1 Summary Minutes of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Lead Review Panel

Public Meeting, April 1 0

- 1 1 , 2012

Date and Time: Tues day, April 1 0 , 2012, 8:30 am

– 5:30 pm; Wedne sday

, April 1 1 , 2012, 8:30

am

– 12 : 0 0 pm ET.

Location: Marriott at Research Triangle Park Hotel, 4700 Guardian Drive, Durham, North

Carolina 27703

Purpose: The purpose of the April 1 0

- 1 1 , 2012 public meeting was for the CASAC Lead Review Panel to conduct a peer review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (Second External Review Draft

- February 2012).

Participants:

CASAC Lead Review Panel (See Roster, Attachment A ):

Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair Mr. George A. Allen

Dr. Herbert Allen

Dr. Richard Canfield Dr. Deborah Cory

- Slechta

Dr. Cliff Davidson Dr. Philip E. Goodrum Dr. Sean Hays Dr. Philip Hopke

Dr. Chris Johnson

Dr. Susan Korrick

Dr. Michael Kosnett

Dr. Roman Lanno

Mr. Richard L. Poirot

Dr. Joel Pounds

Dr. Michael Rabinowitz

Dr. William Stubblefield

Dr. Ian von Lindern

Dr. Gail Wasserman

Dr. Michael Weitzman

Two Panel member s (Dr s. Sean Hays and Dr. Michael Weitzman) participated via teleconf

erence.

EPA SAB Staff: Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (via telephone) Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer Dr. Vanessa Vu, Director, EPA Science Advisory

Board Staff Office2 EPA Staff: Ms. Lydia Wegman

, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Dr. Deirdre Murphy , OAQPS

Mr. Kevin Cavender

, OAQPS Dr. Zachary Pekar, OAQPS Dr. Robert Vanderpool

, EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) Dr. Marion Hoyer

, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Dr. John Vandenberg , ORD

Dr. Ellen Kirrane , ORD

Other Attendees: A list of member s of the public who attended or requested information for calling into the meeting is provided in Attachment B, Public Attendance.

Materials Available : The agenda and meeting materials were circulated to the CASAC Lead

Review Panel in advance of the meeting , and were made available to the public via the CASAC

website ( www.epa.gov/ casac ) on the following CASAC Lead Review Panel website: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/bf498bd32a1c7fdf85257242006dd6cb/5a62d5e08354 305c8525796700537c13!OpenDocument&Date=2012

- 04

- 10

Meeting Summary

The meeting was announced in the Federal Register 1 and proceeded according to the meeting agenda 2 . A summary of the meeting follows.

April 1 0

, 201 2

Opening Statements and Welcome

Mr. Ed ward Hanlon, an SAB Designated Federal Officer ( DFO), opened the meeting , and made a brief opening statement noting that the CASAC Lead Review Panel is a Federal Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). He noted that Aaron Yeow is the DFO for the Panel but was not able to attend this meeting. He st ated that the meeting was open to the public and that Agency

- provided briefing materials were posted onto the meeting

website. He stated the purpose of the meeting , and noted that no member s of the public had

either requested to present an oral statement during the meeting or submitted written public

comments. He noted that t he SAB Staff Office has determined that there we re no conflict

- of

interest or appearance of a lack of impartiality issues for any Panel members for this review. He

also noted that m inutes of the meeting were being taken to summarize discussions and action items in accordance with requirements under FACA. D r. Vanessa Vu , Director of the SAB Staff Office, welcomed everyone and expressed appreciation to the Panel and to the EPA staff for their support in preparing for the meeting.

Dr. H. Christopher Frey , Chair of the Panel, then welcomed everyone and requested that all

members introduce themse lves. Dr. Frey noted that EPA would be presenting throughout most of the morning , and that after EPA’s presentations, the Panel would start review of C hapter 3 and proceed from that point. Dr. Frey stated that Lead Discussants should plan to take notes during3

t he April 10 meeting discussion and capture key points, collate their points in writing the evening of April 10, and send Dr. Frey and Mr. Hanlon their summary of key preliminary responses to each charge question the evening of April 10 for discussion at th e April 11 meeting

. Dr. Frey noted that Lead Discussants should also include the top three or so suggested bullet points that would summarize a paragraph to be drafted for each charge question response; this paragraph would be included within the approxim ately two

- three page letter to the Administrator that would accompany the CASAC report.

