Region IX was seeking ORD assistance to obtain the re-
sources and expertise to cany out the protocol design,
sampling, and interpretation of the results. Mr. Taft recog-
nized that this was an importantreseaich opportunity and felt
that the results of the effort would be publishable in the
scientific literature. The timing of the effort, was, however
critical, in that it had to be accomplished prior to the General
Services Administration (GSA) acceptance of the building.
This was expected in late July. (see Great p. 2)
Risk Assessment Review Committee
Bill Farland — ORD, FTS 382-7317
Sally Edwards — Region I, FTS 835-3696
Maria Pavlova — Region n, FTS 264-7364
Marian Olsen — Region II, FTS 264-5682
Suzanne Wuerthele — Region VIII, FTS 330-1714
Dana Davoli—Region X, FTS 399-2135
Update on Risk Communication Workshop
Training
On September 10,1990, Deputy Administrator Hank Habicht
sent a memo to the Assistant Administrators and Regional
Administrators applauding the accomplishments of the
Agency in piovidingriskcommunication training during the
first half ofFY90. Following are highlights from the memo:
"Improving the manner in which we communicate with the
public about issues of health and environmental risks is one
of the toughest challenges that EPA faces. This challenge is
basic to EPA's mission because we work for the public and
conduct our operations in a fishbowl. I am sending this
memo to commend you for your overall accomplishments
thus far and to urge your continued personal support of this
training, especially the Risk Communication Workshops.
Thirteen hundred fifty-one headquarters, regional offices,
states and other interested people have participated in this
workshop. This total includes 801 EPA staff. Present head-
quarters and regional office plans show that by the end of
FY'90 this number should be over 1,100 (EPA staff).
Because of my interest in improving EPA's communication
with the public about issues of health and environmental
risk, I am asking that each Assistant Administrator and
Regional Administrator review the number of current staff
who have attended this course and identify those who need
to be scheduled into planned sessions for the remainder of
this year and into FY'91. At the recent Kansas City Meeting
of the Agency's deputies, it was a consensus opinion that all
of our staff must be considered as potential communicators.
As we continue to present this course, we need to think
especially of regional and headquarters managers, public
affairs officers, scientists and site managers/permit writers
as principal candidates for this course. I encourage those
offices that have already met the 10% goal to consider their
additional needs for this training.
The evaluations from people who have taken this workshop
have been consistently excellent. In fact, many state and
local agencies have participated and are beginning to ask us
for more support in providing this message to others on their
staff. Our sessions have included representatives from the
Department of Interior, Health and Human Services, Agri-
culture, Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, several independent agencies, and several
state and local governments." (see Update, p. 2)
1
-------
Great (Continued from p. 1)
As the ORD liaison in Region IX, I contacted the Indoor Air
Team in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina
(several different laboratories and offices work in this area).
The Deputy Director of the Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL), Bill Mitchell
directed me to Dale Pahl, Director of the Exposure Analysis
Research Division. They agreed that this would be an impor-
tant research opportunity and Ross Highsmith in this division
would coordinate the effort. Sampling equipment had to be
prepared and shipped to the West Coast AREAL provided
contractor staff from RTP who worked with Region IX
industrial hygienists to develop the protocol and perform the
study. During the sampling period, the staff formed a team to
perform surveillance of the building—primarily to avoid
accidental entry of construction staff into the monitoring
areas. The team was on duty round-the-clock during the
temperature elevation in order to observe anything unusual
and log in the sampling periods.
The goals were to characterize the effectiveness of the bake-
out procedure when used to minimize indoor pollutant con-
centrations, to document the indoor air quality in the building
after EPA occupation of the building, to estimate the maxi-
mum volatile organic compound (VOC) and aldehyde con-
centrations during the bake-out, as well as to determine the
net emission rates for various VOC and aldehyde compounds
before and after the bake-out, and to determine die Air
Exchange Rates (AER) in selected areas before and after the
bake-out process and once the space was occupied by EPA
employees. The after move-in sampling will occur in the next
few weeks.
Analytical results are not yet available. Selected analytes, as
well as identification of other possible contaminants are
being quantitated. Full results will be reported by the group
as a research report.
The research effort jointly conducted by AREAL and Region
IX represents state-of-the-art science. Through this program,
a novel building bake-out program has been developed,
implemented and validated that assists indoor air researchers.
This work will provide base documentation for the formula-
tion and implementation of future large building mitigation
strategies that can be used by the Agency and General
Accounting Office. In addition, the validated large building
survey can be implemented in future indoor air, human
exposure, and large building studies across the U.S. and in
other countries.
Update (Continued from p. 1)
Watch the next issue of the Risk Assessment Review for an
updateby the Risk Training Committee on the FY'90 training
effort including the Risk Communication Workshop, Work-
shop on Risk and Decision Making, Risk Assessment Guide-
lines, the Integrated Risk Information System and other
training in risk assessment, risk management and risk com-
munication.
For further information on risk communication training,
contact Deny Allen or Jim Cole at FTS 382-2747 or the
regional risk training coordinators.
n. Headquarters
Inhalation RfCs on IRIS
By Linda Tuxen (FTS 382-5949)
Inhalation reference doses, now called inhalation reference
concentrations (inhalation RfC), are on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). Two EPA work groups (Car-
cinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor [CRAVE]
and Reference Dose [RfD] Work Group) serve as the princi-
pal review bodies for Agency risk assessment information
and develop the summary risk information that goes on IRIS.
These interdisciplinary groups, which include scientists from
the major EPA program offices and regions, meet monthly to
review risk assessment information developed by various
program offices. Only after the work groups reach consensus
on the validity of the health effects data and the risk estimates
for a particular chemical, is a descriptive summary added to
IRIS.
The RfD Work Group has developed a dual focus; oral RfDs
and inhalation RfCs. The RfD/RfC Work Group's purpose is
to verify oral RfDs and inhalation RfCs developed by pro-
gram offices, resolve inconsistencies among program of-
fices, and to identify, discuss, and resolve generic issues
associated with different methods used to estimate oral RfDs
and inhalation RfCs.
Ah oral RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning per-
haps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human
population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects diving a
lifetime. The oral RfD is appropriately expressed in units of
milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day.
The inhalation RfC is analogous to the oral RfD and is also
based on the assumption that thresholds exist for certain toxic
effects such as cellular necrosis but may not exist for other
effects such as carcinogenicity. The inhalation RfC considers
toxic effects for both the respiratory system (portal-of-entry)
and for effects peripheral to the respiratory system
(extrarespiratory effects). Different dosimetric adjustments
for respiratory and extrarespiratory effects are applied based
on the type of agent (particle or gas). The inhalation RfC is
appropriately defined as an estimate (with uncertainty span-
ning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily inhalation
exposure of the human population (including sensitive sub-
groups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime. The inhalation RfC is
appropriately expressed in units of milligrams per cubic
meter.
Inhalation RfCs are derived according to the "Interim Meth-
ods for Development of Inhalation Reference Concentra-
tions" (Review Draft; EPA/600/8-90/066A, August 1990),
the methodology for which was developed by EPA scientists.
The notice of availability of this draft document for external
review was announced in the Federal Register on September
26,1990 (SS FR 39321). Further, the interim methodology
document is scheduled for EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) review on October 25 - 26,1990.
2
-------
As of October 1990, there were 426 chemicals on IRIS,
including 333 oral RfD and 6 inhalation RfC summaries, and
154 carcinogen summaries. Also, there are S chemicals for
which messages appear regarding inhalation RfCs. These
messages advise users that the health effects data for a
specific chemical were reviewed by the RfD/RfC Work
Group and that a consensus was reached that determined the
available data to be inadequate for derivation of an inhalation
RfC and that the verification status of this chemical is
currently not verifiable. Part of the message includes specific
EPA contacts and telephone numbers for each chemical.
Risk Assessment Forum Activities
by BUI van der Schalie (FTS 475-6743)
Several current activities of the Risk Assessment Forum
(RAF) are highlighted in the following sections.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The RAF has initiatedanew program for developing Agency-
wide ecological risk (ecorisk) assessment guidelines, follow-
ing extensive discussions with EPA managers and scientists
and outside experts. Headquarters, regional, and laboratory
personnel have taken leadership roles in formulating differ-
ent aspects of the guidelines; and all three groups are repre-
sented on the Forum Coordination Group that helps to direct
ecorisk guidelines development. This effort, which involves
a substantial commitment of resources, will help provide a
consistent Agency approach to ecorisk assessment
The four projects described below are scheduled for
completion during FY'91. By the end of 1990, the report on
issues in ecorisk assessment will be published, and separate
peer-review workshops will be held for the case studies
report (three workshops in different parts of the country) and
the framework document and future guidelines plan (one
workshop). In the fall of 1991, the case studies report will be
completed, and Federal Register notices requesting public
comments on the framework and future guidelines activities
will also be published.
Report on Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment. The first
report produced as a result of RAF activity in the ecorisk area
will soon be available. This report, which highlights important
issues related to the development of ecorisk assessment
guidelines, is based upon a series of meetings sponsored by
the RAF from March through July, 1990. Experts in ecology
and ecorisk assessment met to discuss selection of an ap-
propriate ecorisk assessment paradigm, uncertainty issues in
hazard and exposure assessment, and population modeling.
