P. 1



# OAR Box 1113 Prepped byRyanDugan



### Document

Number: 

# 5 ) ll-F-4 b Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 2

Printed 4/16/200812:45:21 PM Sheet 5of 139P. 2 

# ^k^-^T'^'^ *

"

TRANSCRIP

T O F PROCEEDINGS

7 0 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y SCIENC E ADVISORYBOARD

AND CLEA NAI RSCIENTIFI C ADVISORYCOMMITTE E JOINT STUDYGROU P ONLEA D \ PUBLI C MEETING

VOLUM E2O F2

Pages : 1-13 7 ' 

### Place : Researc hTrianlg e Park , Nort hCarolin e Date : Apri l 28 , 198 9



# O HERITAGEREPORTINGCORPORATION 122 tL Stm tN.W„ Suit

e it t Washington, D.C . 2M H ttmt\ *I«L__M «P. 3

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO NAGENC Y

SCIENC E ADVISOR YBOAR D

AND CLEA N AI RSCIENTIFI C ADVISORYCOMMITTE E JOIN T STUDYGROU P ON LEAD PUBLI C MEETING

VOLUM E 2 O F 2 PAGE S 1 - 13 7

At Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Friday , Apri l 28 , 1989 .

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 4

APPEARANCE S Chairman : DR . ARTHU RUPTON , Ne wYor k Universit yMedica l Ct r Departmen t o f Environmenta l Medicin e 55 0 Firs t Avenu e Roo mM-S-B-21 3 Ne wYork , Ne wYor k 1001 6 Staf f Director : DR . DONAL D BARNE S Executiv e Committe e Scienc e Advisor yBoar d Member s o f Pane l DR . GAR YCARLSO N Departmen t o f Pharmacolog y an dToxicolog y Schoo l o f Pharmac y Purdu e Universit y Wes t Lafayette , Indian a 4790 9 DR . J . JULIANCHISOLM , JR . Associat e Professo r John s Hopkin s Schoo l o f Medicin e Franci s Scot t Ke yMedica l Cente r 494 0 Easter nAvenu e Buildin g G , Roo m22 4 Baltimore , Marylan d 2122 4 DR . ROBER T FRAN K Professo r o f Environmenta l Healt hScience s Th e John s Hopkin s Schoo l o f Hygien e an dPubli c Healt h 61 5 Nort hWolf e Stree t Baltimore , Marylan d2120 5 DR . PAU L B . HAMMON D Departmen t o f Environmenta l Healt h Universit yo f Cincinnat i Medica l Cente r Ketterin g Laborator y 32 2 3 Ede nAvenu e Cincinnati , Ohi o 45267-005 6

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 5

DR . TIMOTH YLARSO N Environmenta l Engineerin g an dScienc e Progra m Departmen t o f Civi l Engineerin g Universit yo f Washingto n Seattle , Washingto n9819 5 DR . IA NVO NLINDERN , Presiden t Terragrahic s Environmenta l Engineerin g 12 1 Sout hJackso n Moscow , Idah o 83384 3 DR . MORTO NLIPPMANN Professo r Institut e o f Environmenta l Medicin e Ne wYor k Universit yMedica l Cente r Tuxedo , Ne wYor k 1098 7 DR . KATHRY NR . MAHAFFE Y Nationa l Institut e o f Environmenta l Healt hScience s Universit yo f Cincinnat i Medica l Ctr . ML-5 6 322 3 Ede nAvenu e Cincinnati , Ohi o 4526 7 DR . PAU L MUSHA K Consultan t an d Adjunc t Professo r Universit yo f Nort hCarolin a Chape l Hill , Nort hCarolin a 2751 4 DR . MICHAE L B . RABINOWIT Z Investigator ^ Marin e Biologica l Laborator y Wood' s Hole , Massachusett s 0254 3 DR . ELLE NSILBERGEL D Environmenta l Defens e Fun d 161 6 P . Street , N.W . Washington , D . C . 2003 6 DR . BERNAR D WEIS S Divisio no f Toxicolog y Departmen t o f EHS C Schoo l o f Medicin e Universit yo f Rocheste r Rochester , Ne wYor k 1464 2 Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(2(V ) r,28-488 8P. 6

DR . JEROM E J . WESOLOWSKI , Chie f Ai r andIndustria l Hygien e Laborator y Californi a Departmen t o f Healt h 215 1 Berkele yWa y Berkeley , Californi a 9470 4 Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Staf f Participant s DR . LESTE RD . GRAN T DR . J . MICHAE L DAVI S Mr . JOHN

HAINE S Mr . BRUC E JORDA

N Mr . JEF F COHE N DR . JI MCOGLIAN O

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P. 7

1 WELCOM E AN D ADMINISTRATIV E NOTE S 2 DR . BARNES : I f w e ca ngathe r ourselve s around the 3 table , we'l l begin , s o w e ca nfinish . 4 We'r e convenin g th e secon dsessio no f th e Wor k 5 Stud yGrou p o nLea d fo r th e Scienc e Advisor yBoar do f th e 6 USEPA . 7 W e me t yesterda yan dtalke dabou t earlie r issue s 8 relate d t o th e Clea nAi r Subjec t Advisor yCommitte e and 9 thei r revie wo f th e staf f pape r o f th e Offic e o f Ai r 1 0 Qualit yPlannin g and Standards . 1 1 Toda yth e sessio ni s goin g t o b e chaire dbyDr . 1 2 Ar t Upton , wh o i s a Co-Chai r o f th e Join t StudyGrou p o n 1 3 Lea d o f th e Scienc e Advisor yBoard . H e i s als o th e Chairma n 1 4 o f th e Environmenta l Healt hCommitte e o f th e Scienc e 1 5 Advisor yBoard . An dh e come s t o u s a s a forme r hea do f th e 1 6 Nationa l Cance r Institute . 1 7 Th e agend a fo r today' s activitie s ar e availabl e o n 1 8 th e side , i nsomewha t crypti c fashion . W e hav e a serie s o f 1 9 speaker s fromEPA . W e hav e on e publi c commen t tha t we'r e 2 0 awar e of , an d w e hav e a serie s o f issue s th e Chai r wil l cal l 2 1 t o ou r attentio ni na fe wmoments . 2 2 B ywa yo f administrativ e work , a shee t i s goin g 2 3 aroun d t o member s o f th e Stud yGroup , askin g yo nwhe nyou r 2 4 flight s ar e schedule dt o leave . W e nee dt o coordinat e som e 2 5 semblanc e o f orde r i ntransferrin g yo u t bth e airport . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P. 8

6 1 With , unles s ther e ar e othe r administrativ e detail s t o dea l 2 wit ha t thi s point , I'l l tur nth e meetin g ove r t o Dr . 3 Upton . 4 DR . UPTON : Than k yo u ver ymuc hDon . You'll . 5 recal l w e reviewe d th e chart s fro mth e Stud yGrou p 6 yesterday . Le t m e jus t revie wi t on e mor e tim e t o sort , o f 7 se t th e stag e fo r discussio nwe'l l hav e thi s morning . 8 Firs t ite mi nth e char t wa s t o revie wth e weigh t 9 o f evidence , classificatio no f lea dan dlea dcompoun di n 1 0 carcinogens . The nyou'l l recall , w e addresse dtha t issu e o n 1 1 th e 30t ho f March , hear d agai na nupdat e yesterda ybyDr . 1 2 Cogliano . 1 3 Th e secon dite mi nth e char t wa s evaluat e th e 1 4 supplemen t t o 198 6 addendum , th e 198 6 Ai r Qualit yCriteri a 1 5 Documen t fo r Lead . Th e documen t wa s entitle d"Revie wo f th e 1 6 Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s fo r Lead " Th e tex t 1 7 consiste d o f scientifi c an d technica l informatio nandw e 1 8 discusse d tha t yesterday . 1 9 Th e thir ditem , t o revie wth e consistenc yo f th e 2 0 propose d regulation s fo r lea di ndrinkin g water . Tlie 2 1 previousl yreviewe dandapprove ddat a studie s andanalysis . 2 2 An d fourth , othe r relevan t issue s whic hma yb e 2 3 identified , byth e Join t Stud yGroup , CASAC , o r th e HA M 2 4 Executiv e Committee . 2 5 So , -I thin k toda ywe'r e movin g int o th e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 "P. 9

7 1 consideratio no f th e lea d relate dexposur e andhealt h 2 effect s issues , and cu t cros s organizationa l line s withi n 3 th e agency . 4 Andth e firs t presentationthi s mornin gi s byJea n 5 Briski nfro

m the Offic e o f Drinkin gWater . 6 DR . BRISKIN : Goo dmorning . I' dlik e t o g o ove r 7 wit hyo utoday a littl e bi t abou t th e "Saf e Drinkin gWate r 8 Act " sinc e it' s ver y differen t tha nth e "CleanAi r Act " an d 9 explai na littl e bi t abou t ho w we se t standards , unde r tha t 1 0 law . Tal kabou t th e propose dgoa l fo r leadi ndrinkin g 1 1 water , whic hi s a non-enforceabl e goal . Andthe ntal k abou t 1 2 th e enforceabl e standar di neac ho f thos e cases . 1 3 I'l l b e goin gthroughplace s wher e w e hav e a Jot . 1 4 o f problem

usingth e ai r qualit y criteri a documen t an dth e 1 5 OAQP S staf f pape r for assessment s o f healt heffect s Irom 1 6 leadan

dhealt hrisk s fro m exposur e t o lead . 1 7 Unde r th e "Saf e Drinkin gWate r Act " we se t 1 8 standard s for a tw o par t sequence . First , we se t a maximu m 1 9 contaminat e leve l goal . Thi s i s a concentratio no f lea di n 2 0 water , whic hi s a non-enforceabl e healt hbase dgoa l fo r 2 1 drinkin gwater . Th e mor e I talke dabou t settin ga standar d 2 2 wit hno know nan danticipate dadvers e effect s an dI'U . be 2 3 gettin gint o healt heffect s abou t that . 2 4 Secondste pafte r havingse t a goal , i s t o se t a n 25 . enforceabl e standar dcalle d" Th e Nationa l Primar yDrinkin g Heritag e Reportin gCorporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 0

n 1 Wate r Regulation " andwe'r e suppose dt o se t tha t 2 enforceabl e standar da s clos e t o th e goa l a s feasibl e fo r 3 larg e wate r systems . Thi s i s a technolog ybase dstandard . 4 W e propose d th e standard s i nAugus t o f 1988 . W e ar e workin g 5 righ t no wo nfinalizin g thos e standards . 6 Th e agenc yha s a polic ywhic hha s bee nestablishe d 7 throug hfou r administrator s o nstudyin g maximu mcontaminat e 8 leve l goal s a t zer o fo r substance s whic har e rate da s clas s 9 Ao r clas s B 2 carcinogens . 1 0 It' s bee na polic ytha t ha s bee nuphel di ncour t 1 1 whe nchallenge d recentl ybypeopl e o nbot hsides . An dpar t 1 2 o f th e rational e fo r tha t i s th e ide a o f protectin g agains t 1 3 thing s wher e ther e mayb e n o threshold . 1 4 I nth e cas e o f cancer , tha t ma yo r ma yno t b e th e 1 5 case , bu t wit hou r inabilit yt o loo k fo r a threshol dand 1 6 actuall yse e a threshold , a t least , tha t we'r e confiden t in . 1 7 Tha t ha s le d u s t o als o suppor t th e nationa l contaminat e 1 8 leve l o f .0 . 1 9 Ou r polic ygoa l i s t o minimiz e th e exposur e o f 2 0 lea d t o al l sources . W e se e drinkin g wate r a s bein g on e 2 1 contributo r toward s tota l exposure . An dw e wan t drinkin g 2 2 wate r t o contribut e a minima l amoun t toward s tota l expusur 1 -' , 2 3 becaus e peopl e i nth e U S toda yhav e bloo dlea dlevel s tha t 2 4 ar e associate d wit hadvers e healt heffect s a t th e highe r <-"MI H 2 5 an d ther e ar e man ypeopl e wh o hav e bloo dlea dlevel s wh o ar e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 "P.1 1

. 1 nea r th e rang e o f possibl yexperiencin g adve_:s e healt h 2 effect s already . W e se e tha t drinkin g wate r should , a s a 3 goal , a s a health-base dgoal , contribut e a s littl e a s 4 possibl e t o existin g bod yworks . 5 I mentione d th e classificatio no f lea da s a B 2 6 probabl e huma ncarcinogen . Thi s grou p ha s reviewe dtha t and 7 I believ e concurre do ntha t finding . An dtha t reaso nalone , 8 on e woul d ask , i s sufficientl yth e administrator' s polic y 9 fo r th e las t fou r administrator s t o establis hmaximu m 1 0 contaminat e goa l o f zer o fo r contaminates . 1 1 An d then , a s I go t t o th e occurrenc e o f lo wleve l 1 2 exposur e effects , fo r whic hw e can' t reall yidentif ya 1 3 clea r threshold , fo r whic hther e ar e n o risk s o f advers e 1 4 effects . An d w e believ e we'v e bee nconsisten t wit hth e "Ai r 1 5 Qualit yCriteri a Document " addendu man dsupplemen t i nou r 1 6 characterizatio no f tha t effec t o f - - w e thin k tha t w e hav e 1 7 interprete d tha t properly . 1 8 Ou r enforceabl e standar di s somethin g els e again . 1 9 W e hav e tw o possibilitie s fo r controllin g lea di ndrinkin g 2 0 water . On e i s calle d a maximu mcontaminat e level , that' s a 2 1 performanc e standard . W e specif ya concentratio no f lea di n 2 2 wate r tha t th e wate r supplie r mus t meet . 2 3 Th e othe r possibilit yi s a corrosio ncontro l 2 4 treatmen t techniqu e whic hi s a noperatin g standard . Inthi s 2 5 cas e w e tel l th e wate r supplier ; instal l a certai ntyp e o f Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(207 ) 628-488 8P.1 2

1 treatmen t t o contro l thi s contaminate , andi f yo u instal l 2 tha t typ e o f treatment , n o matte r wha t leve l yo u ge t I nthe 3 en d w e expec t i t t o b e muc hlowe r tha t wha t w e starte dwit h 4 woul d b e considere d sufficient . 5 Ou r enforceabl e standard s ar e technolog ybased . 6 The ynee d t o b e feasibl e fo r larg e wate r suppliers . 7 whe nw e se t th e standards , i t i s a technolog y 8 base d standard , i t i s a s clos e t o th e la wa s w e ca nget . I t 9 i s no t immediatel ya healt hbase dstandard . Bu t whe n 1 0 evaluatin g alternativ e standard s t o se e ho wwel l the yvary , 1 1 w e ga d a se t fo r equall yfeasibl e standard s fo r larg e wate r 1 2 systems . T o se e ho wclos e t o tha t goa l w e get , yo u migh t 1 3 evaluat e i nterm s o f th e non-cance r healt heffect , becaus e 1 4 fo r a enforceabl e regulations , w e agre e wit hth e Ai r 1 5 Office' s evaluatio na s t o know ncance r healt heffect s ar e 1 6 ou r greates t regulator yconcern . 1 7 An d s o w e woul d evaluat e th e option s tha t w e 1 8 propos e i nterm s o f number s o f childre nan dforce s o f 1 9 childre nwhos e bloo dlea d level s woul dremai nabove , woul d 2 0 b e droppe d belo wa bloo d lea drang e o f concern , an dunti l 2 1 no wth e agenc ycoul d playin g wit hth e rang e o f 10-1 5 2 2 microgram s pe r deciliter , whic hi s consisten t wit hth e I.'Mir , 2 3 Criteri a Documen t Supplement . 2 4 Her e th e agenc yi s directe dbya wor k grou p t o g o 2 5 i na differen t rang e and thu s s o tha t w e woul do f cours e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) G20-488 8P.1 3

.1 . .1 . 1 adjus t ou r analysis . 2 S o t o summarize , th e maximu mcontaminat e goa l i s a 3 nonenforceabl e healt hbas e goal . It' s no t a goa l fo r bloo d 4 lead . It' s a goa l fo r drinkin g wate r concentrations . An d 5 it' s onl ypurpos e reall yi s t o serv e a s a backstop . Tha t 6 i s th e minimu m standar dtha t w e woul dset . 7 Ther e i s the na technolog ybase dstandar dwhic hw e 8 woul d evaluat e i nterm s o f non-cance r healt heffects , whe n 9 we'r e lookin g a t differen t options . 1 0 Ther e ar e a limite d numbe r o f copie s o f th e 1 1 Federa l Registe r Notic e available , tha t I brough t wit hm e 1 2 tha t describe s ou r proposa l i ndetai l an dI ca npoin t t o 1 3 pag e number s i nth e preambl e tha t explain s ou r assessmen t o f 1 4 healt heffects , ou r rational e fo r th e maximu mcontaminat e 1 5 leve l goals , an d ou r discussio no f ho ww e woul dcalculat e 1 6 benefit s o f an ypropose dalternativ e standards , and I' db e 1 7 happ yt o answe r anyquestions . 1 8 DR . UPTON : Than k yo u Dr . Briskin . Comments ? 1 9 Questions ? 2 0 DR . CARLSON : Yes . Isn' t th e pea k goa l involve d 2 1 i nth e lead , th e abilit yt o measur e th e lead ? 2 2 DR . BRISKIN : Whe nw e se t a nenforceabl e standard , 2 3 w e conside r ho wclos e t o th e goal , wate r supplier s oa ngo t 2 4 th e water . Whe nw e us e a maximu mcontaminat e leve l t o 2 5 regulate , th e maximu mcontaminat e level

- need s t o b e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.1 4 r

1 2 1 measurabl e an d to , ands o on e o f th e technica l feasibilit y 2 factor s tha t w e conside r i s ca nb e wate r suppl ymeasure , 3 th e contaminate d water . T o mak e a nassessmen t o f that , w e 4 com e up wit hth e notio no f a practica l quantitatio nlimi t 5 fo r PQL . Th e practica l quantitatio nlimi t i s th e leve l no t 6 th e detectio nlimit , bu t rathe r th e leve l wher e w e ar e 7 confiden t w e ar e abl e t o quantif yth e amoun t o f lea di n 8 water , no t jus t tel l tha t it' s there , bu t w e ar e ver y 9 confiden t tha t fiv e part s pe r billio no f te npart s pe r 1 0 billio na s oppose dt o som e othe r level . 1 1 That' s a polic ybase danalysi s an dthat' s on e o f 1 2 th e technica l factor s tha t w e consider . 1 3 DR . CARLSON : Tha t wil l probabl ypla ya rol e i n 1 4 th e lea d level . 1 5 DR . BRISKIN : O r a maximu mcontaminat e leve l woul d 1 6 b e on e o f th e thing s tha t w e woul dconsider . 1 7 DR . UPTON : Ward . 1 8 WARD : You'v e made ' i t ver yclea r tha t you'r e 1 9 talkin g abou t th e concentratio na s th e purveyo r o f wate r a s 2 0 t o th e - - doe s tha t mea ntha t th e wate r sampl e remain s i n 2 1 th e stream ? Obviousl yon e o f th e concern s abou t lead , I s 2 2 th e agin g lea d solde r i nth e homeowner s o r apartmen t hous e 2 3 suppl ysystem . An dobviousl yyo u don' t hav e anyregulator y 2 4 authorit yove r tha t so , - - wher e doe s regulator yauthorit y 2 5 stop , whe nyou'r e considerin g lea di nth e drinkin g water , Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-408 8P.1 5

1 and wha t d o yo u d o abou t depositorie s tha t lea dget s i nthe 2 water , betwee nth e suppliers ' responsibilit yan dth e actua l 3 path ? 4 DR . BRISKIN : Unde r th e Stat e Drinkin g Wate r Act , 5 w e believ e tha t w e ca nhol d wate r supplier s responsibl e fo r 6 thing s unde r thei r control . 7 Althoug hth e wate r supplie r can' t directl y 8 contro l th e existenc e o f lea d quantit yinsid e hi s ow nhouse , 9 the yca ncontro l th e existenc e o f lea di nplumbin g unde r 1 0 thei r controlle d wate r main s distributio nsystems . An dthe y 1 1 ca ncontro l th e corrosivit yo f th e water , whic hi s ana.1.mus t 1 2 equall yimportan t facto r i ndeterminin g lea dlevel s tha t w e 1 3 tap . 1 4 Unde r ou r propose d rule , w e propos e a tw o par t 1 5 standar d fo r th e enforceabl e part . W e propos e tha t wate r 1 6 supplier s nee d a maximu mcontaminat e leve l o f 5 part s pe r 1 7 billion , measure da t th e entr ypoint s o f distributio ns o 1 8 tha t i nth e rar e cas e wher e ther e migh t b e lea d 1 9 contaminatin g th e source , th e wate r supplie r woul db e 2 0 require d t o remov e th e lea d fro mtha t source , befor e 2 1 streamin g th e water . 2 2 O r tryin g lea da s a corrosio nby-product , yo u 2 3 propos e a treatmen t technique , s o tha t th e wate r supplie r 2 4 woul d b e require d t o minimiz e th e corrosivit yo f th e wate r 2 5 toward s lead . If , a t tli e tap , lea d exceede d a naverag e <> l Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.1 6

1. 4 1 1 0 part s pe r billio no r i f th e p H o f th e wate r wa s les s than 2 8 , p H bein g a surrogat e fo r th e corrosivit yo f th e water . 3 Righ t no wwe'r e re-evaluatin g tha t issu e and 4 possibl yconsiderin g man yo f th e alternative s tha t w e aske d 5 yo u t o commen t o namon g the man dtha t i s th e outle t ta p 6 whic hwoul d leav e th e wate r supplie r fre e t o choos e th e 7 metho d o f treatmen t t o mee t th e standar da t tli e tap . 8 DR . UPTON : I think , Dr . Hammond . 9 DR . HAMMOND : D o yo u hav e th e authorit yt o contro l 1 0 th e p H o f th e wate r i nth e reservoir ? 1 1 DR . BRISKIN : Wha t w e se e th e wate r supplie r doin g 1 2 i s controllin g th e corrosivit yo f th e wate r tha t the y 1 3 deliver . Ar e th e wate r supplier s fre e t o d o tha t i nanywa y 1 4 the ychoose ? I believ e tha t i t wouldn' t b e recognize da s a 1 5 goo d engineerin g practic e t o contro l th e p H i nreservoi r - - 1 6 DR . HAMMOND : (Interposing ) Wel l le t m e — 1 7 DR . BRISKIN : —a s fa r a s th e drinkin g wate r qualit y 1 8 goes . 1 9 DR . HAMMOND : A t th e poin t o f delivery , whereve r tha t 2 0 is . 2 1 DR . BRISKIN : Yeah , the , w e prefe r a treatmen t 2 2 techniqu e wher e th e wate r supplie r i s abl e t o choos e th e 2 3 bes t combinatio no f corrosio ncontro l practice s tha t hav e 2 4 found fo r wate r characteristics . Wha t w e foun di s tha t 2 5 wate r supplier s var yimmensel yacros s th e country . Wate r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.1 7

1 5 1 chemistr yi s rathe r complicate d a s fa r a s th e varie d 2 equilibrium

wit hth e carbonat e system s ands o forth . Th e 3 wate r supplier s find themselve s balancin g corrosio ncontrol . 4 wit hconcern s abou t —andwit hmakin g sur e tha t eac h 5 sectio ni s sufficien t t o assur e goo dmicrobiologica l 6 qualitie s i nwater . 7 An d s o w e se e p H adjustment , operatin g adjustments , 8 an d us e o f corrosio ninhibitors , eithe r alon e o r i n 9 combination , a s bein g th e genera l strategy . It' s up t o eac h 1 0 loca l wate r supplier s t o determin e th e combinatio ntha t 1 1 will , fo r thei r particula r wate r qualit yandlea dlevel s a t 1 2 th e tap . 1 3 DR . UPTON : Dr . Wesolowsk i an dthe nDr . Silbergeld . 1 4 DR . WESOLOWSKI : I though t I hear dyo u sa ytha t 1 5 alon g th e 5 part s pe r billio na t th e distributio nsourc e 1 6 wit h1 0 part s pe r billio na t th e tap , s o wha t i s th e 1 7 rational e fo r developin g lea d leve l exposur e wit hdifferen t 1 8 numbers ? 1 9 DR . BRISKIN : I nth e cas e o f th e remova l o f lea d 2 0 fro m

water , w e findtha t th e technolog ydat a wil l use do n 2 1 somethin g lik e revers e osmosi s o r i nexchang e i s abl e t o 2 2 remov e lea d dow nt o th e practica l quantitatio nwhich , i n 2 3 thi s case , wil l b e fiv e part s pe r billion . S o that' s a s 2 4 clos e a s - - t o tha t goa l a s zero , whic hi s feasible . 2 5 I nth e cas e o f th e corrosio ncontro l treatmen t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 8

l 6 

### 1 technique , the averag e o f 1 0 i s a trigge r fo r treatment . I t 2 i s no t a

nenforceabl e standard . It' s a indicatio no f th e 3 constructio nlea d coming ou t o f peoples ' wate r tha t th e 4 corrosivit yneed s t o b e controlled . 5 Th e waytha t the system woul d wor k is , the wate r 6 supplie r measure s lead a t the ta p among highris k houses , 7 house s tha t hav e ne wlead-solde r whic hha s bee nshow nt o 8 produc e mor e lead thanolde r lea d solde r o r lea

d plumbing o r 9 lead servic e connections . I f th e averag e among thos e hig h 1 0 ris k taps , no t jus t an yvalu e wa s greate r than1 0 o r pH wa s 1 1 les s than8 had mor e thanfive percen t o f the taps , the nthe 1 2 wate r supplie r woul d b e require d t o appl yt o the stat e fo r 1 3 approva l o f treatment . Th e treatmen t pla ni s a nenforceabl e 

### 1 4 schedul e wit hstep s tha t th e wate r supplie r wil l take t o 1 5 minimiz e o r prov e t o th e stat e tha t i t ha s alread yminimize d 1 6 lead level s a t the tap . I nsome case s the minimu mmigh t be 1 7 muc hlowe r thanth e averag e o f 10 . Bu t i nothe r cases , du e 1 8 t o th e characteristic s o f th e loca l plumbing , i t mayno t be 1 9 possibl e t o showth e wate r supplie r t o mee t anaverag e o f 2 0 10 . Wha t the fir mneed s t o sho wi s tha t a wate r supplie r 2 1 ha s minimize d th e lea d level s a t hig

hris k taps , whateve r 2 2 tha t minimu

m is . An

d the wate r supplie r woul d probabl y 2 3 star t of f doing a pilo t forma t typ e o f grou p stud yI nterms 2 4 o f typ e o f treatmen t i ntha t adjustabl e scal e t o showtha t 2 5 thing s ar e operating efficiently .

