/o.oi

SDMS DocID 000212170

Environmental Consultant

Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. 8 Winchester Place, Suite 202

Winchester, Massachusetts 01890

In the Matter:

United States of America v.

Atlas Tack Corporation et al.

And

Atlas Tack Corporation v.

The Town of Fairhaven

The United States District Court For the District of Massachusetts

Prepared For: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart

June 14,2004

Charles A. Menzie, Ph.D. ' Date:

EXPERT REPORT: CHARLES MENZIE, Ph.D.

This expert report is submitted by Charles Menzie on behalf of Atlas Tack Corporation.

A. Qualifications I am president of Menzie-Cura & Associates Inc. located at 8 Winchester Place, Winchester, MA 01890.1 have been evaluating the sources, fate and transport, and environmental and human health effects of chemicals since the early 1980s. I have been examining data related to the marshes and Boys Creek adjacent to the former Atlas Tack facility in Fairhaven MA since the 1990s. I was responsible for designing and implementing studies of uptake of chemicals by plants hi the marsh areas for judging the bioavailability and actual potential exposure to animals that use the marsh areas as habitat. I conducted a study of the levels of contaminants present in clams at the mouth of Boys Creek to provide actual information on the nature of exposures and to better evaluate sources.

B. Opinions

My opinions are as follows:

OPINION #1: Contaminants that have been identified as site-related contaminants of potential concern (COPC) are in fact not associated with site-activities or site sources and result in the inclusion of areas within the remedial plan that are not impacted by site-related COPCs.

Evidence la: Several of the chemicals listed as "site-related", most notably DDT and other pesticides are not used in tack manufacturing. For several of the chemicals that are driving risk issues at the site (most notably the pesticides and perhaps also metals in the marsh) the site is unlikely to be the source. DDT and other pesticides were not used in the tack manufacturing operation but were widely used for mosquito control in marshes. During the course of the New Bedford Harbor Superfund investigation, the occurrence of pesticides in near-shore areas was generally thought to be related to historical management of insect and plant pests and not associated with the site. The current and historical use of pesticides is governed by FIFRA and their presence represents area-wide background, not a site related issue. Research we have undertaken shows that pesticides are present in other marsh systems. Therefore, while they occur within the marshes adjacent to the former Atlas Tack facility, they should not be considered to have originated from Atlas Tack.

Evidence Ib: Iron is a risk driver for the meadow vole and the great blue heron. The assessment of iron in this risk assessment does not consider that iron is a naturally occurring macronutrient. The Atlas Tack risk assessment was completed before the USEPA (and many others) undertook a formal program at the national level to address the "false positive" risks associated with treating iron as a

chemical of concern at Superfund Sites. USEPA has since published guidance on how to deal with the presence of naturally occurring metals such as iron and aluminum in soils. This guidance and the work groups in involved in its development is captured hi the USEPA's Soil Screening Levels (SSL) document (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/ecorisk/ecossl.htm). A narrative statement is provided in the current national guidance that was absent when the Atlas tack Risk Assessment was performed. That statement points out the realities of iron in soils and is intended to reduce or prevent they types of misunderstandings that led to the risk assessment calculations carried out by the USEPA contractor for the Atlas Tack Site. An excerpt from the national guidance follows:

Eco-SSLfor Iron November 2003

Iron is a commonly occurring metallic element, with typical soil concentrations ranging from 0.2% to 55% (20,000 to 550,000 ppm). Concentrations can vary significantly even within localized areas due to soil types and presence of other sources. Iron can occur in either the divalent (Fe+2) or trivalent (Fe+s) valence states under typical environmental conditions. The valence state is determined by the pH and Eh of the system, and the chemical form is dependent upon the availability of other chemicals.

Iron is essentialfor plant growth, and is generally considered to be a micronutrient. Iron is considered the key metal in energy transformations needed for syntheses and other life processes of the cells (Thompson and Troeh, 1973). Consequently, plants regulate its uptake. In well aerated soils between pH 5 and 8, the iron demand of plants is higher than the amount available (Romheld and Marschner, 1986). Because of this limitation, plants have evolved various mechanisms to enhance iron uptake (Marschner, 1986). Under these soil conditions, iron is not expected to be toxic to plants.

The main concern from an ecological risk perspective for iron is not direct chemical toxicity per se, but the effect of iron as a mediator in the geochemistry of other (potentially toxic) metals and the potential physical hazard of depositing flocculent. Soil pHand Eh should be included as standard soil chemical field parameters when conducting any field investigation. Although some EPA analytical methods require the collection of soil pH prior to analysis, this information is not always made available to the ultimate data users. In addition, the pH measured in the lab may no longer be representative of field conditions since the samples can be exposed to oxygen during storage prior to analysis. A determination of the geochemical conditions (i.e., pH and Eh at a minimum) of the environmental setting, as well as the

presence of iron floe and the toxic metals, is critical to the determination of the relative importance of iron at a site.