Representatives from state and federal agencies described
how ecorisk assessments are conducted in their organizations,
and the EPA Science Advisory Board provided an informal
consultation on the development of ecorisk assessment
guidelines. This document will introduce Agency staff and
thepublictosomeof the issues, principles, and practices that
are critical to thedevelopment of ecorisk guidelines. A notice
of availability for this report will be published in the Federal
Register. (Contact: Shirley Thomas, RAF, FTS 475-6743).
Development of a Framework for Ecorisk Guidelines. A
headquarters workgroup is formulating a proposed paradigm
of Sciences paradigm for risk assessment that is used as a
basis for Agency human health guidelines. The ecorisk
paradigm will address dhemical and non-chemical stressors,
predictive and retrbsjpective studies, and assessments based
upon data from different levels of biological organization.
This project will a consistent Agency approach to
ecorisk assessments will help identify important issues and
keyresearch needs,and will form thebasisforthe subsequent
development of moire detailed and specific ecorisk guide-
lines. Co-chairs for this effort are Suzanne Marcy, Office of
Water, FTS 382-7144, and Sue Norton, Office of Research
and Development, FTS 382-6955.
Compilation of Ecorisk Case Studies. Case studies illustrating
the "state-of-the-practice" in ecorisk assessment are being
compiled by six Agency work groups chaired by personnel
from the regions. Environmental Research Laboratories, and
headquarters. Case studies selected for inclusion in the report
will represent a wide range of program tasks and ecosystem
types. Individual case studies will be compiled into an overall
report that will include a description of each case study, a
"tools" section that will contain a cross-referenced listing of
ecorisk methods, models, and assessment schemes used in
the case studies, and a discussion section that will review
case studies issues related to ecorisk assessment, risk man-
agement, and research needs. The case studies report will
provide interim assistance in performing ecorisk assessments
until additional specific ecorisk guidelines can be developed.
It should be valuable to all Agency personnel who conduct
ecorisk assessments, especially to those working in the regions.
This effort is chaired by Ron Landy, Office of Technology
Transfer and Regulatory Support, FTS 382-7891.
Plans for Future Guidelines. A work group has been formed
to create a long-term (1991-1998) work plan for the devel-
opment of ecorisk guidelines in several specific subject ar-
eas. This planning group will interface with other Agency
ecorisk activities, including the core research program and
theEcological Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP).
Jack Gentile, Environmental Research Laboratory - Narra-
gansett, FTS 838-6000, and Dave Mauriello, Office of Toxic
Substances, FTS 382-2260, are co-chairing this work group.
PCB Toxicity Equivalency Factors
The RAF will sponsor a workshop on 'Toxicity Equivalency
Factors (TEFs) for PCBs," which will consider the feasibility
of developing a TEF-like scheme for the polychlorinated
biphenyls. The workshop will be organized around the fol-
lowing major discussion topics:
• Is the existing database on toxicity and mechanisms of
action sufficient to support a TEF-like scheme for the
PCBs?
• What is known about environmental exposures to spe-
cific PCB congeners?
What analytical methods are available to quantify indi-
vidual congeners in environmental matrices?
3
-------
What are the important data gaps and what research is
needed to fill them?
The workshop will be held December 11 and 12,1990, at the
Holiday Inn, 550 C Street, Washington, DC. For further
information contact Bill Wood at FTS 475-7095.
f Workshop on Male Rat Kidney Tiunors|fp|
Some scientists hypothesize that chemicals inducing exces-
sive accumulation of alpha-2u-globulin in the male rat kid-
ney initiate a specific set of changes that can result in cancer
in the ienal tubules of these laboratory animals. In 1988, EPA's
RAF established a Technical Panel of Agency scientists to
review the information underlyingthishypothesisand to study
its relevance for human risk assessment A draft report, en-
titled "Alpha-2u-Globulin: Association with Renal Toxicity
and Neoplasia in the Male Rat," has been developed as a
result
A Peer Review Workshop was held on November 13 and 14,
1990, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to evaluate the Technical
Panel's report on alpha-2u-globulin and the male rat Over 20
experts who attended the workshop discussed the report and
made recommendations to EPA in four areas: biochemistry
and nephrotoxicity, cancer, criteria for distinguishing these
renal carcinogens, and risk characterization.
The RAF intends to publish the report once the Agency
review process is complete. For further information, contact
Jean Rogers at FTS 475-6743.
Colloquium on Health Risks from Indoor Exposure to
Gasoline Vapors
On September 13, 1990, Dr. Suzanne Wuerthele (Region
VIII) chaired a RAF colloquium on health risks from indoor
exposure to gasoline vapors.
Both regional and state risk assessors have received requests
to evaluate health risks from indoor air exposure to gasoline
vapors at concentrations which are above detection limits but
less than the explosive range. These requests often require the
risk assessor to identify a "safe" air concentration of gasoline
vapors under very diverse circumstances (e.g., residential
exposures, children in schools, customers in commercial
establishments, and even prenatal health clinics). As yet the
Agency has no practical guidance for regional risk assessors
on gasoline vapor risk assessments.
The colloquium focused on exposure to gasoline vapors in
indoor settings, such as those originating from leaking un-
derground storage tanks, contaminated groundwater, or soil.
Information was exchanged among regional risk assessors
and other scientists relating to the problems of performing
health risk assessments for these exposures to gasoline. As a
follow-up to the meeting, Dr. Wuerthele is drafting a state-
ment of understanding which outlines points of agreement
among the participants on risk assessment strategy for gaso-
line vapors. For further information, contact Jean Rogers at
FTS 475-6743.
Update on Risk Communication Projects
by Ernestine Thomas (FTS 382-5501)
EPA undertakes many activities to communicate with the
public about health and environmental risks and to advance
the practice of risk communication. These activities can be
classified in four general areas:
• Risk Communication Training,
• ~ Problem-Specific Consulting and Analysis,
•? Methods Development and
• Coordination and Outreach.
The following list includes completed, ongoing, and pro-
posed activities throughout the Agency in each of these four
areas. Its purpose is to enable people within and outside EPA
to learn about past, present and proposed EPA efforts in risk
communication, and to contact the people who have been
working on them.
This list has been prepared by the staff of the Risk Commu-
nication Program (RCP) in the EPA Office of Policy, Plan-
ning and Evaluation. The RCP provides technical assistance
to the entire Agency on risk communication and sponsors
some of its own projects as well.
Projects sponsored by the RCP are selected after receiving
input from the Risk Communication Work Group, comprised
of representatives appointed by each office's Deputy Assis-
tant Administrator, and by meeting project-selection criteria.
A superior proposal shows the potential to:
• enhance the risk communication skills of Agency staff,
• improve the Agency's capability to evaluate its risk
communication activities,
• be applicable to other risk communication problems
faced by the Agency,
• address important basic questions in risk perception and
risk communication,
• interest the associated program or regional office, and
achieve its project objectives.
Currently, the RCP is concentrating its efforts in three areas:
risk communication training, SARA Title in, and radon.
• Risk communication training helps Agency staff acquire
risk communication skills. The RCP staff has developed
a two-day Workshop on Risk Communication, which is
now being taught at Headquarters and throughout the
regions. The course includes case discussions, video
presentations, and role-playing exercises. The
Administrator's goal is to train 10 percent of Agency
staff in risk communication within the next year. The
Regional Offices, the Office of Air Quality, Planning
and Standards, and the Office of Radiation Programs
also are giving the course to their state counterparts.
• Title HI is an area of emphasis for the RCP because of its
importance at the community level. Both emergency
planning and routine release components are important
in helping communities assess their risks from toxic
chemical exposure. The RCP coordinates the Agency's
4
-------
largest Title m risk communication research project:
Public Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemical Risks.
This study, initiated in response to a request by former
Administrator Lee Thomas, will enable the Agency to
assess how the public's perceptions and understanding
of chemical risks are changing after implementation of
Title ID. Baseline data were collected during August 1988.
The results of the analysis have been used in developing
Title m risk communication materials. Follow-up data
collection is planned for early 1991.
In other Title in activities, the RCP coordinated the
development of the Title III Risk Communication
Training Course for Agency staff and state and local
officials and is managing the examination of how Local
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) view their
responsibilities as risk communicators and what ride
communication they actually do.
• The RCP is emphasizing radon risk communication
because of the Office of Radiation Program's (ORP's)
needs. Several projects form an integrated examination
of radon risk communication. These studies explore
how people perceive radon risks and how those percep-
tions change, how to motivate people to test their homes
for radon, how to present information about radon
readings so citizens can form realistic perceptions of
their risks, and how to motivate those with high radon
levels to take mitigating action (without frightening
those at low levels into taking unnecessary action).
These efforts are beginning to yield a coherent picture
of how to effectively communicate radon risk informa-
tion to the public, and ORP is integrating the findings
into its radon program.
• In addition to the three topics chosen for concentration,
the RCP collaborates with other offices on shorter-term
projects. These projects are selected to develop and
disseminate technologies for enhancing the effective-
ness of the Agency's ongoing risk communication ac-
tivities.