Dr. Frey stated that Panel members could adjust their individual preliminary comments after the meeting, and submit their final individual member comments within two weeks (by April 24)

. He also noted that Lead Writers should submit their draft consensus responses and key points within three weeks (by May 1). Dr. Frey also noted that the Panel would develop a written report to the EPA Administrator that reflects the Panel’s advice to EPA, and that the report would include a cover letter that summarizes key points of the CASAC review, consensus responses to each charge question, and individual Panel member comments. He noted the Panel

would have a teleconference to d iscuss the draft CASAC report that would subsequently be sent

to the EPA Administrator.

EPA Presentatio ns

Ms. Lydia Wegman

, EPA OAQPS, made a brief opening statement and presented and discussed

her PowerPoint slides 3 (slides 1

- 3) that were provided on the meeting website. Following Ms. Wegman, Dr. Deirdre Murphy and Mr. Kevin Cavender

, OAQPS

, then presented and discussed

their PowerPoint slides 3 (slides 4

- 6 and 7

- 12, respectively). One Panel member asked how

ambient air was monit ored at airports, and EPA responded that areas within the fenceline of airport s were covered. Another Panel member asked whether all monitoring dates occurred as scheduled. EPA responded that the 2010 monitoring results were all publicly available, and that

2011 mon itor ing results were still being completed and were undergoing quality assurance

review

. One Panel member asked what is the quality of data and modeling that EPA used to

support the waiver determination. EPA responded that modeling and monitoring requirements were specified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Dr. Robert Vanderpool then presented and discussed his PowerPoint slides 3 (slides 13

- 34)

. Several Panel member s asked various questions regarding EPA’s lead monitoring and modeling requirements, including questions on quality assurance, particle size requirements, manufacturer capabilities, available analytical techniques, and analytical and sampling development. Dr.

Van derpool, Mr. Cavender and Mr. Marion Hoyer of EPA responded to these questions.

Drs. John Vandenberg and Ellen Kir r ane then presented and discussed their PowerPoint slides 4

(slides 1

- 5 and 6

- 29, respectively). Several Panel members asked various questi ons regarding the content of the updated Lead Integrated Science Assessment ( ISA ) Report, which EPA responded to. A few Panel members requested more detail on EPA’s efforts to respond to the advice provided in the previous CASAC Report, noting that EPA co uld be more specific in identifying which CASAC advice and comments we re addressed and not addressed. EPA responded that it considered all advice and comments, and hesitates to commit to preparing a point by point response.

Dr. Frey noted that no member s of the public had requested to present an oral statement during the meeting and asked whether there were any members of the public who wanted to present oral

comments. Upon hearing no requests from the public to present oral comments , Dr. Frey mov ed4

forward with Panel responses to the Charge Questions.

Chapter 3

– Source to Concentration

The Panel discussed the adequacy of EPA’s changes to Chapter 3, and provided recommendations to improve the discussion in Chapter 3 of EPA’s report. In gener al, the Panel noted that the current draft EPA report was substantially improved over the earlier draft Report. Several Panel members noted they would submit more detailed comments regarding this chapter

for EPA’s consideration.

The Panel noted that EPA’ s e xpanded description of the total suspended particulates (TSP)

Federal Reference Method (FRM) FRM and related sampling methods had substantial new and helpful content in response to the CASAC’s advice on the first draft ISA, particularly regarding

the current FRM high volume sampling method. The Panel recommended that EPA expand the

discussion on the state of aerosol science that supports possible alternatives to the high volume

FRM.

The Panel also noted that EPA should reinsert the EPA Air Qualit y System ( AQS ) data for

ambient air lead particle size information , and address comments raised in the earlier CASAC

report

. Several Panel members suggested that EPA refer to an EPA memorandum written by Cavender and Schmidt on lead particle sizes in this analysis, and noted it would be helpful if EPA prepared a literature review update on this topic. The Panel also commented that it would be helpful if EPA provided estimates of policy relevant background (PRB) for air lead. The

Panel recommended that EP A provide additional synthesis of literature results to improve readability of some sections of the Report.