To a large degree the risk assessors evaluating the exposure of wildlife species in the marshes adjacent to the Atlas Tack facility were misled by the presence of iron in the soils. This was a common occurrence during the time period that these risk assessors carried out their work. Because of this common occurrence, steps have been taken by the USEPA in the form of guidance to prevent inappropriate conclusions from being drawn about the nature of risk. Presumed risks to ecological receptors at the Atlas Tack Site have not yet been corrected to remove the false positives associated with the presence of iron. If these corrections are made, the outcome of the risk assessment changes, as does the appropriateness of proposed remedies.

Evidence Ic: Much of the public and regulatory perception about the risks at the site arose because of the observed presence of arsenic in shellfish. The contract risk assessors for USEPA simply assumed that this arsenic must have come from the site and was in a form that would pose a risk to humans and to wildlife. We undertook studies that demonstrate mat this is not the case. To the contrary, arsenic levels in shellfish from the site are comparable to arsenic concentrations in shellfish throughout New England. The concentrations of arsenic observed in clams near the site are comparable to those seen elsewhere in New England mollusks. Typical dry weight values of arsenic for New England taken from the NOAA database are 9 mg/kg (Penobscot Bay), 15 mg/kg (Cape Ann), 9.5 mg/kg (Salem Harbor), 9-10 mg/kg (Boston Harbor), 14-16 mg/kg (Buzzards Bay), 11 mg/kg (Narraganset Bay), and 14 mg/kg (Block Island) . The values observed at the site are comparable to what is typically seen along the New England coastline and the sediment values are also indicative of an area that is unpolluted by arsenic.

As a result of the risk assessment, the USEPA ascribed the presence of arsenic to Atlas Tack when, in fact, it is simply a reflection of what is found in coastal clams. The areas where these risks are presumed to occur should be disaggregated from the site. Further, the presumed "sources" of arsenic that are assumed to be site-related should also be clearly separated from the Atlas Tack Site.

Evidence Id: Many of the chemicals at issue are common in historically industrial towns and specifically in Fairhaven. For example, it is now acknowledged by USEPA's consultants that urban runoff from Fairhaven is an important source of metals contamination to Boys Creek. This is further demonstrated in 2004 data obtained by Rizzo Associates from culverts draining onto the property and for which Atlas Tack is clearly not the source. PCBs were also a ubiquitous chemical throughout New Bedford and Fairhaven. It is well

1 NOAA. 1989. National Status and Trends Program: A summary of data on tissue contamination from the first three years (1986-1988) of the mussel watch program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 49.

known that PCB-contaminated oils were used to control dusts on roads in New Bedford, the town immediately adjacent to Fairhaven. It is reasonable to presume that street sweepings and urban soils from Fairhaven would also contain PCBs. This is clearly supported by data obtained by Rizzo Associates for culverts draining onto the wetland and Boys Creek. PCBs are present in these samples. USEPA has used falty logic when associating PCBs in wetlands and elsewhere off of the Atlas Tack property with Atlas Tack. Virtually every road in Fairhaven would have been a potential source of PCBs due to the use of PCB transformers that were an integral part of Fairhaven's electrical system. Many of Fairhaven's industrial operations would have used PCBs in either paints, print ink, hydraulic oils, transformers, cutting oils, capacitors, or for fire prevention. Boys Creek is an important drainage creek for the city and it is not surprising that PCBs would have been present in low levels in the sediments. These levels are many orders of magnitude lower than what is seen in adjacent New Bedford Harbor. Because Atlas Tack - like many or most other industrial operations used PCBs and because they are present on-site in small amounts in soils, USEPA has made a link to PCBs elsewhere. This linkage is not clear and there is no obvious transport mechanism that is presented to support such linkage.

OPINION #2: The conceptual model of sources, fate and transport/exposure pathways and eventually receptors is not well developed for the site and there are misconceptions about sources and the fate and transport of contaminants. As a result, the proposed remedial measures have not included methods that would be effective at eliminating exposure and enabling the site to be put into productive use in a cost-effective manner.

Evidence 2a: The risk assessment distinguished between exposure to combined soils (indoor and outdoor) and to outdoor soils. The assessment showed that exposure to outdoor soils would not result in a risk above the stated acceptable risk range. The assessment calculated that a combination of indoor and outdoor soils would result in risk. In other words, there was something about the indoor conditions that led to this exceedance of the acceptable risk range. This distinction is not explained further and is lost in the Feasibility Study. The risk assessment should have analyzed the situation further and provided the Feasibility Assessment with a more complete picture of areas that pose a risk and a more complete presentation of possible clean-up levels. This would have involved: 1) distinguishing indoor and outdoor soils, 2) identifying what was driving the risk for indoor soils, and 3) presenting clean-up levels using the same logic used in the risk assessment.