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 9

.1. 7 1 DR . UPTON : Dr . Silbergel dandDr . Chisolm . 2 DR . SILBERGELD : I gues s what' s kin do f worryin g 3 i s a s yo u —fro mwha t you'v e sai dJean , andthinkin g abou t 4 this , it' s har d t o figur e ou t wher e ther e reall yi s a clea r 5 signa l i nterm s o f th e numbe r bein g give nt o guid e action . 6 Becaus e i t als o seem s t o b e generatin g a kin do f wate r 7 treatmen t system , whic hi s neve r — a t n o poin t i s ther e 8 reall ya backsto p tha t say s a t thi s leve l o f lea d 9 concentratio nsomethin g ha s t o happen . Analogous , sa yt o 1 0 wha t yo u migh t d o a t a supe r pump sight , wher e a t som e poin t 1 1 peopl e ste p i nandprovid e alternativ e wate r supplies , a s 1 2 th e mos t drasti c and dramati c remedy . So , I' ma littl e 1 3 concerne d abou t tha t fro mth e scientifi c poin t o f view . 1 4 Wha t worrie s m e her e i s that , obviousl yyo u ar e caugh t to , 1 5 int o a proble m wher e ther e i s a privat e individua l 1 6 component , whic hrelate s wha t goe s o ninsid e peoples ' 1 7 houses . Whic hi s probabl yup t o lawyer s t o decid e wha t w e 1 8 ca nan d canno t do . 1 9 Bu t jus t fro ma scientifi c publi c healt haspect , 2 0 wha t worrie s m e her e i s tha t that' s providin g a barrie r t o 2 1 information . I t ma yb e ver yimportan t fo r publi c healt h 2 2 people , an d fo r individua l physician s takin g car e o f 2 3 children , t o kno wwha t th e source s o f lea dexposur e are . 2 4 I f a pediatricia nha s a chil dwh o come s i nwit ha 2 5 bloo d lea d o f 20 , an dth e hous e doesn' t hav e anylea dpain ! Heritag e Reportin g Corporation '

(202 ) 620-488 0P.2 0

1 i nit , th e hous e i s no t nea r a lea dsmelter , ther e woul d 2 obviously , i f th e pediatricia ntake s t o hear t th e 3 recommendation s o f th e America nAcademy , h e o r sh e i s goin g 4 t o b e lookin g fo r tha t preventabl e source , becaus e that' s 5 th e victi mo f th e academy . G o findtha t sourc e and 6 intradic t betwee nth e chil dan dth e source , becaus e there' s 7 n o therap yt o b e give nhere . 8 An d wha t you'r e doin g bythi s system , i t seem s t o 9 me , wha t worrie s me , i s makin g i t ver yhar dfo r tha t 1 0 pediatrician , o r fo r th e publi c healt hdepartment , o na 1 1 large r scale , t o ge t a sens e o f what , i f drinkin g wate r 1 2 migh t b e th e sourc e fo r tha t chil do r fo r group s o f childre n 1 3 bythi s ver yelaborat e averagin g techniqu e an db ystayin g 1 4 awa yfrom , really , wha t War dsaid , whic hi s w e al l kno wtha t 1 5 th e lea d i s th e proble ma t th e tap , andw e kno wwher e we'r e 1 6 goin g t o find i t i s bysamplin g a t th e tap , an dtha t a 1 7 syste mtha t isn' t buil t toward s th e primar ypurpos e o f 1 8 findin g ou t what' s goin g int o peopl e fro mth e tap , i s no t 1 9 goin g t o b e ver yusefu l fo r publi c healt hplannin g o r fo r 2 0 individua l management . 2 1 W e hav e t o sit e al l th e lega l andothe r problem s 2 2 wit hwha t yo u guy s hav e bee nproposing . Thi s i s wha t 2 3 worrie s me . 2 4 DR . BRISKIN : Le t m e addres s tha t wit hrecen t 2 5 answers . On e i s t o tel l yo u abou t a portio no t th e proposa l Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.2 1

j . y 1 whic hI haven' t gon e ove r yet , whic hi s o npubli c educatio n 2 proposal . Second , le t m e tel l yo u a littl e bi t mor e abou t 3 th e monitorin g syste mtha t w e proposed , andthird , le t m e 4 tel l yo u about , sor t o f th e alternative s whic hwe'r e 5 considering . 6 DR . SILBERGELD : Well , wit hth e publi c educatio n 7 proposal , I ca ntel l yo u it' s sor t o f lik e a , peopl e ge t 8 th e reactio nfro mtha t a t EDF . I t i s a disaster . An dI 9hop e you'r e no t usin g tha t a s some , tha t yo u hav e anysens e 1 0 tha t that' s providin g anypubli c healt hprotection . 1 1 DR . BRISKIN : Le t m e explai nwha t i t is , becaus e 1 2 I don' t kno wtha t everybod yher e know s wha t i t is . 1 3 O nrout e t o th e propose dapproach , w e wer e 1 4 concerne d tha t i f a wate r supplie r di deve r thin k tha t i s 1 5 wa s unde r thei r contro l t o minimiz e corrosivity , tha t ther e 1 6 woul d stil l b e tap s tha t woul d hav e to o muc hlea dcomin g ou t 1 7 o f them . We weren' t comfortabl e wit hthat , s o wha t w e 1 8 propose d i s tha t i f mor e tha n5 % o f th e tap s wer e foundt o 1 9 hav e mor e tha n2 0 part s pe r billio no f lead , agai nthes e 2 0 hig hris k mornin g firs t dra wsamples . The nth e wate r 2 1 supplie r woul d b e require dt o conduc t a non-goin g publi o 2 2 educatio nprogram . An d th e publi c educatio nprogra mwoul d 2 3 nee d t o b e targete d a t hig hris k areas , s o th e wate r 2 4 supplie r woul d hav e t o g o ou t an dfindwher e lea d level s 2 5 wer e hig hi nth e community . An doffe r informatio nt o peopl e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.2 2

2 0 1 o nho wthe ycoul dfurthe r reduc e thei r exposures . Th e 2 presumptio nwoul d b e tha t th e wate r supplie r ha s already 3 don e wha t the ycoul d d o t o brin g th e lea dlevel s down . 4 W e weren' t sur e ho weffectiv e publi c educatio n 5 woul d be , and s o we'r e sponsorin g a publi c educatio npilo t 6 projec t her e i nRaleigh , Nort hCarolina , that' s bee ngoin g 7 o nsinc e August . W e tr yt o tak e a baselin e readin g o f wha t 8 peoples ' knowledg e abou t lea di ndrinkin g wate r was , and 9 wha t the ywer e doin g abou t it . Wit hth e cit yo f Raleigh , 1 0 we'v e develope d material s t o explai nt o peopl e tha t it' s 1 1 ver yimportan t tha t on e hav e knowledg e abou t th e water . 1 2 We'v e worke d wit hth e cit yan dthe yar e improvin g thei r 1 3 corrosio ncontro l treatmen t a s a par t o f th e step s they'v e 1 4 taken . W e ca nhonestl ysa ytha t they'v e minimize dth e lea d 1 5 level s a t th e ta p a t th e sam e tim e they'r e tellin g 1 6 consumers , tha t th e consume r als o need s t o tak e action . 1 7 Tha t wil l b e conducte d—well , th e cit yi s 1 8 conductin g a post-tes t t o se e i f there' s bee nan ychang e in 1 9 th e knowledg e o f th e peopl e tha t live s i nth e communit yo r 2 0 i nthei r action s tha t the ywer e takin g t o protec t 2 1 themselves . 2 2 Th e cit yha s offere dfre e wate r testin g t< > 2 3 anybod yserve d byth e cit ywate r departmen t andtha t ha s 2 4 helpe d identif yarea s wher e ther e wer e excessiv e lea dlevel s 2 5 a t th e tap , an d we'r e hopin g that , throug hou r testin g Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 6 2 8- 4 88 8P.2 3

2 1 1 procedure , we'l l b e abl e t o se e t o wha t exten t publi c 2 educatio nca nb e effective . An d w e woul dpla nt o modif yan y 3 proposal , whe nw e g o final , base do nou r finding s fromtha t 4 study . 5 So , we'r e takin g a loo k a t it . W e don' t kno w 6 tha t publi c educatio nca nb e effective , bu t we'r e tryin g t o 7 se e ho weffectiv e i t migh t be . 8 DR . UPTON : Dr . Chisolm . 9 DR . CHISOLM : First , Dr . Silbergeld , sh e speak s o f 1 0 th e idea l fact s i npediatric s an dI woul dsa ytha t ther e 1 1 isn' t anyanswer . Cu t th e lip . 1 2 DR . SILBERGELD : I nthi s cas e i t migh t b e expected . 1 3 DR . CHISOLM : Yo u recal l i nStockton , tha t the y 1 4 firs t recognize d sodiumhydroxide , bu t whe nthe yfoun dthat . 1 5 the yteste d th e wate r a t differen t - - a t greate r an dgreate r 1 6 distance s fro mth e wate r treatmen t plant , th e wate r wa s 1 7 alread yclos e t o th e plant , bu t th e p H ha ddroppe da t th e 1 8 en d o f th e plant , I thin k the yha dt o ad dphosphat e t o it . 1 9 S o myquestio nt o you , d o yo u tak e thi s int o accoun t 2 0 i nyou r sampl e o f - - wher e you'r e dealin g wit hhighl y 2 1 corrosiv e particles ? Mysecon dquestio ni s wha t rol e doe s 2 you r offic e pla yi nth e enforcemen t o f th e us e u I : low-I.e..i

d 2 3 solder ? I suspec t tha t ther e ar e man ypound s o f 50 * lea d 2 4 solder s stil l ou t i nth e field . Wha t rol e d o yo u pla yi u 2 5 that ? Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n (202 ) 628-488 8 - >P.2 4

1 DR . BRISKIN : I nth e cas e o f th e hyper-capacit y 2 o f th e wate r supplies . Th e cas e wher e you'r e describin g the 3 wate r a s no t wel l buffered , usuall ywha t th e syste mi s usin g 4 i s somethin g lik e sodiumhydroxid e t o increas e th e pH , i t i s 5 no t wel l buffered , i ntha t th e p H drop s of f agai nafte r a 6 certai ndistance . Th e Cit yo f Bosto ni s connecte dwit ha 7 simila r proble mand wha t they'v e don e i s t o instal l pumpin g 8 station s furthe r alon g downstream . T o furthe r boos t th e p H 9 alternative , woul db e t o ad d carbonat e a s a buffe r t o th e 1 0 syste mo f - - or , a s yo u suggested , ad da corrosio nbarrier . 1 1 I t woul d b e up t o th e stat e t o judg e tha t th e wate r supplie r 1 2 ha s minimize d lea d level s a t th e ta p bycontrollin g 1 3 corrosion . So , the ywoul d hav e t o wor k wit hth e wate r 1 4 supplie r and b e convince dbyth e wate r supplie r tha t wha t 1 5 ha d bee ninstalle d wa s adequat e t o tak e car e o f th e proble m 1 6 tha t you'r e raising . That' s th e cas e that' s prett ywell . 1 7 known , I believe , throughou t th e Wate r Suppl yCommittee . 1 8 O nth e lea dsolde r ban , i n198 6 Congres s enacte d 1 9 a ba no nth e us e o f lea dsolder , includin g wate r supplies , 2 0 an d the yexplicitl ysai d tha t th e state s ar e t o enforc e tha t 2 1 ban . S o righ t no wi t i s illega l t o sel l lea dsolde r tha t ha s 2 2 no t bee nlabele d 'No t Suitabl e fo r Wate r Use ' an dth e 2 3 state s hav e bee nadoptin g tiiei r ow nbans . W e hav e bee n 2 4 monitorin g tha t adoptio no f ban s on , includin g solder , flu x 2 5 and lea d pipes . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.2 5

1 Som e state s ar e ver yaggressiv e a t enforcin g th e 2 ban . Other s ar e les s so . Fo r example , som e state s wil l us e 3 plumbin g inspectors . They'v e adopte da ba nfo r plumbin g 4 codes . An d ther e ar e housin g inspectors , plumbin g 5 inspector s wh o g o ou t and befor e the yapprov e ne wplumbin g 6 i na housin g developmen t they'l l g o i nan dtes t i t t o b e 7 sur e tha t lea d fre e solderin g ha s bee nuse dbu t th e 8 enforcemen t capabilitie s sprea d ou t t o th e differen t state s 9 i nhousing , plumbin g o r Departmen t o f Healt handi t i s thi s 1 0 la wtha t allow s th e state s t o adop t differen t approaches . 1 1 Th e penalt yfo r state s no t ow nenforcin g th e ba ni s tha t EPA 1 2 woul d withhol d u p t o 5 —5 % o f th e federa l grant s tha t w e 1 3 giv e th e state s fo r implementin g th e 'Drinkin g Wate r 1 4 Program' . I kno wo f a t leas t on e stat e tha t i s i ntha t 1 5 dilemm a now . Thei r Legislatur e ha dt o ac t t o enac t a ban . 1 6 S o eve nthoug hth e federa l ba ni s i nplace , th e stat e 1 7 legislatur e ha s t o enac t enforcemen t procedure s quickl y 1 8 enoug ht o hop e tha t they'l l hav e the mcompleted . 1 9 DR . UPTON : I se e thre e hand s up . Dr . Mushak , 2 0 Dr . Carlson , Dr . Weiss , andDr . Rabinowitz . Dr . Mushak . 1 DR . MUSHAK : Beyon d thi s busines s o f th e numbe r 2 2 o f sample s t o decid e upon . I s vita l rol e makin g a littl e 2 3 bette r o ntha t score , tha nwha t wa s proposed ? 2 4 DR . BRISKIN : - - uhm . 2 5 DR . MUSHAK : Yo u kno wa numbe r o f us•criticize d Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-480 0 * • >P.2 6 i

2 4 1 thi s progra m

durin g Congressiona l testimony . I t seem s 1 i.k ^ 2 it' s a littl e ridiculou s t o hav e th e sam e numbe r of , 3 absolut e numbe r o f sample s fo r th e Cit yo f Ne wYork , tha t 4 ha s a horrendou s mi xo f tide-lik e wate r an dlow-lik e wate r 5 compare d thi s contrac t wit hth e equivalen t wit hwha t yo u 6 woul d ge t wit ha cit ylik e Charlott e o r Durham , Nort h 7 Carolina . 8 DR . BRISKIN : An d w e propose da tiere dapproac ht o 9 monitorin g wher e larg e system s woul dtak e mor e samples , 1 0 smal l system s woul dtak e fewer . W e propose dtha t th e large r 1 1 system s woul d tak e 5 0 sample s pe r quarter , and tha t Hi e 1 2 smalles t systems , thos e tha t serv e les s tha n50 0 peopl e 1 3 woul d tak e 1 0 sample s ever y5 years . W e ar e re-evaluatin g 1 4 th e lon g ter mapproach . We'v e gotte ncomment s i nbot h 1 5 direction s fro mou r man yamateurs , som e commentin g tha t 1 6 ther e weren' t enoug hsample s ther e t o adequatel ytel l what' s 1 7 goin g on , an d other s sayin g tha t th e numbe r o f sample s tha t 1 8 w e wer e requirin g wer e outrageous , to o burdensom e andto o 1 9 expensive . S o we'r e havin g t o com e up wit ha monitorin g 2 0 scheme , tha t adequatel yidentifie s ou r lea dproblem s and 2 1 corrosio ncontro l treatment s tha t hav e bee npu t i nplace . A n 2 2 ye t i t i s feasibl e fo r smal l wate r system s t o d o it . 2 3 DR . MUSHAK : Caus e I woul dfindi t har dt u 2 4 believ e tha t yo u coul d sampl e th e Cit yo f Ne wYor k quit e 2 5 perfectly , lea d water-fro m5 0 samples . An yhal f intelligen t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4.880 '2 5

1 huma nbein g coul dfigur e ou t som e wa yt o ge t 5 0 sample s 2 tha t woul d mak e hi s lif e simpl e andhav e lo wlea d- - 3 (Reporter : I can' t hea r you. ) 4 I hop e tha t becaus e o f th e var ylarg e wate r syste m 5 tha t th e fina l rul e makin g wil l tak e som e percentag e o f th e 6 task , rathe r tha n50% . 7 DR . UPTON : Dr . Carlson . 8 DR . CARLSON : Obviously , Jea ncam e t o th e Drinkin g 9 Wate r Subcommitte e Grou p wit hthi s lea doriginally . Andw e 1 0 ha d som e question s abou t th e sampling . W e ha da numbe r o f 1 1 questions . On e o f th e thing s bein g th e wors t case , s u you r 1 2 argumen t doesn' t hold . 1 3 I nothe r words , accordin g t o thes e directions , yo u 1 4 hav e t o loo k a t th e wors t cas e samples . Bu t tha t wa s ou r 1 5 objection , whic hi s jus t th e opposit e of , perhaps , wha t yo u 1 6 feel . 1 7 W e ha d som e problem s wit hi t a s wha t i t mean t and 1 8 Dr . Silbergel d i s no t her e an dI wa s goin g t o agre e wit hhe r 1 9 tha t on e o f ou r concern s i s tha t fro mth e publi c healt h 2 0 standpoint , bot ho f thes e case s ar e identifie dthroug hmor e 2 1 tha nthat . I kno wthat' s somethin g you'r e concerne dabout , 2 2 it' s no t somethin g tha t i s ther e t o mee t th e lette r " f th e 2 3 law . Th e la wrigh t no wi s 5 0 part s pe r billion . 2 4 DR . BRISKIN : Th e curren t standar di s 50 . 2 5 DR . MUSHAK : S o thi s i s controversial . An dw e als o Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-48.8 82 6

1 ha d som e problem s wit hth e analysi s o f al l th e dat a becaus e 2 yo u can' t g o bac k andrepea t a t thos e sam e place s t o se e i f 3 thei r corrosio ncontro l i s working . W e ha dsom e question s 4 a s t o whethe r tha t wa s reasonable . W e als o ha dsom e 5 problem s wit hstatistica l analysi s tha t wa s confuse d wit h 6 percentages . Bu t I thin k a lo t o f tha t i s bein g worke dout . 7 I mean , w e mad e comment s tha t Jea ngot , I thin k 8 sh e tol d m e 3,00 0 publi c comment s o r somethin g lik e thi s t o 9 dea l with , an d I' mreall ygla d abou t flexibility , becaus e 1 0 it' s on e o f th e thing s i nth e treatment , a s Jea nsays , a lo t 1 1 o f th e sourc e water s ar e goin g t o b e havin g differen t 1 2 problem s and th e abilit yo f th e wate r purveyo r t o d o wha t h e 1 3 ha s t o do , dependen t upo nth e wate r sources , whic hi s reall y 1 4 important , I think. It' s a majo r ste p forward . 1 5 DR . UPTON : Ms . Levine . 1 6 DR . LEVINE : I thin k myhan di s —(Laughter ) 1 7 DR . UPTON : Dr . Rabinowit z 1 8 DR . RABINOWITZ : Well , jus t a questio nabou t th e 1 9 authorit yo f th e EP Ai nthes e matters . I assum e yo u ha dn o 2 0 authorit yove r privat e wells . 2 1 DR . BRISKIN : That' s correct . W e onl yregulat e 2 2 wate r supplie s tha t serve s 2 5 o r mor e people , u r 1.5 - Mmor- - 2 3 services . 2 4 DR . RABINOWITZ : So , I' mjus t thinking , In-m r are a 2 5 w e hav e apartmen t house s tha t hav e thei r ow nprivat e wells . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.2 9



### 2 7 1 Some o f thes e you migh t have authorit yover , some you migh t 2 not . 3 DR . BRISKIN : That' s correct . 4 DR . RABINOWITZ : W e hav e a numbe r o f case s o f lea d 5 poisoning fro

m situation s lik e this . 6 DR . BRISKIN : Yeah . We , we'v e bee ntrying t o 7 publiciz e th e issu e o f lead i ndrinking wate r an d probabl y 8 no t jus t the rul e an d it' s a difficul t tas k t o keep 9 drinking wate r i nperspectiv e wit hothe r source s o f lead , 1 0 becaus e ofte nit' s no t the majo r source s o f exposur e t o lea d 1 1 bu t i t canb e animportan t contributor . 1 2 DR . UPTON : Dr . vo nLindern . 1 3 DR . VONLINDERN : Canyo u tel l u s wha t bloo d lea d 1 4 distributio nyo u projecte d 2 0 part s pe r billion ? An d wha t 1 5 assumption s yo u use d i ncalculating that . 1 6 DR . BRISKIN : A t th e 2 0 part s pe r billio no f lea d an d 1 7 water ? I can' t becaus e wit hth e standard , let' s sa yw e wer e 1 8 t o se t a standard o f 2 0 part s pe r billion . I f w e se t a 1 9 standar d o f 2 0 part s pe r billion , the nw e woul d presume tha t 2 0 the standard depend s upo nno t jus t wha t the numbe r is , bu t 2 1 howyo u measur e it . So , fo r example , i f yo u se t the 2 2 standard 2 0 part s pe r billio nan d requir e everysingl e ta p 2 3 t o mee t tha t 2 0 part s pe r billion , then , fro m there , l roul. d 2 4 project , althoughI don' t have th e number s wit hme today , " f 2 5 wha t the expecte d chang e i nbloo d lea d distribution s migh t