This list summarizes EPA's risk communication projects
through August, 1990. These activities have been undertaken
by the Agency's program or regional offices, by OPPE'sRisk
Communication Program (RCP), or by collaborative efforts
between the RCP and the program, or regional offices. For
more information about a specific project, contact the person
whose name appears in parentheses. For comments or
questions about the RCP or the projects generally, contact
Deny Allen or Jim Cole (both at FTS 382-2747). The
Agency's Risk Communication Work Group members are
listed on the end of the article.
I. Training
Completed
1. Handbook entitled, "Explaining Environmental Risk."
(Available through OTS Hotline: FTS 382-3790)
2. Risk Communication Seminar for Regional Public Af-
fairs Officers, May 1987. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
3. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Pub-
lic Participation Course: Guidance on Public Involvement
in RCRA. Published January 1986. (Vanessa Musgrave,
FTS 382-2464)
4. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
handbook entitled, "Human Health Evaluation Manual."
Office of Solid Waste andEmergency Response (OS WER
Directive 99285.4-1, October 1986). Available through
the Public Information Center (FTS 382-2080), and the
Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI).
The manual is being updated to fill data gaps with new
information on assessing public health risks from toxic
substances and to resolve some major Superfund issues.
(Bruce Means, FTS 382-4307)
5. Risk Assessment and Risk Management Training: The
"Dinitrochickenwire" Case. (Jim Cole, FTS 382-2747
and Regional Risk Assessment Training Coordinators)
6. RCRA Corrective Action Case for Office of Solid Waste
(OSW). (Jim Cole, FTS 382-2747; Jackie Krieger, FTS
382-4646)
7. Air RISC Workshop on Risk Assessment and Commu-
nication. Draws on 9 and 10 below. Offered May and
June 1989 in Raleigh, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois;
and San Francisco, California. (Karen Blanc hard, OAR,
FTS 629-5503)
Ongoing
8. Workshop on Risk and Decision Making: The
"Electrobotics" Case. An introductory training course
on risk assessment, risk management, and risk commu-
nication. Course began fall 1987, with over 1,300 EPA
staff now trained. (Jim Cole, FTS 382-2747 and Re-
gional Risk Assessment Training Coordinators)
9. "Workshop on Risk Communication." A second-level
course following "Risk and Decision-Making." Offered
in Headquarters and Regional Offices. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and Office of
Radiation Programs (ORP) have given the course to their
state colleagues. Over 1300 have been trained through
April 1990. (Deny Allen and Jim Cole, FTS 382-2747
and Regional Risk Assessment Training Coordinators)
10. Specialized Training on Risk Assessment, Risk Assess-
ment Guidelines, IRIS, and Exposures; for technical
staff, ORD lead. (Peter Preuss, FTS 382-7669; Morris
Altschuler, FTS 382-7667; and Dorothy Patton, FTS
475-6743)
11. Risk assessment/management/communication compo-
nents of OSR course on Regulation Development in
EPA. Offered periodically, beginning January 1988.
(Maggie Thielen, FTS 382-5494)
12. Course entitled "Environmental Evaluation in Super-
fund" covers health and ecological risk assessment and
is being offered to the regional offices by the Emergency
Response Team. (Sandra Lee, FTS 382-4307)
13. Region I Risk Communication Training: Region I (Bos-
ton) offers a special six-hour course for EPA and state
5
-------
employees concerned about communicating environ-
mental risks to the public. (Sally Edwards, FTS 835-
3696)
14. Htle III Risk Communication Training. A manual and
workshop for public officials to use in communicating
with communities about the toxic chemicals found in a
local environment, such as those revealed by Title m of
SARA. EPA-230-09-89-066; Facilitator's Guide: EPA-
230-09-89-067. EPA, Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), Department of Transportation (DOT),
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Reg-
istry (ATSDR) are cosponsors. (Dorothy McManus,
FTS475-8600; Ann Giesecke, FTS 382-3265; Ernestine
Thomas, FTS 382-5501)
15. "Hazardous S ubstances in Our Environment: A Citizen's
Guide to Understanding Health Risks and Reducing
Exposure." A guidebook using layman's terms to ex-
plain how risk assessment yields a ride estimate at the
community level. Comparison of risk estimates for
several environmental issues, especially as related to a)
Superfund, b) Title m, and c) risks the individual can
mitigate. Initiated August 1988 with OSWER. Draft
pretested, spring, 1990. To print shop, September 1990,
EPA230/09/90/081. Short highlights flyer to print shop,
October 1990.EPA230-09-90-082. Distributed through
PIC. (Dorothy McManus, FTS 475-8606 or Ernestine
Thomas, FTS 382-5501)
Proposed
16. Handbook on Individual Risk Perspective. A training
handbook for explaining how individuals can put their
environmental risks in the context of other risks they
face. (Alan Carlin, FTS 382-5499)
17. Risk Communication Manual. To draw from existing
specialized risk communication materials and develop a
general manual for communicating about environmental
risks. (Deny Allen, FTS 382-2747)
IL Problem—Specific Consulting and Analysis
Completed
1. Radon:
a. Generation of CITIZEN'S GUIDE, Training Pro-
gram, Radon Journalist's Guide, etc. (Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR), Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation (OPPE), Public Affairs, Regions),
(Steve Page, FTS 475-9605)
b. The Maine Study: An analysis of the perceptions
and remedial responses of 230 households who
received test results and an information brochure as
part of an epidemiological study. Article by F. Reed
Johnson in RISK ANALYSIS, 1987. (Ernestine
Thomas, FTS 382-5501)
c. Community Response to Radon Information. An
evaluation of different reactions in Boyertown, PA;
Vernon Township, NJ; and Clinton, NJ; drawing
lessons on how to design a risk communication
strategy that will lead people to test and mitigate
appropriately. "Alerting the Apathetic and Reas-
suring the Alarmed" Final report, August 1988;
EPA 230/08-88-036. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
d. RadonRiskCommunicationStudyinSwedenatthe
Stockholm School of Economics. No EPA funds,
but involvement by OPPE staff, F. Reed Johnson.
Final report, August, 1988. (Ernestine Thomas,
FTS 382-5501)
e. Region III/OPPE/Maryland Radon Study. An
evaluation of alternative community outreach
methods for motivating target audiences to test for
radon. Reports, November 1988 and March 1989
(EPA-230-03-89-048). (Nancy Zahedi, FTS 382-
5355; Ernestine Thomas, FTS 382-5501)
f. Geographic Mapping of Radon Data. Developed a
computerized geographic display of Region I radon
data for use in communicating about radon risk.
Draft final report, October 1988. (Tom D'Avanzo,
FTS 835-3222)
g. Motivating people to test for radon and mitigate
high levels: Public apathy is more of a concern than
public panic over the well-publicized dangers from
radon in homes. This study examined the effective-
ness of an integrated TV-PSA/test-kit-marketing
effort in getting people to test for radon, and whether
testers mitigated. These results are compared with
the effectiveness of communicating about radon at
the time of home purchases. Final report March
1990-.EPA-230-02-90-075. (Alan Carlin, FTS 382-
5499)
h. Summary and critique ofradon risk communication
studies: distills implications for developing an ef-
fective ride communication strategy. Report August
1989,EPA-230-04-89-049. (Ernestine Thomas, FTS
382-5501)
2. Evaluation of Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) risk communi-
cations
a. Analysis of EPA "message" and media coverage.
Report and article in RISK ANALYSIS, 1986.
(Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
b. Analysis of market impacts, and implicit value of
information about EDB contamination. Final re-
port, August, 1988. (Reed Johnson, (301) 267-
2100)
3. Study of the Effectiveness of Alternative Pesticide La-
beling Formats, 1986. OPPE lead. (Ernestine Thomas,
FTS 382-5501)
4. Evaluation of EPA risk communications concerning
Chernobyl; June 1987 (OPPE, Office of External Affairs
(OEA), OAR). (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
5. Citizens' Guide, "Lead and Your Drinking Water",
April 1987, (OW, OPPE, OEA, Office of Air (OA)).
(Jeanne Briskin, FTS 382-5520)
6. Toms River, New Jersey, Superfund Site: Risk Commu-
nication Demonstration Study; summary report, August
6
-------
1988; Region II, with OERR and OPPE; (Maria Pavlova,
FTS 264-7364)
7. Case Siudies on Air Pollution Risk Communication:
Three examples of state and local air pollution control
agencies communicating the results of a source-specific
risk assessment to the public. The emphasis is on what
was successful and what was not OAQPS special report,
1988. (Karen Blanchard, OAQPS, FTS 629-5503)
8. Guidance for Developing Toxic Profile Summaries:
Focusf groups were used in evaluating a draft tox profile
summary, to guide contractors who write tox profiles. A
jointeffoit between EPA(OPA,OSR,OTS)andATSDR.
(Mel Kollander, FTS 382-2734).
