EPA/600/N-94/009
united states environmental protection agency
Region II, New York, New York 10278
DATE: June 24» 1994
SUBJECT: Risk Assessment Review
FROM: William J.^WSzyhsk^f P.E.
Deputy Regional Administrator
William Farland, Ph.D.
Director
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
Attached is a copy of the Risk Assessment Review, a bimonthly
publication that is a cooperative effort between the Office
of Research and Development and the Regional Risk Assessment
Network.
The Review serves as a focal point for information exchange
among the EPA risk assessment community on both technical and
policy issues related to' risk assessment. It is currently in
its fourth year of publication and we are pleased at the
positive feedback we've received on the Review's usefulness
to staff across the Agency.
Thanks to all of you who continue to contribute articles and
are involved with production efforts. If you have an article
to contribute or any suggestions for further issues, contact
one of the Committee members listed on page 1 of the Review.
Attachment

-------
ssessme
May 1994
mm**
•	FSTRAC Workshop on the Revision to the Human
Health Criteria Methodology		p. 1
•	SAB Project to Identify Future Environmental
Problems..............					p. 1
•	IRIS Highlights	p. 6
•	Symposium on Values, Perceptions, and Ethics in
Environmental Risk Decision Making	p. 6
I. Special Features
Federal-State Toxicology And Risk Analysis
Committee (FSTRAC) Workshop on the
Revision to the Human Health Criteria
Methodology
by Bob CantiUi, (202) 260-5546
Introduction
A total of 49 representatives from 13 states, 4 EPA regions,
EPA Headquarters, and academia gathered at the fall
Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis Committee
(FSTRAC) meeting in Washington, D.C. EPA officials
Risk Assessment Review Committee
BUI Farland - ORD, (202) 260-7317
Maureen McClelland • Region I, (617) 565-4885
Maria Pavlova - Region II, (212) 264-7364
Marian Olsen - Region n, (212) 264-5682
Suzanne Wuerthele - Region VIII, (303) 293-1714
Dana Davoli - Region X, (206) 553-2135
began the meeting by updating FSTRAC members on pro-
posed drinking and ambient water regulations and criteria.
FSTRAC subcommittees met to review accomplishments
over the past six months and to plan for the next six months,
and, as usual, the group discussed several hot issues on the
final day. The highlight of the meeting, however, was the
workshop on the Revision to the Human Health Criteria
Methodology, which proved to be a successful interactive
forum for state and federal discussion on the proposed
revisions to the national methodology. FSTRAC members
were first presented with an overview of the methodology,
and then extensive discussion ensued on non-cancer risk,
microbiology, exposure, bioaccumulation, cancer risk, and,
minimum data requirements.	(see FSTRAC, p 2)
II. Headquarters
Science Advisory Board (SAB) Project to
Identify Future Environmental Problems
by Don Barnes, (202) 260-4126
The SAB is in the midst of a major, year-long effort to help
the Agency develop methods for anticipating environmen-
tal problems of the future. Too often the Agency is in the
position of playing "catch up" in regard to significant
environmental problems. One can list numerous examples:
PCBs, dioxins, wetlands disappearance, contaminated sedi-
ments, and others.
In 1993 EPA Administrator Carol Browner endorsed a
proposal from David Gardiner, the Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE),
that the SAB focus its technical expertise on responding to
two requests:
•	Recommend techniques that could be used by the
Agency to better anticipate the environmental prob-
lems of the future (5 and 20 years from now).
•	Illustrate the use of those techniques by generating a
sample listing of problems that the SAB believes could
have significant environmental consequences 5 and 20
years from now.
The SAB accepted this assignment, seeing it as the next step
beyond their 1990 Reducing Risk report that argued that it
is possible, on technical grounds, to distinguish between
greater and lesser environmental risks. Dr. Raymond Loehr,
former SAB chair and former co-chair of the Reducing Risk
Activity, accepted the invitation to lead what is now known
as the SAB's Environmental Futures Project (EFP).
The Environmental Futures Committee (EFQ has been
meeting nearly monthly over the past nine months to re-
ceive briefings from Agency experts and, more often, ex-
perts from around the country who make it their business
(see SAB, p .6)
1

-------
FSTRAC (continued from p. 1)
At the fall FSTRAC workshop, the essential question being
asked state members by EPA officials was, "Should EPA
proceed with the revised methodology as proposed?" More
specifically, EPA sought to learn whether state members
thought modifications suggested by the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) would make the revised methodology more or
less "implementable" at the local level, and whether they
found the proposed revision to be based on the best science.