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio nP.3 0

2 8 1 b e fo r current , assumin g tha t 1 coul dge t a reasonabl e 2 pictur e o f existin g wate r lea d distributions , whic hI' mno t 3 sur e I have . 4 I ca nmak e som e estimate s base do na coupl e o f 5 differen t dat a base s tha t ar e availabl e t o us , bu t w e hav e 6 n o rea l verifie d databas e o nwate r lea dlevel s i nth e U.S . 7 today . 8 There' s a complicatio nhowever , whic hi s that , if . 9 w e wer e t o se t a maximu mcontaminat e leve l standards , whic h 1 0 i s wha t I thin k w e wer e talkin g about . Th e standar di s jus t 1 1 no t th e number , bu t ho wyo u measur e it . S o i f w e wer e t o 1 2 se t a standar d tha t woul drequir e 95 % o f th e tap s t o mee t 2 0 1 3 part s pe r billion , w e woul db e silen t o nth e othe r 5'fc . W e 1 4 can , again , attemp t t o mak e estimate s o f change s o f bloo d 1 5 leade d condition s base d o nth e distributio no f wate r lea d 1 6 levels . Remembe r tha t whe nth e wate r supplie r put s i n 1 7 corrosio ncontro l treatment , h e aim s a t 2 0 part s pe r 1 8 billion . Sometime s they'r e goin g t o ge t lowe r tha ntha t 1 9 jus t becaus e that' s ho wth e corrosio ncontro l treatmen t 2 0 works . They'r e no t jus t goin g t o sto p a t a poin t whe nthey 2 1 ge t on e tap there . An dit' s th e difficult yi npredictin g 2 2 th e post-regulatio nwate r lea d distribution , whic hw e ca n 2 3 mak e estimate s of . W e ca nruntha t of f ou r definitio no f ou r 2 4 monitorin g scheme . An d the nprovid e tha t wit hth e dat a wit h 2 5 hole s i ni t o nth e existin g wate r lea ddistribution . So , Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4.800 'P.3 1

2 9 1 th e shor t answe r is , I don' t know . 2 DR . UPTON : Tom . 3 TOM : Thi s studygrou p i s suppos e t o b e lookin g 4 a t th e consistenc yo f regulation s betwee ndifferen t program s 5 withi nEPA . I understan d fro myou r presentatio ntha t th e 6 Wate r Progra mi s consisten t wit hth e 10-1 5 microgram s pe r 7 decilite r tha t yo u talke d about . Maybe , I' mfollowin g up o n 8 th e Dr . vo nLindern' s question . We'r e tryin g t o se e ho w 9 tha t consistenc yi s arrive dat . i f th e ai r program s move d 1 0 t o 5 microgram s pe r deciliter , woul dth e curren t Offic e o f 1 1 Wate r position , hav e t o chang e i nanywa yt o maintai n 1 2 consistency ? 1 3 DR . BRISKIN : Wha t w e woul dd o i s evaluat e th e - - 1 4 ou r plan s ar e t o tak e a loo k a t existin g bloo dlea d 1 5 distribution , and mak e estimate s o f th e existin g wate r lea d 1 6 distribution . 1 7 Yo u sa wmethod s tha t ha dbee ndevelope dbyAla n 1 8 Marcu s t o loo k an d se e wha t th e chang e i nwate r lea d 1 9 distribution s migh t mea no nchange s i nbloo dlea d 2 0 distribution s an dthe nestimat e number s o f childre nwh o 2 1 remainin g o r change dbelo wcertai nbloo dlea dlevel s o l 2 2 concern . 2 3 An d i f th e agenc ygoe s wit h10-1 5 a s th e bloo d 2 4 lea d level s o f concern , w e woul dforge t number s o f childre n 2 5 brough t belo wthos e levels . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-408 8P.3 2

J O 1 I f th e agenc ygoe s wit h5 microgram s pe i 2 deciliter , w e woul dloo k a t th e numbe r o f childre nchanged . 3 An d becaus e o f possibl e irregularitie s i nth e distributions , 4 tha t migh t effec t ou r assessmen t o f th e relativ e stringenc y 5 o f differen t option s fo r monitorin g an dfo r enforcin g th e 6 standards . 7 DR . UPTON : Dr. . Carlson . 8 DR . CARLSON : Yes . I don' t kno wJean . I don' t 9 wan t t o pu t word s i nyou r mout habou t wha t number s you'r e 1 0 goin g t o use , bu t Dr . Marcu s i s her e andI' mreadin g i nth e 1 1 brow nboo k her e abou t a slop e o f 0.16 1 microgram s pe r 1 2 decilite r pe r microgra mo f lea di nth e water . 1 3 S o i f yo u multipl y2 0 time s tha t yo u ge t abou t 1 4 3.2 . Okay , microgram s pe r decilite r t o bloo da t th e 20 . 1 5 Bu t remember , 2 0 i s th e hig hnumber , we'r e reall ytryin g t o 1 6 ge t on e close r t o 1 0 a s a nactual , alright . 1 7 DR . BRISKIN : Well , yo u hav e t o distinguish , I 1 8 think , betwee nindividua l wate r lea dleve l an daddin g o nt o 1 9 thei r — 2 0 DR . CARLSON : (Interposing ) Right . 2 1 DR . BRISKIN : - - exposur e fromnon-drinkin g water . 2 2 DR . CARLSON : Thi s woul db e th e contributio ndu e 2 3 t o th e water . 2 4 DR . BRISKIN : Tha t woul db e th e contributio ndu e 2 5 t o th e wate r fo r th e peopl e tha t tha t provisio nappl yto . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4.888 'P.3 3

1 DR . CARLSON : Right . 2 DR . BRISKIN : We'v e bee nreevaluatin g wha t th e 3 appropriat e coefficient s migh t b e a t th e differen t wate r 4 lea d level s an d fo r childre no f differen t ages . 5 DR . CARLSON : Bu t i s tha t th e wa yt o calculate . 6 M yconcer ni s we'v e see non e metho dher e i nOAQP S o f 7 calculatin g intake s andturnin g thos e int o estimate dbloo d 8 lea d level s and distributions . 9 D o yo u d o tha t i na 'Drinkin g Wate r Program ' andi f 1 0 so , wha t assumption s d o yo u mak e abou t wha t ag e yo u 1 1 calculat e tha t at , wha t baseline s yo u use ? 1 2 DR . BRISKIN : We'v e bee nlookin g a t tw o yea r old s 1 3 a s bein g th e mos t susceptibl e t o lea di ndrinkin g wate r and 1 4 we'v e als o no t bee nusin g th e biokineti c uptak e model . Tha t 1 5 ha s no t bee ncalibrate d fo r drinkin g water , s o w e ar e usin g 1 6 th e sam e studie s anddat a tha t g o int o tha t mode l and 1 7 operat e wit hbloo dlea d wate r level s an dconversio nfactor s 1 8 usin g th e sam e studie s tha t th e sam e studie s tha t th e 1 9 biokineti c uptak e mode l ha s availabl e t o i t fo r lookin g a t 2 0 non-drinkin g wate r lea dcontribution s s o tha t w e ca npars e 2 1 ou t a drinkin g wate r change . Roughl ywha t you'v e go t i s a 2 2 distributio no f a bloo dlea dlevel s whic hshouldn' t l»-

- 2 3 normal . 2 4 An d som e par t o f tha t distributio ni s throug h 2 5 drinkin g wate r an d a t each.poin t you'v e go t varyin g amount s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.3 4

1 tha t ar e drinkin g wate r contributors . Downher e wit hhigh 2 bloo d lea d exposures , you'v e go t relativel ysmal l 3 contribution s fro mthi s wate r here . A t lowe r bloo dlea d 4 exposures , you'v e go t relativel ylarg e drinkin g wate r 5 contribution s and s o wha t we'r e doin g i s talkin g abou t 6 changin g th e distributio no f th e drinkin g wate r contributio n 7 t o tota l bloo d leve l andseein g wha t effec t i t ha s o nth e 8 distributio no f bloo d lead s acros s th e country . Ther e ar e 9 som e paper s tha t describ e th e metho dfo r doin g that , tha t A l 1 0 Marcu s wrot e fo r us , tha t I ca nge t yo u copie s o f tha t g o 1 1 int o a lo t o f detai l o nho wthos e calculation s migh t b e 1 2 done . 1 3 DR . UPTON : I se e a lo t o f hand s up . Elle nand 1 4 Dr . Mahaffey . 1 5 DR . SILBERGELD : Wha t you'v e jus t sai dJean , I 1 6 reall ygoe s t o th e hear t o f th e scientifi c basi s o f wha t 1 7 you'r e tryin g t o do , an da s yo u poin t out , ther e i s a lo t 1 8 tha t i s no t known . 1 9 I gues s ther e ar e tw o concern s tha t occu r t o m e 2 0 righ t now . On e o f course , I' mfundamentall y- - wha t exactl y 2 1 i s you r thinkin g abou t wha t you'v e jus t draw nther e andt o 2 2 wha t exten t d o yo u kno wtha t t o b e th e case ? Andho wCOD 3 yo u encompas s al l th e differen t type s o f circumstance s whic h 2 4 migh t hav e relativel ydifferen t distribution s o f 2 5 contributions ? Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8 tP.3 5

3 3 1 Bu t th e two fundamenta l question s I hav e ar e first : 2 off , mayb e thi s questio nha s t o b e deferre dunti l th e end 3 but , i f th e agenc yadopt s a certai nbloo dlea dleve l a s a 4 goal , and I thin k it' s ver ylaudator ytha t th e agenc yi s 5 finall ymovin g t o that , bu t you'r e havin g a integrate dove r 6 al l publi c healt hgoa l whic hi s independen t o f media , 7 independen t o f source . 8 T o wha t extent , however , ar e you r differen t ris k 9 assessment s stil l buil t aroun d meetin g tha t goal , o na 1 0 pathwa ybypathway , sourc e b ysourc e method ? 1 1 We'v e hear d a grea t dea l abou t th e continue d 1 2 contributio no f ai r lea dthroug hdirec t an dindirec t 1 3 pathway s t o bloo d lead , wha t margi ndoe s tha t giv e yo u t o 1 4 allo wa nadditiona l contributio nfro mdrinkin g water . I 1 5 sugges t certainl ymuc hles s tha n1 0 o r 5 . It' s a ver ysni a 1 1 1 6 amoun t b e given , i f w e loo k a t th e curren t distributio no f 1 7 bloo d leads , an d loo k a t th e sources , bot hfro mpas t use s 1 8 whic hwe'r e goin g t o hea r fro mnext , I guess , wit hth e 1 9 Offic e o f Soli d Waste . Th e on-goin g use s an dth e ai r 2 0 contributio nwhic hstill , i s stil l presen t an dstil l ver y 1 large , whe nyo u addup al l it s pathways . I' dsugges t tha t 2 2 yo u onl ygo t abou t - - Let' s sa yi f 1 0 i s you r goal , yo u 2 3 mayb e go t 2 microgram s pe r decilite r fo r th e contributio n 2 4 fromdrinkin g water , whic hi s radicall ydifferen t fromwha t 2 5 you'v e bee nup t o andwha t th e environmenta l healt h Heritaq e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) f>2N-488 R -i3 4

1 committe e ha s bee nup t o andneed s t o b e re-thought . 2 An d the nth e othe r issue s is , I think , her e yo u 3 hav e eve nles s justificatio ntha nth e Ai r Documen t ha s i n 4 usin g tw o yea r olds , a s you r populatio no f concern . 5 Firs t off , on e migh t sa ytha t th e infan t fro m0 t o 6 1 8 month s ha s muc hhighe r portio no f it s die t ma yinclud e 7 drinkin g water . I f yo u us e th e contributio no f wate r t o 8 mak e formula , wate r i nfoo dprocessing , a s wel l a s jus t 9 straigh t wate r t o b e fe d t o babies , whic hi s no wrecommende d 1 0 bymos t pediatricians . 1 1 An d a s well , I thin k i t reopen s th e issu e o f feta l 1 2 lea d exposure , becaus e o f th e ver ygrea t propensit yo f th e 1 3 ingestio no f lea d bydrinkin g wate r t o b e translate d 1 4 directl yacros s th e placent a t o th e fetus . S o tha t I don' t 1 5 kno wwh yyou'r e goin g wit htw o yea r olds , i nterm s o f 1 6 exposure , a s wel l a s sensitivit yo r thi s notio no f 1 7 responsivenes s tha t yo u al l have . I' mmos t concerne dabou t 1 8 th e allocatio no f th e total , quote , allowabl e leve l o f lea d 1 9 i nbloo d t o drinkin g water . 2 0 What' s you r estimat e o f th e contributio no f 2 1 everythin g bu t drinkin g wate r t o bloo dlead , i nwhateve r 2 2 you'r e talkin g populatio nis . S o wha t hav e yo u go t lef t t o 2 3 pla ywith ? 2 4 DR . BRISKIN : I misspok e mysel f whe nI talke d 2 5 abou t tw o things . Som e o f th e coefficient s tha t w e looke d Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-408 8P.3 7

1 a t hav e bee ndevelope dfo r infants . Thos e i nth e study 2 looke d a t - - 3 DR . UPTON : Age ? 4 DR . BRISKIN : Infant s fe dformul a mad e o f 5 drinkin g wate r versu s infant s wher e lea dwa s measure di n 6 form

o f thei r B.M.s . 7 DR . CARLSON : D o yo u hav e th e answer . 8 CHRI S DEROSA : Yes . Si xandone-hal f months . 9 DR . BRISKIN : Th e secon dquestio n— 1 0 DR . MAHAFFEY : Bu t ar e the yyou r targe t 1 1 populatio nfo r "ris k assessment" ? 1 2 DR . BRISKIN : W e have , w e nee dt o conside r tw o 1 3 things . On e i s th e sensitiv e perso nan dtha t i nthi s cas e 1 4 becaus e o f th e hig hproportio no f die t possibl ymad e ou t o f 1 5 wate r an d formul a woul db e i nth e infants . Th e secon di s 1 6 th e plac e wher e h e —th e perso ni s consumin g a lo t o f wate r 1 7 an d th e older , we'r e talkin g tota l a greate r volum e o f 1 8 water . 1 9 DR . MAHAFFEY : But , no t fo r bodyweight . 2 0 DR . CARLSON : I thin k th e origina l thinkin g wa s 2 1 tha t tw o yea r old s ha dhighe r bloo dlea dlevels , t o begi n 2 2 with , fro mothe r source s o f water . I thin k that' s wher e th<-

- 2 3 Drinkin g Wate r Offic e began . 2 4 DR . MAHAFFEY : I thin k i f you'l l loo k a t thos e 2 5 curve s there' s tha t tha t dip . I thin k th e Cincinnat i study Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n-

(202 ) 620-488 83 6

1 show s tha t mos t clearly . S o tha t th e infan t fro m0 t o I 2 year s i s ver y— 3 DR . UPTON : We'v e go t a bunc ho f hand s up here . 4 DR . BRISKIN : I didn' t answe r th e secon dpar t o f 5 you r questio na s t o wha t proportio no f drinkin g wate r lea d 6 i s a tota l exposur e o f lead . 7 DR . MAHAFFEY : Wha t ar e yo u asking ? 8 DR . BRISKIN : Well , se e we'r e no t doin g a n 9 allocation , we'r e no t doin g a reference-dos e approach , 1 0 wher e yo u say , — 1 1 DR . MAHAFFEY : (Interposing ) Bu t yo u ha d t o 1 2 hav e som e competen t informatio nt o se t a standard . 1 3 DR . BRISKIN : Right . Wha t we'v e don e i s loo k a t 1 4 th e non-lea d source s fo r differen t ag e group s andI thin k 1 5 that , typically , drinkin g wate r end s up t o b e abou t 20 % bu t 1 6 there' s a wid e band , i npercen t o f tota l lea dintake . I 1 7 thin k i t goe s belo w10 % and up a s hig ha s 50% . 1 8 DR . MAHAFFEY : S o m ysuggestio ntha t yo u ha d2 1 9 microgram s pe r decilite r t o pla ywit hi s right . 2 0 DR . CHISOLM : I f 1 0 wa s you r bloo dlead-

- 2 1 DR . MARTINSON : I f 1 0 wa s you r goal . 2 2 DR . CHISOLM : It' s righ t aroun dtha t range . 2 3 (Talkin g o nto p o f eac hother ) 2 4 DR . BRISKIN : Wha t we'r e tryin g t o d o i s t o 2 5 minimiz e th e numbe r o f childre npapulation s tha t hav e bloo d Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4888 'P.3 9

3 7 1 lead s abov e th e leve l o f concern . W e hav e a technology

2 base d standar d tha t w e ca nonl yge t a nenforcemen t standar d 3 a s lo wa s wha t wa s state d and give na choic e o f tw o type s o f 4 technologie s o r possibl e standards , a s lon g a s the yar e 5 feasible , w e woul dchoos e th e on e tha t woul dbrin g mor e 6 childre nbelo wth e bloo dlea dleve l o f concern . But , we'r e 7 no t abl e t o preven t al l childre nfro mgoin g belo wa huma n 8 bloo d lea d leve l o f concern . 9 DR . UPTON : There' s a numbe r o f peopl e wh o 1 0 wante d t o mak e comments , I believ e Dr . Larso ni s first . 1 1 DR . LARSON : Yeah , h e is . That' s perfec t 1 2 timing . I gues s i t come s close r t o a questio no f 1 3 predictin g th e averag e value s versu s predictin g th e 1 4 percentag e o f bloo d lea di nextrem e cases . I t seem s t o m e 1 5 th e EP Apolic yi s t o protec t th e —minimiz e th e exposur e o f 1 6 th e highes t levels . Tha t come s dow nt o a questio no f t o 1 7 wha t exten t ar e thes e distribution s o f bloo dlea dcause db y 1 8 drinkin g wate r o r byai r sources , direc t o r indirect . 1 9 Independentl ybecaus e on e coul dsimpl y- - a s th e 2 0 docto r calculate d jus t a fe wminute s ag o an dtoo k t o th e 2 1 mea nvalue s and multiplie dthe man dcompare dthe mt o anothe r 2 2 mea nvalue . Bu t th e rea l questio nis , kid s wh o ar e gettin g 2 3 th e hig hbloo d lea d o r hig hwate r lea ddoses . Thes e kid s 2 4 ar e gettin g hig hlea d fromdirec t o r indirec t ai r sources . 2 5 DR . BRISKIN : Sometimes , sometime s not . That' s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.4 0

J O 1 whywe'v e gon e awa yfromdoin g a simpl e typ e calculatio nan d 2 jus t tak e a coefficien t andmultipl ytime s th e wate r lead 3 concentratio nand the npu t tha t ou t a s a naverag e wate r lea d 4 contributio nan dthe npu t tha t ou t a s anaverag e non 5 drinkin gwate r leadcontribution . We ar e concerne dabou t 6 the detail s an dI hop e tha t b

y usinginformatio nonblood 7 leaddistribution s an dwate r leaddistribution s tha t we can 8 coun t the

m bot ha s explici t informatio nonwate r lea d 9 distribution , whic hmak e i t difficult . There' s ver ylittl e 1 0 dat a matchin gwate r leadlevel s an dbloodlea

dlevel s 1 1 relativ e t o othe r thing s tha t ar e around . 1 2 S o we'r e doinga lot o f modelin gintryin g t o 1 3 asses s the relativ e appearanc e alternatives . 1 4 DR . LARSON : Whe nyo uwen t t o th e exposur e mode l 1 5 exercises , tha t wa s t o predic t mean s an dthe nyougo bac k 1 6 int o the populatio nlooka t the distribution s above that . 1 7 Then , a s yo usay , th e staf f wa s no t abl e t o come upwit ha 1 8 way

t o segregate , i f youwill , the wate r leadversu s ai r 1 9 indirec t an

ddirec t leadcontribution s t o th e distribution . 2 0 Bu t i t seems to me tha t distributio nmake s ai l th e 2 1 differenc e interm s o f th e standard s analysi s an dthe exten t 2 2 t o whic hi nthe futur e mor e andmor e i s directe dtowar d 2 3 lookinga t that . I t make s al l the differenc e interms o| - 2 4 integrate dpolicy . 2 5 DR . BRISKIN : On e thingtha t we have to do , i s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.4 1

I Q 1 t o assum e tha t wate r lea d level s ar e distribute drandoml y 2 acros s th e populatio ns o tha t there' s thi s join t 3 distributio n— distributio no f bloo dlead , non-drinkin g 4 wate r exposur e and distributio no f drinkin g wate r exposure s 5 and thos e ar e matche du p randomly . 6 S o i na portio nw e hav e wate r lea ddistributio no n 7 eac hgrou p o f kid s wit hdifferen t non-drinkin g wate r 8 contributions . That' s a bi g par t o f th e difficult yi n 9 detectin g that . 1 0 DR . UPTON : DR . RABINOWIT Z 1 1 DR . RABINOWITZ : Jus t a fe wcomments , on e o f whic h 1 2 I' d lik e t o underscore . I thin k it' s a nopportunit ytha t 1 3 you'r e awar e o f her e an d tha t i s tha t th e relationshi p 1 4 betwee nbloo d lea dan d wate r lea di s no t a straigh t Line , o f 1 5 course . 1 6 An d tha t th e chang e i nbloo dlea dfo r a smal l 1 7 incremen t i nwate r lea d i s muc hgreater . Th e payof f i n 1 8 changin g bloo d lead s i s greate r dow na t th e lo wen do f 1 9 water , say , yo u migh t sa ylo w- - lowe r tha n2 0 microgram s 2 0 pe r liter , s o that , anychange s i nwate r lea dexposur e 'luw n 2 1 a t tha t level , pai d of f mor e term s o f bloo dlea dtha n 2 2 change s a t th e hig hend . 2 3 S o i f th e opportunitie s t o prov e bloo dlead s t o 2 4 th e populatio nge t a lo t large r whe nyo u mak e change s a t th e 2 5 lowe r wate r end" . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-408 0P.4 2

4 0 1 DR . BRISKIN : Yeah , i nfact , w e se e benefit s a t 2 bot hends . Th e bi g slope s a t lo wwate r lea dconcentration s 3 mean s tha t there' s benefit s t o b e ha dbya grea t numbe r o f 4 peopl e acros s th e country . Eve nthoug hther e ma yb e a 5 lesse r slop e a t hig hwate r lea dconcentrations , becaus e 6 thos e wate r lea d concentration s ca nb e ver yhigh , w e 7 wouldn' t wan t th e drinkin g wate r wit hhundred s o f part s o f 8 lea d i nit , anyhow . 9 DR . WESOLOWSKI : Somethin g yo u sai dhere , I hav e 1 0 t o b e a littl e skeptica l about . Whe nyo u sho wth e rol e o f 1 1 wate r lea d a s th e tota l intak e a t differen t bloo dlea d 1 2 level s i nth e sketc hyo u mad e fo r us . 1 3 I go t th e impressio ntha t you'r e tryin g t o say 1 4 tha t a t th e hig hbloo dlea d level s wate r play s a smalle r 1 5 percentag e role . 1 6 DR . BRISKIN : Smalle r piec e o f a bigge r pie . S o 1 7 th e absolut e valu e o f th e contribution , dependin g o nho w 1 8 bi g tha t pi e is , ma yb e smalle r t o an dequa l t o i ngreate r 1 9 tha nabsolut e valu e o f th e contribution . 2 0 DR . WESOLOWSKI : I gues s I go t a littl e skeptica l 2 1 abou t tha t til l I kno wwha t thes e othe r source s are . i n 2 2 case s wher e th e absenc e o f lea dpain t andi nth e absenc e o f 2 3 lea d air , al l thes e othe r thing s - - anda s yo u hav e highe r 2 4 bloo d leads , no t onl ydoe s th e pi e ge t bigge r bu t th e 2 5 percentag e fro mwate r als o get s bigger . So , I' mjus t nu t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 '4 1 1 sure . 2 DR . BRISKIN : Ove r tim e drinkin g wate r lead , I 3 believe , i s increasing , dependin g o nwhethe r i t stay s th e 4 sam e an d s o i f your , fo r th e moment , leavin g pain t lea dou t 5 o f discussio nan d you'r e seein g drop s i nth e tota l bloo d 6 lea d fro mdrop s o f lea d gases , drop s o f lea d i nair . You'v e 7 go t a shrinkin g pie . Bu t i f th e drinkin g wate r mas s fo r 8 lea d ha s remaine d constant , the nyou r pi e i s no t flawless , 9 it' s shrinkin g wit hth e non-drinkin g water . Th e piece s ar e 1 0 smaller , bu t th e portio ntake nou t b ydrinkin g wate r i s 1 1 greate r tha ni t ha s bee ni nth e past . 1 2 DR . WESOLOWSKI : Ar e yo u an d I together ? 1 3 DR . BRISKIN : That' s th e constan t i ndrinkin g 1 4 water . Th e drinkin g wate r pi e shrink s an dth e portion s 1 5 redistribute d themselve s somehow . The yal l hav e t o ad dup . 1 6 (Talkin g a t sam e time. ) 1 7 DR . WESOLOWSKI : I hav e troubl e thinkin g o f ai l 1 8 thes e thing s changin g ove r time . I gues s eve ni f wit ha 1 9 snapsho t pictur e o f it . Yo u mad e a statemen t tha t I'v e jus t 2 0 go t t o b e skeptica l about , I guess , an d tha t i s ho wd o yo u 2 1 kno wtha t a t th e highe r bloo d lead s th e wate r i s a smalle r 2 2 ratio ntha n— 2 3 DR . BRISKIN : (Interposing ) I wa s sayin g tha t - - 2 4 I mean t tha t a s a nexample . 2 5 DR . WESOLOWSKI : Okay . S o that ' ma yno t b e tru e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4.88 0P.4 4