9. Risk Communication for the National Survey of Pesti-
cides in Drinking Water Wells. Focus groups were used
to pretest draft materials regarding what sources the
public views as credible, what types of messages make
the risk information more meaningful, and what con-
cerns were not satisfied in the public's mind. Report July
1988, ODW, OPP, OPPE. (Bill O'Neil, FTS 382-3354)
10. Wood Stoves: Developed a fact sheet explaining health
risks for burning wood and how the risks can be reduced
while still using this source of fuel. Region VIII and
Denver Integrated Environmental Management Pro-
gram (IEMP). (Rich Lathrop, FTS 564-1701)
11. Community Right-to-Know:
a. Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) focus groups to
identify community needs for information about
data collected under Title III of Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), especially
for the routine release data of Section 313. Report,
fall 1988. (Maria Pavlova, FTS 264-7364).
b. OTS pilot evaluation of draft materials for inter-
preting the routine chemical release data collected
under Title HI, Section 313 of SARA. (MikeStahl,
FTS 382-3949)
c. Municipal Officials and Tide III: Region I exam-
ined what methods municipal officials see as viable
for informing the public about the existence and
potential use of Local Emergency Plans and Section
313 data. Draft final report, summer 1988. (Tom
D'Avanzo, FTS 835-3222)
d. In-PIace Sheltering vs. Evacuation. Using results
from risk communication literature, this study de-
veloped criteria for deciding whether to shelter
people in place or evacuate them in emergencies
related to Superfund sites or to Title III releases.
OSWER lead, with Center for Risk Management
Conference report 1989. (John Gustafson, FTS
382-3411)
12. Evaluating the effectiveness of the OAR booklet en-
titled, "The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Qual-
ity." Report January 1990 EPA-230-01-90-073. (Betsy
Agle.FTS 382-7753; Ernestine Thomas, FTS 382-5501)
13. Communicating About the Risks From New Municipal
Waste facilities. Many existing landfills will be full
within five years, yet most communities exhibit strong
opposition to the siting of new municipal landfills,
incinerators, compost facilities, and transfer stations.
This study developed guidance for identifying and
responding to community concerns. Office of Solid
Waste and OPPE. Report spring 1990, EPA/530-SW-
90-019. (TruetdeGeare, FTS 382-6261; Greg Michaels,
FTS 475-6169)
Ongoing
14. Radon: Effectivenessof Risk Communication Activities
a. New York Study: 2300 homes monitored as part of
New York State (NYS) Energy Research and De-
velopment Authority study. OPPE (with OEA, ORP,
Region n and NYS) developed information dis-
semination and evaluation program to test effec-
tiveness of alternative information formats to in-
duce cost-effective voluntary mitigation of radon
risks. Interim report, July 1987, EPA-230-07-87-
029; follow-up data collected in April 1989. Col-
laborating with National Science Foundation (NSF)
for analysis of mitigation decisions. (Deny Allen,
FTS 382-2747)
b. Interpretations of radon readings for water versus
air. The risks from 10,000 pCi/1 in water is approxi-
mately equivalent to 1 pCi/1 in air. The concern is
that people with (say) a 200 pCi/1 water test result
and a 100 pCi/1 air test result will mitigate their
water even though the air risk would be much
larger. This study is using focus groups to assure
appropriate interpretation. Report December 1990.
Office of Drinking Water (ODW). (Greg Helms,
FTS 475-8049)
15. Risk Communication at Superfund Sites: OPPE studied
the risk perceptions around the Oil Landfill in California
and has developed a risk communication chapter for
OERR's Superfund Community Relations Handbook.
(Alan Carlin, FTS 382-5499; Melissa Shapiro, FTS 382-
2350)
16. Boat hull paints—to assist the Office of Pesticide Pro-
grams (OPP) and NOAA in developing and evaluating
leaflets sent to marinas and boat owners. One test ver-
sion emphasizes ecological risk, and the other empha-
sizes human health risk. Preliminary draft report, spring
1989. Final flyer (OPA-89-005) distributed widely during
1989. NOAA is funding most of this study. (Judith
Koontz, FTS 382-4034)
17. Hotline for Regions and Program Offices. To serve as an
up-to-date resource for information on risk communica-
tion research, skill building, implementation, and evalu-
ation. (Ernestine Thomas, FTS 382-5606)
18. Risk Assessment Review: EPA internal newsletter in-
cludes articles about Agency activities in risk assess-
ment risk management, and risk communication. (Bill
Farland, FTS 382-7317; BUI Muszynski, FTS 264-0396)
19. Study to determine whether risk information leads to
changes in individuals' everyday behavior. Research
7
-------
uses context of skin cancer risks from exposure to
sunlight, because health data are firmer than for most of
the other risks the Agency manages. Results should
apply to several issues in OPP, OTS, ODW, and OAR.
Draft report fall 1989. (AlanCarlin, FTS 382-5499; Hugh
Pitcher, FTS 382-2788)
20. Community Right-to-Know:
a. Evaluating the role, methods, and effectiveness of
the local emergency planning committees in com-
municating about community risks as part of ex-
plaining their emergency preparedness plans. Phase
I Final Report, December 1988, EPA-230-06-89-
063. Phase n added ten states to the one initially
studied; report, March 1990, EPA-230-04-90-077.
Phase III is disseminating risk communication in-
formation for LEPCs and community officials deal-
ing with Superfund sites. OSWER (Jim Cole, FTS
382-2747; John Gustafson, FTS 382-3315)
b. Transferring lessons learned from communicating
about natural hazards to communicating about
technological hazards. Initial draft report June
1988. Additional work is being done by Columbia
University. CEPPO lead. (Janice Quinn, FTS 475-
8600; Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
c. OSWER/ORD study of how Title m is creating
incentives for companies to reduce risks and com-
municate the results to the communities. Report
summer 1990. CEPPO (Elaine Davies, FTS 475-
8600)
d. Testing the Effectiveness of Citizen-Derived Risk
Information. Tufts University used citizen groups
enhanced with scientific experts and facility rep-
resentatives to study the dynam ics of learning about
the risksand implications for Title III.ORD. Report
January 1990. (Margaret Chu, FTS 382-7305; Do-
rothy McManus, FTS 475-8606)
e. Case Studies on the Use of CAMEO(TM)II for Risk
Communication. Evaluating the use of this com-
puter software by Local Emergency Planning Com-
mittees and emergency responders. CEPPO (Tony
Jover, FTS 382-2387)
21. Baseline Study of Public Knowledge and Perceptions of
Chemical Rides. This study combines data on general
questions from a nationwide sample with in-depth sur-
veys (especially related to Tide III and Superfund sites)
for six communities. Phase I report January 1990, EPA-
230-09- 89-066. Phase II is examining the existing and
potential roles for health professionals in communicat-
ing about Tide III risks. Phase III follow-up data collec-
tion will allow evaluation of how effective risk commu-
nication activities have been. (OSWER, OTS, OPPE,
ATSDR) (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747; Mike Stahl, FTS
382-3949; Dorothy McManus, FTS 475-8606)
22. Comparing Expert and Lay Judgments in Chemical Risk
Assessment Small initiative to complement Baseline
Study (Immediately above); Draft report, September
1989. (Deny Allen, FTS 382-2747)
23. Measuring changes in risk beliefs—University of Colo-
rado measured risk beliefs of public officials and com-
munity leaders before the Denver Integrated Environ-
mental Management Project's risk communication pro-
gram. Negotiations are underway about follow-up.
(Alan Caiiin, FTS 382-5499)
24. E-Mail updates of Agency's risk communication activi-
ties. (Ernestine Thomas, FTS 382-5606)
25. Public Response to Environmental Threat. An examina-
tion of public opinion in three types of communities
(those currently at risk, those currently at alarm, and
those facing no environmental threat) to leam about how
the level of knowledge and basic perceptions change as
the community goes through different stages. The goal
is to suggest how the different actors in environmental
conflicts can communicate better with each other. Re-
gion n lead. (Margaret Randol, FTS 264-4535)
26. Informing the Public About the Risks of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Options: to determine
baseline level of knowledge about such wastes and
perceptions of their risks; to compare perceptions of the
risks of various disposal options with technical risk
assessments; to design and evaluate messages for in-
forming people about the risks and benefits of various
disposal options. Initiated, summer 1988. OSWER lead
(Larry Zaragoza, FTS 382-2467)
27. Evaluating the effectiveness of alternative training
material formats (e.g., posters, handbooks, video tapes,
slide tapes) for training agricultural workers about the
hazards of pesticide exposure. Also developing and
evaluating pictograms for use as a national symbol
prohibiting re-entry into areas treated with pesticides.
Final report being reviewed. OPP (Allie Fields, FTS
557-7666)
28. Profiling Community Characteristics for Communicat-
ing About the Risks of Hazardous Waste Facilities: Both
siting and remediation of hazardous waste facilities lead
to community concerns. This research will develop an
index based on social, economic, financial, and envi-
ronmental characteristics of communities for predicting
their response to Superfund and RCRA sites, depending
on the specific characteristics of the hazardous waste
site. OSWER lead. (Karen Burgan, FTS 382-4617)
29. Superfund indicators for communicating about risks and
results at Superfund sites. Report 1989. Now compiling
data on selected environmental indicators; report ex-
pected August 1990. OPPE and OSWER. (Ruth
Chemerys, FTS 382-4908, Dave Evans, FTS 475-0369)
30. Environmental Contaminants in Schools. To evaluate
the effectiveness of ODW's booklet for school adminis-
trators on lead in drinking water, Office of Radiation
Program's guidance to schools about radon, and guidance
from OTS to schools aboutasbestos.DraftreceivedJuly
1990 (BUI O'Neil, FTS 382-5601; Peter Lassovszky,
FTS 475-8499; Peter Caulkins, FTS 382-2576; Dennis
Wagner, FTS 475-9622; and Gina Bushong, FTS 382-
3435)
8
-------
31. TEAM Study on Risk Communication. To assist OAR
and ORD in developing and evaluating materials so that
participants in the TEAM Study can interpret their
readings for approximately 30 monitored air toxics.