State officials responded to EPA's call for comments in
workshop presentations and discussions that focused on the
six principle topic areas of the revision. Some presenters
made comments on the proposed revision of the 1980
methodology in relationship to recommendations from EPA,
the SAB, and participants at EPA's 1992 workshop, which
involved more than 100 experts. Other presenters spoke
more generally about recommended modifications to the
proposed revision.
The rest of this article summarizes the presentations and
discussions that took place at the workshop.
Noncancer Risk
In his presentation on noncancer issues related to the pro-
posed methodology, Scott Stoner of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation generally sup-
ported EPA and the 1992 workshop participants' recom-
mendation to update the ambient water quality criteria
using the reference dose (RfD) concept He added, how-
ever, that he has questions about some of the uncertainty
factors (UFs) and modifying factors (MFs) used to derive
RfDs. The SAB did not specifically comment on use of the
RfD concept
Mr. Stoner reviewed the five factors for UFs and MFs
endorsed by EPA and the 1992 workshop participants (the
SAB did not specifically comment) and suggested that the
MF and factor D, for an incomplete database, are redun-
dant. Michael Dourson of the Systemic Toxicants Assess-
ment Branch of EPA's Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office (ECAO) responded, saying that the MF
is needed to account for the occasional uncertainty not
covered by UFs. Dr. Dourson added that because the factors
provided are default values, states should use specific data
if they have them.
Concerning whether severity of effect should be considered
in developing the RfD, New York agrees with the 1992
workshop participants about the usefulness of this consider-
ation and about the need for expanded guidelines. The SAB
said that the scale needs further work and offered three
scales for consideration.
Joe Brown of the California EPA recommended that U.S.
EPA list points to consider when developing an RfD rather
than developing a restrictive quantitative methodology. This
approach would give state officials an opportunity to exer-
cise their professional judgment when using the methodol-
ogy.
On whether a plausible range of RfD values should be
provided in the methodology, New York supports the ap-
proach as long as the basis of the range is described, since
the state's regulations require the derivation and implemen-
tation of a single number. The SAB and the 1992 workshop
participants also supported the range approach, and EPA's
preliminary recommendation was to provide a more com-
plete description of each RfD. In contrast Luanne Williams
of the North Carolina Department of Environment Health,
and Natural Resources said that risk managers in her state
would prefer a single number that will protect the state's
citizens from the majority of likely health effects.
Deirdre Murphy of the Maryland Department of the Envi-
ronment suggested that environmental groups likely would
demand that states use the low end of a range, and industry
likely would demand that the high end be used; as a result
some states would be pressured toward the middle. She
supported the range approach, however, because it would
provide a basis for defending state-specific advisories. Gary
Hurlburt of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
cautioned EPA to take into account situations where states
share a common resource, as with the Great Lakes states,
and use criteria within a region consistenly to avoid confu-
sion. More generally, David Maschwitz of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency pointed out that only larger states
would be likely to have sufficient resources for officials to
make the best use of a range.
Margaret Stasikowski of the Ecological Criteria Division of
EPA's Office of Water stated that presenting risk managers
with a single RfD is not scientifically sound, since risk
assessment produces a range rather than a precise value.
Concerning the issue of whether EPA should establish
ambient water quality criteria using new data or the estab-
lished RfDs, New York supports using the most appropriate
data and revising the RfDs as necessary. The position is
essentially consistent with the one taken by EPA and the
1992 workshop participants. The SAB did not specifically
address the issue. Mr. Brown said that most state officials
would consult the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
first to check on the latest available data.
On whether studies of less-than-lifetime duration should be
used to derive criteria, Mr. Stoner said that New York
places less reliance on 30-day studies, using these to derive
a guidance value only. This position was consistent with the
other panels' cautions about the use of studies that are of
less than 90 days in duration. Gloria Post of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy said
that her state depends on the endpoint and knowledge of
how it is derived.
2

-------
New York agrees with the SAB that Health Advisory Doses
(HADs) are not needed for the permit program. The 1992
workshop participants recommended providing HADs in-
stead of ambient levels, and EPA supported the use of 1-day
HADs. Both Mr. Stoner and Mr. Hurlburt contended that
EPA should justify the public health need for short-term
criteria.
Concerning the use of other routes to derive RfDs if oral
data are not available, New York generally agrees with
EPA and the 1992 workshop participants that it is appropri-
ate to use the inhalation route (and the dermal route should
be explored) if a similar mechanism is involved and phar-
macokinetic data can differentiate bioavailability. The SAB
did not specifically address this issue.
Similarly, New York was in general agreement with EPA
and the 1992 workshop participants on the appropriateness
of using developmental/reproductive, immunotoxicity, and/
or neurotoxicity studies for establishing criteria when a
lifetime study is not available to serve as a general endpoint
The SAB did not specifically address this issue.