The Panel discussed application of the Pearson and Spearman rank

- ordered correlation

coefficient analyse s and results, and the appropriateness of a pplying these measure s. The Panel noted that the Spearman rank alone is a measure of the monotonicity of the relationship between two random variables. Other types of correlations, such as the Pearson correlation, measure the linearity of covaration betw een two random variables. EPA should consider also presenting or evaluating the Pearson or other parametric methods

. The Panel suggested that EPA improve data usability by clearly linking data with source identification. The Panel further suggested that

EPA link the C hapter 4 discussion of exposures with C hapter 3 discussion on air measurements (e.g., on the wood smoke topic ). Regarding wood smoke, the Panel suggested that EPA discuss

avoidable lead expos ures from residential space heating woodsmoke since this may be the primary air exposure pathway for “new” lead in rural or small valley towns where woodsmoke particulate matter ( PM ) concentrations are high.

The Panel noted that three primary points for the cover letter to the Administrator would be: a)

a ll data on lead size is useful since there were limited available lead data ; b) improve the linkage between chapter s 3 and 4 ; and c) provide additional details on how to develop a new TSP low

volume lead FRM sampler

.

Several Panel members also suggested that EPA include more details on source s, f ate , and

d istribution of lead across the United States, and consider conducting some form of a material

balance distillation. One Panel member suggested that EP A list the top twenty or so largest sources of lead and note where airports fit in that listing.

Chapter 4

– Exposure, Toxicokinetics and Biomarkers5

The Panel discussed EPA’s interpretation of the science, description and presentation of

uncertainties and limitations of relevant data, and methodologies and approaches, and noted

several recommendations to improve the discussion in Chapter 4 of EPA’s report. The Panel noted that EPA should provide a dditional synthesis and summary of information on Section 4.1 ’s exposure assessment discussion, and further describe the importance and impact of the reviewed

data to the ISA. The Panel noted that Section 4.1.1 should i nclude a table that summarizes

information presented in this section and distinguish b etween estimates based on modeling (e.g., IEUBK) and empirical studies. Several Panel members recommended that EPA generally enhance the text discussions throughout the entire report that describe figures and tables. The

Panel also recommended that EPA s ynthesize/summarize this information and discuss the

i mportance of changes in percent c ontribution estimates over time or as a function of the low end

vs

. high end blood lead level s.

The Panel recommend ed that EPA prepare an uncertainty analysis on the re lationship between

blood lead and air lead levels/ slopes , and suggested that EPA demonstrate how a particular slope factor translates into a corresponding change in blood lead levels for particular scenarios under

the IEUBK model

. Regarding the log

- log, l og

- linear, and other model selection

, the Panel

recommended that EPA discuss the low end of the air lead ranges presented in the report and

discuss the magnitude of difference in estimates and representativeness of the statistical models applied to empirical data. The Panel also recommended that EPA discuss the measurement

errors for historical lead TSP measurements and how these errors affect the es timates of

air/blood lead levels and estimates of predicted blood lead from epidemiological data.

The Panel noted that EPA should enhance the discussion on sources of lead over time, how the changes in lead sources relate to change s in blood lead levels, and how reductions in source emissions from other than gasoline lead phase down have affected such blood lead levels, particularly in the vicinity of point sources. The Panel also noted that EPA should clarify several apparent contradictions within the Re port, including contradictions on the clearance rates for blood lead levels and the percentages of body burden in blood.

A Panel member suggested that EPA consider assessing lead data from other countries in

addition to the data EPA assessed from United States, Australia and N ew Zealand. Another Panel member suggested that EPA assess relative source contribution to reductions indicated in

blood lead level data. A few Panel members recommended that EPA’s exposure discussion

consider how lead particle size affect s exposure and absorption.