Evidence 2b: As noted in the UBHHRA, risks to future maintenance workers are within the acceptable risk range for outdoor soils (although this is lost in the Feasibility Study.) Therefore, we focused on the soils within the building to determine what was the risk driver and to identify if there were more focused remedial measures that could be applied to address this risk. Ten building soil samples are listed in Table A-8 of the UBHHRA. The concentration of

carcinogenic PAH in these samples were at low levels (less than 10 mg/kg) in all samples except one (Location 411-S001) which had concentrations in the 100s of mg/kg for individual PAH compounds. This sample location was under the floor of the building. If this single sample was excluded and treated as a localized "hot spot", the resultant risks would fall within the acceptable risk range. Instead, the risk assessment calculated an exposure concentration using a statistic that was strongly affected by inclusion of the single high value. The result of the assessment was to represent the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the spatial distribution of actual exposure and risk. While this is a "standard procedure", it is an example of a situation where some additional thought and common sense should have been used to derive more representative and appropriate values for estimating exposure. This additional level of thought could have been conveyed to the individuals involved in preparing the Feasibility Study. The localized area of contamination (represented by sample 411) should be addressed as a localized "hot spot". Because the location is under the building it is unclear how exposure would occur and this should be given additional thought before proceeding with a site wide soil remediation plan based on a single sample that appears unrepresentative of site soils.

Evidence 2c: The PublicHealth Assessment(PHA): Atlas Tack Corporation, Fairhaven, Bristol County, Massachusetts, CERCLIS MAD001026319 prepared by Massachusetts Department of Public Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and dated June 15, 2000, classified the Atlas Tack site as a Public Health Hazard, based on the possibility that on-site workers and trespassers could be exposed to contaminants such as lead in surface soils. The overall conclusion of the report is that cadmium and lead in surface soil are the main compounds of concern for public health at the site. The potential health hazard associated with these two metals arises only if workers or trespassers come onto the property and directly contact the surface soils on a regular basis. No acutely toxic situations were identified. The report notes that many other ciiemicais are present at levdsthat exceed various regulatory target screening levels but indicates that site-specific considerations limit the potential for these other chemicals to pose risks. The PHA eliminated groundwater as a significant pathway for humans. EPA considers groundwater to be an important pathway, a conclusion that is at variance with the findings of the PHA and those of the technical experts working on behalf of Atlas Tack. The result is that the remedial option proposed by EPA includes substantial excavation and off-site disposal of soils to prevent movement of contaminants into groundwater. ATSDR is limited in the categories for classifying public health hazards. While they classify the Atlas Tack site as a Public Health Hazard, they acknowledge that in fact actual exposures are limited.

OPINION #3: Misinterpretation of analytical results, and a lack of consideration of chemical properties result in erroneous evaluation of risk.

Evidence 3a: The cyanide level detected in one of the three soft shelled clams sampled at Atlas Tack is 6.9 mg/kg. This concentration is likely measured on a dry weight basis. If it is assumed that the water content of a soft-shelled clam is 90%, while the dry weight is 10% of the total weight, then the estimated wet weight concentration of cyanide is an order of magnitude less than the dry weight or 0.69 mg/kg. This concentration of cyanide is that commonly found in meats and meat products (e.g. ranges for cow and pig "meat" = 0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg wet weight (ATSDR 1997; Weiffen, Franzke and Thurkow 1984)), while vegetables such as lettuce, spinach, and radishes have been found to contain concentrations of cyanide ranging from 0.1 to 5 mg/kg wet weight.

Evidence 3b: Arsenic in shellfish accounts for most of the calculated risk to people although the occurrence of arsenic hi shellfish (and fish) is commonly observed in coastal environments. Arsenic levels in tissues are also quite variable. The Feasibility Study (p. 2-23) attempted to discuss the presence of arsenic in light of possible anthropogenic sources, "The mean arsenic concentrations in shellfish from Boys Creek during the RI (11.7 mg/kg wet weight) were approximately four times higher than the high mean (mean plus one standard deviation) reported in NOAA's National Standard and Trends Program in 1989 and 1990. This indicates there is an anthropogenic source of arsenic, which is causing arsenic enrichment in the clams at the site. However, the arsenic concentration in the one sediment sample obtained near the shellfish beds (SS­812) was 1.9 mg/kg, compared to an area background of 4.4 mg/kg." Arsenic levels in shellfish from the site (10.4 to 15.1 mg/kg - suspected to be dry weight) are comparable to arsenic concentrations in shellfish throughout New England. Typical dry weight values for arsenic in New England shellfish taken from the NOAA database are 9 mg/kg (Penobscot Bay), 15 mg/kg (Cape Ann), 9.5 mg/kg (Salem Harbor), 9-10 mg/kg (Salem Harbor), 9-10 mg/kg (Boston Harbor), 14-16 mg/kg (Buzzards Bay), 11 mg/kg (Narrangansett Bay and 14 mg/kg (Block Island). The values observed at the site are comparable to what is typically seen along the New England coastline and the sediment values are also indicative of an area that is unpolluted by arsenic.

OPINION #4: The bioavailability of potential risk drivers is not given sufficient weight in the analysis of risk and development of remedial strategies.

Evidence 4a: The form of arsenic in shellfish is not considered to pose a health risk to humans. For the scenario involving exposure to chemicals in sediments, arsenic is responsible for risks exceeding the target risk level. However, arsenic is present hi shellfish in organic forms that are less toxic and is known to be present naturally at elevated levels in shellfish (up to 170 mg/kg as noted hi NAS 1977; well above the 14 mg/kg detected at the site). Again consideration of these issues in the risk assessment indicates that risks are below the EPA target levels.