(AndyManale, FTS 382-6365)
32. Community Right-to-Know: The OSWER Community
Relations Pilot Study has been focusing on Title m.
Region VII has worked with the State of Kansas, local
industry groups, and the Local Emergency Pluming
Committee on compliance and other Title m issues.
Further efforts will concentrate on involving the com-
munity. (Hattie Thomas, (913) 551-7762)
33. Kanawha Valley Risk Communication Project: to de-
velop training for local people who then will communi-
cate the findings of the Harvard/National Institute for
Chemical Studies health study to participants and the
community. (Debra Gutenson, FTS 382-2733)
34. A Computerized Risk Communication Manual: using
HyperCard software and Macintosh computers, LEPC
^members, Superfund Community Relations Coordina-
tors and others will be able to access risk communication
information most pertinent to meet their needs. (Jim
Cole, FTS 382-2747; Tony Jover, FTS 382-2387)
35. Developing a framework for evaluating risk communi-
cation activities: to provide easy-to-use guidance for
tailoring evaluations to the scope of risk communication
activities, so that we can learn from our successes and
avoid repeating mistakes. Draft received July 1990.
(Deny Allen, FTS 382-2747)
36. Pesticide Residues on Produce: Communication and
Market Effects: Michigan State University is examining
perceptions of pesticide residues and how those percep-
tions affect purchases of produce. Report due September
1990. (Clay Ogg, FTS 382-6351; Andy Manale, FTS
382-6365)
37. "Explaining Environmental Risk" video tape and com-
panion brochure being developed by Center for Envi-
ronmental Research Information. (Jim Cole, FTS 382-
2747)
38. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Recycling and Waste
Disposal Educational Materials Developed for School-
age Children. Office of Solid Waste will work with
University of of Oklahoma and University of Illinois to
pretest and evaluate some of their materials. Initiated
August 1990. (Sandra Fairell, FTS 382-4627)
39. Increasing Awareness of Waste Disposal Alternatives
Among Junior High School Students. University of
Hartford will help students from several junior high
schools produce their own video programs about waste
disposal.Studentswillhelpevaluatetheeffectivenessof
the videos; the best will be combined into a single video
for distribution.. Initiated August 1990. (Sandra
Henderson, FTS 420- 4500; Elaine Koemer, FTS 382-
4454; Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
40. Pollution Prevention Effects of Tide III. This study will
examine what firms have done to change their produc-
tion processes, storage practices, and risk communica-
tion activities in response to the Community Right-to-
Know Law. Initiated August 1990. (Anne Giesecke,FTS
382-3265; Dorothy McManus, FTS 475-8606; Derry
Allen, FTS 382-2747)
Proposed
41. Communicating about the hazardous waste permitting
process. The identification of data needs likely to face
regions' permit writers as well as generators in respond-
ing to the community's questions about the risks from
proposed waste facilities. (Jim O'Leary, FTS 475-7065;
Greg Michaels, FTS 475-6197)
42. Radon and property values. Several regions have asked
for more concrete responses to homeowner questions
about the impact of radon on housing values. (Alan
Carlin, FTS 382-5499)
43. Evaluating risk communication as a regulatory alterna-
tive. This project would develop guidelines to indicate
what environmental risk situations might be most ame-
nable to a risk information program in lieu of regulation.
(Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
44. Evaluation of Texas Risk Communication Project's
(TRCP's) Process. TRCP has used a consortium of
business, academia, government, and citizen groups to
develop aprocess for communicating with communities
about risks from production and use of chemicals, re-
leases, and Superfund sites. This project would imple-
ment the process in selected communities and evaluate
its effectiveness. (Betty Williamson, Region VI, FTS 255-
2240)
III. Methods Development
Completed
1. OPPE catalog and evaluation of various agencies' ef-
forts to use risk advisories, April 1987. (Lynn Luderer,
FTS 382-5350)
2. Case studies in risk communication, with accompanying
analysis, Tufts University Center for Environmental
Management. Book 1988. ORD funding and lead. (Mar-
garet Chu, FTS 382-7305; Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
3. Ways to achieve greater consistency between subjective
and objective risks, especially for Superfund sites. Final
report, April 1989, EPA-230-11-89-071. (Ernestine
Thomas, FTS 382-5501)
4. National Academy of Sciences conducted a major project
on risk perception and communication. OPPE provided
assistance and input Book published, September 1989.
(Deny Allen, FTS 382-2747)
5. Presenting Risk Assessments. Collaboration with the
American Industrial Health Council, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Society for Risk Analysis (SR A)
to provide recommendations for improving the presen-
tation of risk assessment of carcinogens. The focus is on
how to convey the estimates, uncertainties, and conclu-
sions to risk managers and the scientific community.
9
-------
Report, July 1989. (BillFarland,FTS 382-7315; Jeanette
Wiltse, FTS 382-7317; Dick Hill, FTS 382-2897)
Ongoing
6. NSF/EPA examination of risk communication research
results that are relevant to practitioners. Book to be
published, 1990. (Deny Allen, FTS 382-2747)
7. Research and guidance on the use of risk comparisons as
a communication tool, using court cases involving as-
bestos in schools as a case study (NSF and OPPE).
(Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
8. Evaluating alternatives to small changes in low prob-
abilities as ways of expressing risk. Examples woe
radon and asbestos. Phase I report published August
1989 (EPA-230-08-89-064). Phase n is examining the
importance of locational cues on a risk ladder. (Dory
Allen, FTS 382-2747).
9. Risk Communication Center. OPPE has been advising
the consortium of researchers who established an insti-
tute at Columbia University to study risk assessment and
risk communication. The center began operating in
March 1989. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
10. Incorporating Uncertainty in Risk Communication. De-
veloping a systematic framework for including uncer-
tainty when communicating about risk. Initiated fall,
1988. (Mary Jo Kealy, FTS 382-5728)
11. Including risk characteristics in communication activi-
ties. Developing a way to account for other characteris-
tics of risk (such as newness, voluntariness, latency,
etc.), in addition to Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI)
risk and potential number of cases. Final report due
summer 1990. (Mary Jo Kealy, FTS 475-5728)
12. Communicating about ecosystem risks. Most risk com-
munication has concentrated on human health. The
Center for Risk Management is exploring ways to ex-
press environmental risks to plants and animals so that
these risks can be put in perspective along with health
risks. (Phil Ross, ITS 382-2407; Dexter Hinkley, FTS
382-2781)
13. Communicating Delayed and Global Ride Given Dis-
counting. To examine how perceptions differ for risks
that are global vs. local and delayed vs. immediate. Final
report expected summer 1990. (Mary Jo Kealy, FTS
475-8665)
14. Communicating about cumulative long-torn risks. Risk
communications that emphasize emotional appeals will
be compared with those having a more traditional tech-
nical emphasis, both for risks viewed as local (Super-
fund sites) and those viewed as widespread (global
climate change). (Jim Cole, FTS 382-2747)
15. Accounting for differences between lay and scientific
interpretations of classifications systems for carcino-
gens. The present Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guide-
lines use labels that lead to different perceptions of
seriousness. This study will move toward guidelines so
that EPA's classification systems result in similar risk
perceptions for lay people and scientists. (Bill Farland,
FTS 382-7315)
16. Press Coverage of Risks from Environmental Contami-
nants. Marquette University and the University of
Wisconsin will examine what factors lead to more com-
plete coverage of environmental risks. (Jim Cole, FTS
382-2747; Elaine Koerner, FTS 382-4454)
17. Perceptions of Chemical Risks Among Children. Co-
lumbia University is gathering and analyzing data on
children's perceptions of environmental risks for com-
parison with the Baseline Study data now available.
(Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
IV. Outside Groups and General Public Information
Completed
1. "Tidewater" conferences for key public opinion leaders
from government, industry, public interest groups, me-
dia, etc., focusing on case studies ("Dinitrochickenwire"),
risk assessment and risk management. (Jim Cole, FTS
382-2747)
2. National Conference on Risk Communication, Wash-
ington, D.C., January 1986; proceedings published, fall
1987. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
3. Integrated Environmental Management Program
(OPPE): various special risk assessment, risk manage-
ment, risk communication efforts in; Philadelphia, Bal-
timore, Santa Clara, Denver, Kanawha Valley, Regions
I, III, X, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Arthur
Koines, FTS 382-4030)
4. Comparative Risk Project: report widely circulated,
publicized, and discussed; follow-up conference April
1988. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
5. Articlecomparingresults from Comparative Risk Project
with rankings of environmental problems by the public,
examining reasons for and implications of difference;
published in Science, Technology and Human Values,
December 1987. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
6. Article on New York State radon risk communication
study, Environment, May 1988. (Ernestine Thomas,
FTS 382-5501)
7. EPA Journal: Special issue on risk assessment/risk
management/risk communication, November 1987.
(Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
8. National Conference on Environmental Gridlock,
Princeton, NJ,November 1987.Report published, 1988.