Chapter 5

– Integrated Health Effects

The Panel discussed the weight of evidence for endpoints within a major outcome category and the adequacy with which evidence has been integrated between toxicological and epidemiologic

studies. The Panel also discussed weight of evidence regarding blood and bone lead levels and

their link to various health effects described in epidemiologic studies

. The Panel agreed that

while t he revised draft for Chapter 5 incorporates a number of important improvements and was greatly improved , the Chapter should be revised in various areas.

The Panel recommended that EPA further assess each study reviewed to determine the strength

of the observed associat ions, and improve the transp arency in discussions regarding causal

determination. The Panel also recommended that EPA improve the clarity in the discussions on

behavioral outcomes.6

The Panel noted that homologies of animal behavior tests to human tests we re correct in some

cases but incorrect in others. The Panel noted that while the Chapter implied that there was

similar strength of literature relating lead effects on childhood cognition versus behavior , these literature are not similarly robust. The Panel recommended that the discussion on renal

outcomes be improved to address reverse causation, inconsistencies and uncertainties in the literature, and the lack of a mechanism for renal effects at blood lead levels below 15 μg/dL.

The Panel also su ggested that EPA clarify the exposure level s at which observed effects are likely to occur , and studies of null associations where they exist in the literature.

A Panel member noted that while there is incredibly rich literature for lead assessment , such literature significantly varies in quality and the Report should recognize limitations of literature referenced in the Report

. Another Panel member noted that it seemed that there were frequent sections of the Chapter that were incomprehensible due to cut ting and pasting of text , and recommended that a technical editor unassociated with the project review and revise the discussion to improve the clarity

.

Several Panel members expressed concern regarding the clinical A ttention D eficit H yperactivity

D isor der ( ADHD ) diagnosis described in the Report, noting it was inappropriate for EPA to tag

ADHD to an actual diagnosis without a supporting clinical study. Several Panel members also

noted that the chapter’s discussions on weight of evidence linking lead exposure to Intelligence Quotient ( IQ ) levels, self esteem, and various other behavioral , cognitive, and physical aspects

wa s confusing and should be improved

.

Chapter 6

– Potentially At

- Risk Populations

The Panel discussed the adequacy o f EPA’s revisions to clarify the consideration of potential at

risk populations, and recommend ed certain revisions to improve the characterization of key findings and scientific conclusions. The Panel also comment ed on whether EPA’s discussion on

some fac tors with limi ted evidence adequately reflected the knowledge base considered and strength of evidence available. The Panel agreed that the revised draft for Chapter 6 provided an improved discussion that better captures the intricacies associated with ‘a t risk’ populations , and

was more cohesive and better integrated than the earlier draft

.

The Panel noted that EPA should discern which risk factors are most critical in modify ing the magnitude of the impacts of lead exposure. The Panel cautioned that EPA should qualify the homology between maternal self

- esteem vs. stress imposed in rat models. The Panel also noted that EPA should reinterpret the Wang and Fowler study

.

Several Panel members recommended that EPA should impro ve the evaluation on whether gender is an important risk factor associated with lead exposure

. A Panel member also expressed concern that the Report noted that f luoridation of drinking water ca uses increase in lead exposure, and suggested that EPA reevalu ate this discussion and analysis.

Chapter 7

– Ecological Effects of Lead

The Panel discussed the improvements made to this chapter , and noted t his chapter was greatly improved through EPA’s reorganization efforts and addition of material. The Panel no ted that

EPA ’s clarification to sections, add ition of concise introductions, and inclusion of updated

information on lead exposure, toxicity, and effects to ecological receptors were helpful

. The7

Panel recommended that EPA further evaluate, summarize and integrate the data and information in the Report, and generate summary tables of media

- based exposure c oncentrations, dose

responses and modifying factors to assist in this analysis

. The Panel als o suggested that EPA express terms consistently throughout the report, and commented that s urvival, growth, and reproduction should be considered the most relevant endpoints, with sub

- organismal responses should be discussed in the context of secondary res ponses. The Panel further noted that EPA should clarify causal determinations of ecological responses.

A Panel member suggested that EPA include median concentrations in the data presentation, and

include caveats regarding interpretation of various pape rs presented or referenced in the Report

. A nother Panel member requested that EPA assess how ecosystem services prevent lead from being released into the environment , and the link between lead exposures and effects in terrestrial and aquatic systems. One Panel member suggested that EPA consider saltwater fish

data in its analysis

.