In addition, arsenic concentrations in mummichogs analyzed at the site range from 0.34 mg/kg to 0.86 mg/kg (assumed wet weight). The Massachusetts Fish Toxics Monitoring data report typical arsenic concentrations in freshwater fish ranging from 1 to 7.9 mg/kg wet weight.

Evidence 4b The modeled values of contaminant levels in vegetation are presented in Table M.2-1 of the EPA's ecological risk assessment (Roy F. Weston, 1995). To check these modeled estimates, Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. conducted a vegetation survey and collected plants from various on-site areas as well as an off-site reference area. The assessment measured the levels of metals and pesticides in the tissues of the plants. The risk assessment prepared by Roy F. Weston (1995) for EPA concluded that risks to animals feeding on plants were due primarily from Lead, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan sulfate. (The assessment also concluded that iron posed a risk due to incidental ingestion.) The assessment indicated that the modeled concentrations of the two pesticides — Endosulfan II and Endosulfan Sulfate - are thousands of times higher than measured values in plants. Modeled lead concentrations in plants are over twenty times higher man measured levels. The data for plants provides valuable insight into actual absolute and relative magnitudes of exposure. They show that the risks determined for this aspect of the ecological risk assessment are greatly overestimated for some chemicals. This is but one example of where assumptions have been made in the USEPA risk assessment and shown to be incorrect.

Evidence 4c: Invertebrate toxicity tests do not indicate that chemicals are bioavailable.

The assessment presumes there are risks to benthic invertebrates in Boys Creek due to the presence of metals and other chemicals. As already noted, chemicals in Boys Creek likely reflect sources arriving from Fairhaven roads as they drain into the creek. The presence of elevated metals and organics as a result of urban runoff is well recognized and is the bases of national programs. Weston Solutions (the contractor for USEPA) acknowledges the importance of these urban sources. Data collected by Rizzo Associates in 2004 also shows that these sources are contributing metals and organic chemicals to Boys Creek. However, USEPA has erroneously concluded that these metals are: 1) due to Atlas Tack, and 2) posing a risk to benthic invertebrates such that remediation is necessary.

The evidence for risks to benthic invertebrates is virtually non-existent. Boys Creek and adjacent marsh areas reflect slightly elevated levels of metals that are commonly associated with urban runoff. However, the mere presence of slightly elevated levels does not mean that invertebrates are at risk. There are methods for judging this but they have not been used to separate areas of actual potential risk from other areas. As a result, the available work if misleading.

Sediment toxicity studies have been performed for Weston Solutions, the USEPA contractor. The toxicity studies that were carried out show possible relationships

between levels of metals and biological responses. However, caution needs to be exercised here because as the authors point out there is considerable uncertainty in the results and the effects seen were not dramatic. For example, there were very few locations where survival of the animals in the laboratory tests was obviously lower than reference areas of controls. Only two locations were found to have survival that was lower than reference areas. The lowest of these was a 59% survival in N-24 and the next lowest was a 79% survival in a Spartina patens sample. The regressions given in the Roy F. Weston report create a different impression because they plot a limited range of the data. All the survival plots begin at 50% survival as the "X axis". That of course makes the lines appear steeper to the eye when in fact there was much less actual gradient across the samples. While there is no universally accepted value for what is ecologically as opposed to statistically significant, a value of about 20% had often been used to judge the survival results of such bioassays. When judged against this yardstick, the only sample that has 20% less survival than the reference area is N-24.

I examined the data for N-24 and the other locations. What I noticed is that N-24 has the highest silt content as well as the highest silt clay content of any sample and was substantially higher than its associated reference location (95% silt clay for NS-24 and 43% silt clay for the reference location S-09.). Variations in silt and clay content can greatly affect the outcome of toxicity tests as well as the interpretation of those tests due both to the distribution of contaminants on fine particles (they tend to be higher in silt and clay environments), toxicity related to non-COPC factors in soft sediments (e.g., bacterial or other biological toxins), and the differential tolerance of the test species to different sediment types (a real problem for amphipod species such as the animals used in these particular tests).

Because of the influence of grain size on levels of chemicals in sediments, it is not surprising that NS-24 (the sample with the highest silt clay content) has some of the highest metal content. When combined into a regression the high fine sediment content of mis location obviously affects the regression curves.

Roy F. Weston (the USEPA contractor) recognized the uncertainty associated with these types of analyses in their recommendations (p. 15 of their report):

Because numerous studies have indicated varying degrees of success in corroborating that assumption and because the potential remediation may be extensive based on the results of the toxicity tests conducted herein, we conclude that it may still be necessary to conduct an invertebrate community analysis to determine empirically that the marsh resources are adversely affected in those habitats determined to be toxic in the laboratory tests.

The filed study recommended by Weston was carried out on the maroinvertebrate community living within the various marsh systems adjacent to Boys Creek2. This work was intended to address the uncertainty associated with relying on the laboratory toxicity tests. The working hypothesis was that if toxicity were related to chemical concentrations in the laboratory test, field observations would exhibit a parallel pattern. If the field program corroborated the laboratory program, then some degree of confidence might be placed on the regression results of the laboratory tests as a possible remedial tool.

The results of the field work did not support the findings of the laboratory toxicity tests. There was no discernable difference between the communities supported by Boys Creek and the reference location (Girls Creek). Importantly, amphipods were well represented in Boys Creek and these were the animals that were investigated in the laboratory work.

