1

Summary Minutes of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Lead Review Panel 

Public Meeting, April 10-11, 2012

Date and Time: Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 8:30 am – 5:30 pm; Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 8:30 

am – 12:00 pm ET.

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

Carolina 27703

Purpose: The purpose of the April 10-11, 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 members (Drs. Sean Hays and Dr. Michael Weitzman) 

participated via teleconference.

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 Office
2

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 members 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 Register1and proceeded according to the meeting 

agenda2. A summary of the meeting follows.

April 10, 2012

Opening Statements and Welcome

Mr. Edward 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 stated 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 members of the public had 

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

comments. He noted that the SAB Staff Office has determined that there were no conflict-ofinterest or appearance of a lack of impartiality issues for any Panel members for this review. He 

also noted that minutes of the meeting were being taken to summarize discussions and action 

items in accordance with requirements under FACA. Dr. 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 themselves. 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 Chapter 3 and 

proceed from that point. Dr. Frey stated that Lead Discussants should plan to take notes during 
3

the 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 the 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 approximately 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 discuss the draft CASAC report that would subsequently be sent 

to the EPA Administrator.

EPA Presentations

Ms. Lydia Wegman, EPA OAQPS, made a brief opening statement and presented and discussed

her PowerPoint slides3(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 slides3(slides 4-6 and 7-12, respectively). One Panel member asked how 

ambient air was monitored at airports, and EPA responded that areas within the fenceline of 

airports 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 monitoring 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 slides3(slides 13-34). 

Several Panel members 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. 

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

Drs. John Vandenberg and Ellen Kirrane then presented and discussed their PowerPoint slides4 

(slides 1-5 and 6-29, respectively). Several Panel members asked various questions 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 could be more specific in 

identifying which CASAC advice and comments were 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 members 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 moved 
4

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 general, 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 expanded 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 Quality 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 EPA 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 analyses and results, and the appropriateness of applying these measures. 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 between 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 Chapter 4 discussion of exposures with Chapter 3 discussion on air measurements

(e.g., on the wood smoke topic). Regarding wood smoke, the Panel suggested that EPA discuss 

avoidable lead exposures 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) 

all data on lead size is useful since there were limited available lead data; b) improve the linkage 

between chapters 3 and 4; and c) provide additional details on how to develop a new TSP lowvolume lead FRM sampler.

Several Panel members also suggested that EPA include more details on sources, fate, and 

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

balance distillation. One Panel member suggested that EPA list the top twenty or so largest 

sources of lead and note where airports fit in that listing. 

Chapter 4 – Exposure, Toxicokinetics and Biomarkers 
5

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 additional 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 include a table that summarizes 

information presented in this section and distinguish between 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 synthesize/summarize this information and discuss the 

importance of changes in percent contribution estimates over time or as a function of the low end 

vs. high end blood lead levels.

The Panel recommended that EPA prepare an uncertainty analysis on the relationship 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, log-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 estimates 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 changes 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 Report, 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 New 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 affects 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 the 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 associations, and improve the transparency 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 were 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 suggested that EPA clarify the exposure levels 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 cutting 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 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder (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 

was confusing and should be improved. 

Chapter 6 – Potentially At-Risk Populations 

The Panel discussed the adequacy of EPA’s revisions to clarify the consideration of potential atrisk populations, and recommended certain revisions to improve the characterization of key 

findings and scientific conclusions. The Panel also commented on whether EPA’s discussion on 

some factors with limited 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 ‘at 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 modifying 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 improve 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 fluoridation of drinking water causes increase in lead 

exposure, and suggested that EPA reevaluate this discussion and analysis.

Chapter 7 – Ecological Effects of Lead 

The Panel discussed the improvements made to this chapter, and noted this chapter was greatly 

improved through EPA’s reorganization efforts and addition of material. The Panel noted that 

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

information on lead exposure, toxicity, and effects to ecological receptors were helpful. The 
7

Panel recommended that EPA further evaluate, summarize and integrate the data and information 

in the Report, and generate summary tables of media-based exposure concentrations, doseresponses and modifying factors to assist in this analysis. The Panel also suggested that EPA 

express terms consistently throughout the report, and commented that survival, growth, and 

reproduction should be considered the most relevant endpoints, with sub-organismal responses 

should be discussed in the context of secondary responses. 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 papers presented or referenced in the Report. 

Another 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 evidence 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 of the evidence for causation after systematically and 

critically evaluating the data. The Panel stated that the data should be evaluated for strength of 

study designs, consistency in terms; the extent to which associations arising from chance, bias, or 

confounding may be ruled out with reasonable confidence; demonstration of a dose-response; 

and biological plausibility at low dose.

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

outcomes needed improvement, and commented that behavioral outcomes in children should be 

distinguished from effects on cognitive function. The Panel also commented that longterm (i.e.,

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

relationship to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular endpoints (increased BP, 

hypertension, CV mortality) in adults. The Panel further recommended that EPA should focus 

the discussion on public health significance of low level lead exposure towards the endpoints of 

cognitive decrements in children and adverse cardiovascular effects in adults. The Panel further 

mentioned that an increased risk of elevated lead exposure associated with fluoridation of public 

water supply systems has not been established, and reference 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 Panel member suggested that EPA 

consider use of non-peer reviewed studies on lead 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 assessed 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 the Lead 

ISA was drafted to support NAAQS, and that it was 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 slides6that 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 aviation 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. Pekar responded that there was uncertainty regarding whether 

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

EPA is interested in impacts of air lead, and that there were significant complexities associated 

with assessing risks associated with atmospheric deposition onto soils and crops.

The Panel discussed uncertainties of Geometric Standard Deviations (GSD) when estimating 

blood lead concentration, 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 wanted 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 

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

another 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 discussions5, 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 key 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, and changes to each set of preliminary key summary points 

were suggested. Dr. Frey requested that Lead Writers from the Panel take notes and keep track 
9

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 comments by April 25th, 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. performancebased samplers, 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 assessment 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 causal

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 revisions to characterize and clarify effects. The Panel 

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

and recommended that EPA improve its assessment of behavioral functions. The Panel noted it 

would consider which particular expertise areas 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 medical 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 Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair

Designated Federal Officer CASAC Lead Review Panel

NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: The minutes of this public meeting reflect diverse ideas and 

suggestions offered by Panel members during the course of deliberations within the meeting. 

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

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

consensus advice and recommendations offered to the 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

305c8525796700537c13!OpenDocument&Date=2012-04-10

1

Federal Register Notice announcing the public meeting

2 Agenda for April 10-11, 2012 public meeting

3

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

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

4

EPA Presentation - Presentation 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 - Exposure and Risk Information in Policy Assessment
11

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

Dr. 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. Philip 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 

Women'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, OH
12

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

Environmental 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 Engineering, 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, Pediatrics; 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 EPA
14

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