One Panel member suggested that EPA further clarify the relationship between concentration data to population effects , and another Panel member recommended that EPA list the most sensitive species affected by lead exposures

. Several Panel members recommended that EPA further clarify and reference the basis for endpoints discussed in the Report.

Preface, Preamble, Chapters 1 (Executive Summary) and 2 (Integrative Summary)

The Panel discussed the extent to which the discussion of the health effects evide nce in Chapters

1 and 2 reflected the revisions to Chapter 5. The Panel noted that EPA’s revised draft appropriately recognizes that adverse effects of lead in adults cannot confidently be imputed to contemporary blood lead concentrations. The Panel noted that these Chapters could be improved through a substantial revision that focuses on specific health endpoints as opposed to organ system effects, and assesses the weight o f the evidence for causation after systematically and critically evaluating the data . The Panel stated that the data should be evaluated for s trength of study designs , c onsistency in terms ; t he extent to which associations arising from chance, bias, or

co nfounding may be ruled out with reasonable confidence ; d emonstration of a dose

- response ; and b iol ogical plausibility at low dose.

The Panel also noted that the causation analysis for behavioral outcomes in children and renal

outcomes needed improvement, a nd commented that be havioral outcomes in children should be distinguished from effects on cognitive function . The Panel also commented that l ongterm (i.e.

, decades) of blood lead levels across the range of 10 to 25 μg/dL probably bear a causal

relationshi p to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular endpoints (increased BP, hypertension, CV mortality) in adults . The Panel further recommended that EPA should focus

t he discussion on public health significance of low level lead exposure towards the endpoi nts of cognitive decrements in children and adverse cardiovascular effects in adults . The Panel further

mentioned that a n increased risk of elevated lead exposure associated with fluoridation of public water supply systems has not been established, and r eference to such a relationship should be

omitted from the text in the absence of sufficient relevant evidence

One Panel member recommended that EPA clarify how to determine safe atmospheric concentrations of lead that people are exposed to

. Another Pane l member suggested that EPA

consider use of non

- peer reviewed studies on l ead use, consumption, and disposal since these topics are not generally well covered in peer reviewed studies. The Panel member also suggested that EPA not limit data that was asses sed in the report to certain geographic locations

,8

and that there were significant lead exposure occurring in countries other than the United States

. One Panel member noted that there is a statutory mandate that restricts the focus to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ) review process. EPA staff responded that t he Lead

ISA was drafted to support NAAQS , and that it wa s not a global science assessment although the

document would be used globally. A Panel member suggested that EPA add a page to acknowledge there are other efforts that EPA has been involved in that address lead exposure issues that were not covered through the NAAQS process

.

April 11, 2012

Dr. Zachary Pekar ( OAQPS ) made a brief opening statement and presented and discussed his

PowerPoint slides 6 that were provided on the meeting website. Questions raised by Panel

members were responded to by EPA

. One Panel member asked whether EPA would develop a qualitative or quantitative uncertainty assessment, and requested information on the scope of EPA’s aviation gasoline scenario. Dr. Pekar responded that EPA expected to develop a qualitative and potentially semi

- quantitative assessment during its assessment of additional

exposure pathways. Dr. Pekar also noted that the aviati on gasoline scenario would characterize urban exposures , and that various inhalation influences to blood lead levels to humans exposed near airports would be considered

.

Another Panel member asked whether EPA could differentiate whether the air pathway is minor relative to other pathways. Dr. Peka r responded that there was uncertainty regarding whether

soil lead levels result in increase s in the importance of ambient air risk. Dr. Murphy noted that

EPA is interested in impacts o f air lead , and that there were significant complexities associated with assessing risks associated with atmospheric deposition onto soils and crops.

The Panel discussed u ncertainties of Geometric Standard Deviation s (GSD) when estimating

blood lead conce ntration, and various factors that would influence the IEUBK model results

based on GSD.