Also, New York agrees with the SAB and the 1992 work-
shop participants that the methodology should endorse the
use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) mod-
els as needed to estimate tissue dose. EPA is urging caution
in the use of pharmacokinetic data to encourage the use of
adequate studies.
On whether the methodology should allow for exceptions to
assumed thresholds for noncarcinogens and teratogens, for
example, New York agrees with EPA that the methodology
should allow for such exceptions in cases where adequate
justification is demonstrated. Mr. Stoner and Ms. Murphy
noted that this would give the methodology the flexibility
needed to accommodate developments in the science.
Microbiology
In his overview of current microbiological standards and
major issues discussed at the 1992 workshop, Charles Haas,
Professor of Environmental Engineering at Drexel Univer-
sity in Philadelphia, said the workshop participants recog-
nized the lack of a definitive methodology for performing a
microbiological risk assessment Thus, participants recom-
mended that a work group be assigned to outline procedures
along with the rationale for performing such an assessment
Mr. Haas contended that the current guidelines are inad-
equate for several reasons, including their specificity to
gastrointestinal illness and their exclusion of nonfecal patho-
gens.
Mr. Haas also pointed out that, according to the SAB,
certain indicators used to make correlations between patho-
gens and human illness at bathing beaches where microbial
loadings are dominated by an outside source have been
challenged. The SAB stated that current bacterial indicator
levels do not uniformly provide adequate protection from
gastrointestinal illnesses caused by pathogens found in bath-
ing water.
Mr. Haas recommended the development of a policy docu-
ment on microbial risk assessment, since current method-
ologies for establishing microbial water quality criteria are
inadequate. He pointed out that EPA, the SAB, and the
1992 workshop participants have acknowledged the poten-
tial utility of conducting formal microbial risk assessments
that are based on dose-response and exposure information.
Developing such a methodology would require generating
additional data for defining duration of exposure relative to
effects.
Along with developing criteria for surface water, Mr. Haas
recommended developing microbial criteria for drinking»
water sources, reclaimed wastewater, shellfish waters, ground
water, irrigation waters, and wedands-in that order.
Mr. Haas closed by identifying further research needs:
development of indicators that are more specific to human
and nonhuman sources; development and validation of meth-
ods for direct pathogen detection based on molecular meth-
odologies; and extension and validation of databases on
pathogen dose-response relationships and exposures.
Exposure
Human Health Exposure Issues
In her presentation on human health issues relevant to the
proposed methodology, Dr. Post discussed the recent work
of New Jersey state officials in developing surface water
quality standards. The major exposure issues addressed by
state officials were the designated uses and pathways con-
sidered, the selection of values for exposure assumptions,
exposure concentrations for low bioconcentration factor
contaminants, issues related to combining exposure path-
ways, nonsurface exposure routes, and consistency with
other regulatory programs.
Dr. Post reviewed equations from the 1980 methodology
that the state uses to calculate criteria for carcinogens and
noncarcinogens in potable water, saying that the major
exposure factors for such calculations are body weight
drinking water consumption, fish consumption, and
bioconcentration. For nonpotable uses, fish consumption
would be the only exposure factor considered.
In regard to the combining of exposure pathways for the
revised methodology, Dr. Post said New Jersey favors
combining criteria for such pathways as drinking water and
fish consumption. The SAB recommended that separate
criteria be used for such pathways.
Also, Dr. Post emphasized the importance of consistency in
exposure assumptions among regulatory programs—a sig-
3

-------
nificant problem for state officials working in areas involv-
ing a variety of media and standards.
Exposure Elements of the Great Lakes Water Qual-
ity Initiative
In his presentation on exposure assessment, Mr. Hurlburt
discussed the recent work of officials of the Great Lakes
states in developing the Great Lakes Water Quality Initia-
tive (GLI). A primary goal of the GLI was to establish
consistent water quality criteria using data specific to the
region.
Mr. Hurlburt singled out fish consumption values as an
example of the GLI approach. The GLI work group consid-
ered the regulatory default value for Michigan to be low at
6.5 grams/day (g/day). After reviewing several
region-specific studies on fish consumption, a determina-
tion was made that a value of IS g/day was more reason-
able. The work group then carried out an analysis that
indicated only 11 percent of Michigan residents were likely
to be exposed above the IS g/day value. The same analysis
applied to Wisconsin yielded a comparable finding. The
work group also found fish consumption values to be con-
sistent in die region relative to body weight
Michigan strongly recommends that incidental exposure be
factored into exposure assessments. State officiate assume
that a typical resident is subjected to one hour-long recre-
ational exposure event per day during the four warm-weather
months of the year, TTiis assumption yields 123 hours of
potential water recreation exposure per year for a typical
resident, an estimate that is consistent with other state data
on recreational exposure.