4 2 1 tha t U.S . populatio n- - 2 DR . CARLSON : Ase t contributio no f sa y2 part s 3 pe r billio no r 2 microgram s pe r decilite r o r whateve r 4 terminolog yyo u wan t t o use . 5 DR . BRISKIN : Fo r constan t drinkin g wate r 6 concentratio noverlaye d o ndistributio no f non-drinkin g 7 wate r contribution , bu t tha t o f cours e ha s th e righ t numbe r 8 o f th e distribution . 9 DR . UPTON : Dr . Wesolowski . 1 0 DR . WESOLOWSKI : Th e source s o f lea di nou r 1 1 drinkin g wate r ar e —i nterm s o f groun dwater , com e fro ma 1 2 depositio no f ambients , particles , an dals o fro mcrusta l 1 3 weatherings . Yo u hav e a feelin g fo r wha t percentag e o f th e 1 4 contributio nthes e tw o ar e and ho wwoul dth e lowerin g o f th e 1 5 Nationa l Ai r Qualit yAmbienc e Standar dlowe r th e lea dlevel s 1 6 i nwate r i ntime ? 1 7 DR . BRISKIN : Generally , yo u fin drelativel yfe w 1 8 wate r supplie s tha t hav e lea d i nthei r sourcewater . W e 1 9 estimat e tha t ou t o f abou t 60,00 0 wate r supplie s tha t w e 2 0 regulate , les s tha n100 0 woul dhav e lea dlevel s o f les s tha n 2 1 5.3 . W e find tha t th e lea dparticulate s ten dt o settl e out , 2 2 s o befor e wate r supplier s servic e one , there' s a nattemp t a t 2 3 conventiona l treatmen t whic hi s filtratio no r som e typ e o f 2 4 settling . Th e particulate s ten dt o settl e out . 2 5 . I don' t hav e dat a on , t o mak e anyestimate s o nho w Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 84 1

1 lowerin g depositio nwoul dlowe r tha t incidenc e o f - - a s far 2 a s I kno w- - 3 DR . WESOLOWSKI : (Interposing ) Well , that' s 4 possible . 5 DR . BRISKIN : Yeah . 6 (Reporte r - You r voice s ar e gettin g lower. ) 7 DR . UPTON : Dr . Chisolm . 8 DR . CHISOLM : I f I wer e t o selec t a nage , I 9 woul d tak e thre e months . Becaus e th e wate r requirement , n o 1 0 matte r whethe r he' s calculate d tha t o nth e basi s o f body 1 1 weigh t o r calorie s metabolized , it' s reall yhighes t fromn 1 2 t o 3 month s o f ag e and the ni t taper s off . 1 3 I f you'r e thinkin g i nterm s o f concentration , it' s 1 4 probabl ymor e th e die t tha ni s primaril ymil k an djuice . 1 5 DR . BRISKIN : We'r e tryin g t o identif yth e mos t 1 6 sensitiv e peopl e andw e hav e t o us e th e conversio n 1 7 coefficient s tha t ar e availabl e t o u s i nth e literatur e a s 1 8 fa r a s relationship s o f bloo d lea dandwate r levels . 1 9 DR . SILBERGELD : Yo u shouldn' t le t —wait , thi s 2 0 i s backward s thinking . Yo u shouldn' t le t wha t yo u ca nfin d 2 1 i nth e literatur e t o construc t you r exposur e parado x 2 2 determin e a viabl e medica l judgmen t a s t o what' s th e mos t 2 3 sensitiv e population . That' s just , oh , tha t unacceptable . 2 4 DR . BRISKIN : I wasn' t implyin g it , I wa s tryin g 2 5 t o doin g th e analysis , and i f th e dat a wer e availabl e fo r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.4 6

4 4 1 say , 6 month s old s an dyou'r e instructin g m e tha t 3 month s 2 old s ar e a mor e appropriat e amoun t o f dat a fo r 3 month s 3 olds , I wa s tryin g t o figur e ou t ho wI migh t d o that . 4 DR . CHISOLM : Well , yo u certainl yca ni f yo u ge t 5 an yon e o f th e majo r pediatri c text s an dloo ka t wate r 6 requirement s accordin g t o ag e an dcalori c requirement s 7 accordin g t o age . The nmak e you r calculation s o f th e 8 amount s assume do ntha t basi s an dthe nloo ka t th e 9 concentration . 1 0 DR . BRISKIN : It' s certainl ysomethin g tha t w e 1 1 ca nloo kinto . 1 2 AUDIENC E MEMBER : I apologiz e fo r gettin g her e 1 3 late , an d perhap s missin g it , but , yo u know , Marke t Researc h 1 4 Corporation s o f Americ a publishe s a lo t o f informatio no n 1 5 foo dintak e a t som e o f thes e ver yyoun g ag e groups . 1 6 An d on e o f th e thing s yo u migh t thin kabou t i n 1 7 thi s instance ; ther e ar e som e product s markete dtha t yo u 1 8 reall yrehydrat e th e product s tha t yo u woul db e usin g wit h 1 9 hom e water . 2 0 So , yo u coul dus e th e kin do f approac hDr . 2 1 Chisol msuggested , adjus t fo r tota l saliti c requirement s 2 2 that' s give nvariou s marketin g practice s i ndifferen t part s 2 3 o f th e country . 2 4 Yo u migh t wan t t o assum e tha t virtuall yal l thi s 2 5 flui d could , i nfact , com e fro mth e hom e wate r supply . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-408 0P.4 7

1 DR . UPTON : Dr . Vo nLindern . 2 DR . VO NLINDERN : I wante dt o g o bac k t o ou r 3 charg e her e fo r a secon d and mayb e sho wjus t ho wconfuse d I 4 am . Th e charg e her e wa s whethe r th e Agenc yha s consistenc y 5 betwee nwha t w e sai dyesterda yi nth e 'Drinkin g Wate r Talks ' 6 an d th e standard . 7 Righ t now , I understan dtha t i nestimatin g bloo d 8 lea d level s you'r e usin g som e sor t o f disaggregat e slop e 9 methodolog yindependen t o f baselin e bloo dlea dlevels . 1 0 Whereas , yesterda yw e throug ha methodolog yo f 1 1 integrate d intak e fro ma numbe r o f sources . I nth e Offic e 1 2 o f Soli d Wast e thin g here , I se e tha t the yus e som e sor t o f 1 3 specifi c o r generi c modelin g whic hvarie s o nchronolog yo f 1 4 developin g standard s i na particula r application . I' djus t 1 5 lik e t o ge t a sens e tha t everyon e i nthi s Agenc yi s usin g 1 6 th e sam e baselin e bloo dlea d level s i nthei r calculation s i n 1 7 th e sam e dos e respons e methodolog yan dca nyo u tel l m e i f 1 8 'Drinkin g Water ' an da t leas t OAQP S ar e doin g that . 1 9 DR . BRISKIN : W e ar e workin g everyda ywit hOAQP S 2 0 t o us e th e sam e bloo d lea d level s o f concern , th e sam e 2 1 studies , th e sam e analyse s o f thos e studies , t o th e exten t 2 2 tha t w e ar e abl e to . W e spen t a grea t dea l o f effort , tryin g 2 3 t o coordinat e ou r assumption s an ddrin k wate r and 2 4 non-drinkin g wate r exposures . 2 5 S o a s fa r a s bloo dlea dlevel s ar e concerne d- - Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.4 8

4 6 1 and eve nou r approac htoward s calculatin g th e things , eve n 2 thoug hw e haven' t ha d a nupdat e i na while , we'r e stil l 3 tryin g t o b e ver yconsisten t wit h—andfro mther e w e fel t 4 drinkin g wate r standard s and fro mther e soli dwast e program s 5 evaluat e clean-u p alternative s fo r pharamceuticals . Bu t 6 we'r e tryin g t o b e ver yconsistent . 7 DR . UPTON : Dr i Carlson . 8 DR . CARLSON : Yes . Partl yi nanswe r t o Dr . 9 Larson' s comment . I t reall ybecome s almos t a matte r o f 1 0 philosophy , i nothe r words , i f yo u tr yt o ge t th e lea dleve l 1 1 dow nlow , we'r e talkin g abou t thes e percentag e 1 2 contributions . 1 3 On e o f th e difficultie s tha t w e ru nint o i s abou t 1 4 22 . An d you'r e sayin g t o yourself , water , I mea nI ca n 1 5 argu e eithe r wa yand say, well , don' t worr yabou t th e 1 6 water , becaus e 2 ou t o f 22 , you'v e go t t o d o som e mor e 1 7 interventio ntha nthat . Or , I ca nargu e th e othe r way , 1 8 that , that' s a littl e bi t mor e beyon dwhateve r w e di dhave . 1 9 So , I ca nargu e eithe r way , s o i f i t come s dow nt o 0 th e bot hside s o f th e problem , dependin g upo nwher e yo u ar e 2 1 i nthi s curve . 2 2 DR . UPTON : I thin k tha t i nth e interes t o f tim e 2 3 and ther e ar e othe r presentation s t o b e mad e thi s morning . 2 4 W e woul d than k Dr . Briski nfo r he r presentation , andcal l o n 2 5 th e nex t speaker . I t i s m yunderstandin g tha t w e ar e t o Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8 nP.4 9

4 7 1 hav e a presentatio nfromth e Offic e o f Soli dWaste . Marlen e 2 Berg . 3 W e hav e a presentatio nfromth e office , I guess , 4 fro mBo bEstral . Wil l anyon e presen t thi s fo r u s o r ar e w e 5 simpl yrea d i t and commen t o nit ? Shal l w e tak e a momen t 6 t o rea d it , thos e o f u s wh o haven' t ha da chanc e t o d o so ? 7 I sugges t w e tak e a te nminut e break , t o rea dthi s 8 an d reconven e a t 10:15 . 9 (Whereupo na te nminut e brea k 1 0 ensued. ) 1 1 DR . UPTON : We'v e distribute dth e discussio n 1 2 paper s fro mth e Offic e o f Soli dWaste . I don' t kno wi f any 1 3 o f u s sa wthi s pape r befor e today . I sa wi t fo r th e first . 1 4 tim e thi s morning . M ysens e i s tha t i t contain s relativel y 1 5 littl e information , an dfo r tha t reason , ma yno t testif yany 1 6 lengthydiscussion . 1 7 I don' t wan t t o foreclos e th e discussio nandI think 1 8 ther e ar e comment s tha t member s o f th e Stud yGrou p o r other s 1 9 woul d car e t o offe r w e should , w e shoul dallo wthe mt o b e 2 0 expressed , bu t ther e i s n o on e her e t o answe r questions . 2 1 DR . WESOLOWSKI : Tha t on e o f ou r mandate s i s t o 2 2 judg e whethe r o r no t th e EP Aprogram s onlea di s 2 3 integrated . Th e fac t tha t w e hav e thi s piec e o f pape r and 2 4 n o representativ e fro mtha t offic e indicate s t o m e tha t it' s 2 5 no t integrated . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.5 0

4 0 1 (Laughter ) 2 DR . FRANK : W e als o d o al l ou r wor k wit hth e 3 Offic e o f Soli d Wast e peopl e andtr yagai nt o brin g int o 4 pla yth e othe r scientifi c informatio nthat , i nevaluation , 5 that' s th e sor t we'v e al l bee ntalkin g about . 6 Thos e i nregar dt o ai r i nth e wate r th e othe r day . 7 I don' t kno wth e specific•reason s a s t o wh yth e 8 representativ e - - h e wa s plannin g t o b e her e andhe' s no t 9 her e —fro mOffic e o f Soli dWaste . Bu t i t doe s no t mean , 1 0 byanymeans , tha t we'r e no t workin g wit hthem . 1 1 I thin k you'l l se e fro msom e furthe r discussio n 1 2 tha t you'l l se e fro mth e informatio ntha t Ronni e Levi nwil l 1 3 provid e tha t ther e i s som e integratio nacros s th e program . 1 4 DR . UPTON : Well , I thin k i t migh t b e appropriat e 1 5 i nth e absenc e o f someon e i nth e Offic e o f Soli dWast e t o 1 6 cal l o nRonni e Levi nandas k he r t o mak e he r remarks , tha t 1 7 wer e intende d t o dea l wit ha broade r issue . 1 8 DR . WEISS : Bu t befor e w e d o tha t I thin k th e 1 9 Committe e ough t t o le t th e Administrato r kno wtha t we'r e 2 0 upse t byth e absenc e o f a representativ e fro mOSW . 2 1 DR . UPTON : I thin k tha t doe s reflec t th e feeling s 2 2 o f th e committee . Whyno t as k Ronni e Levi nthe nt o mak e he r 2 3 remark s i f yo u woul dplease . 2 4 RONNI E LEVIN : I' dfirs t lik e t o finis hup th e 2 5 las t discussio nbefor e I chang e gear s an dthat' s abou t - - Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.5 1



### 4 9 1 DR . UPTON : (Interposing ) Wan t t o come u p here ? 2 MS . LEVIN : Sure . 3 DR . UPTON : Ronni e Levin , fro mORD . 4 RONNI E LEVIN : Th e poin t tha t I had wante d t o 5 mak e —t o star t ou t with , i s tha t I woul d recommend t o yo u 6 tha t i nadditio nt o having a representativ e fro m the Offic e 7 o f Soli d Waste , tha t yo u als o hav e somebod yfro m Emergenc y 8 Response , becaus e i nfact , thos e two part s o f tha t on e 9 office , infact , have somewha t differen t problemati c needs , 1 0 an d sinc e thei r need s ar e s o verydifferent , yo u shoul d 1 1 reall yhav e representative s fro mbot hside s o f tha t office . 1 2 DR . COGLIANO : I' d lik e t o mentio nbefor e coming 1 3 her e I talke d wit hpeopl e fro mthe Offic e o f Emergenc y 1 4 Remedia l Respons e o nthe Supe r Funde d Portabl e Quantitie s 1 5 Program . And I coul d tel l yo u abou t tha t program , an d I 1 6 discusse d some thing s w e migh t d o wit hthem , s o I think I' m 1 7 there , partiall ya s a representativ e o f peopl e fro mtha t 1 8 office . 1 9 RONNI E LEVIN : Well , woul d yo u wan t t o tal k t o u s 2 0 abou t that ? 2 1 DR . COGLIANO : I don' t reall yhav e a prepare d 2 2 tal ko nthat , I ca nanswe r question s abou t th e Portabl " 2 3 Quantitie s Program , an d wha t w e migh t b e doing wit hlea d in 2 4 the futur e o nthat . 2 5 DR . SILBERGELD : I kno wtha t thi s came u p Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.5 2

5 0 1 peripherall ywhe nw e wer e talkin g abou t th e leade dcance r W e 2 nee d t o tal k abou t als o th e implication s o f th e leade d 3 cance r decision . 4 DR . UPTON : Whydon' t w e hav e Mis s Levin' s 5 presentatio nan d the nallo wDr . Coglian o t o mak e hi s 6 remarks . 7 DR . COGLIANO : Thank s —Okay . 8 RONNI E LEVIN : I've ha dt o d o a littl e mop-u p 9 wor k an d s o I' m jus t goin g t o d o som e genera l summarie s from 1 0 fillin g i nth e gaps . Obviousl ythi s i s a hug e are a andI' m 1 1 no t goin g t o hi t the mall . 1 2 Amon g th e element s i nEP Atha t approac ht o letter , 1 3 o f course , the ycriteri a documen t th e lea di nthei r revie w 1 4 o f that . There' s wor k ongoin g i nsoi l lea dabatement . 1 5 We'r e trie d t o supe r fun dmoney . Ther e ar e a fe wspecifi c 1 6 project s tha t ar e no wunde r way . Ther e ar e als o broade r 1 7 methodologica l issue s tha t ar e bein g raise dbythat . 1 8 W e hav e recentl ybegu nt o d o som e wor k o nlea d 1 9 base d pain t abatement . We'r e lookin g a t health , potentia l 2 0 healt hstandard s als o technolog yissue s there . Thi s i s a 2 1 recen t development . 2 2 Lea d i ndrinkin g wate r ha s turne dsomewha t about . 2 3 We'r e doin g agai nsom e healt handexposur e analysi s a s wel l 2 4 a s som e technolog ydevelopmen t work . 2 5 What' s no t liste dher e ar e th e wate r qualit y Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.5 3

r » I 1 standards , whic hwoul d no t b e th e drinkin g wate r standards , 2 bu t fo r th e environmenta l effect s bein g considered . Bu t 3 that' s no t righ t no wa regulator youtburst , bu t tha t i s 4 anothe r potentia l are a withi nEPA . 5 Wha t we'v e no t represente dthi s morning , bu t i s 6 thi s hug e issu e withi nEPA , ar e th e disposa l clean-u p 7 issues . The yar e broa dbase d i nth e countr yan dman y 8 issues . 9 An d finally , sor t o f a noveral l pulle dtogethe r 1 0 regulator yrevie wand researc hpla ntha t i s currentl yunde r 1 1 wa yi nth e Offic e o f Researc handDevelopment . Bein g 1 2 developed , i nfact , bylik e grant s an dmainl ywithi nou r 1 3 office s t o addres s th e - - t o pul l together , t o integrat e and 1 4 coordinat e al l th e desperat e effort s tha t ar e goin g o n 1 5 withi nth e agency . 1 6 DR . COGLIANO : S o that' s bot hresearc hand 1 7 regulation ? 1 8 RONNI E LEVIN : That' s right . 1 9 DR . COGLIANO : Jus t t o b e sur e it' s essentiall y 2 0 tryin g t o pu t i non e plac e a novervie wo f th e differen t 2 1 regulator yactivities . An d the nwha t come s ou t o f the ma s 2 2 som e significan t an d researc hneed s andthe nhopefull yt o 2 3 mov e t o th e nex t effor t int o operatio nplans . 2 4 DR . UPTON : I s i t par t o f th e - - 2 5 DR . COGLIANO : (Interposing ) That' s takin g -H I Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4000 'P.5 4

' 5 2 1 th e rol l o f responsibilit yt o integrat e al l th e differen t 2 progra moffic e activities . Jus t s o everybod yunderstands , 3 i na sense , tha t woul d b e u s irrigatin g th e power s tha t w e 4 don' t have . 5 RONNI E LEVIN : Jus t t o ste p u p a littl e o f th e 6 brie f summar yo f th e Regulator yEnforcemen t Agend a o f th e 7 Agency . 8 W e trie d t o defin e ai r a s a technolog ytransfe r 9 becaus e fo r man yo f u s i t effect s regulation s tha t ar e unde r 1 0 way . Th e technolog ytransfe r componen t i s th e ke yt o 1 1 whethe r th e progra m- - whethe r th e regulatio ni s actuall y 1 2 goin g t o work . 1 3 Drinkin g wate r an d clean-u p ar e tw o area s wher e 1 4 al l th e pas t regulator ydevelopmen t i nheadquarter s won' t d o 1 5 anything , i f i nfact , whe ni t come s t o th e actua l 1 6 implementatio no f it , ther e i s a nadequat e resourc e o r 1 7 technolog yt o suppor t it . Thi s i s a hug e are a - - 1 8 Ther e ar e als o som e internationa l effort s 1 9 underway . Lea d contaminatio no f th e environmen t i s a bi g 2 0 proble mi nindustrialize dcountrie s ands o we'r e tryin g t o 2 1 wor k wit hth e Europea ncommunit yandwit hAustrali a andNe w 2 2 Zealan d t o teac hthe msom e o f th e har dlesson s we'v e learne d 2 3 an d t o lear nfro mthe msom e o f th e lesson s tlia t they'v e 2 4 learned . 2 5 It' s als o —lea d contaminatio ni s als o a bi g Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 05 3

1 proble mi ndevelopin g countries . S o we'r e tryin g t o wor k 2 wit hdevelopin g countrie s t o hel p the mavoi dsom e o f th e 3 pitfall s tha t we'v e encountered . 4 W e als o identifyin g specifi c researc hneed s and 5 tryin g t o establis hprioritie s amon g th e differen t researc h 6 needs . Th e need s ar e —andtryin g t o loo k acros s ou r 7 progra m

an d ou r regulator yneed s t o decid e wha t ar e th e bes t 8 place s ar e t o sin k ou r resources . 9 An d finally , we'r e intereste dreall yi ncraftin g 1 0 th e bi g pictur e o f strateg yand i ncraftin g a bi g pictur e o f 1 1 strategy , I jus t wante d t o finis hup byraisin g som e o f tin ; 1 2 bi g question s tha t w e have . Ther e ar e ope nquestions . 1 3 Apparentl ybot hth e Offic e o f Polic yPlannin g andDepartmen t 1 4 o f Researc hand Developmen t hav e begu nt o loo k a t th e bi g 1 5 pictur e o f lead . An dthat' s le dt o rais e som e question s 1 6 abou t ho ww e thin k abou t pollutant s i nth e U.S. . 1 7 I t als o ha s shifte dou r gear s fro midentifyin g 1 8 specifi c elemen t t o specifi c healt heffect s t o specifi c 1 9 population , an d force d u s t o tr yan dintegrat e som e o f wha t 2 0 we'r e thinkin g about . 2 1 Firs t o f all , ther e ar e seriou s ne whealt h 2 2 effect s tha t ar e makin g u s re-thin k som e o f wha t we'r e 2 3 doing . Feeling s abou t issues , tha t you'v e alread ybegu nt o 2 4 spea k abou t here . Th e natur e o f bon e storage . Ho winer t a 2 5 compartmen t i t is . It' s a poin t bot hfo r it s healt h Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4880 '

### 5 4

1 implication s an d for the lon

g ter m exposur e implications . 2 Ol d ag e maybe anothe r time perio d i nhuman 3 developmen t wher e ther e ar e specifi c an d grea t healt hrisks . 4 And tha t raise s newquestion s abou t healt heffect s tha t we 5 hav e no t i npas t investigate d a t all . 6 I nadditio nt o th e specifi c healt heffects , 7 there' s bee nhealt hissue s tha t we'r e beginning t o think 8 about . On e o f the question s tha t ha s come u p a fewtime s 9 abou t reversibility . 1 0 Reversibility , reserv e capacit yi s simila r t o 1 1 capacity . Obviousl ythes e al l feed int o question s an d 1 2 thresholds . Question s abou t wha t the bod ycanabsorb . An

d 1 3 we'r e no t sur e wha t t o d o wit hthose . There' s a finit e 1 4 simila r t o capacit yo r reserv e capacit yi nth e body , bu t 1 5 we'r e no t sur e exactl yhowt o addres s thos e issues . 1 6 Anothe r healt hissu e o f concer ni s tha t the 1 7 baselin e o f concer nha s moved . Bu t it' s no t onl yfo r bloo d 1 8 lead levels , bu t some o f th e measure s tha t we'v e bee nusing . 1 9 Fo r instance , bloo d pressure , th e bloo d pressur e level s o f 2 0 concer nhave change d i nfact , an d inevaluating source s an d 2 1 need s an

d therefor e regulatorydevelopment , thi s ha s raised 2 2 some healt hissue s fo r ns . 2 3 A s w e look a t measure d effect s moving toward s 2 4 lowe r an

d lowe r levels , we'r e meeting a crossing o f 2 5 threshold . Fo r advers e effectiv e ray s tha t non e o f u s

