(CASAC) Peer Review of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

population at risk is an important determinant, but will need to incorporate theappropriate parameters.In summary, this is an excellent chapter. Since the standard has not changed since itsoriginal inception in 1969-71, if the potential decision by EPA in the REA is to suggestchanges in the standard to promulgate a 5-10 minute peak or 1-hour maximal level ofSO 2 , this potential to recommend a very different standard from the current standardneeds to be clearly justified in this chapter or in the REA.Specific comments:Page 4-2, line 26: please state the meaning of sRaw in the text34
Dr. Edward M. PostlethwaitComments on SOx ISA – 2 nd DraftThe second draft of the SO x ISA is clearly improved. Suggested points for considerationinclude:1. Much of the document focuses on the potential impacts of short term, relativelyhigher concentration exposures. In this regard, it is important to describe and/orillustrate the characteristics of short term spikes. This may be important forexposure/risk predictions since it is assumed that 5-10 minute exposures will bemodeled as steady state exposure conditions but in the real world such spikes may,for example, be very sharp rather than the square wave exposure patterns that aregenerally employed in most human clinical investigations.2. Do the tables which include compilations of relative risks computed from populationstudies include points which are not statistically significant? If so, then there may bean unintentional bias in representing potential health impacts. If none significantresults are to be presented, they should be identified as such to appropriately informthe reader.3. While the human clinical studies of asthmatics show apparent thresholds at SO 2 levelsbetween 0.4 and 0.6 ppm, other data may suggest that some individuals may respondat lower concentrations. Thus it is recommended that predictive estimates utilizeconcentrations below the proposed benchmark 0.4 ppm level.4. The above highlights an appreciable challenge for conducting risk estimates in thatsome population studies suggest effects occur at levels well below those observedduring clinical studies. The ISA would clearly be strengthened by an improvedintegration/synthesis regarding the potential genesis of effects threshold differences,especially since the chapter on dosimetry clearly describes that > 90% of inhaled SO 2is scrubbed in the upper airways so that during environmentally relevant exposuresonly very small amounts of SO 2 would penetrate to anatomic regions involved inbronchoconstrictive events. Thus at least an attempt to clarify the apparentdiscrepancies is warranted.5. The concluding language in the various health effects sections relating exposures tothe various biological endpoints of interest would be strengthened by more internalconsistency. For example, it is stated that there is sufficient evidence “to infer acausal relationship between respiratory morbidity and short-term exposure to SO 2 ”,which is unequivocal based on clinical studies. However, in other sections statementsregarding causality have the caveat “at current ambient levels.” Thus, whileasthmatics, and likely most individuals, will respond at some threshold exposurelevel, whether this occurs at ambient levels is not consistently addressed. Because ofthe dearth of more current data and the confounding associated with multipollutant35
Page 1: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
Page 4 and 5: eorganized to focus on studies usin
Page 6 and 7: The Panel was impressed by the way
Page 8 and 9: Dr. Steven Kleeberger, Professor, L
Page 10 and 11: Mr. Ed AvolComments on SOx ISA 2 nd
Page 12 and 13: to risk estimates that include all
Page 14 and 15: eosinophils in bronchoalveolar lava
Page 16 and 17: p. 3-105, line 2 The Japanese study
Page 18 and 19: different standards in different re
Page 20 and 21: 17. The complexity of the curve in
Page 22 and 23: Page 2-52, lines 5-16 - This sectio
Page 24 and 25: confidence limits for the ED50 in t
Page 26 and 27: Dr. Donna KenskiComments on SOx ISA
Page 28 and 29: 5-3 lines 8-11 This statement is co
Page 30 and 31: p. 2-10, line 6: I don’t think th
Page 32 and 33: Dr. Steven KleebergerComments on SO
Page 34 and 35: Dr. Timothy LarsonComments on SOx I
Page 36 and 37: Dr. Ted RussellComments on SOx ISA
Page 38 and 39: ief section describing the availabl
Page 40 and 41: Dr. Kent PinkertonComments on Sox I
Page 44 and 45: exposures in population studies, th
Page 46 and 47: The discussion of uncertainty is br
Page 48 and 49: Dr. Richard SchlesingerComments on
Page 50 and 51: Dr. Christian SeigneurComments on S
Page 52 and 53: Dr. Frank E. SpeizerComments on SOx
Page 54 and 55: Summary and Conclusions ChapterThe
Page 56 and 57: Dr. George ThurstonComments on SOx
Page 58 and 59: 5. Revisions were made to better in
Page 60 and 61: Specific CommentsPage; lines2-3; 10
Page 62: p. 3-11; ll. 7-18: Another reason f

(CASAC) Peer Review of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?