These results indicate that the two presumptions that USEPA has made: 1) the metals and organics in Boys Creek are from Atlas Tack, and 2) these chemicals are posing an ecological risk that warrants remediation are simply not consistent with the available data.

C. Data Relied Upon

Data relied upon include observations made during site visits to the Atlas Tack site, adjacent marshes, and Boys Creek. I have also reviewed the various USEPA documents associated with the RI/FS, risk assessments, and subsequent studies cited above. My report reflects the information currently at hand. As additional information becomes available, I anticipate that more detail may be discovered. This information could be used in the future to supplement and/or refine the opinions presented above.

D. Basis of Opinions

I have reached my opinions in this matter on the basis of site visits and an evaluation of the information cited above.

E. Trial Exhibits

I expect to develop exhibits to summarize, demonstrate or support my opinions including, but not limited to, maps, tabulated data, or illustrative diagrams.

F. Compensation

2 Weston Solutions. 2002. Final Macroinvertebrate Sampling Report Atlas Tack Corporation Superfund Site Fairhaven MA. Prepared for U.S. Army Cops of Engineers

My compensation for work on this case is calculated on a hourly basis. This rate is $165/hour for research, analysis and report preparation. My rate is $375/hr for deposition and trial testimony.

G. Testimony as an Expert

The following lists my experience as an expert witness.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius for Federal Pacific Electric Company in Federal Pacific Electric vs. Home Insurance Company. Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. DOCKET NO. MER-L-5192-96

Expert report written and deposition given concerning PCBs at the Cornell-Dubilier Electronics (CDE) facility in New Bedford MA and the pathways by which these PCBs were transported to the harbor.

Coburn & Croft for Monsanto in Cerro Copper Products Co. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 92-CV-204-PER, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Expert report written and deposition testimony given related to potential sources of PCBs from Cerro Copper to Dead Creek. Testimony was based on a review of operations and conditions at Cerro Copper.

10

Coburn & Croft for Joseph C. Burt in Joseph C. Burt v. Sparton Engineered Products, Inc., Case No. 93-CV-04296-JPG, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Expert report written and deposition testimony given related to damaged to Mr. Burt's farm resulting from the pollution of Seminary Creek that runs through his farm land.

TUlinghast, Collins & Graham for Eastern Gas & Electric in Eastern Gas & Electric vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Court.

Deposition testimony given related to toxicity and health risks posed by cyanide compounds in soils and groundwater at the Mendon Road site.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection for City of New York. New Jersey Court.

Expert report written and deposition and trial testimony given related to ecological risks associated with siting an incinerator in New Jersey adjacent to the Arthur Kill River.

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein for Stewarat-Warner Corp. in ILCO - Unican Corporation v. Stewart-Warner Corporation

Expert report written and deposition testimony given regarding imminent health hazard associated with heavy metals at the site.

11

ATTACHMENT 1

Curriculum Vitae for Charles A. Menzie

12

CHARLES A. MENZ1E, Ph.D.

EDUCATION:

Ph.D. 1978 Biology, City University of New York M.A. 1974 Biology, City College of New York B.S. 1971 Biology, Manhattan College

CONTINUING EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION:

OSHA Certified Eight-Hour HAZWOPER Annual Refresher Training in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, updated annually

OSHA Certified 40-Hours of Training in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:

1983-Present Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. Principal. Responsible for providing environmental and risk assessment services related to soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater contamination, industrial and municipal discharges, hazardous waste sites, and RCRA and Right-to-Know Law compliance. Geographic experience includes continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Australia, Indian Ocean Atolls, Nigeria, and Canada. Voluntarily supports cleanup programs in many states, including Illinois, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

1976-1983 EG&G Environmental Consultants. Manager of Environmental Services Department. Responsible for staff of Biologists, Chemists, Hydrogeologists, Environmental Scientists, and Regulatory Analysts. Directly responsible for coordinating business development activities related to waste disposal issues in marine, aquatic, and terrestrial environments.

1978-1993 Boston University and University of Lowell. Lecturer. Developed and presented graduate-level courses on Risk Assessment, Marine Pollution, and Environmental Science.

1973-1974 Research Foundation of City University of New York (CUNY). Involved in evaluating impacts of sewage sludge disposal.

1971-1976 Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for evaluating the impacts of fossil-fuel and nuclear power

13

plants on rivers, estuaries, and the Great Lakes. Involved in developing 208 plans.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

Water Environment Federation Society for Risk Analysis, (Past President of New England Chapter) Society of Exposure Analysis Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, (Member of the

Board of Directors and Past National Liaison to Society for Risk Analysis)

New England Estuarine Research Society Estuarine Research Federation Boston Bar Association, (Environmental) Association for the Environmental Health of Soils ASTM Editorial Board for the journal Human and Ecological RiskAssessment Councilor for Society of Risk Analysis

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES, WORKSHOPS, AND DISTINCTIONS:

Member of National Academy of Science National Research Council Committee on Bioavailability of Chemicals in Soils and Sediments SETAC Pellston Conferences on Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment and

Sediment Guidelines SETAC Pellston Conference on Contaminated Soils EPA Risk Forum Ecological Case Studies/Dioxin/Monte Carlo Analyses

PUBLICATIONS:

G. Book Chapters

Gaudet, C.L., C.A. Menzie, and S. Ouellet. 2002. Risk-based assessment of soil contamination: generic versus site-specific approaches. Chapter 12. G.I. Sunahara, A.Y. Renoux, C. Thellen, C.L. Gaudet, and A. Pilon, eds. In: Environmental Analysis of Contaminated Sites. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp 203-219.