Dr. Frey solicited requests from the public to make clarifying comments ; hearing no such requests, Dr. Frey opened the discussion to any other topics that the Panel w anted to raise. One

Panel member noted there is no substantial new evidence that would warrant EPA reassessment

of lead dose response levels related to IQ. Dr. Frey noted that EPA was developing new

a nalytical methods for ambient lead , which CASAC could provide advice on. He also noted that

a nother CASAC panel ( Air Monitoring and Methods Subcommittee

- AMMS) is better constituted to provide advice on ambient monitoring issues , and that the letter to the

Administrator providing CASAC advice on the second draft lead ISA could reflect this view

.

Summary of April 10 Discussions:

Dr. Frey projected onto the meeting screen a list of preliminary key summary points that Panel members drafted to summarize the April 10, 2012 meeting discussions 5 , and requested that Panel members who were lead discussants for each charge question discuss the preliminary key points. Dr. Frey asked the Panel to also consider whether the preliminary summary points responded to each charge question, and whether there were certain ke y points that should be included in the

letter to the Administrator. Mr. Hanlon noted these preliminary summary points would be posted onto the SAB meeting website soon after the meeting. The Panel discussed each set of preliminary key summary points, an d changes to each set of preliminary key summary points

were suggest ed. Dr. Frey requested that Lead Writers from the Panel take notes and keep track9

of suggested changes to the preliminary key summary points and incorporate these suggested changes into text that would comprise the draft CASAC report that would be developed after the meeting. Dr. Frey noted that the Panel should plan to send Aaron Yeow their updated individual Panel member preliminary comment s by April 25 th , and by May 2 , the Panel’s Lead Writers

should send Aaron draft responses to the charge questions and draft bullets for the cover letter

.

The Panel further discussed its recommendations regarding the use of design vs. performance

based sampler s, and outlined suggestions to move forward. The Panel also discussed which slope factor should be used in the ISA , and noted that it would be appropriate to provide a critique on EPA’s preferred slope factor(s) and an assess ment on the robustness of the literature that support those slope factor(s). The Panel further discussed causality and weight of evidence and relevant literature on those topics. The Panel generally noted that EPA’s c ausal

determination framework appeared reasonable , but that the text should be more transparent and

further and consistent evaluation of evidence of causation was recommended

.

The Panel also recommended that EPA particularly focus on revising Chapter 5 and suggested that EPA provide expert editing and text revis ions to characterize and clarify effects. The Panel

noted that EPA’s discussion on behavior al effects and attention span was superficially covered,

and recommended that EPA improve its assessment of behavioral function s

. The Panel noted it would consider which particular expertise ar eas were deficient in the current ISA

. The Panel also discussed additional recommendations regarding EPA’s discussion on ADHD , and further discussed its recommendations regarding the ISA draft text on fluoridation in water systems

The Panel noted that Chapter 7 should include a summary section that outlines the findings of this chapter, and noted that EPA should consider including more analysis in the appendix.

At 11:40 am, one Panel member experienced a m edical emergency , and the meeting was temporarily suspended. At 11:55 am, the Designated Federal Officer adjourned the meeting

, noting that Panel members would receive an email after the meeting that would outline next

steps

.

Respectfully Submitted: Certified as Accurate :

/ signed/ /signed/

Mr. Edward Hanlon D r. H. Christopher Frey, Chair Designated Federal Officer CASAC Lead Review Panel

NOTE AND D ISCLAIMER: The minutes of this public meeting reflect diverse ideas and suggestions offered by Panel member s during the course of deliberations within the meeting

. Such ideas, suggestions and deliberations do not necessarily reflect consensus advice from the

Panel member s. The reader is cautioned to not rely on the minutes to represent final, approved,

consensus advice and recommendations offered to t he Agency. Such advice and recommendations may be found in the final advisories, commentaries, letters or reports prepared and transmitted to the EPA Administrator following the public meetings or teleconferences

.10

Materials Cited

The following meeting materials are available on the CASAC website ( www.epa.gov/casac ) on the following CASAC Lead Review Panel website: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/bf498bd32a1c7fdf85257242006dd6cb/5a62d5e08354