In regard to the proposed revision of the 1980 methodology,
Mr. Hurlburt said that Michigan supports a single criterion
for fish consumption and drinking water. Michigan recom-
mends looking at water bodies as complete exposure routes
and factoring in incidental exposure.
Michigan also considers it appropriate and practical to use
relative source contribution only in regard to chemical
exposures that occur primarily through the surface water
route (Le., fish consumption). Mr. Hurlburt contended that
it is inappropriate to attempt to control total exposure to
these contaminants via the surface water route until an
equivalent level of control over contaminants from other
environmental media is feasible.
Mr. Maschwitz contended that using a separate relative
source value would be appropriate for pesticides since high
concentrations are found in food.
Bioaccumulation
In his presentation, Mr. Maschwitz said that Minnesota
recommends that the revised methodology follow the same
approach used in the GLI for determining bioaccumulation
factors. The goal should be for EPA to recommend a single
method for determining bioaccumulation factors that is
flexible enough to accommodate local conditions and the
availability of data.
Mr. Maschwitz identified areas of agreement between the
proposed revised methodology and the GLI. These include
using bioaccumulation factors rather than bioconcentration
factors to determine water quality criteria; relating
bioaccumulation factors to the lipid content of fish; using
log K^Cp) models to predict bioaccumulation factors; using
a food chain multiplier to predict bioaccumulation from
bioconcentration; recognizing the need for adequate quality
assurance for both field and lab bioconcentration factors;
and determining inorganic bioaccumulation factors on a
chemical-specific basis. Moreover, the proposed methodol-
ogy and the GLI are generally in agreement in regard to the
hierarchy of preferred data for determining bioaccumulation
factors.
Mr. Maschwitz also outlined areas of potential disagree-
ment These concerned metabolism and its impact on
bioaccumulation; bioavailability and dissolved versus total
concentrations; superlipophilic organic chemicals Cog
> 6.5) (in regard to the use of a food chain multiplier,
accounting for metabolism, and the use of log Km to predict
a bioconcentration factor); and the use of mean or high
values as a standard procedure for deriving bioaccumulation
and bioconcentration factors and for percent lipid.
Disagreeing with the SAB's recommendation that EPA
return to an emphasis on bioconcentration, Mr. Maschwitz
encouraged EPA to continue to develop the bioaccumulation
factors approach. He noted that an SAB committee found
the GLI's bioaccumulation approach to be an improvement
over the bioconcentration approach, although the commit-
tee contended that the Thomann model should not be used
in a regulatory situation. The Thomann model, which was
proposed for use in the GLI, is a biomagnification model
used to determine the food chain multiplier.
Cancer Risk
In his presentation on cancer issues related to the proposed
methodology, Mr. Brown stated that California would favor
representing the criteria for carcinogens with a range of
plausible estimates of chemical concentrations in surface
water. The SAB has recommended expressing risk both as
point estimates (with an indication of the uncertainty of the
estimate) and as a collection of credible alternative esti-
mates based on applicable models. EPA has suggested
using a point estimate along with an indication of uncer-
tainty. At the 1992 workshop, participants agreed with EPA
but recommended expressing uncertainty as ranges and
providing alternative procedures.
4

-------
Concerning use models other than the linearized multistage
(LMS) model such as threshold approval, Mr. Brown ex-
pressed concern about whether enough data are available on
agents that produce chromosomal aberrations to use this
threshold approach. EPA advocates use of the LMS model
only when data suggest linearity or when available informa-
tion does not establish a mechanism. Participants at the
1992 workshop agreed with EPA, and the SAB made no
specific comment
Mr. Brown joined EPA, the SAB, and the 1992 workshop
participants in their support of the development of physi-
ologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and dosimetry
modeling.
Concerning Group C chemicals, Mr. Brown generally agreed
with 1992 woikshop participants that the determination of
whether to quantify cancer risk from animal studies should
be based on the appropriateness of the data. He added,
however, that establishing some guidelines would be use-
ful. EPA prefers setting a criterion for this group of chemi-
cals on the basis of noncancer endpoints with an uncertainty
factor for the carcinogen of concern. The SAB recommends
a case-by-case approach, given that Group C chemicals are
extremely heterogeneous.