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.5 7 _

1 thoug habou t fiv e year s ago , al l o f a sudde nbegin s t o tak e 2 o nmeaning . No wwha t i s advers e effect ? Thi s i s a contex t 3 tha t w e didn' t have , bu t a s detectio nlimit s hav e com e down , 4 it' s lik e we'r e al l o f a sudde nhavin g ne wproblem s tha t ar e 5 bi g healt hissues . An dwe'r e no t sur e exactl ywha t w e ar e ' 6 goin g t o d o wit hthese . 7 Th e carcinogenicit yissu e whic hyou'v e al l bee n 8 dealin g wit hher e fo r th e pas t mont ho r so . I t i s no t a 9 negligibl e risk , no t a hug e risk , bu t ther e ar e ope n 1 0 question s abou t th e cance r causin g potentia l mechanis mi n 1 1 wate r lead . That' s anothe r thin g tha t w e nee dt o kee p i n 1 2 th e po t fo r consideratio ni s th e healt hissue . 1 3 Followin g that , ther e ar e som e bi g publi c polic y 1 4 issue s tha t we'r e strugglin g wit han dyou'r e strugglin g 1 5 with . W e hav e t o addres s lea d a s a mult i medi a pollutant , 1 6 and we'v e al l ha dth e leisure , o r perhap s th e restrictio no f 1 7 dealin g wit hlea d o nmediu mbymedium , ai r verse s water , 1 8 verse s soli d waste . 1 9 Bu t i nfact , i naddressin g a mult i medi a 2 0 pollutan t yo u can' t departmentaliz e andexpec t tha t yo u i n 2 1 fac t accuratel yrepresen t exposur e o r th e problem . And 2 that' s a bi g proble mfo r us . W e nee dt o mov e away , I think , 2 3 fro mmakin g judgment s abou t whic hsourc e i s mor e important , 2 4 whic hhealt heffec t i s mos t important , whic hpopulatio ni s 2 5 th e sensitiv e populatio nfo r a specifi c thing. , Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8 - >P.5 8

5 6 1 I nfac t ther e ar e broa dissue s tha t w e nee dt o 2 integrat e i nsom e wa yint o differen t programs , bu t thi s wil l 3 com e ou t i ndifferen t ways , bu t thes e ar e big , ope n 4 question s tha t w e have . 5 Th e tw o approache s t o th e publi c healt h 6 approaches , on e of , i nreducin g populatio nexplosions , on e 7 i s shiftin g th e whol e distribution , th e othe r o f truncatin g 8 th e tai l raise s question s fo r ou r differen t programs . 9 Als o ho wt o compar e relativel yhig hris k specifi c 1 0 smal l population s agains t lo wleve l exposur e i nhug e 1 1 populations . We'v e al l bee nstrugglin g wit hthes e 1 2 distributio nissue s an dwe'r e reall yno t sur e wha t t o d o i n 1 3 thes e cases . 1 4 Thi s ha s als o becom e mor e importan t a s congress , 1 5 i nfact , i s movin g t o giv e EPA , giv e u s a no dfo r assumin g a 1 6 mor e integrate d role , integrat e it s rol e i nlea d 1 7 contaminatio no f th e environment . We'r e talkin g abou t lea d 1 8 pain t whic hi s normall ysee na s a ho t issue . Lea d 1 9 contaminatio ncontro l actuall ygav e EP Aauthorit yove r wate r 2 0 coolers , whic hi s no t anythin g tha t w e ha ddon e before . W e 2 1 hav e als o identifie d th e schoo l drinkin g water , whic hi s no t 2 2 a communit ytha t w e hav e traditionall yregulated . Andso , 2 3 thi s i s jus t adde d t o th e difficultie s o f reall ydevelopin g 2 4 a nintegrate d approac ht o al l thes e issues , an dSL ? I don' t 2 5 hav e an yanswer s t o date , bu t the yar e new , bi g question s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-408 0P.5 9

L > / 

### 1 tha t EP

Ai s beginning t o struggl e with . 2 Thank you . 3 DR . UPTON : Thank yo u Ms . Levin . An ycomments ? 4 Dr . Silbergeld . 5 DR . SILBERGELD : Mayb e Leste r coul d als o speak 6 wit hu s too . I s ther e any , a s par t o f this , i s ther e an y 7 effor t going o nt o tryan d develop a kin

d o f integrate d 8 picture , relate d t o th e sourc e term ? 9 Tha t is , the kin d o f wor k —I' mthinking o t two 1 0 examples . On e i s th e kin d o f wor k tha t Garyhad recentl y 1 1 done , looking a t the tota l inpu t pictur e o f lead . I s ther e 1 2 an yattemp t t o d o tha t fo r th e Unite d States , a s wel l a s 1 3 projection s o f changes ? 1 4 And the nth e other , whic hi s veryinteresting . I 1 5 heard a t th e Nationa l Academ yo f Science s - - Nationa l 1 6 Academ

yo f Engineering meeting b yaneconomis t a t Carnegi e 1 7 Mellon , whos e name slip s m ymind righ t now , wher e he' s don e 1 8 wit hwha t h e call s meta l metabolis mstudies , whic his 1 9 somewha t akin , i nwhic hhe look s a t th e flow . 2 0 He' s don e thi s fo r cadmiu m an d fo r zinc . An

d he' s 2 1 starte d o nlead . H e sen t me some o f the stuff . He look s at 2 2 the flowfro m extraction , throughsystem s o f production , 2 3 appearanc e inconsume r products . H e hasn' t reall ygotte nto 2 4 the wast e side , whic his , o f course , ou r mysteryguest . I 2 5 wondere d whethe r -you're approaching i t - - You'r e doing , r

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4880 'P.6 0

5 0 1 thin k a nexemplar yjo bo f integratin g fro mth e recepto r 2 side , fo r th e firs t time . O f lookin g a t populations , an d 3 what' s goin g o nthere , and you'r e steppin g on e ste p bac k t o 4 th e medi a o f proximat e contac t water , etc . 5 Bu t I' mwonderin g abou t th e sourc e terms , an dt o 6 wha t exten t you'r e abl e t o d o tha t an dwhethe r yo u ar e 7 startin g t o d o that . 8 DR . COGLIANO : Well , I think , Ellen , tha t 9 differen t progra moffice s ar e carryin g ou t thei r 1 0 evaluation . How , generall yspeaking , i t looke dat , on e <.v r 1 1 anothe r segmen t o f tha t sourc e recepto r relationshi p o r 1 2 whatever . 1 3 DR . SILBERGELD : Yeah , bu t that , tha t ha s bee nver y 1 4 misleadin g an d I thin k ge t u s int o thes e debate s a s t o whic h 1 5 i s mor e o r les s important . I' mwonderin g whethe r there' s 1 6 bee na noveral l attempt . 1 7 DR . COGLIANO : I don' t thin k there' s bee nan 1 8 overal l attemp t i ntha t sens e fo r lead . Ther e ha dearlie r 1 9 bee nthings , a t times , som e numbe r o f year s ago , som e 2 0 project s tha t di da littl e bit , sa yKathyEmbe r o r somebody 2 1 i ntha t area , com e close

2 2 I thin k tha t on e o f th e kind s o f item s tha t w e 2 3 identifie d i nth e discussio na t meeting s tha t w e had . W e 2 4 ha d a Deput yAdministrato r an dyou , an dother s fro mth e 2 5 differen t progra moffice s t o b e looke dat . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.6 1

5 9 1 S o it ' s identifie da s a nissu e o r a poin t t o be 2 addressed . I thin k t o dat e ther e ha s no t bee na singl e 3 coheren t projec t effor t o r somethin g identifie dwher e yo u 4 woul d pul l al l o f thos e thing s together . 5 DR . WEISS : Yo u know , I' dlik e t o sugges t tha t w e 6 scrutiniz e th e natur e o f thi s t o ou r surroundings . A 7 librar yi nscenari o give ndifferen t circumstance s 8 RONNI E LEVIN : (Interposing ) Th e wor dlibrar y 9 wasn' t i ni t whe nyo u mentione di t t o me , i t wa s jus t a 1 0 numbe r o f — 1 1 DR . COGLIANO : - - I jus t expande dit . Anumbe r o f 1 2 differen t scenarios , makin g differen t assumption s abou t th e 1 3 contributio no f differen t sources , andth e consequence s o f 1 4 differen t kind s o f abatement . 1 5 You'v e see nperhap s on e o r tw o endpoints . A 1 6 possibl e endpoin t woul db e th e distributio no f score s o n 1 7 psychologica l tests . An dthe nyo u coul ddetermin e ho w 1 8 differen t strategies , o r chang e woul dimpac t tha t 1 9 distribution , usin g tha t distributio nt o develo p a 0 quantitativ e measur e o f ris k base do nth e populatio n 2 1 distributio no f scores . 2 2 An d the nyo u woul d hav e som e mean s o | 2 3 communicatin g t o peopl e lik e me , wha t th e ultimat e resul t 2 4 woul d b e o f mino r o r majo r change s i nal l o f th e differen t 2 5 media . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n (202 ) 628-488 8 "iP.6 2

6 0 1 I don' t thin k yo u ca nconstruc t a formul a righ t 2 no wfo r demonstratin g th e impac t o f th e chang e o f on e medi a 3 o nth e tota l constellatio no f endpoint . 4 I thin k wha t yo u nee dno wi s a mor e 5 impressionisti c communicatio no f thes e changes . I thin k 6 tha t woul d b e a ver yusefu l wa yfo r integratin g al l o f th e 7 differen t progra moffice s an dthei r tota l healt h 8 implications . 9 RONNI E LEVIN : I thin k tha t a reall yintriguin g 1 0 idea . Than k you . 1 1 DR . HAMMOND : I nth e past , EP Aha s mad e 1 2 decisions , recommendation s concernin g th e ai r lead . Thos e 1 3 decisions , a s I recall , wer e neve r followe dbya systemati c 1 4 quot a t o evaluat e th e consequence s o f th e decision . 1 5 Now , I thin k yo u kin do f lucke dout , s o fa r a s NU 2 1 6 i s concerned . I don' t think , i nfact , yo u wer e responsibl e 1 7 fo r NH 2 a s a sourc e o f valuabl e information . An ds o wha t 1 8 I' m

askin g is , no wi n198 9 i s th e EP Agoin g t o d o somethin g 1 9 abou t tha t failin g o f test s fo r whateve r reason ? 2 0 You'r e goin g t o hav e a nNH3 , I understan dthat . 2 1 Bu t d o yo u hav e a pla nfo r usin g NH 3 fo r gettin g 2 2 supplementa l informatio ntha t yo u nee dtha t i s no t buil t 2 3 int o a nNH3 , i norde r t o evaluat e th e impac t o f consequence s 2 4 o f you r decision s i n1989 ? 2 5 DR . "FRANK:

- Yeah . - - Firs t o f all , I think , Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 86 1

1 perhap s yo u overstate d th e case , a s fa r a s no t havin g som e 2 mechanis m

i nplac e t o evaluat e i t with . 3 Wha t happened , I direc t you r attention , i nyou r 4 gree nboo k t o pag e 2-3 , i nwhic hI ver ynicel ycharacterize d 5 fo r you . Okay ? W e hav e wha t ha s gon e on , i nfact , i nregar d 6 t o th e impac t o f ai r movemen t - - abatement , i f yo u will . 7 What' s happene d a s fa r a s staffin g wit hreductio ni nlead 8 an d gasolin e ai r standard . 9 I f yo u loo k o ntha t page , it' s pag e 2-1 , andthe n 1 0 th e figur e dow nbelow , 2-2 . I thin k yo u wil l find ther e 1 1 ver yexcellentl ydepicte dth e consequenc e o f ou r regulator y 1 2 action . I nfac t i t ha s spelle dou t quit e a succes s story . 1 3 Probabl yon e tha t th e Agenc yneed s t o proces s mor e and le t 1 4 peopl e kno wup here . Bygolly , whe nyo u undertak e som e o f 1 5 thes e massiv e effort s tha t we'v e al l bee ninvolve di nfo r 1 0 1 6 years , o r more , advis e ther e ar e som e ver yrea l 1 7 environmenta l benefit s t o b e gained . Thi s tell s th e stor yo f 1 8 that . 1 9 DR . GRANT : I hav e a question . Th e questio ni s 2 0 reall ya s t o whethe r tha t wa s define da s th e resul t o f 2 1 actio nthroug hth e tim e o f tha t ai r lea dstandard . 2 2 DR . COGLIANO : W e hav e a. regula r program . A 2 3 radian t bywhic hth e Ai r Offic e i s lookin g at , wha t i s 2 4 goin g o ni nth e wa yo f emission s an dals o ai r 2 5 concentration ; -i nrelatio nt o al l th e - criteri a ai r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-400 06 2

1 pollutant s and a numbe r o f other s a s well . 2 S o tha t yo u hav e i nplaces , an dhav e hadfo r a 3 ver ylon g time , a t leas t on e o f th e kind s o f mechanism s tha t 4 i s lookin g a t th e environmenta l leve l relate dt o air , and 5 that' s wha t i s depicte dhere . Tha t stil l exist s andwil l 6 continue . 7 Let' s g o t o you r nex t question , an dtha t i s th e N . 8 Haine s busines s whic hdi dprovid e t o u s ye t anothe r ver y 9 usefu l mechanis mo r whateve r bywhic ht o hav e a loo k a t i t 1 0 tha t is , if , ha d bloo dlead s - - andtherefor e provide du s 1 1 wit hver yhig hcurve s o r whatever , bywhic hw e coul d see . 1 2 Afte r 1978 , especially , a ver ydramati c dropof f 1 3 wit hmajo r reductio ni nlea dga s too k plac e andbloo dlead s 1 4 cam e o ndow nso , I haven' t see nthe mi nhere . S o anyway , N . 1 5 Haine s 3 doe s contai nprovision s fo r bloo dlead s and 1 6 essentiall yt o provid e anothe r snapsho t o f what' s happenin g 1 7 i nth e lat e 80' s o r earl y90's . Now , i s ther e a ver ywel l 1 8 coordinated , integrated , whateve r connectio nint o there , and 1 9 d o w e have , EPA , a supe r opportunit yt o perhap s ge t othe r 2 0 additiona l thing s ou t o f N . Haines ? 2 1 Th e answe r t o tha t i s a mixe dye s andno . We'v e 2 2 ha d abilit yt o giv e som e inpu t t o th e recommendation , bu t 2 3 wer e no t i na positio nt o strongl ydetermin e wha t i s goin g 2 4 t o g o o nwit hth e N . Haines . Katie , I' dlik e t o kno wi f yo u 2 5 wan t t o ad d somethin g o nth e N . Haines?

- Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4.88 8P.6 5

6 3 1 DR . MAHAFFEY : Ther e i s a lo t I coul dad dt o it , 2 mos t o f whic hi t i s probabl ybette r no t to . I nterm s ul-

- 3 I amlookin g a t thi s fro msevera l perspective s becaus e I a m 4 o na Nationa l Academyo f Science s committe e abou t monitorin g 5 fo r norma l contaminant s i nbot henvironmenta l andtissu e 6 samples . Ther e i s a majo r lac k o f informatio ni nthi s area . 7 On e o f th e thing s I am reall yquit e concerne dabou t i s 8 samplin g o f chemica l an dbacteria l qualit yo f wate r a t th e 9 tap . I t i s importan t t o kno wwha t i s goin g o na t th e 1 0 reservoirs , bu t let' s fac e it , th e wate r tha t w e drin k 1 1 typicall yi s comin g fro mth e tap . 1 2 W e hav e ha dman yman ycall s fro mpeopl e wh o ar e 1 3 concerne d abou t water , wh o ar e concerne dabou t bottle dwate r 1 4 an d on e o f th e thing s w e repeatedl yg o bac k t o nicrobia l 1 5 safety . I f yo u hav e filter s o ntap s becaus e peopl e lac k 1 6 confidenc e abou t it , th e chemica l qualit yo f th e wate r jus t 1 7 make s fo r anothe r typ e o f problem . 1 8 I thin k EP Aha s certainl yno t publicized , i f the y 1 9 hav e th e information , o nth e exten t o f samplin g o f wate r a t 2 0 th e ta p an d th e wate r qualit yonc e i t ha s gon e throug hth e 2 1 entir e distributio nsystem . 2 2 A t on e poin t ther e wa s som e discussio nabou t 2 3 addin g wate r sample s t o M . Haine s fo r th e peopl e wh o wei. o i u 2 4 N . Haine s 3 . I don' t kno wwhethe r tha t par t b f th e endin g 2 5 survey s "staye d i nit , becaus e again

- we - hav e ha drathe r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4880 'P.6 6

6 4 1 limite d abilit yt o find ou t wha t i s happening . 2 I don' t kno wwhic hpar t o f scientifi c advisor y 3 board s woul d dea l wit hthis , bu t I thin k tha t EP Ashoul db e 4 i na muc hstronge r positio nt o mak e recommendation s fo r thi s 5 nationa l survey . Grante dther e ar e limitation s o nth e 6 amoun t o f lea d availabl e an d certainl yyo u don' t wan t t o b e 7 usin g biologica l sample s tha t ar e difficul t t o obtai nand 8 valuabl e fo r man yreason s i nway s tha t wouldn' t produc e the 9 bes t qualif yo f scientifi c information . 1 0 Bu t th e othe r sid e o f i t i s I thin k th e 1 1 reservation s o f EP Aand som e other s shoul dhav e ha di nthi s 1 2 wer e no t give nver ygoo d treatmen t bya numbe r o f differen t 1 3 sources . 1 4 I thin k thi s i s somethin g th e scienc e advisor y 1 5 boar d overal l shoul dreall ytak e a loo k into . 1 6 DR . MUSHAK : Coul dI jus t follo wu p o nyou r 1 7 respons e t o myperhap s overstate dconcerns . 1 8 DR . McCLELLAN : Okay , Paul . 1 9 DR . MUSHAK : A s a nexampl e o f wh yI wa s concerne d 2 0 i s th e fac t tha t on e importan t piec e o f informatio ni s 2 1 missin g tha t yo u coul d hav e had , I believe , ha dyo u hadth e 2 2 money . Tha t i s th e consequence s o f th e phasedow no f lea d i. n 2 3 gasolin e o nth e concentratio no f lea di nsoi l anddust . i t 2 4 i s no t there . 2 5 Now , I don' t kno wi f that . is . expected . V woul d Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 06 5

1 sayi t wa s a fairl yobviou s measuremen t neede di nthe 2 evaluatio no f th e phasedown . I gues s tha t i f i t i s o f any 3 hel p whatever , tha t thi s committe e andothe r committee s 4 coul d recommen d whateve r the yfee l o r the yan dyo u fee l ar e 5 neede d a s programmati c objective s fo r evaluatin g the 6 consequence s o f wha t yo u d o vi s a vi s lea do r anythin g els e 7 fo r tha t matter . 8 DR . HAMMOND : I thin k tha t genericall ytha t i s 9 likel yt o b e a ver yhelpfu l thin g becaus e o f th e 1 0 recommendation s o f SAD o r whatever , tha t th e agenc y 1 1 undertak e t o evaluat e th e consequence s o f fact s a s i t were . 1 2 Ther e ar e som e variou s effort s an dvariou s bit s andpiece s 1 3 whateve r wher e tha t i s attempted . 1 4 I thin k i nth e cas e o f lea di nsoi l specifically , 1 5 th e las t go-around , a s fa r a s N . Haines , a t tha t tim e I 1 6 thin k i t wasn' t a s i t wa s planne di nth e earl y'70' s ands o 1 7 o nw e weren' t eve na t a poin t wher e w e ha da definit e 1 8 progra mt o remov e lea dfro mgasolin e shal l w e say . Tha t 1 9 cam e abou t byth e tim e tha t earlie r endin g wa s planne do n 2 0 bein g conducted . I t i s paralle l independen t o f that . 2 1 I t wa s to o lat e i na sens e ther e righ t off . I. 2 2 thin k thi s g o aroun d - - and again , Katie , yo u ca ncorrec t m e 2 3 —I don' t kno wtha t th e availabl e overal l monie s o r pot s o f 2 4 monie s fo r i t woul dallo wi nth e N . Haine s o r L nth e 2 5 structure , o f all.of.i t t o d o muc ho f a .nationa l surve yo n Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.6 8

6 6 1 wha t i s happenin g t o th e soil

2 Anyway , w e probabl ywil l ge t o r ar e gettin g othe r 3 informatio nwhic hi s throug hothe r researc hprogram s tha t 4 wil l provid e som e indication s o r whatever . I wil l jus t mak e 5 not e o f on e thing . Som e o f ou r wate r researc hprogram s ar e 6 finding , and the yar e monitorin g o r lookin g a t variou s lake s 7 an d rivers , streams , whatever , sediment s i nthem , tha t i. n 8 fac t ove r th e pas t numbe r o f year s ther e ha s bee na rathe r 9 dramati c decreas e o r declin e i nth e lea dlevel s bein g found 1 0 i nthos e sediment s ands o o nandi s though t mainl yt o b e du e 1 1 t o th e remova l o f leade d gasolin e an dsecondar ydepositio n 1 2 o r whatever . 1 3 W e ar e goin g t o hav e t o b e lookin g a t exactl y 1 4 thos e pattern s and tryin g t o relat e the move r tim e t o th e 1 5 sens e tha t w e ca ni nfac t kno wwha t i s goin g on . Ther e i s 1 6 likel yt o b e som e sor t o f a tim e la g w e shoul dexpec t 1 7 betwee nleade d gasolin e phasedown . Ther e i s a ver y 1 8 immediat e connectio nwit hdecrease s i nth e ai r level s tha t 1 9 ar e w e 11-demon s trated . Bu t the nperhap s a s a la g tim e fo r 2 0 wha t i s happenin g i ndecrease s i nsedimen t o f water s and 2 1 streams . 2 2 Anyway , I thin k - - goin g bac k t o som e o f th e 2 3 earlie r discussio n- - I don' t thin k ther e ar e an ylea d 2 4 measurement s a s fa r a s i ndrinkin g wate r a s par t o f N . 2 5 Haine s 3 . I don' t thin k tha t tha t i s par t o f it . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8

.6 7

1 Yo u mentione dsomethin g earlie r andtha t wa s 2 money . Believ e it , fo r real , i nterm s o f what , woul dbe 3 idea l t o b e don e i nrelationshi p t o a lo t o f thes e differen t 4 kind s o f evaluation s an danalyses , tha t doe s com e int o pla y 5 and i t i s a very , ver ybi g substantia l facto r i nterm s o f 6 wha t indee d th e agenc yca nattemp t t o undertake . 7 I nthes e day s o f th e hug e budge t deficit s ands o 8 o ni nth e las t numbe r o f years , yo u hav e t o dea l wit hthat . 9 I t become s a lo t harde r an dharde r i nestablishin g 1 0 prioritie s and s o o nt o d o it . 1 1 DR . UPTON : Ther e wa s a grou p wh o wante dt o 1 2 commen t —Dr . Mushak , Rabinowit z andWesolowski . 1 3 DR . MUSHAK : Tw o questions . Th e firs t ha s t o d o 1 4 wit hthi s busines s o f wha t constitute s a nadvers e healt h 1 5 effect . Ca nw e expec t tha t th e agenc ywoul dtr yt o involv e 1 6 som e reasonabl e guideline s fo r thi s proble mand 1 7 DR . UPTON : (Interposing ) An dwha t constitute s a n 1 8 advers e healt hhazard . 1 9 DR . MUSHAK : Wrestlin g wit hth e proble mo f 2 0 evolvin g guideline s fo r tacklin g thi s busines s o f wha t 2 1 reall yi s a nadvers e effec t an dkin do f i na generi c way , 2 2 usin g guideline s tha t ca nb e applicable . 2 3 Fro mth e perspectiv e o f someon e wh o work s wit ha 2 4 lo t o f metal s wit hEP Aan d othe r agencies , i t i s amazin g ho w 2 5 lea d i s reall ya t th e cuttin g edge . Yo u ar e lookin g a t a Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.7 0