(Margaret Randol, FTS 264-4535)
9. The National Institute of Chemical Studies with the
assistance of OPPE planned and conducted a risk
communication conference in Charleston, West Vir-
ginia; March 1987. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
10. "Communicating Environmental Risks" Four-page
summary of findings from November 1987 Temple
University conference on Risk Communication and
Environmental Management OPPE and OSWER. (Do-
rothy McManus, FTS 475-8606)
10
-------
11. "Pesticides and Well Water": A May 1988Workshop on
Communicating the Health Risks of Pesticides for print
and broadcast journalists. Georgetown University and
Stanford University, in Palo Alto. Funded jointly by
OPP and the National Agricultural Chemical Associa-
tion. A summary report has been distributed to the
participants. (Linda Hyman, FTS 557-7105)
12. Communicating Risk under Title in of SARA: An
article by Fisher, et al., for practitioners, in JAPCA,
March 1989. (Ernestine Thomas, FTS 382-5501)
13. Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality—Radon
Workshop: Special topics workshop on radon risk
communication, including availability of materials and
educational strategies for communicating about radon
risks with two target groups: households and office
workers. Special attention directed toward using the news
media as an important intermediary. OAR (Bonnie
Chiles, FTS 475-9605)
14. "Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication" A short
leaflet, widely distributed. OPA-87-020. (Deny Allen,
FTS 382-2747)
15. "Chemicals in the Community—A Journalists' Guide to
Reporting under the Emergency Planning and Commu-
nity Right-to-Know Act of 1986." Based on interviews
and a workshop with news media representatives,
identifying their needs and how to respond to them.
Guidebook has been distributed. OTS, OSWER, OPPE,
OEA. (Anne Giesecke, FTS 382-3265)
16. OPPE participated in a group convened by the American
Medical Association to explore how professional societ-
ies can help raise the level of public understanding about
risk. Draft report, February 1988. (Dory Allen, FTS
382-2747)
Ongoing
17. Seminars for the press on risk communication (with
Georgetown University and other universities). Six held
so far. OPPE and Public Affairs. Most recent report
received July 1990 from Lehigh University. (Dory
Allen or Jim Cole, FTS 382-2747)
18. Center for Risk Management at Resources for the Fu-
ture. EPA contributes approximately one-third of the
funding, with the rest coming from foundations and
industry. Functions include research, analysis, educa-
tion, and outreach on risk assessment, risk management,
and risk communication, Initiated April 1987. (Deny
Allen, FTS 382-2747)
19. Interagency workshops on risk communication, spon-
sored by the Task Force on Environmental Cancer and
Heart and Lung Disease (composed of 15 federal agen-
cies and chaired by EPA). The January 1987 woikshop
examined the roles and responsibilities of government
and nongovernment organizations in communicating
about environmental health risks. Its proceedings were
published in 1989. The second, held in June 1988,
centered upon evaluating risk communication. The third
workshop was held on September 12-13,1990, and a
summary of the meeting is provided in the Region II
report in this issue of the Risk Assessment Review. The
meeting examinedhow to integrate environmental health
risk concepts in the curricula of public school systems.
(Deny Allen, FTS 382-2747; Maria Pavlova, FTS 264-
7364)
20. Texas Risk Communication Project (TRCP): Multiple
sponsors include Texas Chemical Council and EPA's
Region VI. A two-day woikshop was held October 16-
17,1987, focusing on a communications package that
can be used for presenting chemical risks to diverse
audiences. Report available. Second conference, Feb-
ruary 24-25,1989, provided input for a risk communi-
cation process. TRCP wants to demonstrate the process
in two communities. (Betty Williamson, FTS 255-2240)
21. EPA speakers and panels on risk communication at
various conferences, including Society for Risk Analy-
sis (several years), Public Relations Society of America
(November 1986), APCA/AWMA (several years), Haz-
ardous Materials Spills Conference (May 1988),
Environmetrics '87, NICS *89, etc. (OPPE, ODW,
OSWER)
22. DAEDELUS specialissueonrisk: Toincludea requested
article on risk communication. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-
2747)
23. Title m Expertise for Reporters: A panel of two dozen
experts who can answer reporters' scientific questions
about Title m. A joint venture with industry trade
groups, foundations, and academia. Workshop was held
at the National Academy of Sciences in October 1988.
The list of experts has been sent to the Scientist Institute
for Public Information in New York. (Charlie Osolin,
FTS 382-4075)
24. Risk Communication Roundtable. At the October Soci-
ety for Risk Analysis meetings in New Orleans, EPA
organized 5 sessions with 31 presentations by EPA's
risk communication researchers andpractitioners. (Dory
Allen, FTS 382-2747)
Proposed
25. Second National Conference on Improving Risk Com-
munication, sponsored by Interagency Task Force on
Environmental Cancer, Heart, and Lung Disease. Planned
for 1991. (Maria Pavlova, FTS 264-7364)
26. Conference on Determinants of Acceptable Risk—to be
held by the Center for Risk Management, with sponsor-
ship from EPA and the Electric Power Research Insti-
tute. (Derry Allen, FTS 382-2747)
The EPA Risk Communication Work Group
Derry Allen OPPE FTS 382-2747
Karen Blanchard OAR FTS 629-5503
Karen Burgan OSWER FTS 382-4617
David Klauder ORD FTS 382-7667
Elaine Koemer OCPA FTS 382-4454
Cynthia Puskar OW FTS 475-8532
11
-------
MikeStahl OPTS FTS 382-3949
Wendy Butler OPA FTS 382-4361
From ECAO-Cin To Seattle and Back: A
Rotational Assignment in Regional Risk
Assessment
by Randy Bruins (FTS 684-7539)
This past summer I had an opportunity to take a break from
risk assessment projects in the Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office (ECAO), Cincinnati, and complete a
detail in Region X, Seattle. This article will summarize my
observations. ECAO-Cin is a field component of the Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) in the
Office of Research and Development (ORD). My normal
duties at ECAO-Cin involve the development of risk as-
sessment methodology to serve the Headquarters regulatory
process. Through my work, I have observed how scientific
analysis, economics, litigation, and public opinion each are
brought to bear upon that regulatory process. These oft-con-
flicting influences result in substantial scrutiny of the scien-
tific basis of the regulatory risk assessment Every weakness,
be it a failure to include the most pertinent data, or inability
to establish with certainty the relationship between human
and rodent physiology, is prodded as a pressure point to see
if the regulation will bend or even break. The use of careful
science in the development of defensible methodology is
therefore in continuous tension with regulatory deadlines.
Everyone knows that when you shorten a vibrating wire, it
vibrates at a higher and more piercing frequency. This is how
I would compare risk assessment conducted at a regional
level with that done at the ORD/Headquarters level. The
same faces are present, but the feedback is much quicker.
Economic impacts are local. Public reaction is more imme-
diate. Scrutiny may be greater, with local groups demanding
to know all the details, but deadlines are shorter, making careful
woik that much more difficult. In the Health and Environ-
mental Assessment Section of Region X, I had the opportu-
nity to work with several well-trained and highly motivated
scientists making every effort to deliver the best risk assess-
ment science, on-time and on-target I was impressed that the
concreteness of the issues they were addressing, and the high
degree of accountability for their work, resulted in a high
level of dedication and performance.
Beyond praising our regional cohorts for their front-line
work, I will make only one additional comment. In my woik
in methods development, I have never had to give any atten-
tion to understanding analytical methods. Environmental
concentrations are either assumed to be known, or are esti-
mated based on rates of release. The main task I undertook in
the region was a risk assessment for Poly Aromatic Hydro-
carbon (PAH) contamination in beach areas at a Superfund
site. Knowing that concentration data were available, I was
prepared to devote the major part of my attention to develop-
ing the exposure scenarios and computing the risks. Simple,
right? As it turned out, sand and/or shellfish samples had been
collected from about 25 sites on different occasions, by dif-
ferent methods, and subjected to several different types of PAH
analysis. One of these analytical methods was too insensitive
and yielded no useful results. Another had high sample loss
for certain compounds. Another lost 20-30% of all com-
pounds. Some samples had replicates, others did not, and
others were missing. Concentration values useful for esti-
mating long-term human exposure to each of 13 compounds
had to be derived. What I had assumed would be a fairly
straightforward (plug and chug) exercise turned out to be a
laborious task involving labyrinthine spreadsheets. Now,
you regional types may laugh and say, "Welcome to Super-
fund risk assessment!" From now on, I'll know what you
mean.
m. Around the Regions
Interagency Task Force Sponsors
Environmental Health Education Workshop
On September 12-13,1990, the Interagency Task Force on
Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease spon-
sored a "Workshop on Environmental Health Risk Education"
to explore concepts, curricula, and strategies for infusing
environmental health risk education into the U.S. school
system. The purpose of environmental health risk education
is to help the learner understand society's impact on the
environment and the effects of the environment on the health
and safety of the individual. Environmental health risk edu-
cation also offeis a valuable opportunity to make science
morerelevantand dynamic, and to developin today's students
and tomorrow' s adults both the knowledge and critical th inking
skills that will empower them to make important personal and
social choices concerning health risk in an increasingly
technological society.
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 EPA's Administrator. Its Subcommittee on
Public Education and Risk Communication works to en-
hance the ability of the public to participate in decisions
affecting its health and welfare, and to make personal deci-
sions concerning risk.