Menzie, C.A. 2002. The evolution of ecological risk assessment during the 1990s: challenges and opportunities. Chapter 16. G.I. Sunahara, A.Y. Renoux, C. Thellen, C.L. Gaudet, and A. Pilon, eds. In: Environmental Analysis of Contaminated Sites. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp 281-299.

14

Cura, J.J., S.B. Kane Driscoll, R. Lacey, M. McArdle, C.A. Menzie. 2001. Assessing Ecological Risks of PAH-Contaminated Sediments. In: Sediments Guidance Compendium. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRT), Palo Alto, CA. 1005216.

Menzie, C.A., W.J. Heiger-Bernays, C-R- Montgomery, D.G. Linz, and D.V. Nakles. 1996. Development of an ecological risk assessment framework based on contaminant availability. "Ecotox - Environmental Contaminants through the Macroscope." Wuerz Publishing Ltd., Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Menzie, C.A. 1996. Perspectives on sediment risk analysis for hazardous waste sites. In: Sediment Risk Assessment. Proceedings of the 22nd Pellston Conference Workshop, Pacific Grove, April 23 - 28,1995. SETAC Special Publication.

Work Group Summary Report for Site Clean-Up Decisions. Chapter 6 In: Sediment Risk Assessment Proceedings of the 22nd Pellston Conference Workshop, Pacific Grove, April 23 - 28,1995. SETAC Special Publication.

Cura, J.J., G. Mariani, C. Ketchum, R. Gillmor, C. Menzie, W. Curtis and B. Tuholke. 1989. Site-selection criteria for deep ocean disposal of low-level radioactive wastes, hi M. Champ and K. Park, eds., Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution. Volume 3 ­Marine Waste Management: Science and Policy. Kreiger Publishing Co., Melbourne, FL, pp. 177-85.

Menzie, C.A., J. Cura, R. Gillmor, B. Magnel, G. Mariani, T. Bartholomew, W. Gardner and W. Smith. 1989. The optimum mix of pollution-monitoring platforms: Deepwater Dumpsite-106 Case Study, hi M. Champ and K. Park, eds., Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution. Volume 3 - Marine Waste Management: Science and Policy, eds., Kreiger Publishing Co., Melbourne, FL, pp. 260-76.

Nocito, J.A., H.A. Walker, J.F. Paul, and C.A. Menzie. 1986. Application of a risk assessment framework for marine disposal of sewage sludge at mid-shelf and off-shelf sites. In Proceedingsof the llth ASTM Symposium by American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA, American Society for Testing and Materials.

Gillmor, R.B., C.A. Menzie, G.M. Mariani, D. Levin, R.C. Ayers and T.C. Sauer. 1985. Effects of exploratory drilling discharges on the benthos, hi IW. Duedall, D.R. Kester and P.K. Park, eds., Wastes in the Ocean. Volume 4 - Energy Wastes in the Ocean, Wiley Interscience Publications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 244-57.

Robson, D.S., C.A. Menzie and H.F. Mulligan. 1980. An environmental monitoring study to assess the impact of drilling discharges in the Mid-Atlantic. II. An experimental design and statistical methods to evaluate impacts on the benthic environment, hi Research of Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings.

Menzie, C.A., D. Maurer and W. Leathern. 1980. An environmental monitoring study to assess the impact of drilling discharges in the Mid-Atlantic. IV. The effects of drilling

15

discharges on the benthic community. In Research of Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings.

Journal Articles

Menzie, C.A., and R. Lacey. 2002. Ecological risk assessment in a new rniUennium: where are we going? Risk Policy Report, March 19,2002. 9(3):36-38.

von Stackelberg, K. and C. Menzie. 2002. A cautionary note on the use of species presence and absence data in deriving sediment quality criteria. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(2):466-472.

Menzie, C.A. 2001. Hormesis in ecological risk assessment: a useful concept, a confusing term, and/or a distraction? Belle Newsletter. 10(1), 17-20, September 2001.

i

Menzie, C.A., Burke, A.M., Grasso, D., Harnois, M., Magee, B., McDonald, D., Montgomery, C., Nichols, A., Pignatello, J., Price, B., Price, R., Rose, J., Shatkin, J., Smets, B., Smith, J., Svirsky, S. 2000. An approach for incorporating information on chemical availability in soils into risk assessment and risk-based decision making. Human and Ecological RiskAssessment. (HERA). 6(3)479-510.

Menzie, C.A., 1999. Applying Risk-Based Solutions - the importance of communication. Environmental Engineer. 35(4) 20-22.