6 0 1 lo t o f subtl e effects . 2 I f yo u loo k a t - - i t i s almos t lik e the lat e 3 snapsho t o f th e mercur yfo r example . Tha t i s no wstartin g 4 t o loo k lik e lea d ha s som e effects , bu t i t hasn' t gotte n 5 there . 6 No wpar t B o f tha t questio ni s failin g EP Abein g 7 abl e t o d o this , i s ther e a defaul t positio nwhic hi s simpl y 8 yo u g o t o th e lowes t observabl e level . 9 Ther e i s a secon dquestion . 1 0 DR . FRANK : Mayb e I bette r watc hwha t I saya t 1 1 first . 1 2 Firs t o f all , obviousl yth e issu e o f advers e 1 3 healt heffect s andho wt o defin e the mi s on e o f long

1 4 standin g concer nan d s o fort han dcertainl yi nterm s o f ou r 1 5 interaction s wit hCASAC , fo r example , an dth e ai r standards , 1 6 i t i s a continuou s thing . Th e Clea nAi r Ac t obviousl yput s 1 7 tha t righ t ou t fron t an dw e hav e t o com e t o grip s wit hit . 1 8 O non e hand , a s a nexample , wha t Mor t describe d 1 9 yesterday , th e fac t tha t workin g wit hth e committe e ther e 2 0 hav e bee ncertai nthing s tha t hav e evolve da t leas t t o som e 2 1 exten t i na generi c sense , w e hav e arrive da t certai nagree d 2 2 o nconclusion s tha t ther e i s a mor e tha nte npercen t 2 3 decremen t i nairwa yfunctio no r whatever , a t leas t fo r 2 4 asthmatic s a s likel yhavin g a nadvers e effec t andca nb e 2 5 applied , consistentl yacros s severa l o f th e differen t air

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4888 'P.7 1

6 9 1 pollutant s - - ozon e o r N0 2 o r sulfu r dioxid e o r whatever . 2 Ther e ha s bee na nevolution . A s fa r a s forma l 3 mechanisms , ther e doe s exis t a wor k grou p withi nth e agenc y 4 tha t i s takin g a loo k a t whethe r on e ca ndevelo p som e 5 generi c kind s o f guideline s i nterm s o f approache s t o defin e 6 advers e effect . Tha t i s i npar t i nrespons e t o request s 7 fro mou r previou s administrato r las t year . I t woul d b e 8 helpfu l t o hav e som e additiona l inpu t alon g tha t line . 9 On e thin g I thin k al l o f u s nee dt o kee p i nmind , 1 0 par t o f ou r experienc e I thin k i nth e las t te nyear s i n 1 1 dealin g wit hcertainl ysom e o f th e differen t ai r pollutants , 1 2 som e o f th e meta l and s o forth , i s mayb e w e ar e goin g t o 1 3 fin d ourselve s gettin g int o a bi t o f difficult yi n 1 4 developin g ver yrigi dguidelines . Thi s i s because , 1 5 dependin g o nsom e differen t circumstances , certai nchange s 1 6 tha t i nan d o f themselve s alon e ma yno t constitut e a n 1 7 advers e effect , bu t i f the yoccu r i nconjunctio nwit hothe r 1 8 one s o r a constellatio no f othe r fact s - - 1 9 DR . HAMMOND : Yo u ar e preachin g t o th e consumer 2 0 DR . FRANK : Yes , t o you , Paul . I t i s usefu l fo r 2 1 others , a constellatio no f effec t become s ver yimportant . I 2 2 thin k w e al l nee dt o b e ver ycarefu l a s w e wal k throug hthi. s 2 3 sor t o f process , t o allow , yes , ther e ar e certai ngen. ; r !• • 2 4 things , bu t a t th e sam e tim e allo wth e flexibilit yand 2 5 operat e i nconnectio nwit hthat . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.7 2

7 0 1 DR

- MUSHAK : Th e questio nis , I thin k th e agenc y 2 need s t o loo k mor e a t a societa l definitio no f anadvers e 3 effect . Tha t w e touche d o ni t a littl e i nth e AT S report , 4 tha t ther e is , i f yo u will , a nationa l leve l o r 5 internationa l leve l cos t fo r effect s whic ha nindividua l i s 6 ma yb e minor . Tha t is , i t i s on e thin g t o sa ytha t Jo e Do e 7 fro mIndianapoli s i s a littl e dumbe r fro mtha t shif t a t th e 8 highest , no t necessaril yth e retardation . 9 I t i s somethin g els e t o sa ytha t th e U.S . 1 0 collectivel yi s a lo t dumbe r becaus e o f te nmillio nlittl e 1 1 dumbe r Jo e Doe s sprea d al l ove r th e country . 1 2 S o th e concep t o f a macr o scal e o f advers e effec t 1 3 rathe r tha nth e conventiona l clinica l approac ho f a patien t 1 4 sittin g o na chair . 1 5 DR . FRANK : Yes , w e d o that , o r tak e tha t int o 1 6 accoun t i nsom e ver yman yway s already , i na numbe r o f 1 7 differen t programs . I t i s certainl yreflecte di na kindo f 1 8 approac huse d i nth e ai r offic e i naddressin g th e standards , 1 9 ho wman ypeopl e ar e effected , wha t th e magnitud e o f th e 2 0 effec t is . 2 1 DR . MUSHAK : Yes , bu t enumeratin g subject s I s not 2 2 th e sam e a s sayin g X-peopl e hav e a publi c hav e a coupl e -- . 2 3 DR . FRANK : W e understan dtha t i t goe s beyon d 2 4 jus t that . 2 5 DR . WESOLOWSKI : I woul djus t comment , th e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 87 1

1 mortality , w e hav e a bas e decisio no f wher e yo u ma yhav e an 2 extremel ylo windividua l ris k certainl yi non e person , whe n 3 yo u loo k a t i t acros s th e wid e populatio nyo u hav e a larg e 4 population , a mor e significan t populatio na t risk . W e d o 5 conside r thos e factors . 6 DR . UPTON : Ms . Levine . 7 MS . LEVINE : Well , I thin k tha t thi s whol e issu e 8 i s ver yne wt o u s andi t ha s lot s o f form s o f th e question . 9 On e w e kee p comin g up t o whic hi s wha t happen s t o th e 1 0 distributio no f peopl e i nvariou s classes . 1 1 Anothe r thin g i s wha t i s th e magnitud e o f effec t 1 2 withi nspecifi c classes , an dthe nth e for mo f thi s questio n 1 3 recurs . On e thin g i nsevera l o f th e cos t benefi t analysi s 1 4 tha t w e hav e looke d i t i s th e magnitud e o f th e I.Q . effect . 1 5 Bu t th e levelin g tha t take s plac e ther e i s tha t 1 6 w e loo k a t tota l I.Q . point s an di t i s har dt o tel l whethe r 1 7 i t i s a millio nchildre nwit hon e I.Q . point , o r 100,00 0 1 8 childre nte nI.Q . points . Tha t i s a ver ybi g differenc e i n 1 9 term s o f wha t yo u thin k th e impac t is . 2 0 I naddition , som e o f th e exposure s a s w e look 2 1 acros s th e country , wit hgasolin e ther e wa s a relativel y 2 2 constan t coefficien t b yage , se xanr

l rac e acros s th e countr y 2 3 fo r th e impac t o f lea di ngasoline . Fo r drinkin g water , a s 2 4 fa r a s w e ca ntell , i t i s a ver ydifferen t distributio nand 2 5 muc hclose r t o bein g bimodal . Fo r lea dpain t there.ma yb e Heritag e Repentin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4888 "P.7 4

7 2 1 almos t a dichotomou s variable , tha t w e hav e peopl e wit hvery 2 larg e exposure s and w e hav e peopl e wit hn o exposures . 3 S o whe nyo u tal k abou t th e resul t o f regulator y 4 efforts , i t reall ydepend s upo nwha t th e specifi c exposur e 5 i s tha t yo u ar e lookin g a t becaus e th e distributio no f tha t 6 exposur e take s a differen t form , i t i s no t th e same . 7 Ho wd o w e portra yth e result s o f a specifi c ac t 8 o r thi s librar yo f scenario s reall ydepend s o na whol e hos t 9 o f differen t way s o f askin g thi s question . I thin k i t i s 1 0 incredibl yinteresting . I t i s ver ynew . Ther e ar e ver yfe w 1 1 method s tha t exist , bu t w e ar e reall yintereste di ntha t 1 2 question . W e ar e jus t beginnin g t o d o som e wor k o nit . 1 3 DR . MUSHAK : Acentra l question , an dI amgettin g 1 4 bac k - - 1 5 MR . JORDAN : I hav e se t acros s thi s tabl e sinc e 1 6 th e earl y1980' s I hav e looke da t a lo t o f smar t scientist s 1 7 an d debate d th e sam e issu e yo u ar e raisin g bac k an dforth . 1 8 I findtha t whil e ther e hav e bee nattempt s t o d o 1 9 it , n o generi c rul e ha s eve r bee nwritte nou t tha t sai dthi s 2 0 i s adverse , an d thi s isn' t adverse . Excep t for a few 2 1 effects , it' s adverse . Coug hma yb e no t adverse . 2 2 I t i s a very , ver ytoug hissu e and i t i s 2 3 addresse d eac htim e w e revie wth e standard s an dmayb e no t i n 2 4 som e well-define d wa yo f doin g it . Th e thin g I poin t i s w e 2 5 d o hav e ongoing

- withi nth e agenc yno wa prett ylarg e tas k Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 87 3

1 forc e wher e w e ar e tryin g t o focu s i na t th e directio no f 2 th e administrator , thi s tas k forc e woul dse t up t o tryan d 3 ge t som e bette r definitio no f wha t a nadvers e effec t is . 4 Havin glistene dt o som e o f th e smartes t 5 scientist s i nth e worl ddebat e this , I reall y don' t kno

w ho w 6 enthuse dI a

m o r wha t migh t b e the outcome o f it . 7 DR . UPTON : Ther e i s a worksho pplanne ddealin g 8 wit hthi s broa dquestion . I thinkDr . Rabinowit z hadhi s 9 handup . Dr . Frank ? 1 0 DR . FRANK : No , I don' t thinkso , bu t sinc e yo u 1 1 asked . 1 2 (Laughter. ) 1 3 DR . FRANK : Defin e wor kat ou r neighbor s at th e 1 4 U.S . Geologica l Surve y i nthei r wate r resource s branc han d 1 5 lookinga t trend s andsurfac e waters . 1 6 Inrespons e t o th e question , generi c advers e 1 7 healt heffects , I a m no t include da s on e o f th e smar t 1 8 scientist , bu t I a m goingt o say

m y ow npoin t o f view

abou t 1 9 tha t i s tha t i t i s ver y difficul t indee dt o mak e generi c 2 0 criteri a becaus e yo uhav e t o trea t eac hpollutan t 2 1 independently . 2 2 Fo r example , a specifie dreductio ni nsom e 2 3 spirometri c functio nlike a force dbiocapacit y o f te

n 2 4 percent , unles s youkno w the mechanis m

o f th e effect , i t i s 2 5 very

difficul t t o judg e it s adversity . - A - tenpercen t Heritag e Reportin gCorporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.7 6

7 4 1 reductio nowin g t o ozon e ma yb e associate dwit hinflammatio n 2 th e sam e magnitud e o f chang e associate dwit hS0 2 whic hi s 3 certainl yno t associate d wit hinflammation . 4 S o w e reall yhav e t o dea l wit ha t leas t i nth e 5 smal l clas s o f pollutant s tha t I amfamilia r wit h—yes , 6 jus t t o add mycomment . Aheadach e i na contex t o f lead 7 exposur e a s a sympto mha s a ver ydifferen t meaning , 8 obviousl yan d possibl e encephalopath yan da life

9 threatenin g situatio ni s differen t tha na headach e i n 1 0 connectio nwit hinhalatio no f som e othe r gaseou s compoun do r 1 1 whatever . 1 2 Again , somebod ysai di s a headach e a nadvers e 1 3 effect . Yo u can' t answe r tha t questio ni f somebod yha s a 1 4 headach e alone . Yo u hav e go t t o loo k a t th e whol e picture . 1 5 DR . WESOLOWSKI : Th e soi l proble mI woul dlik e t o 1 6 commen t o nbecaus e Bruc e expresse dfrustratio nworkin g wit h 1 7 scientists . 1 8 MR . JORDAN : I didn' t mea nfrustration . 1 9 DR . WESOLOWSKI : I ca nunderstan dtha t completel y 2 0 becaus e a s fa r a s I a mconcerne d fro mth e publi c healt h 2 1 poin t o f view , advers e healt heffect s hav e t o b e define db y 2 2 bot hscientists , the na s a publi c healt hpolic ydecision , 2 3 an d the na s a societa l decision . S o an yworksho p wher e yuu 2 4 onl yhav e scientist s involve dha s limitation s i ndefinin g 2 5 advers e effects . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.7 7

1 Bu t wha t I wante d t o tal k abou t wa s Dr . Hammond' s 2 suggestio nfo r a perspectiv e soi l survey . I lik e tha t ide a 3 becaus e i t i s alway s a usefu l scientifi c exercise , bu t i t i s 4 expensiv e and I thin k tha t i t migh t hav e difficult yi n 5 testin g th e hypothesi s a s t o whethe r EPA' s contro l strateg y 6 i s working . Thi s i s becaus e th e chang e i nth e ai r qualit y 7 standar d a s propose dyesterda yi s fairl yminima l an dbecaus e 8 mos t o f th e phase-ou t o f leade dgasolin e i s s o grea t tha t 9 doin g a soi l surve yca ntes t that . I t woul db e difficult . 1 0 Instea dI thin k suc ha soi l surve ywoul db e o f 1 1 valu e i ndeterminin g th e half-lif e o f lea di nsoils . Bu t 1 2 the nt o tes t tha t hypothesis , on e woul dhav e t o measur e mor e 1 3 tha njus t th e lea d i nsoil , bu t woul dhav e t o measur e 1 4 permeability , rat e o f soil , differen t mineral s an d s o on . 1 5 S o scientificall yth e thin g ha s merit s bu t i t i s a mor e 1 6 expensiv e stud yan don e whic hmigh t no t assis t i nmakin g 1 7 judgmen t a s t o whethe r ther e ar e definit e standards . 1 8 DR . MUSHAK : I thin k soi l become s al l th e mor e 1 9 importan t a s yo u conside r th e whol e sewag e sludg e bucket . 2 0 Nobod yknow s wha t t o d o wit htha t stuff . 2 1 DR . FRANK : i t ha s becom e quit e a larg e issu e fo r 2 2 th e agenc yt o dea l wit ho naccoun t o f th e numbe r things , 2 3 includin g incineratio no f sludg e o r municipa l waste . 2 4 .MS . LEVIN : Sludg e i s potentiall yth e on e sourc e 2 5 tha t i s projecte da s a sourc e o f environmenta l exposur e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4880 'P.7 8

7 6 1 projecte d t o increase . Tha t ha s obviousl ylot s o f long ter m 2 indications . O nth e othe r hand , w e hav e a proble mwit hthe 3 fac t tha t i t ha s t o g o somewhere , al l thi s waste . Bu t tha t 4 i s on e sourc e o f environmenta l exposur e fro mlea dtha t i s 5 projecte d t o increase . 6 Th e othe r thin g i s tha t w e hav e a serie s o f 7 modelin g effort s underwa yno wprimaril yi nou r Athens , 0 Georgi a laboratory , a mode l calle dMINTA C whic hi s lookin g 9 a t soi l permeability , insulatio nrates , deviation , ands o 1 0 forth . S o som e o f tha t i s underway . 1 1 DR . UPTON : Tw o mor e comments . Dr . Mahaffe yan d 1 2 Dr . Silbergeld . 1 3 DR . MAHAFFEY : On e o f th e thing s tha t concern s m e 1 4 greatl yseem s t o b e th e absenc e o f dat a o nlea di nwater . 1 5 An d a s Mik e ha s pointe dout , th e USG S ca nmeasur e lea di n 1 6 water . I kno wfro mhearin g th e presentation s a t th e 1 7 Nationa l Academy , tha t w e kno wa lo t abou t contaminant s i u 1 8 mussel s an d shellfish . 1 9 I hav e aske d severa l time s abou t d o w e reall y 2 0 kno who wmuc hlea d i s i nth e water , i nth e wate r cooler s and 2 1 wh o consume s thi s water , an dho wmuc hi s consumed . 2 2 I ca nunderstan da lo t o f changin g definition s o n 2 3 healt heffects , bu t i t woul dsee ma fairl yreasonabl e 2 4 straight-forwar d questio nt o as k ho wmuc hlea di s i nwater , 2 5 wher e i s it , and can't , thi s b e measure da t th e tap . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.7 9

7 7 1 MS . BRISKIN : Ther e ar e a coupl e o f dat a base s 2 tha t ar e aroun do nlea di ndrinkin g wate r a t th e tap . The y 3 weren' t necessaril ydesigne dt o loo k a t nationa l 4 distributions , bu t the yd o giv e u s som e ide a o f wha t lea d 5 level s ar e a t th e tap . 6 On e tha t wa s cite di nth e benefi t stud yfo r lea d 7 i ndrinkin g wate r i s a stud ytha t wa s writte nu p b yPaterso n 8 an d i t looke da t wate r sample s tha t wer e take ni n 9 conjunctio nwit hpeopl e wh o calle dth e Culliga nWate r 1 0 Softenin g Compan ybecaus e the ywer e thinkin g abou t gettin g 1 1 thei r wate r softened . 1 2 Tha t gav e u s ou r firs t reasonabl e broa dbased , 1 3 althoug hpeopl e debat e whethe r i t i s nationall ya 1 4 representativ e pictur e o f th e distributio no f wate r lea d 1 5 level s i nth e U.S . Tha t i s wher e w e cam e u p wit hth e 1 6 estimat e tha t w e though t a s man ya s twent ymillio npeopl e 1 7 go t wate r wit hmor e tha n2 0 part s pe r billion . Thos e wer e 1 8 ta p sample s an d the yweren' t take ntha t w e ar e no w 1 9 recommendin g sample s b e taken . The ywer e partiall yflushe d 2 0 an d the ywer e take na t rando mtime s durin g th e day , but : the y 2 1 wer e take nconsistentl ywithi ntha t dat a base . 2 2 Second , w e hav e dat a no wsupplie dt o u s b yi h " 2 3 America nWaterwork s Servic e Compan ywhic hi s th e larges t se t 2 4 o f informatio nw e receive di nanticipatio no f ou r propose d 2 5 rulemakin g and tha t i s a ' dat a bas e o f abou t fiftee nhundre d Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

( 2 0 2 ) 628- 4 88 8P.8 0

7 0 1 dat a point s fromth e ninet yo r s o wate r system s tha t tha t 2 compan ymanages . Thes e ar e consistentl ytake nmornin g firs t 3 frot h- - tha t i s sample s tha t hav e stoo di nth e pipe s 4 betwee neigh t and eightee nhour s - - on e lite r sample s wit h 5 availabl e informatio no npip e type , solde r age , corrosivit y 6 characteristic s a t th e tap . Tha t i s th e dat a bas e w e ar e 7 tryin g us e t o determin e possibl e lea dstandards . W e ar e 8 abl e t o stratif ytha t andloo k a t th e chang e i ndistributio n 9 o f wate r lea dlevel s wit hchang e fo r acidit y 1 0 characteristics . 1 1 Again , i t i s no t necessaril ya nationall y 1 2 representiv e pictur e becaus e thos e companie s ten dt o b e i n 1 3 th e northeast . The ydon' t represen t th e whol e country . 1 4 S o ther e ar e dat a base s tha t ar e ou t ther e t o 1 5 giv e u s som e ide a o f wate r lea dlevels . W e findtha t 1 6 wheneve r ther e i s somebod ywh o call s th e Offic e o f Drinkin g 1 7 Wate r an d sa yw e hav e sample d i nou r tow no r i nou r school , 1 8 th e number s w e ge t ten dt o b e o nth e orde r o f 15-2 5 percen t 1 9 o f th e sample s abov e twenty . Tha t tend s t o b e a fairl y 2 0 stabl e estimate . 2 1 DR . MAHAFFEY : On e o f th e reason s w e ar e sor t o f 2 2 harpin g o nthi s poin t i s tha t metal s continu e andwi l I 2 3 continu e t o b e a nenormou s proble mi nthi s country . 2 4 Obviousl ythe yar e no t goin g t o g o away . Ther e wer e som e 2 5 - number s cite d i non e o f thes e NA S workshop s abou t - - andT Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.8 1

7 9 1 hat e t o quot e i t becaus e I amno t sur e o f th e bound s o f thi s 2 definitio n- - bu t i f yo u loo k a t somethin g lik e th e to p te n 3 chemical s related , hal f o f the mwer e metals . 4 Now , I wouldn' t wan t t o b e quote do ntha t becaus e 5 I a m

no t sur e i t i s quit e accurate . Metal s ar e a nenormou s 6 proble m

fo r whic hther e i s virtuall yn o remainin g margi no f 7 safet yi nman ycases . Certainl yi nmos t yo u ar e no t 8 differen t bya matte r o f a facto r o f ten . I t woul d behoov e 9 EP At o b e plannin g a surve yo f ta p wate r fo r metals , 1 0 includin g P hfo r acidity . 1 1 W e hav e looke da t arseni c i nwater . W e ar e 1 2 lookin g a t lea d i nwater . Certainl yothe r metal s rapidl y 1 3 com e t o mind . 1 4 MS . BRISKIN : I t i s certainl ysomethin g w e ar e 1 5 considerin g an d hav e considere di nth e pas t an dcontinu e t o 1 6 thin k abou t — th e balancin g o f whethe r w e hav e th e fundin g 1 7 fo r doin g somethin g lik e tha t togethe r wit hou r regulator y 1 8 schedule . Byla ww e ar e require dt o com e ou t wit hfina l 1 9 standard s o nmos t metal s byJun e o f thi s year . W e ar e no t 2 0 goin g t o mak e that , bu t ther e i s a lo t o f interes t i nth e 2 1 Drinkin g Wate r Program . Becaus e w e hav e a standar dwhic hi s 2 2 a technolog ybase d standard , ge t a s clos e t o th e goa l a s 2 3 feasible , som e migh t argu e tha t th e distributio ninfonnatio n 2 4 i s perhap s les s importan t tha ngettin g informatio nand 2 5 improvin g th e treatmen t technique s t o brin g thos e meta l Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 :0 0

1 level s dow na s clos e a s yo u ca nt o th e healt hbas e goals . 2 Thos e ar e th e kind s o f consideration s th e agenc y 3 ha s bee nthinkin g of . 4 DR . UPTON : Thanks , Jean . On e fina l comment . W e 5 ar e runnin g shor t o f time . 6 DR . SILBERGELD : I woul dlik e t o back-u p mayb e 7 an d giv e yo u som e mor e fundamenta l thought s perhap s i nth e 8 specifi c area s o f issue s yo u brough t t o us . 9 Wha t Kati e say s I thin k reinforce s thei r 1 0 importanc e becaus e the yhav e implication s beyon dlead . Th e 1 1 agenc yi s certainl yt o b e commende dfo r wha t yo u hav e don e 1 2 wit hlea d ove r th e 15-1 6 years . I hav e certainl ybee n 1 3 involve d i nit . Yo u move ddramaticall yt o a multi-medi a 1 4 appreciation , t o a health-base d goal . I thin k withou t doub t 1 5 th e action s o f thi s agenc yhav e interacte dwit hbasi c and 1 6 medica l researc hi na nextraordinaril yproductiv e way . 1 7 Th e lea dproble mconsist s o f .tw o majo r 1 8 components : On e i s th e pas t use s o f lead , an dth e othe r i s 1 9 th e presen t use s o f lead . Unfortunatel yi nth e absenc e o f 2 0 th e Offic e o f Soli dWaste , w e reall ycan' t com e t o grip s 2 1 wit hwha t i s goin g o nprimaril yi nth e are a o f remediatio n 2 2 and dealin g wit hth e pas t residue s i nth e environment , many 2 3 o f whic haccumulat e i nth e soli dphase . 2 4 I jus t hop e tha t i nth e scientifi c andexposur e 5 analyses , yo u wil l mak e know nth e knowledg e tha t you . have ,