The conference welcome was provided by Dr. MariaPavlova
of EPA Region n's Emergency and Remedial Response
Division.
The keynote address was provided by Dr. Lewis S. W.
Crampton, EPA's Associate Administrator for Communica-
tion and Public Affairs. In his remarks, Dr. Crampton empha-
sized the need for environmental health risk education and
the difference between perceived and real risk. In addition, he
also emphasized the importance of teaching critical thinking
and understanding over facts and data.
Opening remarks were also provided by U. S. Representative
Lindy Boggs and Michael Torrusio, EPA Region II's Asso-
ciate Regional Administrator. In addition, a letter emphasiz-
ing the importance of risk communication, from Dr. D. Allan
Bromley, Assistant to the President for Science and Technol-
ogy, was read to the attendees.
12
-------
The first session titled "Environmental Health Risk Educa-
tion Curricula: What should we be teaching and why?"
included papers by Dr. Vincent Covello of Columbia
University's School of Public Health and Robin Gregory of
Decision Research in Eugene, Oregon. The session was
chaired by Alice Moses, Program Director, Instructional
Materials Development, National Science Foundation, and
included the following panelists: Dr. Donald Barnes of EPA's
Science Advisory Board; Dr. Bernard Goldstein of the De-
partment of Environmental and Community Medicine of the
Johnson Medical School; Lynn Glass, President Elect of the
National Science Teachers Association; David Lopath, Co-
ordinator of Math and Science, New Britton Schools Panelist,
and Mary Spruill the student representative of the Environ-
mental Youth Forum.
The second session was titled "Why isn't it happening now?
Identifying and overcoming barriers to effective environ-
mental health risk education in U. S. schools." The session
included a paper by Dr. Herbert D. Thier of the Chemical
Education for Public Understanding Program, Lawrence
Hall of Science, University of California at Berkeley. The
panel was chaired by Dr. Lloyd Kolbe of the Division of
Adolescent and School Health, of the Centers for Disease
Control. Panelists included: Russell Aiuto, Program Direc-
tor, Scope, Sequence, and Coordination, National Science
Teachers Association; Carolyn Breedlove, National Educa-
tion Association; Dennis Cheek, New York State Education
Department; A. Alan Moghissi, Assistant Vice President,
Environmental Health and Safety, University of Maryland at
Baltimore; John Padalino, president, Pocono Environmental
Education Center, and Robert Yager, Professor of Science
Education, University of Iowa.
The final session was titled "Building and using netwoiks for
dissemination and implementation.'' The session included a
paper by Dr. David McCallum, Director of the Program on
Risk Communication at Georgetown University. The session
was chaired by Dr. Christopher DeGraw of the Office of
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Panelists included:
Stephen Henderson, Associate Superintendent of Instruc-
tion, Kentucky Department of Education; John Paulk, Ten-
nessee Valley Authority; Alan Schneider, U.S. Department
of Education; John Slavik, Chemical Manufacturer's Asso-
ciation, Peggy Dufour, special Assistant to the Secretary,
U.S. Department of Energy, and Ruth Bartfeld, Program
Director, General Federation of Women's Clubs.
The closing remarks were provided by Dr. Arthur Upton,
Director, Institute of Environmental Medicine at New York
University.
Ninety people attended the workshop, including educators,
state and federal government representatives, environmental
and health decision-makers, students, and representatives
from professional associations, public interest groups,
academia, and industry. Presentations and discussion at the
workshop focussed on three areas: the need for and ap-
proaches to environmental health risk education, identifying
and overcoming barriers to infusion, and developing net-
works for dissemination and implementation. In addition,
Michael O'Reilly, the Acting Director of EPA's Office of
Environmental Education, described the goal of the offices
and gave an update on the proposed Congressional Envi-
ronmental Education Bill before Congress. Dr. Maximo J.
Cerame-Vivas, the Dean for the Basic Sciences Graduate
Studies and Research at the Ponce School of Medicine in
Puerto Rico, emphasized the importance of the health profes-
sionals in providing environmental health information.
Conclusions and recommendations were developed by a
committee of workshop participants based on the workshop
presentations and discussions. The committee agreed that
there is a clear need for environmental health risk education.
A preliminary survey of student attitudes and perceptions
about environmental health risk indicated that students are
poorly informed about many environmental health risk is-
sues. While the students surveyed did generally take personal
responsibility for environmental problems, they indicated a
lack of tools to act constructively in addressing these prob-
lems.
The committee recommended that environmental health risk
education be integrated into U.S. school curricula from
grades 1-12. Areas that should be covered in an environmen-
tal health risk education program include: scientific methods
for investigating environmental health risk issues and prob-
lems; how to assess the quality of scientific investigation; a
working knowledge of fundamental concepts in risk assess-
ment and management, including the relationship of expo-
sure to risk and how the toxicity and risks of specific substances
are determined; and the application of critical thinking to
decisions regarding environmental health risks.
The committee emphasized the importance of including both
teachers and scientists in the development of environmental
health risk education materials and programs and urged that
special efforts be made to make materials relevant to inner
city students and minorities. The committee also stressed that
environmental health risk education should be grounded in
the scientific method and that health risk information should
be based exclusively on peer-reviewed scientific data. Also,
environmental health ride education should avoid endorsing
any particular policy.
The workshop participants identified several scientific, insti-
tutional, and perceptual barriers to implementing environ-
mental health risk education. These include the inherent
limitations and uncertainties in the environmental health
science data base and the resultant discomfort with science
among many teachers and students; the current lack of
adequate science instruction in schools; and the lack of broad
understanding among the public of the critical importance of
environmental health risks. The committee urged that the
scientific community improve both the methods and data for
risk assessment
The committee also recommended that collaborative partner-
ships be developed among various sectors to improve un-
derstanding of the need for environmental health risk educa-
tion and to facilitate its integration into the school system. In
particular, they recommended that EPA and the Interagency
Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung
13
-------
Disease establish a network of government agencies, profes-
sional educational and scientific associations, industry, public
interest and parent groups, academia, industry, and the media
to facilitate the integration of environmental health risk
education into school curricula.
Networks and partnerships will be important to die develop-
ment and dissemination of environmental health ride educa-
tion programs and materials for several reasons. First, envi-
ronmental health risk issues and solutions are influenced by
and affect many different sectors of our society. Opportuni-
ties should be created for each of these sectors to have a voice
in developing these programs. Second, development and
dissemination of environmental health risk education is a
substantial, multidisciplinary effort that will require broad-
based support to succeed. The exchange of materials and
methods between networking organizations expands access
to resources and prevents costly duplication of effort. Also,
collaborative partnerships among schools, local community
officials, and nongovernmental organizations will help to
improve community understanding of the need for environ-
mental health risk education and how to reduce environmen-
tal health risks. Finally, the U.S. school system is decentral-
ized and lacks an established hierarchy of national-to-state-
to-local channels. Networks and partnerships are particularly
important for dissemination in the absence of such channels.
Three workshop products are being developed:
• An executive summary of the workshop's conclusions
and recommendations.
• A workshop proceedings including the executive sum-
mary, the four commissioned papers prepared for the
workshop, the panelists' presentations, the opening and
closing speeches, edited transcripts of the discussion
sessions, and post-meeting comments.
A resource manual including descriptions of various
programs, curricula, classroom materials, dissemination
networks, and other resources useful for developing and
implementing environmental health risk education pro-
grams.
For further information on the workshop and these products,
contact Maria Pavlova, Chairperson, Interagency Task Force
Subcommittee on Public Education and Risk Communica-
tion, at EPA Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, Rm 737, New York,
N.Y, 10278, (212) 264-7364 or FTS 264-7364.
Contact; Maria Pavlova (FTS 264-7364)
Public Health Service Objectives for the Year
2000
The U. S. Public Health Service in early September issued the
Healthy People 2000Report identifying public health objec-
tives for the next 10 years. The objectives were developed by
groups of experts with the sponsorship of the Public Health
Service. The report represents the second time the nation has
set objectives for health improvement. The first set of 220
objectives, was published in 1979 for the decade of the 1980s.
Copies of Healthy People 2,000 are due to be available in
November from the Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20402-9235. The full report is stock number 017-
001-00474-0 and the summary report is stock number 017-
001-00473-1. For additional information please contact the
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Na-
tional Health Information Center,P.O.Box 1133, Washington,
D.C. 20013-1133.
Most of the material provided in testimony and comment by
professional, voluntary, governmental, and corporate organi-
zations during the development of the objectives will be
published in Healthy People2,000: Citizens Chart theCourse,
available from the National Academy Press in October 1990;
(800) 624-6242 or 334-3313 in Washington, D.C.
Contact: Marian Olsen (FTS 264-5682)
Happenings at Region IX
On September5-7,1990, the California Department of Health
Services held its annual Continuing Education Workshop in
Toxicology and Risk Assessment in Monterey. About 50
toxicologists and scientists met to exchange information and
attend seminars on topics such as Monte-Carlo Statistics and
Uncertainty Analysis ofRisk; Sources of Propagated Error in
Exposure/RiskEstimation, Pentachlorophenol—Safety Fac-
tors and Use of Linearized Multistage Model. Toxicologist
from Region IX and Jim Cogliano of ORD were invited guest
speakers.