305c8525796700537c 13!OpenDocument&Date=2012

- 04

- 10

1 Federal Register Notice a nnouncing the public meeting

2 Agenda for April 10

- 11 , 2012 p ublic meeting

3 EPA Presentation

- Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Lead

- Updates for Lead NAAQS Review Panel of the Clean Ai r Scientific Advisory Committee

4 EPA Presentation

- Present ation of Revisions to the Draft Integrated Science Assessment for

Lead

5 Preliminary list of key summary points from April 10 , 2012 meeting discussions

6 EPA Presentation

- E xposure and Risk Information in Policy Assessment11 ATTACHMENT A

– ROSTER



### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

CASAC Lead Review Panel

CHAIR

Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Professor, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

MEMBERS

Mr. George A. Allen, Senior Scientist, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) , Boston, MA

Dr. Herbert Allen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE

Dr. Richard Canfield, Senior Research Associate, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

D r. Deborah Cory

- Slechta, Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY

Dr. Cliff Davidson, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

Dr. P hilip E. Goodrum, Senior Consultant, Cardno ENTRIX, Syracuse, NY

Dr. Sean Hays, President, Summit Toxicology, Allenspark, CO

Dr. Philip Hopke, Bayard D. Clarkson Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical and

Biomolecular Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY

Dr. Chris Johnson, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering , Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

Dr. Susan Korrick, Assistant Professor of Medicine , Department of Medicine, Brigham and

Wo men's Hospital, Channing Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Dr. Michael Kosnett, Associate Clinical Professor, Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver,

CO

Dr. Roman Lanno, Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH12

Mr. Richard L. Poirot, Environmental Analyst, Air Pollution Control Division, Department of

Environmen tal Conservation, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury, VT

Dr. Joel G. Pounds, Laboratory Fellow, Cell Biology & Biochemistry, Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA

Dr. Michael Rabinowitz, Geochemist, Marine Biological Laboratory, Newport, RI

Dr. William Stubblefield, Senior Research Professor, Department of Molecular and Environmental Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Dr. Ian von Lindern, President, TerraGraphics Environmental Engin eering, Inc., Moscow, ID

Dr. Gail Wasserman, Professor of Clinical Psychology in Child Psychiatry, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY

Dr. Michael Weitzman, Professor, Pediatr ics; Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF

Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington , DC, Phone: 202

- 564

- 2050, Fax: 202

- 565

- 2098, (yeow.aaron@epa.gov)

Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, Phone:

202

- 564

- 2134, Fax: 202

- 565

- 2098, ( hanlon.edward@epa.gov )13 ATTACHMENT B

– Public Attendance

List of Members of the Public Who Attended or Requested Information for Calling into the Public Meeting is Provided Below:

April 10

- 11 , 2012

Name Affiliation
Bhave, Prakash EPA

Boreino, Craig ILZRO

Brown, James EPA

Cavendar, Kevin EPA

Dart, Andrew RTI

Datko, Laura EPA

Davis, Allen EPA

Dolpe, Rosalind ILZRO

Dzubow, Rebecca EPA

Farquharson, Chenise EPA

Hendrinson, Eric NRG

Hoyer, Marion EPA

Hubbell, Bryan EPA

Jacobs, Jeremy Greenwire

Kaushik, Surender EPA

Kirrane, Ellen EPA

Lassiter, Meredith EPA

Macey, Kristin Health Canada

McDow, Steve EPA

Meachan, Connie EPA

Murphy, Diedre EPA

Orlin, David EPA

Owens, Beth EPA

Patel, Molini EPA

Pekar, Zachary EPA14

Name Affiliation
Putzrath, Resha U

. S

. Navy

Rice, JoAnn EPA

Richmond

- Bryant, Jen EPA

Ross, Mary EPA

Smith, Travis EPA

Stanek, Lindsay EPA

Svendsgaard, David EPA

Tennant, Ginger EPA

Vandenberg, John EPA

Vanderpool, Robert EPA

Vinikoor

- Imler, Lisa EPA

Walker, Yvonne U

. S

. Navy

Walsh, Debra EPA

Wegman, Lydia EPA

Weinstock, Lewis EPA

Wilkie, Adrien EPA

Young, Brianna EPA