Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating Risk Assessment Exposure Point Concentrations when the Data Are Not Normal or Lognormal

  • Published:
Risk Analysis

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends the use of the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean based on either a normal or lognormal distribution for the contaminant (or exposure point) concentration term in the Superfund risk assessment process. When the data are not normal or lognormal this recommended approach may overestimate the exposure point concentration (EPC) and may lead to unecessary cleanup at a hazardous waste site. The EPA concentration term only seems to perform like alternative EPC methods when the data are well fit by a lognormal distribution. Several alternative methods for calculating the EPC are investigated and compared using soil data collected from three hazardous waste sites in Montana, Utah, and Colorado. For data sets that are well fit by a lognormal distribution, values for the Chebychev inequality or the EPA concentration term may be appropriate EPCs. For data sets where the soil concentration data are well fit by gamma distributions, Wong's method may be used for calculating EPCs. The studentized bootstrap-t and Hall's bootstrap-t transformation are recommended for EPC calculation when all distribution fits are poor. If a data set is well fit by a distribution, parametric bootstrap may provide a suitable EPC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. EPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual(Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  2. EPA, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  3. EPA, Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Draft Addendum to Interim Final Guidance(Office of Solid Waste Permits and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. K. Singh, A. Singh, and M. Engelhardt, EPA Technology Support Center Issue, The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental Applications(Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. M. Law and W. D. Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analysis,2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. D. Sinclair and B. D. Spurr, ''Approximations to the Distribution Function of the Anderson-Darling Test Statistic'', J.Am.Stat.Assoc.831190–1191 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. E. Land, ''Confidence Intervals for Linear Functions of the Normal Mean and Variance,'' in Selected Tables in Mathematical Statistics,Vol. III (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. O. Gilbert, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring(Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Wong, ''A Note on Inference for the Mean Parameter of the Gamma Distribution,'' Stat.Prob.Lett.1761–66 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  10. B. F. J. Manly, Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology,2nd ed. (Chapman & Hall, London, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  11. L. C. Hamilton, Regression with Graphics.A Second Course in Applied Statistics.(Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. Hall, ''On the Removal of Skewness by Transformation,'' J.R.Stat.Soc.B 54221–228 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kleinfelder, Inc., Health Risk Assessment Pallas Yard Murray, Utah Final Draft(December 22, 1997).

  14. R. Bornschein, The Butte-Silver Bow Environmental Health Lead Study Final Report(Butte-Silver Bow Department of Health and Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bureau of Reclamation, Geologic Site Investigations for Conceptual Evaluation of Surface Waste Cleanup, Wellington-Oro Mine Complex, Breckenridge, Colorado(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1218 Pomegranate Lane, Golden, Colorado, 80401-9222

    Terry W. Schulz

  2. USEPA Region 8, 999 18th St., Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466

    Susan Griffin

Authors
  1. Terry W. Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Griffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schulz, T.W., Griffin, S. Estimating Risk Assessment Exposure Point Concentrations when the Data Are Not Normal or Lognormal. Risk Anal 19, 577–584 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007021217080

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007021217080

Search

Navigation