Mr. Brown said that California joins the consensus concern-
ing the proposal to use genotoxicity data more effectively
when data to suggest evidence of carcinogenicity aie incon-
clusive. Also, California generally agrees with EPA and the
1992 workshop participants that 2 liters/day should be used
as a parameter when assessing cancer risk for adults. The
SAB did not specifically address this issue. Mr. Brown
commented, however, that emerging probabilistic approaches
may ultimately be capable of providing a more precise
value.
Concerning the EPA-Food and Drug Administration con-
sensus and 1992 workshop support regarding a proposed
body weight of 3/4th power for cross-species scaling, Mr.
Brown noted that another approach is receiving consider-
able attention. This alternative involves use of a single
default interspecies scaling power for cancer risk assess-
ment to account for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic
(PD) differences between animals and humans. The SAB
did not specifically comment on the EPA-FDA approach.
In reference to the EPA recommendation that Agency-wide
guidelines should be followed to assess the effects of mul-
tiple carcinogenic chemicals and chemical interactions, Mr.
Brown noted that novel PBPK/PD work on mixtures is
being conducted. Researchers believe this work could yield
a breakthrough in "non-additive" methodologies for certain
mixtures.
Minimum Data
Derivation of Aquatic Life versus Human Health
Criteria
Deirdre Murphy of the Maryland Department of the Envi-
ronment pointed out that minimum data requirements for
deriving human health criteria are dependent on data qual-
ity, in contrast to the development of aquatic life criteria,
which requires that a specific number of tests be conducted.
For human health criteria, an RfD can be based on a single
study, if the data provide the Lowest Observed Adverse
Effect Level (LOAEL). Ms. Murphy noted that the 1992
workshop participants recommended looking at the mini-
mum data requirements on three levels when assessing a
chemical.
Providing a context for Mr. Hurlburt's presentation on
minimum data requirements, Ms. Murphy also highlighted
a number of other issues raised by the 1992 workshop
participants, including whether guidelines should include
specific data requirements.
Recommendations for Minimum Data from the 1992
Workshop
In his presentation, Mr. Hurlburt noted that the 1992 work-
shop participants concluded that data can be categorized
using a tiered approach, and he summarized the data re-
quirements of the five tiers:
•	Tier I data, the highest quality data available,
include mechanistic, pharmacoldnetic, and target
organ toxicity data most predictive of human health
effects.
•	Tier n data, which are of lesser quality in predict-
ing human health effects, include data greater than,
or of minimum quality, for establishing an RfD
and/or data sufficient to meet the cancer risk guide-
lines classification for Groups A and B and some
Group C carcinogens of high concern.
•	Tier in data, which are of sufficient quality to
develop interim toxicity values, include all avail-
able data not sufficient to meet the quality/quantity
requirements for RfD development
•	Tier IV data, which are data that do not meet
minimum data requirements for Tier III, include
acute toxicity, genetic toxicology, and
structure-activity relationship data.
•	Tier V consists of no data.
Mr. Hurlburt noted that Michigan prefers to use the avail-
able data to make a scientific judgment rather than to leave
a criterion at zero. According to Mr. Stoner, New York
follows guidance values that are similar to those of Tier III
5

-------
(i.e., data of sufficient quality to develop interim toxicity
values); however, if the data are not sufficient to meet a
certain minimum criterion, the state will not promulgate a
standard.
Mr. Hurlburt explained that for the GLI, a two-tiered classi-
fication system is used. The approach recommended by the
1992 workshop participants provides greater distinction
between the quality and quantity of data than the GLI
approach. The minimum data standard for the GLI requires
that the best available toxicity data on adverse health effects
be used. For carcinogens, all appropriate human epidemio-
logical data and animal cancer bioassay data are considered.
Mr. Hurlburt also described the specifics of the two GLI
tiers.
The next FSTRAC meeting is tentatively scheduled for the
fall in Washington, DC.
>- For more information about the next meeting or
FSTRAC in general, call Bob Cantilli at (202) 260-5546
or Ed Ohanian at (202) 260-7571 in the Office of
Water's Office of Science and Technology.
SAB (continued from p. 1)
to look into the future, identifying problems/opportunities
for businesses and institutions. The focus has been on the
techniques that are used in these various situations.
In addition, most of the the SAB's 10 standing committees
have joined the effort by "looking over the horizon" from
their specialized perspectives of drinking water, air, ecologi-
cal effects, etc.
The EFP has enlisted Tom Super of the Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) to help draft the report this
summer.
If you've ever wondered (or worried) about the environ-
mental problems of the future but were afraid to ask (or
never had the time to think about it!), keep your eyes open
for die the SAB's Environmental Futures Report—coming
to an INTERNET node near you this fall.