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4880 ' * • >P.8 3

0 I 1 NORD , and i nth e specifi c programs , yo u wil l mak e i t clea r 2 t o th e Offic e o f Soli dWast e tha t the ynee dt o expan dthei r 3 concern s beyon d th e leechabilit yo f lea dfro mth e soli d 4 phas e int o hypothetica l drinkin g wate r sources . Tha t the y 5 adop t a muc hmor e integrate dapproac ht o th e wa yi nwhic h 6 the ygai ncontro l o f tha t problem . 7 Bu t th e othe r poin t I thin k i s exemplifie di f yo u 8 tur nt o pag e 2 3 i nth e gree nbook . Ther e i s somethin g that . 9 i s very , ver yinterestin g her e o nthi s table . I f yo u loo k 1 0 a t th e colum nfo r 1987 , i nadditio nt o underlyin g ou r nee d 1 1 t o congratulat e th e agenc yo nth e overal l impac t tha t it s 1 2 action s hav e take nt o reduc e byove r thirtyfol dth e input s 1 3 int o air . Wha t i s emergin g her e i s tha t th e soli dwast e 1 4 fractio ni s no wbecomin g on e o f th e larges t singl e 1 5 contributor ysource s t o lea dmetabolis mi nth e country . 1 6 I f yo u addi nwate r an dlan ddisposal , I thin k 1 7 tha t fractio nwoul d onl yincrease , ver ylikely . I t i s quit e 1 8 interestin g wit hjus t lookin g a t air , i t i s s o larg e a t thi s 1 9 point . Bu t I amconcerne d tha t th e focu s o f attentio nwiI J 2 0 b e jus t o nth e firs t leve l messag e o f thos e figures . Tha t 2 1 i s w e hav e go t t o ge t contro l o f soli dwaste , w e hav e i o 2 2 figur e wha t t o d o abou t sewag e sludge , w e hav e t o dea l w.f i h 2 3 incineration , etc . 2 4 Becaus e wha t thi s i s reall ytellin g u s i s tha t 2 5 thi s i s on e en d poin t i na metaboli c halfway , i f yo u will , Heritaq e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.8 4

0 2 1 tha t lea d i s endin g up i na wast e phas e whic hthe ncreate s 2 enormou s problem s o f management . W e haven' t hear dfromthe 3 Offic e o f Toxi c Substance s whic hi s you r par t o f th e agenc y 4 tha t ca ndea l wit hthis . Whyi s s o muc hlea dendin g up i n 5 thi s phas e an d wha t point s o f researc hi nterm s o f analyzin g 6 wh ythi s shoul d b e so , an dthe npolic ydecision s whic har e 7 amenabl e an d feasibl e t o chang e thi s growin g fractio no f th e 8 contributio no f overal l lea d input s ar e availabl e t o you . 9 DR . UPTON : W e hav e schedule da presentatio na t 1 0 thi s tim e fro mMr . Rober t Fensterheim . Woul dyo u tak e th e 1 1 floor ? 1 2 MR . FENSTERHEIM : Thi s i s a rathe r brie f 1 3 presentatio nwhic hmerel ytake s u s bac k t o th e discussio n 1 4 whic hyo u wer e engage di nbefor e wit hJea nBriskin . 1 5 Le t m e jus t sa yI appreciat e thi s opportunit yt o 1 6 addres s thi s committe e o nbehal f o f a stat e tha t i s fa r 1 7 away , California , and representin g th e Associatio no f 1 8 Californi a Wate r Agencies , whic hi s a wate r trad e 1 9 associatio ntha t i s ver yintereste di nalterin g th e wate r 2 0 standards , wit hparticula r attentio nt o lead . 2 1 Jus t s o yo u kno wa littl e abou t ACWA . I t 2 2 represent s abou t 36 0 publi c wate r agencie s whic hprovid e 2 3 approximatel y9 0 percen t o f th e wate r tha t i s delivere dt o 2 4 California . Mos t o f ACW Amember s ar e smal l t o midsize , 2 5 althoug hACW Aals o doe s represen t th e larges t utilit yi nth e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.8 5

0 3 1 countr yand other s tha t fal l i ntha t sector . 2 W e understan dtha t par t o f th e missio no f thi s 3 committe e i s t o examin e whethe r th e scientifi c informatio n 4 o nlea d i s bein g applie di na standar dan dconsisten t manne r 5 wit hth e agenc yprograms . I gues s w e ar e particularl y 6 concerne d tha t it' s not , particularl ya s i t pertain s t o th e 7 Drinkin g Wate r Standard . 8 Th e focu s o f th e discussio nthi s mornin g wa s o n 9 fiv e part s pe r billion , te npart s pe r billion , twent ypart s 1 0 pe r billion , andvariou s numbers . Yo u wer e al l discussin g 1 1 wha t th e risk s wer e associate dwit hthos e numbers . 1 2 I nou r view , wha t yo u reall ynee dt o b e 1 3 considerin g i s no t th e MC L standar dwhe nyo u loo k a t th e 1 4 consistenc yissue , bu t th e MCL Gwhic hi s reall yth e goa l 1 5 issu e whic hi s th e standar do nwhic hhealt hi s based . Th e 1 6 MC L i s suppose d t o b e a s clos e t o th e healt hbase dgoa l a s 1 7 i s feasible , bu t i t i s no t a healt hbase dstandard . 1 8 I t i s ACWA' s vie wtha t zer o shoul dno t b e th e 1 9 healt hbase d standar do nwhic hEP Adevelop s it s regulation . 2 0 I t shoul d no t b e th e goa l i f th e availabl e healt heffect s 2 1 informatio ndoe s no t suppor t a zer o goa l fo r drinkin g water , 2 2 an d thi s i s no t th e approac hth e agenc yha s bee ntakin g "i

2 3 thi s committe e ha s bee ntakin g wit hrespec t t o it s 2 4 evaluatio no f air . 2 5 A s I sai dearlier , accordin g to . th e .Saf e . Drinkin g Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.8 6

0 4 1 Wate r Act , th e nationa l contaminan t leve l goa l i s t o b e 2 establishe d o na leve l whic hn o know nanticipate dadvers e 3 effect s occu r o nth e healt ho f a perso nwhic hallow s fo r a n 4 adequat e margi no f safety . W e believ e zer o exceed s tha t 5 mandate . 6 I nfact , w e rathe r shar e th e vie wo f th e SAB 7 Environmenta l Healt hCommittee , whic hthe nreport s t o th e 8 EP Aadministrator , mad e tha t poin t bac k i nOctobe r o f 190 0 9 whic htoo k issu e wit hth e MCL Gtha t zer o wa s bein g to o 1 0 conservative . 1 1 EP Aha s traditionall yreserve dth e zer o MCL G 1 2 valu e fo r percentages . Whil e w e don' t hav e ful l agreemen t 1 3 wit htha t approach , fo r carcinogen s w e believ e tha t EPA 1 4 shoul d i nfac t b e abl e t o establis ha ris k bas e leve l tha t 1 5 i s te nt o th e minu s six , te nt o th e minu s five . 1 a mno t 1 6 her e t o debat e wha t tha t leve l shoul dbe . W e believ e ther e 1 7 shoul d b e a leve l belo wwhic hther e i s objectio nt o th e 1 8 huma nhealt hand th e environment . 1 9 Fo r lea di nparticular , a substanc e whic hthi s 2 0 committe e and th e agencie s repor t a s a lo wcarcinogen , w e 1 particularl ybeliev e tha t t o b e th e case . Cancer , a s w e al l 2 2 kno wan d yo u hav e bee ndiscussin g thi s morning , i s not \.\v 2 3 principa l en d poin t o f concer nfo r lead . ACWArecognize s 2 4 that . 2 5 W e als o recogniz e th e difficult yi nbuildin g Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8 •,P.8 7

0 5 1 thos e respons e relationship s fo r thes e non-carcinogeni c 2 effects , som e o f the mbein g ver ysubtl e an dsom e " f the m 3 bein g ver ydifficul t t o measure . 4 Nevertheless , i t i s th e association' s stron g vie w 5 tha t th e agenc yshoul d no t evad e it s responsibilit yfo r 6 assessin g healt hrisk s byestablishin g a zer o healt hbase d 7 standard . 8 W e believ e ther e shoul db e som e finit e numbe r 9 tha t th e public , tha t th e wate r utilitie s ca nstriv e t o 1 0 achieve , abov e zero , whic hEP Aca nestablis han dprotec t o f 1 1 huma nhealt hand th e environmen t wit ha nampl e margi no f 1 2 safety . 1 3 Thi s i s th e approac huse dbya lo t o f othe r 1 4 federa l agencie s —FDA , CDC , worl dhealt horganizations . 1 5 Ther e ar e numerica l standard s tha t ar e establishe dwhic har e 1 6 protectiv e o f huma nhealt han dth e environment . W e believ e 1 7 a simila r typ e o f approac hshoul db e take nwit hrespec t t o 1 8 lead . 1 9 Now , mak e n o mistake , ACW Ai s no t i nfavo r o f 2 0 lea d i ndrinkin g water . Tha t i s no t ou r objectiv e a t all . 2 1 Rathe r w e ar e jus t o f th e opinio ntha t EP Ashoul db e abl e t v 2 2 establis ha level , othe r tha nzero , wher e exposur e vi a 2 3 drinkin g wate r i s no t believe dt o protec t th e publi'. 1 healt h 2 4 concern . 2 5 ~ " Onl ywith

- suc ha level , -firs t determine don . th e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 80 6 1 basi s o f th e bes t availabl e scientifi c evidence , wil l 2 rationa l decision s b e mad e o nth e appropriat e control s an d 3 cost s associate d wit hdrinkin g wate r samples . 4 DR . UPTON : Than k yo u ver ymuch , Mr . Fensterheim . 5 DR . LARSON : I hav e bee nquoted . Tha t i s no t 6 wha t ou r orde r said . Okay , th e MCL' s shouldn' t b e zero . W e 7 too k - - 8 MR . FENSTERHEIM : I wa s quotin g th e letter . 9 DR . LARSON : No , i t say s i t ma yb e overl y 1 0 conservative . Yo u too k i t ou t o f context . I t goe s on . Ou r 1 1 mai nconcer ntha t ther e wa s no t th e justification . I t ha d 1 2 t o d o wit hth e document , no t tha t i t shouldn' t b e zero . Sc> 1 3 whe nyo u too k i t ou t o f context , yo u change dth e meaning . 1 4 W e reall ytoo k Jea nBriski nt o tas k o nth e healt h 1 5 effects , mainl yo nth e writin g o f it , an d th e fac t tha t i t 1 6 wasn' t justified . Alo t o f reference s t o thes e documents , 1 7 o f cours e whic hyo u didn' t have , bu t i t wa s no t ou r 1 8 suggestio ntha t th e MC L shouldn' t b e zero . I t i s jus t a 1 9 justificatio nfo r it . 2 0 DR . UPTON : Othe r comment s o r question s fo r Mr . 2 1 Fensterheim ? 2 2 I f not , than k yo u ver ymuch . 2 3 DR . MUSHAK : I hav e a genera l comment . 2 4 DR . UPTON : Paul , sorry . 2 5 DR . MUSHAK:•

- Doe s anybod ykno wwha t th e natura l Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.8 9

8 7 1 leve l o f lea d i nwate r is ? W e kno wwha t th e natura l leve l 2 o f lea d i nth e soi l is , bu t wha t abou t water ? 3 MS . LEVIN : I t i s belo wtwo . 4 DR . MUSHAK : (Interposing ) Part s pe r billion ? 5 MS . LEVIN : —Yeah , base do ndat a I pulle d 6 togethe r fo r th e WH L book . 7 DR . MUSHAK : Belo wtwo . It' s ver ylow . 8 MS . LEVIN : Very , ver ylow . 9 DR . SILBERGELD : An dthe ni f yo u attemp t t o 1 0 facto r ou t th e depositio nfro mth e airborn e sources , i t ma y 1 1 b e eve nlower , bu t i t i s extremel ylow . 1 2 DR . UPTON : I woul dlik e t o as k a t thi s tim e 1 3 whethe r Dr . Coglian o ha s additiona l remark s h e woul dwis ht o 1 4 offer . 1 5 DR . COGLIANO : I f yo u woul dlik e a brie f summar y 1 6 o f th e RQ's , I ca ngiv e that . 1 7 DR . UPTON : Wha t i s th e wis ho f th e stud ygroup ? 1 8 TH E STUD YGROUP : Wha t i s a nRQ ? 1 9 DR . COGLIANO : I wil l tel l yo u ver ybriefly . RQ 2 0 i s unde r th e Superfun d Reportabl e Quantit yProgram . I t i s a 2 1 quantit ytha t i f yo u releas e mor e tha na particula r amoun t 2 2 int o th e environment , yo u hav e t o cal l up th e i : 'e'|<>ra l 2 3 Nationa l Respons e Center . The ywil l sen dsomebod yout . t o 2 4 th e sit e t o evaluat e i f som e kindo f actio nneed s t o b e 2 5 taken , i f peopl e nee dt o b e evacuated,.i f alternativ e wate r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.9 0

0 0 1 supplie s nee d t o b e brough t in , th e substance s need s t o I > e 2 o r wha t woul d b e appropriate . 3 DR . HAMMOND : Thi s i s a par t o f EPA ? 4 DR . COGLIANO : Actually , th e Nationa l Respons e 5 Cente r i s ru nbyth e Coas t Guar dunde r interagenc y 6 agreement . 7 I nadjustin g portabl e quantities , EP Ause s si x 8 primar ycriteria : Cance r o nwhic hth e Emergenc yRespons e 9 Offic e take s th e cance r evaluation s directl yfro mth e offic e 1 0 I belon g t o i nWashington . Chroni c toxicit yi s th e secon d 1 1 one . The ytak e th e chroni c toxicit yevaluation s fro mou r 1 2 offic e i nCincinnati . The nacut e toxicity , aquati c 1 3 toxicity , ignitabilit yandreactivity . 1 4 Th e las t fou r substance s ar e evaluate dbymean s 1 5 o f table s o f LD-50 s o r flashpoints , an dthe ywer e - - al l o f 1 6 th e substance s —the yca nb e evaluate dver yquickly . S o i n 1 7 adjustin g reportabl e quantities , th e Emergenc yRespons e 1 8 Offic e divide d the mint o thre e groups . 1 9 Th e firs t grou p wer e th e substance s whic hwer e 2 0 no t carcinogens , the ywer e no t chroni c toxicants . The yjus t 2 1 looke d up i na tabl e al l thes e value s o f LD50' s and 2 2 flashpoint s and the ypromulgate dRQ's , I believe , i n1904 . 2 3 Th e secon d grou p o f chroni c toxicant s wer e 2 4 promulgate d i n1986 . Lea dwa s originall yi ntha t grou p and 2 5 jus t befor e promulgation , i t wa s pointe dou t t o the mther e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.9 1

n y 1 wa s a lo t o f cance r dat a o nlea ds o lea dwa s pulle dou t o f 2 tha t grou p befor e promulgatio nandpu t int o th e thir dgrou p 3 o f carcinogens . 4 Carcinogen s wer e don e o na late r trac k becaus e w e 5 wer e waitin g fo r th e cance r guideline s tha t wer e promulgate d 6 i n198 6 an d i t take s a longe r tim e t o evaluat e thos e 7 substances . 8 Ellen , th e las t tim e yo u aske dabou t lea dwoul d 9 hav e droppe d t o 5,00 0 pound s i f i t wasn' t fo r cancer , and 1 0 tha t i s true . I t i s becaus e th e reason s th e chroni c 1 1 toxicit yevaluatio ntha t wa s don e wa s don e i nth e earl y 1 2 1980's , reall ybefor e 1983 . I t doesn' t tak e advantag e o f a 1 3 lo t o f th e informatio nw e kno wabou t lea dsinc e then . 1 4 On e shortcomin g wa s th e lea dsubstance s wer e no t 1 5 groupe d togethe r and considere da s a class . Fo r example , 1 6 ther e wer e n o o r ver yminima l chroni c toxicit yo r acut e 1 7 toxicit ystudie s o nmetalli c lead . W e di dno t appl ylea d 1 8 acetate , lea d phosphate , al l o f th e othe r substance s t o th e 1 9 reportabl e quantit yfo r lea d meta l itself . 2 0 I thin k tha t i s somethin g w e woul dprobabl yno t 2 1 d o today . I thin k w e woul dgrou p the mtogether , wit h 2 2 perhap s difference s i nabsorptio nbu t w e woul dsa yi h e 2 3 effect s w e se e formothe r lea dcompound s shoul dappl yt o 2 4 lea d a s well . 2 5 Secondly , neurotoxicit ywa s no t included . Ther e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 0P.9 2

yo 1 ar e n o - - i nth e chroni c toxicit yevaluatio ndon e i nth e 2 earl y1980's , I Q score s andanyo f thos e thing s w e hav e bee n 3 discussin g mos t o f yesterda ywer e no t included . Tha t i s wh y 4 th e reportabl e quantit yfo r lea dandmeta l woul dhav e bee n 5 5,00 0 pounds . 6 Othe r substance s lik e lea dsulfit e als o ha dbee n 7 propose d a t 5,00 0 pound s fo r simila r reasons . Ther e weren' t 8 studie s o nthe m andw e di d no t se e fi t t o appl yth e result s 9 fro mon e lea d compoun dt o another . 1 0 Now , lea d ha s bee npulle dou t o f th e carcinoge n 1 1 rule s wel l t o awai t thi s committee' s deliberation s o nlead . 1 2 Afte r thi s committe e i s finished , w e wil l b e proposin g o r 1 3 promulgatin g fina l reportabl e quantitie s fo r lead . I woul d 1 4 lik e t o sugges t t o thi s committe e w e wil l includ e cance r and 1 5 I woul d lik e t o as k th e committee , i nthei r writte n 1 6 comments , fo r advic e abou t whethe r th e lo wpotenc y 1 7 characterizatio no f lea di s appropriat e give nwha t w e talke d 1 8 abou t yesterda yandlas t month . O r perhap s w e shoul d 1 9 declin e t o mak e a qualitativ e characterizatio no f lead . 2 0 Secondly , w e shoul ddo , I think , a ne wevaluatio n 2 1 o f th e chroni c toxicit yo f lea dt o includ e all . o f th e 2 2 informatio nw e hav e ha d i nth e las t severa l years . 2 3 MS . BRISKIN : Wha t d o yo u d u wit htefra-ethy' l 2 4 lead ? 2 5 DR . COGLIANO : -Tetra-ethy l lead , I

_thin k tha t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.9 3

9 1 1 alreadyha d a nR Q o f te npound s base do nchroni c toxicity , 2 bu t I a

m no t sur e i f i t include dth e neuro-toxi c effects . 3 DR . SILBERGELD : I thin k thi s raise s a genera l 4 issu e whic htouche s o nwha t Pau l brough t up , andtha t i s i t 5 woul d b e worthwhile , I think , fo r th e Scienc e Advisor yBoar d 6 t o loo k int o th e whol e R Q methodology . 7 I t essentiall yreveal s th e problem s tha t al l o f 8 us , an d th e agenc yo f course , becaus e the yar e o nth e fron t 9 line , hav e wit hdealin g wit hnon-cance r effects . I thin k i f 1 0 yo u loo k int o th e RQ' s —an dI kno wthi s i s arcan e 1 1 Washingto njargo n- - bu t i f yo u loo k int o th e substance s 1 2 tha t fal l int o tha t middl e category , yo u wil l probabl yb e 1 3 ver ydisturbe d abou t wha t ha s happene dt o them . No t s o muc h 1 4 fo r th e implication s fo r specifi c toxi c chemicals , bu t th e 1 5 implie d judgment s abou t th e importanc e o f differen t kind s o f 1 6 systemi c toxi c responses . 1 7 I t i s tha t generi c issu e tha t I thin k th e SAB 1 8 shoul d ge t involve di nandgiv e som e guidanc e to . I think 1 9 yo u woul d agre e th e whol e area s o f neuro-toxicit yand 2 0 reproductiv e toxicit yfai r ver ypoorl yi nth e R Q system . 2 1 DR . COGLIANO : That' s right . Actuall you r 2 2 environmen t - - 2 3 DR . SILBERGELD : Irritant s andsensitizer s fai r 2 4 well . Ironically , th e thing s tha t mos t o f u s woul dconside r 2 5 muc hmor e sever e non-cance r health-.endpoint s .ar e treate d Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.9 4

9 2 1 very , ver ypoorly . Thi s i s no t ou t o f anydeliberat e 2 neglec t bu t becaus e o f th e lac k o f methodolog ytha t woul d 3 guid e tha t particula r kin do f very

critica l - - le t m e remin d 4 you—very

critica l respons e o f the agency , immediat e base d 5 respons e t o dea l wit hspills . 6 DR . COGLIANO : Thes e methodologies , we ar e alway s 7 lookin ga t the m an dI have talke dt o Chri s DeRos a i nou r 8 offic e i nCincinnat i an dhe ha s som

e suggestion s for ho w t o 9 chang e th e criteri a o f evaluatin gchroni c toxicit y andI 1 0 thinkh

e woul dbe very

receptiv e t o som e o f you r concerns . 1 1 DR . MAHAFFEY : Jus t t o amplif y onthis , I thin k 1 2 the metal s area s become s particularl y a problem

becaus e i

f 1 3 we us e mercur y a s anexample , ther e i s certainl y evidenc e 1 4 tha t eve ninorgani c mercur y ove r time ca nb e mentholate di n 1 5 the environment . 1 6 S o changin gthe organi c liganwil l hav e a plai n 1 7 effec t onth e toxicity . I woul dbe intereste di nho w 1 8 somethin glik e arsen e i s handle dbecaus e th e differen t form s 1 9 o f arseni c woul dhave ver y differen t toxicities , arsen e 2 0 bein gquit e acutel y toxic . 2 1 DR . COGLIANO : Arsen e wa s onl y recentl y

propose d 2 2 t o become a circla-hazardou s substanc e s o w e haven' t 2 3 evaluate dthat . Tha t i s somethin gwe wil l b e lookinginto . 2 4 DR . UPTON : Yes , Dr . Larson . 2 5 . DR . LARSON : Doe s the Coas t Guar d- - doe s i t Heritag e Reportin gCorporation

(202 ) 628-488 8P.9 5

9 3 1 someho wus e NOAH i nit s evaluation s a s a nagency . Someho wI 2 go t th e impressio ntha t i f i t wen t ou t int o th e air , NOAH 3 go t involved . 4 DR.