Contact: Arnold Den (FTS 556-6472)
On October 11, 1990, at the request of the San Diego
Toxicology Association, Region IX presented a seminar on
risk communication at San Diego State University. Course
materials from the region's new Risk Communication and
Public Involvement were used. The responses from the 50
University faculty, graduates, and industry and local environ-
mental agency representatives were very positive.
Contact: Alvin Chun (FTS 556-6529)
In FY'90, Region IX provided risk communication assis-
tance to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management
Service Regional Office in Los Angeles. The department was
interested in developing a more comprehensive public par-
ticipation program which would better facilitate dialogue
between its office and the public on off-shore oil issues. The
assistance involved training on risk communication and
consultation with its senior managers on processes for pro-
gram design and implementation. The program is currently
under development
Contact: Alvin Chun (FTS 556-6529)
On January 17-18,1991, EPA and several other agencies are
sponsoring a 2-day training program entitled, "Pesticides and
Medicine in Hawaii", for health professionals. The program
will help in implementing Hawaii's new pesticide illness
reporting law. The training will have both regulatory and
clinical focuses. Such topics as Pesticide Regulations in
Hawaii, EPA, and FDA; Risk Assessment for Pesticides
14
-------
Uses, Alar and the principles of Risk Communication; and
Dermatitis and Chronic Illnesses from Pesticide Exposures
will be covered. Bruce Macler and David Goldsmith from
Region DC will be conducting the Pesticide Risk Assessment
Section.
Contact: David Goldsmith (FTS 556-8585)
Region DC has begun its move into its permanent building at
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. The move
should be completed by January 1991. Cunendy, the Super-
fund toxicologists are located at the new building and can be
reached at FTS 484-2309. Bruce Macler, the Drinking Water
Toxicologist can be reached at FTS 484-1855. Toxicologists
in the Senior Science Advisor's Office will remain at the
current 1235 Mission Street address until January and can
still be reached at FTS 556-6472.
IV. Announcements
Risk and Decision-Making Courses Scheduled
The following is the schedule for the Risk and Decision-
Making Courses through December
Region Q November 28-30,1990
Region m November 6,1990
November 19,1990 (Harrisburg, PA)
December 6,1990 (University of Mary-
land)
December 11,1990 (Baltimore, MD)
December 17,1990 (Annapolis, MD)
The following is the schedule fa- the Risk Communication
Workshops through December
Region in November 7,1990
November 20,1990 (Harrisburg, PA)
December 7,1990 (University of Mary-
land)
December 12,1990 (Baltimore, MD)
December 18,1990 (Annapolis, MD)
Contacts: Jim Cole (FTS 382-2747)
Marian Olsen (FTS 264-5682)
CDC Conference on Statistical Methods for
Evaluation of Intervention and Prevention
Strategies, December 5-6,1990
The Centers for Disease Control and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry will sponsor the Sympo-
sium on Statistical Methods for Evaluation of Intervention
and Prevention Strategies, December 5-6,1990, in Atlanta,
Georgia. The meeting will provide a forum for current
research in statistical methods for evaluation; and innovative
applications of methods for evaluation of health program
intervention and disease prevention strategies.
Additional information on the meeting is available from Dr.
Gladys H. Reynolds, Office of the Director (D-39), Centers
for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
Conference on Similarities and Differences
between Children and Adults: Implications for
Risk Assessments—November 5-7,1990
The ILSI Risk Science Institute, U.S. EPA, the International
Life Sciences Institute, and the Nutrition Foundation will
sponsor a conference on Similarities and Differences be-
tween Children and Adults: Implications for Risk Assess-
ment on November 5-7,1990, in the Marriott Hunt Valley
Inn, Hunt Valley, Maryland.
Questionsof if, when,how,and why children react differendy
from adults to exposures to various substances have been
raised by many scientists, clinicians, risk assessors, public
health officials, and legislators. The evidence relating to this
issue, however, has not been examined within a common
scientific forum. The purpose of this conference is to examine
the scientific evidence, clarify if, when, how, and why
children are the same as or differ from adults, and determine
the implications for risk assessment.
The conference objectives include:
• describing aspects of potential similarities and differ-
ences between children and adults, including biology,
toxicology, and exposure patterns,
• increasing awareness and understanding of the uncer-
tainty in describing these similarities and differences,
• highlight the multi-disciplinary requirements, in terms
of scientific expertise and information sources, needed
to address these issues,
evaluating the current information on a variety of sub-
stances, and
• identifying future directions and research needs to better
assess and clarify if, when, how, and why children differ
from adults.
For further information on the conference, please contact Ms.
Diane Dalisera, ILSI Risk Science Institute, 1126 Sixteenth
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Ms. Dalisera can be
contacted at (202) 659-3306 or FAX (202) 659-8654.
Conference on "How Clean is Clean?"
November 6-9,1990
The New England Section of the Air and Waste Management
Association will sponsor an International Specialty Confer-
ence on "How Clean is Clean? Cleanup Criteria for Contami-
nated Soil and Groundwater" at the 57 Park Plaza Hotel in
Boston, Massachusetts from November 6 - 9,1990.
This conference is for program managers, engineers, lawyers,
and general environmental practitioners who are concerned
with soil and groundwater contamination. It provides na-
tional and state perspectives on legal issues and cleanup
criteria. Ecological and health considerations are covered.
Attendees will use case studies to review alternative soil and
groundwater cleanup technologies.
15
-------
For additional information on the conference please contact
Debbie Reichert, Air and Waste Management Association, at
(412) 232-3444.
Society for Occupational and Environmental
Health-—Call For Papers
The Society for Occupational and Environmental Health will
hold their annual 1991 conference from March 25 -27,1991,
at the Hyatt Regency, in Crystal City, Virginia. The confer-
ence will be co-sponsored by the American Petroleum Insti-
tute, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials,
Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Defense Fund, Health Effects Insti-
tute, International Society for Environmental Epidemiology,
and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The purpose of this conference is to examine how current
scientific knowledge can be integrated into the implementa-
tion of clean air legislation. The conference will provide new
information and a forum for discussion of government policy,
public health strategies and critical research on air pollution.
Hie SOEH is issuing a call for abstracts related to air
pollution research. The program will include 10 to 20 minute
oral presentations on research findings, as well as poster
presentations. The society is requesting the submission of a
1 page abstract by November 30, 1990. Notification of
acceptance for presentation will be made by December 21,
1990. All presenters will be required to submit a 2-page
extended abstract by February 1,1991. for inclusion in the
conference program.
For additional information please contact the SOEH National
Office, 6728 Old McLean Village Drive, McLean, Virginia
22101. The phone number is (703) 556-9222.
American Statistical Association 1991 Winter
Conference
The American Statistical Association 1991 Winter Confer-
ence cm Statistics and the Environment has been scheduled
for January 3 - 5,1991 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in New
Orleans, Louisiana. The focus of the meeting will be on
practical applications of theory and methods used in environ-
mental statistics. Topics of interest include: global warming;
spatial statistics; Superfund site characterization; environ-
mental indicators; chemometrics; risk analysis; health ef-
fects; graphical assessment of network trends; fisheries and
wildlife; water resources and ecology. For additional infor-
mation please contact N. Phillip Ross at (202) 382-2680 or
John Warren at (202) 382-2683.
7th Annual EPA Conference on Statistics
The Statistical Conference Planning Committee (SCPQ is
pleased to announce that the next conference will be held
March 11 -14,1991 at the newly restored Jefferson-Sheraton
Hotel in Richmond, Virginia. The meeting will include
multiple sessions directed towards the numerous different
areas of application within the Agency. For additional infor-
mation, please contact John Warren, Chairman of SCPC at
FTS 382-2683. Bob O'Brien (FTS 475-6959) will again chair
the Poster Sessions and asks that suggestions and ideas for
posters be sent to him as soon as possible (Mail Code PM-
223, EPA, 401M Street, S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460).
Contacts:
Jerome Puskin
OAR-RAD
FTS 475-9640
Linda Tuxen
ORD-OHEA
FTS 382-5949
Dorothy Patton
ORD-RAF
FTS 475-6743
Dick Hill
OPTS
FTS 382-2897
Don Barnes
SAB
FTS 382-4126
Dean Hill
NEIC
FTS 776-8138
Sally Edwards
Region I
FTS 835-3696
Marian Olsen
Region n
FTS 264-5682
Jeffrey Burke
Region m
FTS 597-1177
Elmer Akin
Region IV
FTS 257-1586
Milt Clark
Region V
FTS 886-3388
Jon Rauscher
Region VI
FTS 255-6715
Bob Fenemore
Region VII
FTS 757-2970
Suzanne Wuerthele
Region VIII
FTS 330-1731
Arnold Den
Region IX
FTS 556-6472
Dana Davoli
Region X
FTS 399-2135
Need Help?
If your office needs help in finding information or assis-
tance on a specific risk assessment problem, you can
announce that need on the Risk Assessment/Risk Man-
agement 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 theBulletinBoard, typePRPOSTat the > prompt and
identify RISK as the Category. Your colleagues from
other offices who have information or advice will be able
to contact you with assistance. For additional informa-
tion please contact Marian Olsen at FTS 264-5682.
If you would like to receive additional copies of this and
subsequent/tevimr or to be added to the mailing list contact:
CERI Distribution
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
16
------- |