Integrated Risk Information System Highlights
by Patricia Daunt, (513) 569-7596
Summarized below are the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) highlights for the months of April, May, and
June. More detailed NEWS is available for IRIS-2 users on
the first screen of the system.
April 1994 Update
Oral RfD Added to IRIS:
Aroclor 1248 CASRN 12672-29-6
May 1994 Update
Inhalation RfC Added to IRIS:
Methylene diphenyl isocyanate
(MDI) CASRN 101-68-8
June 1994 Update
Oral RfD Added to IRIS:
Chlorine CASRN 7782-50-5
Inhalation RfC Added to IRIS:
Dichlarvos CASRN 62-73-7
Carcinogenicity Assessment Noted as Pending Change:
Arsenic	CASRN 7440-38-2
As of June 1, 1994, IRIS contained 520 chemicals. This
included 348 RfDs, 88 inhalation reference concentrations,
and 218 carcinogenicity assessments, bringing the total
number of risk information assessments to 654. In addition,
IRIS contained 73 Drinking Water Health Advisories and
388 EPA regulatory action sections.
>- For additional information, contact Patricia A. Daunt,
IRIS Database Manager, at (513) 569-7596.
Solicitation for Hot Chemicals and Key Risk
Assessment Issues
by Pat Daunt, (513) 569-7596
The EPA ECAO in Cincinnati, Ohio, is engaged in restruc-
turing into several self-directed work teams. An outgrowth
of ECAO's restructuring was the inception of the 'Technol-
ogy Transfer Team." The teams' main objectives include
identifying ECAO's key customers, responding to their
needs, and identifying needs for improved risk assessment
methods. The current function of this team is to manage
existing projects such as IRIS, Superfund Health Risk Tech-
nical Support Cento*, and the Health and Environmental
Assessment Summary Table (HEAST).
The Technology Transfer Team is soliciting input from
EPA's risk assessors on specific human health risk assess-
ment needs. We are also interested in your specific needs
for new or improved risk assessment methods. Please FAX
your suggestions to the Technology Transfer Team at (513)
569-7916, no later than September 22, 1994. We look
forward to hearing from you. Please note: Responses will
be accepted from EPA stafT only.
Symposium on Values, Perceptions, and Ethics
in Environmental Risk Decision Making
by C. Richard Coihern, (202) 260-2734
The Center for Environmental Statistics Development Staff
in EPA's OPPE will host the "Symposium on Values,
6

-------
Perceptions and Ethics in Environmental Risk Decision
Making." The symposium will be part of the National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society scheduled for
August 21-25,1994, at the Washington Convention Center.
The tentative date for the symposium is August 24,1994.
The symposium will discuss different approaches to mak-
ing risk decisions and the impacts of different values,
perceptions, and ethics on these decisions. This symposium
will involve discussions of current risk analysis and deci-
sion processes as well as "how to" methods for directly
involving value judgements and biases in the process. Some
example judgments that will be discussed include safety,
equity, fairness, justice, quality of life, health, stewardship,
simplicity, fear, lack of trust, and doing the right thing.
Speakers with varied institutional perspectives will partici-
pate: industry spokespeople, government and academic risk
decision makers, policy makers, social scientists, ethicists,
philosophers, value researchers, journalists, theologians,
and regulators.
> For further information on the meeting contact C.
Richard Cothem, Senior Scientist and Analyst, Center
for Environmental Statistics Development Staff, Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. The phone num-
ber is (202) 260-2734 and the FAX is (202) 260-4968.
in. Regions
Region II
Following are a few publications of interest:
•	The 1992 Toxics Release Inventory: Public.Data
Releases, (EPA 745-R-94-001) and the 1992 Tox-
ics Release Inventory: Public Data Release: State
Fact Sheets (EPA 745-F-94-001) are available by
contacting the EPCRA Hotline at (800) 535-0202
or (703) 412-9877.
•	The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) announced the availability of ECOS AR, a
software program for estimating the toxicity of
industrial chemicals to aquatic organisms.
ECOSAR is a computerized version of the
Structure-Activity Relationships (SAR) methods
currently practiced by staff scientists in OPPT.
ECOSAJt: Computer Program and User's Guide
for Estimating the Ecotoxicity of Industrial Chemi-
cals Based on Structure Activity Relationships is
available from the National Center for Environ-
mental Publications and Information at (513)
596-7985. The EPA number is EPA-748-R-93-002.
The document is also available from the National
Technical Information Service at (703) 487-4650;
publication numbers are PB94-104668 and
PB94-500485. The Program and User's Guide
may also be downloaded from the Government
Printing Office Bulletin Board at (202) 512-1524.
