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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary and Conclusions ChapterThe conclusion about the “very few monitors” Page 5-2, line 16 suggests that one strongrecommendation in this chapter is that an expanded network of monitors are needed.This may or may not be true depending upon the distribution seen at existing monitors inthat with a 1 hour mean of 13ppb and a 99 th percentile value of 120-700ppb littleinformation is supplied other than the conclusion given that the max is not contributing tothe mean. Some full distributions might help lead to the conclusion as to how muchadditional monitoring is necessary outside potential known hotspots.Having the key finding summarized and reproducing the summarizing tables from theappendices is useful.46
Dr. Lianne SheppardComments on SOx 2nd Draft ISAOverall assessment: This document is much improved from the previous version.Generally it flows better and more closely attains its goal of presenting an integratedscience assessment of SO2 and its effect on health.Charge question 1: The Chapter 1 framework is reasonable.Charge question 2: Chapter 2 is better.• There is better characterization of the spatial distribution of SO2 monitors, but thediscussion is still lacking in the sense that there is no stratification of analyses bymicro vs. neighborhood scale monitors. This is an important feature to take intoaccount in the interpretation of epidemiological studies. What fraction ofmonitors in each area falls in these categories? How many areas with SO2monitors lack any neighborhood scale monitors?• Section 2.5 is a good addition and a good effort was made in 2.5.4 to discussimportant features of exposure assessment for epidemiological studies. Theavailability of neighborhood scale monitors should be brought into thisdiscussion, as well as the reactivity of SO2.Charge question 3: Chapter 3 is much more readable and well organized.Charge question 4: The revision to the concentration-response modeling discussion isreasonable. Discussion of vulnerable and susceptible groups is reasonable, but couldpossibly still benefit from a catalogue (e.g. in a table) of all potential vulnerabilities andsusceptibilities that warrant consideration. The public health impacts section appears tobe incomplete. While the gradation of responses and the prevalence of respiratorydisorders tables are useful, these are not linked to provide any inference about degree ofpublic health importance of SO2 exposure in the population.Charge question 5: There is good integration in Chapter 5.Specific comments: To be added.47
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 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 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
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?