Charles, J.C. and Menzie, C.A. 1998. Identirying Southeast Asian immigrant populations in Massachusetts at risk from eating contaminated shellfish. Journal of Environmental Management. 52:161-171.

Menzie, C.A. 1998. Risk communication and careful listening - resolving alternative world views. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA). 4(3):619-622.

Menzie, C.A., and Freshman, J.S. 1997. An assessment of the risk assessment paradigm for ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA). 3(5):853-892.

Menzie, C.A. 1997. Implementing risk management at manufactured gas plant sites. Soil & Groundwater Cleanup. August/September. pp!2-18.

Menzie, C.A., J.J. Cura, J.Freshman, E.N. LaFrey. 1997. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in Massachusetts urban runoff and potential for enrichment of near-shore coastal sediments. (Submitted).

Menzie, C.A., M. Hope Henning, J. Cura, K. Finkelstein, J. Gentile, J. Maughan, D. Mitchell, S. Petron, B. Potocki, S. Svirsky, P. Tyler. 1996. Special report of the Massachusetts weight-of-evidence workgroup: A weight-of-evidence approach for

16

evaluating ecological risks. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: (HERA): 2(2)277­304.

Freshman, J.S., C.A. Menzie. 1996. Two wildlife exposure models to assess impacts at the individual and population levels and the efficacy of remedial actions. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2(3):481-496.

Menzie, C.A. 1995. The question is essential for ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. (HERA) 1(3):159-162.

Menzie, C.A., B. Potocki and J. Santodonato. 1992. Exposure to carcinogenic PAHs in the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26(7)1278-1284.

Menzie, CA., D.E. Burmaster, J.S. Freshman and C.A. Callahan. 1992. Assessment of methods for estimating ecological risk in the terrestrial component: A case study at the Baird & McGuire Superfund Site in Holbrook, Massachusetts. Environ Toxicol Chem. 11:245-260.

Callahan, C.A., C.A. Menzie, D.E. Burmaster, D.C. Wilborn andT. Ernst. 1991. On-site methods for assessing chemical impact on the soil environment using earthworms: A case study at the Baird & McGuire Superfund Site, Holbrook, MA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:817-826.

Burmaster, D.E., CA. Menzie, J.S. Freshman, J.A. Bums, N.I. Maxwell and S.R. Drew. 1991. Assessment of methods for estimating aquatic hazards at Superfund-type sites: A cautionary tale. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:827-842.

Menzie, C.A. 1984. Diminishment of recruitment: A hypothesis concerning impacts on marine benthic communities. Marine Pollution Bull. 15:127-129.

Menzie, C.A. 1983. Environmental concerns related to offshore oil and gas activities: Muddy issues. Oceanus 26:32-38.

Menzie, C.A. 1982. Contamination control can be cost effective. Industry Magazine. pp. 19-22. August 1983.

Menzie, C.A., J.J. Cura and W.F. Skinner. 1982. Thermal impact evaluation for Brunner Island Steam Electric Station: Toward a more realistic assessment. Environ. Monitoring and Assessment 2:301-308.

Menzie, C.A. 1982. The environmental implications of offshore oil and gas activities: An overview of the effects of routine discharges based on the American experience. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16(8):454A-472A.

Maurer, D., W. Leathern and C.A. Menzie. 1982. Macrobenthic invertebrates from the Mid-Atlantic continental shelf. Int. Rev. der Ges.Hydrobiol. 67(4):491-515.

17

Menzie, C.A., G. Mariani, and J. Kyther, Jr. 1981. Seafloor mapping system applied to biological, environmental surveys. Sea Technol. 22(2): 15-16.

Menzie, C.A. 1981. Production ecology of Cricotopus sylvestris Fabricius (Diptera: Chironomidae) in a shallow estuarine area. Limnol. Oceanog. 26(3):467-481.

Mauer, D., W. Leathern and C.A. Menzie. 1981. The impact of drilling fluids and well cuttings on polychaete feeding guilds from the U.S. northeastern continental shelf. Marine Pollution Bull. 12(10):234-347.

Menzie, C.A. 1980. The potential significance of insects in the removal of contaminants from aquatic systems. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 13:473-479.

Menzie, C.A. 1980. A note on the Hynes method of estimating secondary production. Limnol. Oceanog. 25 (4): 770-773.

Menzie, C.A. 1980. The chironomid (Insecta: Diptera) and other fauna of a Myriophyllum spicatum L. plant bed in the lower Hudson River. Estuaries 3(1): pages 38-54.

Menzie, C.A. 1979. An approach to estimating probabilities of transportation related spills of hazardous materials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13(2):224-228.

Menzie, C.A. 1979. Growth of the aquatic plant Myriophyllum spicatum in a littoral area of the Hudson River Estuary. Aquatic Botany 6:365-375.

Mulligan, H.F. and C.A. Menzie. 1978. How to prepare environmental reports for drilling on the OCS (outer continental shelf). Oil and GasJ., pp. 86-87.

Published Proceedings. Conferences and Symposia

Menzie, C.A., 3.3. Cura, S. Kane-Driscoll, R. Lacey, and M. McArdle. 2001. Assessing ecological risks of PAH-contaminated sediments. Published in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Venice, Italy, October 10-12, 2001. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.