•	EPA recently announced model standards and tech-
niques for radon in homes. The standards were
developed under the 1988 Indoor Radon Abate-
ment Act. For more information contact Dave
Murane at (202) 260-9442.
•	The Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials (ASTHO) published a final report on a
Multicultural Public Health Capacity Building Pi-
lot Project Copies of the report are available from
Monica Perz, ASTHO, 415 Second Street, N.E.,
Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20002. Ms. Perz's
phone number is (202) 546-5400.
>• Contact: Marian Olsen, (212) 264-5682
IV. Meetings
Third Summer Institute in Environmental
Law—July 11-15,1994
New Yoik University will offer the Third Summer Institute
in Environmental Law July 11-15,1994, from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. The course will address environmental laws
concerning air and water quality and solid and hazardous
waste. Toxic torts are covered from the perspectives of
property transfers, liability, public disclosure, citizen suits,
enforcement, the application of health and environmental
standards, and other topics. Co-directors of the course are
Michael B. Gerrard, Esq., of Berle, Kass, and Case and
Professor Rae Zimmerman from New York University.
> For further information contact Professor R.
Zimmerman, Course Director/Wagner Graduate School
of Public Service at New York University (4 Washing-
ton Square North, New York, New Yoik 10003). The
phone number is (212) 998-7432 or the Center for
Management at (212) 998-7450. Graduate course cred-
its are available ($1,660 plus $33.00 fee). For non-credit
certificate the cost is approximately $900.00.
Society for Risk Analysis Course "New
Horizons in Risk Assessment"—August 29-30,
1994
The Society for Risk Analysis will hold its eighth annual
course, "New Horizons in Risk Assessment," August 29-30,
1994, at the Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Arlington, Vir-
ginia. The intent of the course is to provide an introductory
overview of methodologies, assumptions, and new research
in 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 devel-
opments in the field. Anyone desiring to learn the basic
7

-------
principles of risk assessment from nationally recognized
leaders in the field should profit from this course. Lecturers
will be Dr. Elizabeth Anderson, President, Sciences Inter-
national, Inc.; Dr. Mildred Christian, President and CEO,
Argus International, Inc.; Dr. Max Costa, Director, Institute
of Environmental Medicine, New York University; Dr.
Barnard Goldstein, Director, Environmental and Occupa-
tional Health Sciences Institute; Dr. Lester Lave, James H.
Higgins, Professor of Economics and University Professor,
Carnegie-Mellon University; Dr. Thomas McKone, Group
Leader, Exposure Assessment, Lawrence Livermore Na-
tional Laboratory; Dr. Susan Santos, Director, Center for
Risk Communication, Columbia University School of Pub-
lic Health; Dr. Curtis Travis, Director, Center for Risk
Management, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Dr.
Chris Whipple, Vice President, ICF/Kaiser.
> For further information call Dr. Curtis C. Travis, Course
Director at (61S) 576-2107 or Mary Oran, Course
Coordinator, at (615) 376-6844.
Workshop on Bioavailability and Oral Toxicity
of Manganese—August 30-31,1994
EPA's ECAO will host a two-day workshop, "Bioavailability
and Oral Toxicity of Manganese," August 30-31,1994. The
workshop will be held at EPA's Andrew W. Breidenbach
Environmental Research Center, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio. The speakers will include
Carl Keen, Bo Lonnerdal, and Jeanne Freeland-Graves.
>• For additional information concerning the meeting con-
tact Sue Velazquez or Joan Dollarhide of EPA's ECAO.
Sue can be reached at (513) 569-7571 or Joan at (513)
569-7539.
Challenges in Risk Characterization
Workshop—September 7-8,1994
A workshop entitled "Challenges in Risk Characterization"
will be held on September 7-8,1994, at EPA's Andrew W.
Breidenbach Environmental Research Center in Cincinnati,
Ohio. The workshop, sponsored by EPA's ECAO, is for
EPA regional and headquarters risk assessors. Topics for
the workshop will include implementation of the 1992 Risk
Characterization Guidance, EPA management perspective
on the guidance, case studies on successful implementation,
and scientific tools and research needs for risk characteriza-
tion.
»• For further information and workshop agenda contact
Rebecca Madison, Acting Chief, Chemical Mixtures
Assessment Branch, ECAO-Cin. at (513) 569-7257.
There is no registration fee for the workshop.
Joint Sixth Conference of the International
Society for Environmental Epidemiology and
Fourth Conference of the International Society
for Exposure Analysis—September 18-21,
1994, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
The joint Sixth Conference of the International Society for
Environmental Epidemiology and Fourth Conference of the
International Society for Exposure Analysis will be held
September 18-21, 1994, in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. The conference is being hosted by the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health.
