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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

exposures in population studies, the ISA would benefit by more thorough discussionof the potential for SO 2 to induce biological effects versus those effects that are/canbe detected under ambient conditions.36
Dr. Jonathan M. SametComments on SOx 2nd Draft ISAGeneral Comments:Overview:This second draft Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) has been redrafted following theinitial review by CASAC. Along with the draft ISA for Nitrogen Oxides, it representsthe second use of the new evidence review approach by the Environmental ProtectionAgency. As such, it remains critical that a useful model be established for future reviews.In this regard, I still find the second draft ISA to be deficient. While changes have beenmade, the approach to evidence identification, review, and synthesis remainsinadequately specified. In the revised Chapter 1, while the Agency has begun to moreformally set out criteria for evidence evaluation and standard approaches for classifyingthe strength of evidence for causation, the overall approach still needs development andits application in the subsequent chapters of the ISA is not sufficiently thoughtful. Myresponses to the charge questions follow:Question 1:This question asks whether the framework set out in Chapter 1 is appropriate andadequately applied, and whether the Agency’s approach for causal inference needs to bestrengthened. The Agency, in developing its approach, has relied on a number of recentreports that offer models, including the approach taken in the Surgeon General’s Reportsand the conceptual framework set out in the recent Institute of Medicine document,Improving the Presumptive Disability Decision-Making Process for Veterans. Thesedocuments along with the others that are cited do provide useful approaches. TheAgency’s adoption of a five-level set of descriptors of strength of evidence is appropriateand should prove useful for decision-making based on the degree of certainty provided byscientific evidence considered. Through its application, the Agency will be able to refinethe review and synthesis process and, in particular, set precedents for responding toevidence reaching different levels of certainty for causation. For example, wouldevidence reaching the “suggestive” level be a sufficient foundation for altering aNAAQS?There are still limitations of Chapter 1, however. The discussion of association versuscausation is not well formulated and the authors are not clear in discussing key conceptsthat affect interpretation of epidemiological data. For example, confounding and effectmodification are addressed rather superficially, as is measurement error. I urge the staffto continue to refine this material, because it will become a model for future ISAs. Theauthors comment on the complexity of determinants of health and of response to anenvironmental agent, such as sulfur dioxide. However, their approach to doing so islimited and Figure 1-1 is presented with little explanation.37
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 42 and 43: population at risk is an important
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?