Cura, JJ. and C. Menzie. 1996. Methodologies for Ecological Risk Assessment: The Overall Process and Recent Advances. Presented at the Water Environment Federation 69th Annual Conference & Exposition. Conference Workshop #12 - Ecological Risk Assessment: Why and How - An Important Tool in Environmental Decision Making. October 5-9, Dallas, Texas.

18

Menzie, C.A. 1995. Problems in Ecological Assessment Related to Contaminated Site Management. In Proceedings of the NRC - CNRC Workshop, Toxicity Testing Applied to Soil Ecotoxicology, 28-29 November, 1995, Montreal, Quebec. NRC's Biotechnology Research Institute in collaboration with Environment Canada and the Quebec Ministry of Environment and Wildlife, pp. 26-27.

von Stackelberg, K., C.A. Menzie, and J.J. Cura. 1995. Risk Assessment: Helping to Focus Risk Management Objectives for MGP Sites. Land Contamination & Reclamation. (special issue). 3(4):24-29. Presented at the International Symposium and Trade Fair on the Clean-up of Manufactured Gas Plants, September 19-21, Prague, Czech Republic.

Menzie, C.A. and J.J. Cura. 1991. Environmental evaluations at hazardous waste sites. In Proceedings of the HMC-Northeast '91 Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, July 10-12, 1991, by the Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. Greenbelt, MD, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, pp. 77-84.

Menzie, C.A. and J. Cura, 1991. Loadings of pollutants in Massachusetts Bay. Presented at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conference on Estuaries, February 24-26, Sarasota, FL.

Bunnaster, D.E., K.M. Thompson, C.A. Menzie, E. Crouch and T. McKone. 1990. Monte Carlo techniques for quantitative uncertainty analysis in public health risk assessment. In Proceedings of the 1990 HMCRI Conference, New Orleans, LA, by the Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. Greenbelt, MD, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, pp. 215-21.

Menzie, C. A. 1988. Application of Connecticut's Aquatic Toxicity Program. Panel discussion and presentation to the Second Annual Workshop of the Connecticut Forum of Regulated Environmental Professionals, June 2, New Haven, CT.

Menzie, C.A. and D.E. Burmaster. 1988. Overview of soil clean-up levels and risk based decision making. Presented at the HazMat '88 Conference, June 14-16, Atlantic City, NJ.

Menzie, C.A. and D.E. Burmaster. 1988. Evaluation of environmental risk assessment methods. Presented at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, November 13-17, Arlington, VA.

Menzie, C.A. 1988. The use - and possible misuse - of risk assessment as part of overall site management. Presented at the second Hazardous Waste Superfund Conference in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. 1988. Andrews Associates.

Burmaster, D.E., B. Murphy, J. Gushue and C.A. Menzie. 1987. A risk assessment for the Baird & McGuire Superfund Site. Presented at the Hazardous Materials International Conference, Washington, D.C.

19

Menzie, C.A., J.J. Cura, R. Gillmor, G. Mariani and S. Wilson. 1983. Research needs related to ocean disposal. Presented at the Ocean Waste Management Conference at the University of Rhode Island, May, Kingston, RI.

Menzie, CA., J. Ryther, Jr., L.F. Boyer, J.D. Germane and D.C. Rhoads. 1982. Remote methods of mapping seafloor topography, sediment type, bedforms, and benthic biology. In Oceans '82 Conference Record. IEEE Publication Number 82CH1827-5. Piscataway, NJ, IEEE Service Center, pp. 1046-1051.

Gillmor, R.B., CA. Menzie and J. Ryther, Jr. 1981. Side-scan sonar and T.V. observations of the benthic environment and megabenthos in the vicinity of an OCS exploratory well in the Middle Atlantic Bight. In Oceans'81 Conference Record. IEEE Publication No. 81CH1685-7. Piscataway, NJ, IEEE Service Center.

Menzie, C.A., D. Frye and R.N. Hazelwood. 1980. OTEC-1 Environmental Monitoring Program. In Proceedings of the Seventh Ocean Energy Conference, June 1980, Washington, D.C., by conference sponsor.

Menzie, C.A. and J. Ryther, Jr. 1980. Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean): An Atoll estuary. Presented at the New England Estuarine Research Society at the University of Rhode Island, Spring Session, Kingston, RI.

Mulligan, H.F. and C.A. Menzie. 1979. Phytoplankton as tracers of water masses on and around Georges Bank. Presented at the Second Informal Workshop on the Gulf of Maine and Scotian Shelf, May, Dalhousie, Nova Scotia.

Menzie, C.A, et al 1976. The environmental impact of the Clean Water Act on the Hudson River Estuary. Presented at the Fourth Hudson River Environmental Symposium.

Menzie, C.A., R. Hyman, and B. Woodward. 1976. Investigations of the chironomid fauna of Haverstraw Bay. Presented at Fourth Hudson River Environmental Symposium.

Menzie, C.A., D. Ix>gan and J. Matousek. 1976. Benthic investigations in the Hudson River Estuary. 1972-1974. Presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society, Madison, WI.

Technical Reports

Dr. Menzie has written more than 100 technical reports as part of various programs. Information on these reports is available upon request.

20