Sponsors include the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, EPA, ATSDR, and the World Health
Organization. The purpose of the joint conference is to
bring together scientists from throughout the world to ex-
change ideas, methods, and applications for cutting edge
research on environmental health.
>¦ To register contact Phylliss Woody, Registrar, Office
of Continuing Education, University of North Carolina
School of Public Health, CB #8165, Miller Hall, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina 27599-8165. Phone registration is
available by calling (919) 966-4032 or FAX (919)
966-5692.
Hotel reservations are available through the Sheraton
Imperial Hotel and Convention Center in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (rate $72 for a single or
double room). The phone number for reservations is
800-222-6503 or (919) 941-5050.
Conference on Computing in Environmental
Management—November 30-December 2,1994
A specialty conference co-sponsored by the U.S. EPA and
the Air and Waste Management Association will be held
November 30-December 2, 1994, at the North Raleigh
Hilton, Raleigh, North Carolina. The EPA sponsors include
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards from
OAR, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory from ORD, and the National Data Processing
Division from OARM. Training opportunities, including a
short course on the National Library of Medicine's online
databases, will precede the conference; there will be a
hardware and software exhibit as well. Advance registration
is $370 for non-AWMA members, $285 for members, and
includes proceedings.
Although computing and netwoik technology have become
increasingly important as an integral part of environmental
management, this aspect of the field has been given little
emphasis in the literature. The purpose of this conference is
to expand the scope of information commonly presented
about the characterization and solution of environmental
problems to include the analytical tools and technology
strategy employed in order to identify and/or implement
solutions.
8

-------
Following a keynote address on the impact of the informa-
tion highway on environmental management, concurrent
sessions will be held on modeling, visualization, and high
performance computing; artificial intelligence and expat
systems, Global Positioning Systems, and Geographic In-
formation Systems; database management issues, including
client-server systems; multiplane complex environmental
assessments; advances in input/output; electronic data inter-
change; and remote online access.
>- For additional information on the meeting, contact
Vandy Bradow, National Data Processing Division,
MD-34, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina 27711. Vandy's phone number is (919) 541-3574.
Or contact Adrian Corolla, AWMA, P.O. Box 2861,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230. Adrian's phone num-
ber is (412) 232-3444.
VII International Congress of Toxicology—
July 2-6,1995
The VII International Congress of Toxicology (ICT VII)
will be held in Seattle, Washington, July 2-6, 1995. The
program will be based on the theme, "Horizons in Toxicol-
ogy: Preparing for the 21st Century." The meeting will be
hosted by the Society of Toxicology in conjunction with the
International Union of Toxicology.
>> For additional information contact ICT/VII, c/o Soci-
ety of Toxicology, 110114th Street, N.W., Suite 1100,
Washington, D.C. 20005-5601 or (202) 371-1393. The
FAX number is (202) 371-1090.
Risk and Decision-Making Course
Schedule
The following is the schedule for the Risk and
Decision-Making Courses through August:
August 2-4	Denver, Colorado
August 9-11	New York City, New York
The following is the schedule for the Risk Communication
Workshops through August:
June 20-27	New South Wales, Australia
(offered by Region IX)
August 16-18 San Francisco, California
September 19-22 Washington, D.C. (offered by
Region IX)
>¦ Contacts: Jim Cole, (202) 260-2747
Marian Olsen, (212) 264-5682
Alvin Chun, (415) 744-1022
Contacts:
Jerome Puskin
OAR-RAD
(202) 260-9640
Linda Tuxen
ORD-OHEA
(202) 260-5949
Dorothy Patton
ORD-RAF
(202) 260-6743
John Vandenberg
ORD-HERL
(919) 541-4527
Dick Hill
OPTS
(202) 260-2897
Don Barnes
SAB
(202) 260-4126
Dean Hill
NEIC
(202) 776-8138
Maureen McClelland
Region I
(617) 565-4885
Marian Olsen
Region II
(212) 264-5682
Jeffrey Burke
Region III
(215) 597-8327
Elmer Akin
Region IV
(404) 347-1586
Carole Braverman
Region V
(312) 886-29.10
Jon Rauscher
Region VI
(214) 655-8513
Mary Rouse
Region VII
(913) 551-7415
Suzanne Wuerthele
Region VIII
(303) 293-0961
Arnold Den
Region IX
(415) 744-1018
Dana Davoli
Region X
(206) 442-2135
<£RI Distribution
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
If you would like to receive additional copies of this and
subsequent Reviews or to be added to the mailing list
contact
9

-------