- COGLIANO : I amno t awar e o f NOAH bein g 5 involve d i nthi s Emergenc yResponse . The yus e ou r healt h 6 evaluations . Th e Coas t Guar dcontribute s th e expertise . 7 DR . LARSON : There' s a bi g cente r ou t i nSeattl e 8 wher e th e emergenc yrespons e i s NOA H base dan danyclai m 9 tha t i f ther e i s a nai r problem , th e Coas t Guar dcall s them . 1 0 DR . COGLIANO : I amno t reall yawar e o f that . I t 1 1 coul d b e the yhav e a piec e o f tha t too . I ammostl yawar e 1 2 o f th e Coas t Guar dan dEP Arespons e teams . 1 3 DR . LARSON : S o again , whe nyo u ar e dealin g wit h 1 4 environments , i t i s a multi-bureaucracy . 1 5 DR . UPTON : A t tim e tim e I wonde r i f ther e ar e 1 6 an yothe r comment s tha t agenc ypersonne l woul dlik e t o 1 7 offer , fro m

anyo f th e office s w e hear dfro mi nth e las t 1 8 coupl e days . 1 9 DR . FRANK : I wonde r i f anybod ywant s t o sa y 2 0 anythin g abou t Soli dWast e jus t t o infor mu s andhel p u s 2 1 complet e ou r picture . 2 2 DR . GRANT : I thin k obviousl yi t woul db e muc h 2 3 bette r t o hav e a representativ e o f th e offic e her e and 2 4 explai nit.fo r you . 2 5 DR . FRANK : Wha t ar e th e issue s tha t Soli dWast e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 0P.9 6

9 4 1 deal s wit hand wha t ar e the yresponsibl e for ? 2 MS . LEVIN : I coul doutlin e th e basi c approac ho f 3 the RICR

A progra

m an dth e basi c approac ho f th e Superfun d 4 Progra

m an dtha t migh t give yousom e context . 5 Unde r RICRA , th e Resourc e Recover y and 6 ConservationAct, tha t govern s the presen t disposa l o f 7 wastes . Tha t range s fro m the manifes t system wher e peopl e 8 who ar e transportin gwast e ar e suppose dt o attac hlabel s to 9 i t s o peopl e kno w wha t they

ar e movin garound , to 1 0 determinin gwha t i s allowe dt o be pu t int o wha t typ e o f 1 1 wast e disposal , o f wha t ca ngo int o land , wha t ca ng o int o 1 2 othe r places . 1 3 Th e standard s for thos e disposa l facilities- - 1 4 whethe r o r no t landfill s nee dliners , whethe r o r no t 1 5 incinerator s nee dscrubbers , tha t typ e o f thing . Andthen 1 6 correctiv e action . I f for th e existin gdisposa l facilities , 1 7 bot hhazardou s wast e an dsoli dwast e whic hi s everythin g 1 8 tha t i s no t hazardous . I f the landfill , fo r example , ha s a 1 9 leakingplume , whethe r o r no t tha t plume need s to b e 2 0 addresse dan dho w clea nthe groundwate r need s t o b e cleane d 2 1 u pt o woul dals o be covere dunde r RICRA . 2 2 Th e SuperfundProgra m handle s muc ho f th e sam e 2 3 material s - - waste s - - bu t i t i s th e waste s tha t w° p out 2 4 ther e befor e the progra m wa s enacted . Again , i t i s cleanin g 2 5 u phazardou s wast e facilities , t o determin e whic hfacilitje s

Heritag e Reportin gCorporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.9 7

1 nee d t o b e cleane du p and t o wha t extent . 2 Th e R Q progra mi s agai nlookin g a t release s int o 3 th e environmen t and determinin g whethe r o r no t a nimmediat e 4 respons e need s t o b e taken . 5 S o ther e i s th e emergenc yrespons e sid e andthe n 6 ther e i s th e long-ter mclean-u p side . S o figurin g ou t 7 whethe r i t i s a hazardou s waste , whethe r o r no t yo u ca npu t 8 i t i nth e ground . I f i t i s i nth e ground , doe s i t nee dt o 9 b e move d aroun d someho wand i f th e facilit yi s emittin g 1 0 pollutants , t o wha t exten t doe s tha t nee dt o b e cleane dup ? 1 1 Th e differen t program s ther e tha t yo u findliste d 1 2 o nthi s thin g - - E P standard , delisting , differen t mode.ls-

- 1 3 ar e al l th e differen t way s o f evaluatin g risk s associate d 1 4 wit hthos e differen t aspect s o f wast e handling . O r i f no t 1 5 quantitativ e risks , the nsettin g relativ e prioritie s fo r th e 1 6 program s s o the yca ntak e action . 1 7 DR . HAMMOND : Mr . Chairman . 1 8 DR . UPTON : Yes . 1 9 DR . HAMMOND : I amno t full ysur e w e ca nfull y 2 0 discharg e ou r charg e unde r th e stud ygrou p no wo r i f w e 1 coul d eve ni f w e hear dth e presentations . Wha t w e nee d t o 2 2 do , I think , i s t o tak e th e mas s balanc e approac htha t w e 2 3 hav e identifie d i nthes e chart s an delsewher e wher e th e lead 2 4 get s int o th e environment , wher e human s ma yge t i t s o w e ca n 2 5 understan d wha t th e remainin g sources__are , an dho wmuc hgets . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8 iP.9 8

9 6 1 t o people , an d unde r th e ne wrubri c o f risk-reductio nwhic h 2 I am

sur e thi s administrato r wil l pursu e i nadvance , lea d 3 bein g a multi-medi a pollutant , w e hav e t o hav e som e kin do f 4 mas s balanc e presente dt o u s fo r th e present , fo r th e 5 foreseeabl e future , and perhap s fo r th e lon g ter mfuture . 6 S o tha t i f resource s ar e limited , a s the yar e andwil l be , 7 th e agenc yca nd o th e mos t risk-reductio nbyknowin g whic h 8 ar e th e larges t source s o f environmenta l exposur e andwhic h 9 ar e th e mos t technologicall yfeasibl e t o reduc e unde r 1 0 curren t technology . 1 1 S o I thin k wha t thi s committe e i s goin g t o nee d 1 2 t o complet e it s tas k i s som e integrate dstatemen t from 1 3 somebod yi nEP Awhic haddresse s mas s balanc e an d 1 4 transmissio nfro msource s t o people . I thin k i f th e agenc y 1 5 want s u s t o addres s landi ntha t manner , w e ar e goin g t o 1 6 hav e t o ge t som e technica l suppor t fro msomebod yi nth e 1 7 agenc yo nmas s balance . 1 8 DR . UPTON : Dr . vo nLindern . 1 9 DR . VO NLINDERN : I woul dals o lik e t o brin g up 2 0 on e issu e tha t w e touche do na secon dago . I hav e som e 2 1 familiarit ywit hCERCLA , SARAan dmercur yprograms . Anot e 2 2 o nthi s messag e fro mOffic e o f Soli dWast e that , they , or - at

2 3 leas t someon e i s developin g a referenc e dos e pe r lab , o r 2 4 examinin g tha t andi s apparentl ygoin g t o bas e i t o nth e 2 5 - MCL . .-- - Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.9 9



### 9 7 1 A s I understan dit , th e MC L i s a technolog ybase d 2 standard . Th e MGC L ha s a zer o goal . I s tha t consisten t 3 wit hth e developmen t o f a referenc e dose ? 4 MS . BRISKIN : Th e referenc e dos e woul dno t b e 5 base do nth e MCL . Th e referenc e dos e typicall yi s a 6 concentratio no r a namoun t o f pollutan t yo uwoul db e expose d 7 t o i nterm s o f milligram s pe r kilogra mbod yweigh t fo r som e 8 uni t o f time . S o tha t i s no t a nMCL . Tha t woul dcom e a 9 ste p before . 1 0 Traditionally , i nth e Drinkin g Wate r Program , w e 1 1 develo p maximu mcontaminan t leve l goal s wher e her e w e 1 2 propose da zer o fo r lead , bu t fo r othe r contaminant s wher e 1 3 w e hav e non-zer o goals , givin g th e dat a tha t i s usua l l y 1 4 available , w e us e a referenc e dos e approach . W e loo ka t a 1 5 n o observe dadvers e effec t leve l o r a n o observe deffec t 1 6 level , assumin g tha t ther e i s a threshol dfo r th e actio no f 1 7 tha t pollutant , puttin g i nsom e safet yfactors , an d 1 8 translatin g tha t int o a dose . Areferenc e dos e woul db e th e 1 9 dos e belo wwhic hyo uwoul dexpec t ther e woul db e n o advers e 2 0 healt heffects . 2 1 Fro mthere , tha t i s th e startin g poin t i nth e 2 2 Drinkin g Wate r Progra mfo r developin g a maximu mcontaminant . 2 3 leve l goa l fo r othe r pollutant s an dcoul db e a possibl e 2 4 poin t fo r developing , say , a soi l lea dclean-u p numbe r fo r 25 . th e Superfun dProgram .

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 1

9 8 1 W e hav e bee nworkin g recentl ywit hth e Of t ic e - > I : 2 Soli d Wast e and th e Superfun d offic e andAi r andResearc h 3 and Developmen t t o develo p a napproac htha t woul dle t th e 4 waste s program s figur e ou t soi l lea dclean-u p goals . 5 W e hav e bee nworkin g wit hthe mt o explai nabou t 6 lea d toxicolog yan d appropriat e way s t o evaluat e exposure s 7 t o lead . I nth e Drinkin g Wate r Program , a t least , w e hav e 8 rejecte d th e RF D approac hfo r evaluatin g healt heffect s fo r 9 lead . W e ar e stil l workin g wit hth e Soli dWast e Office . 1 0 The yar e comin g t o understand , I think , th e notio n<. > I : 1 1 evaluatio ni nterm s o f bloo d lea dlevel s o f concern . 1 2 A t las t I understoo dtha t researc han d 1 3 developmen t wa s workin g prett yclosel ywit hthe mt o develo p 1 4 a nalternativ e approac hwhic hsometime s i nslan g stil l get s 1 5 calle d referenc e dos e becaus e i t i s stil l a nintak e o f lea d 1 6 tha t i s associate d wit hsomething . Wher e a referenc e dos e 1 7 i s associate d wit hzer o risk , yo u coul ddevelo p a dos e tha t 1 8 woul d b e associate d wit ho r b e calculate dbac k froma give n 1 9 bloo d lea d leve l o f concern . 2 0 S o tha t i s i nth e ver ypreliminar ystage ? << f 2 1 developmen t righ t no wan d I wouldn' t reail yb e abl e t o 2 2 represen t thei r offic e andwha t the yar e thinkin g aI'cu t 2 3 usin g - - a referenc e dos e approac ho r a nalternativ e 2 4 approach . 2 5 DR . VO NLINDERN : Is . i t fai r t o sa ytha t ther e i s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 2

U Q 1 anothe r ris k assessmen t methodolog ydevelope dou t ther e 2 withi nth e agenc ya t leas t tha t w e ar e no t awar e o f here . 3 DR . GRANT : I amno t sur e yo u necessaril ywan t t o 4 cal l i t a differen t ris k assessmen t approac ho r whatever . 5 Ther e exists , quit e separately , wit hman yquestion s i n 6 regar d t o lead , o r whatever , a se t o f methodologie s fo r 7 evaluatin g bot hora l exposure s an dinhalatio nexposures , so 8 calle d referenc e doses . 9 I thin k Jea nindicate dth e attemp t wa s mad e t o 1 0 identif ylowes t observe d amperspec t level s o r n o effec t 1 1 levels . wit happropriat e modification , give ninformatio no n 1 2 whethe r i t i s fromanima l studies , huma nstudies , hight o 1 3 lo wdoe s extrapolations , area s o f uncertaint ynnyway- - 1 4 modifyin g factor s o r uncertaint yfactors , essentiall yyo u 1 5 com e u p wit ha margi no f safet yi f yo u wil l belo wtha t and 1 6 estimat e som e leve l tha t woul db e projecte dt o hav e a ver y 1 7 lo wprobabilit yo f bein g associate dwit hris k o f a nadvers e 1 8 effect . That' s bein g don e fo r a variet yo f othe r 1 9 substances . A s Jea nnoted , i t i s typicall ydon e o r a t leas t 2 0 develope d i nligh t o f th e fac t tha t fo r many , many 2 1 substance s w e hav e ver ylimite ddat a base s o r informatio nb y 2 2 whic ht o mak e judgment s a s t o wha t migh t b e safe . 2 3 On e o f th e issue s righ t no wi s whethe r o r nor . t o 2 4 d o tha t kin d o f a nexercis e fo r lead . On e o f th e 2 5 interestin g aspects , o f i t i s tha t i nfac t andindeed , w e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P. 3

1 0 0 1 hav e quit e a considerabl e dat a bas e o nlea di ncompariso nt o 2 anyo f thes e othe r substances . 3 S o i t i s now , i na sense , bein g discusse dands o 4 o na s t o woul d i t no t perhap s b e muc hmor e effectiv e an d 5 bette r t o us e tha t availabl e knowledg e tha t w e hav e wit h 6 regar d t o lead , bot hi nterm s o f th e healt heffec t bu t als o 7 i nterm s o f exposure , multi-medi a exposur e relationships , 8 plu s th e absorptio nfactor s bykineti c model , andt o appl y 9 tha t instea d o f jus t comin g up wit hsom e singl e numbe r o r 1 0 somethin g R& D mad e t o shoo t at . 1. 1 I ntha t situation , i nregar dt o th e Superfun d 1 2 business , lea d i nsoi l i s a nobviou s considerabl e importan t 1 3 factor . An d the nt o figur e ou t wha t migh t b e appropriat e 1 4 level s o f lea d o r actio nlevel s o r criteri a fo r "clean' ' 1 5 level s i nsoi l tha t yo u hav e t o clea nup . 1 6 Som e o f th e issue s ther e tha t com e int o pla yan d 1 7 ar e beginnin g t o b e looke da t o r addresse dinclud e suc h 1 8 thing s a s bio-availabilit yissue s an ds o on . On e o f th e 1 9 thing s i s lea d i nsoil , dependin g o nth e chemica l species , 2 0 particl e size , th e soi l characteristics , ands o on . Lea di n 2 1 th e soi l o nsit e perhap s th e bio-availabilit yo r whateve r 2 2 ma yb e differen t t o som e exten t a s fa r a s rate s < • ( ' 2 3 absorptio nand s o o nfrom othe r substances . 2 4 I f so , an di f ther e i s a basi s t o projec t that , 2 5 • woul d tha t perhap s mean - tha t sit e specifi c clean-u p levnlb

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 4



### 10 1 1 mayb e mor e appropriate , rathe r thansome singl e soi l lea d 2 number . 3 I t i s a bi t o f a complicate d issue , i f yo u will , 4 wit ha lo t o f sub-issue s pertaining t o it . Th e agencyi s in 5 the proces s o f trying , i nfact , t o come t o grip s wit hthes e 6 variou s aspect s o f the problema s I hav e jus t described . 7 DR . VO NLINDERN : I certainl yappreciat e th e sit e 8 specificit yproblem s a s wel l a s anyone , I expect . Bu t i f I 9 understan d th e Superfun d publi c healt hevaluatio n 1 0 methodology , i nther e wil l b e some sor t o f allowabl e intak e 1 1 valu e i f theydevelop thi s methodologyfo r lead i nthe wa y 1 2 tha t theyhav e fo r othe r contaminants . 1 3 Tha t implie s anallowabl e amoun t o f absorbe d lea d 1 4 pe r day . Isn' t ther e certai nimplication s involve d wit h 1 5 themdoing tha t i nligh t o f th e methodologytha t develope d 1 6 her e yesterday , whic hi s t o projec t bloo d lead levels . 1 7 DR . GRANT : Yes , ther e i s animplicatio nan d wha t 1 8 w e al l ar e hoping t o b e abl e t o do , i nfact , i s t o take 1 9 advantag e o f wha t w e hav e bee nworking i nconnectio nwit h 2 0 the Ai r Offic e an d Wate r Offic e individua l marke t an d other s 2 1 i nthe modeling efforts , biokineti c modeling effort s an d 2 2 developing tha t furthe r along an d getting appropriat e inpu t 2 3 parameter s to ' bette r tak e int o accoun t wha t woul db e soi l 2 4 lead contribution s abou t an d tryt o determine , unde r variou s 2 5 - circumstance s r 

### wha t might , b e appropriate . Le t m e jus t yivc .

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 5



### 10 2 1 yo u som

e impressions , yeah , okay , i t mayb e a differen t 2 answe r a s t o wha t migh t be appropriat e given , i nfact , the 3 level s o f intak e fro mothe r source s o r th e medi a unde r 4 differen t specifi c circumstances . Yo u might , an d the ide a 5 o f th e sit e specifi c cleanu p level s — 6 DR . VO NLINDERN : Yo u mea nintak e versu s uptake ? 7 DR . GRANT : Excus e me ? 8 DR . VONLINDERN : Yo u mea nintak e —I' m 9 confused . 1 0 DR . GRANT : I didn' t quit e hea r you . 1 1 DR . VO NLINDERN : Woul d yo u sa ytha t there' s 1 2 reaso nt o develo p allowabl e - differen t uptak e amount s o f 1 3 lead i ndifferen t population s o r intak e — absorbe d intake ? 1 4 DR . GRANT : I think w e probabl yal l nee d t o b e 1 5 coming u

p wit hsome simpl e answe r t o wha t i s anallowabl e 1 6 absorbe d dose . I don' t think there' s an ydisagreemen t wit h 1 7 regard t o that . That' s anadvers e effect . Yo u come ou t now 1 8 an d star t talking abou t allowabl e differen t amount s o nthe 1 9 intak e sid e o r the exposur e sid e fro m differen t source s - - I 2 0 mea nthat' s probabl ywha t we'v e al l b e talking abou t here . 2 1 Howd o yo u d o some kin d o f apportionat e o r whateve r a s t o 2 2 wha t maybe allowe d fro m differen t route s o f exposur e o r 2 3 sources , an

d w e heard tha t w e need t o tak e int o accoun t the 2 4 whol e picture , th e multi-medi a picture . An d I think tha t 2 5 applie s t o th e soi l lead situation,.perhap s mor e so- than , I

Heritag e Reporting , Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 6

10 3 1 won' t saymor e so , bu t ver ydistinctl yfo r sur e i na sens e 2 i ntha t instance . I f somebod ypresent s yo u wit ha hig h 3 wate r lea d level , a hig hai r lea dleve l o r something , the n 4 yo u ma yjudg e tha t yo u hav e les s roo mfo r maneuve r sa yfo r 5 soi l lea d tha ni na differen t situatio nwit hlo wamount s 6 fro mth e othe r sources . I norde r t o no t excee dth e absorbe d 7 level . 8 DR . VO NLINDERN : I' mjus t expressin g m yconcer n 9 directl yand dro p i t a t that . I suppos e tha t mos t woul d 1 0 agre e tha t ther e i s a theoretica l absorbe ddos e tha t on e 1 1 coul d accep t - - mayb e som e o f u s couldn' t - - i f on e coul db e 1 2 developed . 1 3 DR . UPTON : I thin k tha t t o complet e ou r wor k 1 4 toda ywe'l l nee dt o hav e a nopportunit yt o wor k i nsub

1 5 group s fo r a shor t tim e afte r lunch . I t woul db e my 1 6 suggestio ntha t w e d o s o unti l abou t 1:4 5 an dreconvene , 1 7 repor t bac k fro mth e sub-group s an dai ma t adjournin g fo r 1 8 th e da ya t 3:0 0 becaus e peopl e hav e airplane s t o catch . S o 1 9 tha t myhop e woul db e tha t withi nth e nex t te no r fiftee n 2 0 minute s w e ca nreces s fo r lunch . 2 1 I' d lik e t o discus s wit hth e stud ygrou p th e 2 2 draftin g group' s report . I've go t som e thought s abou t th e 2 3 proposal , bu t I thin k rathe r tha npushin g i t out , I woul d 2 4 lik e t o liste nt o th e reaction s t o myproposal . S o I thin k 2 5 i f we'r e goin g t o succee di nhavin g th e tim e w e nee dt o wor k Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 7

10 4 1 i ndraftin g group s w e wil l probabl yhav e t o limi t thi s 2 discussio nt o anothe r fiv e minutes . An dI se e severa l hand s 3 up . I kno wtha t Dr . vo nLinder nhadn' t finishe dhi s 4 remarks , h e wa s goin g t o giv e u s th e botto mline , i nhi s 5 words . An d ther e hav e bee nothe r hand s u p here , Dr . 6 Wesolowski' s han dwa s up , Dr . Mahaffey' s han dwa s up andI 7 thin k Dr . Mushak's . S o I' d lik e t o limi t thi s t o th e nex t 8 fiv e minute s o r so , wheneve r ou r recorde r i s read yt o g o 9 again . Al l right , Dr . vo nLindern . 1 0 DR . VO NLINDERN : I' db e happ yt o tak e thi s issu e 1 1 t o th e sub-grou p an dmak e onl yon e point . I f th e Offic e o f 1 2 Soli d Wast e doe s develo p a methodolog yfo r AI C t o follo w 1 3 thei r Superfun d publi c healt hevaluatio nmethodology , i n 1 4 orde r t o d o tha t the yhav e t o determin e what' s a nacceptabl e 1 5 intak e rate . An dthat' s somethin g tha t thi s grou p an dyou r 1 6 grou p hav e struggle d wit hfo r a lon g tim e an dI woul djus t 1 7 lik e t o poin t tha t out . 1 8 DR . UPTON : Dr . Wesolowski . 1 9 DR . WESOLOWSKI : I wan t t o follo wu p a littl e o n 2 0 wha t Mor t said , th e committe e reall ydoe s nee dsom e kin do f 2 1 documen t tha t show s a nintegratio nan da s on e committe e 2 2 membe r I

kno wof , Les , wer e ap t t o d o that , he' dd o hi s 2 3 usua l thoroug han dcomplet e jo ban dwe' dhav e som e enjoyabl e 2 4 moment s criticizin g th e fine r things , bu t certainl ywoul db e 5 prou d of-th e document

—Bu t Le s ma yno t wan t t o tak e o ntha t

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8 TP. 8

10 5 

### 1 responsibility . 2 M

yquestio nha

d t o do wit hth e fac t the agency 3 recentl yha s give nindication s tha t they'r e going t o tak e 4 ove r huma nexposure , guiding scientifi c principles , ris k 5 assessmen t an

d ris k management , an d i nfac t I wa s upholding 6 th e progra

mwhic hlimite d th e funding a s muc hlarge r amount s 7 o f funding . I kno wtha t -they're no t represente d her e i na n 8 exercis e whic hinvolve s tota l humanexposur e an d I' m 9 wondering whethe r i t woul d b e appropriat e t o conside r them 1 0 a s th e integrating forc e fo r th e tota l humanexposur e 1 1 problem . 1 2 DR . GRANT : I thin k tha t —well , fo r on e thing 1 3 o ntota l humanexposure , the program , t o date , ha s focuse d 1 4 thei r responsibilit ymor e o nothe r subject s lik e lead an d 1 5 meta l an

d withi nth e neur o context . Fo r example , looking a t 1 6 indoo r ai r a s wel l a s outdoo r air . Fo r example , s o yo u can 1 7 defin e i t along tha t line . I seriousl ydoub t tha t i nterms 1 8 o f th e residen t expertise , shal l w e say , concentrate d i n 1 9 differen t area s tha t woul d necessaril yb e —yo u kno w—t o 2 0 tak e o ntha t kind o f a job . Ther e wa s a recommendatio no r a 2 1 reques t o r whateve r t o the committe e bu t I think it' s 2 2 probabl yno t necessaril yveryusefu l o r fruitfu l fo r yo u t o 2 3 tryt o determin e a t the momen t s o specifically , wha t grou p 2 4 withi nth e agenc yshoul d tak e i t o nversu s a genera l 2 5 recommendation , tha t some suc hintegrate d whateve r shoul d be .

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. 9



### 10 6 1 don e an

d the nfo r u s t o figur e ou t wha t woul d b e necessar y 2 t o d o that , an d wh o appropriat e actor s woul d b e i nhelping 3 perfor

mtha t assessment . Yo u know , I expec t yo u woul d en d 4 u p wit hanintegratio nacros s severa l differen t progra m 5 offices , office s o f researc han d developmen t an

d s o on . 6 Some typ e o f aneffor t lik e that . 7 DR . VO NLINDERN : YeahI agre e it' s no t fo r m e t o 8 sa ythank s t o who , bu t i na sens e thi s problemfit s int o 9 tha t generi c brainwork , doesn' t it ? 1 0 DR . GRANT : Yeah , t o anexten t i t doe s an d a s 1 1 time goe s o ni t maycome t o b e addresse d mor e i nth e contex t 1 2 o f that . It' s jus t tha t historicall yi t evolve d mor e fro m 1 3 looking a t ai r toxin s an d wha t mor e metaboli c o r organi c 1 4 compound o r something lik e that . I na tota l exposure , i na 1 5 sens e no t jus t the indoo r bu t outdoo r ai r environmen t a s 1 6 well . 1 7 MR . JORDAN : Gee , I don' t think yo u have t o 1 8 stretc hyou r eye s veryfar t o se e who'l l b e doing anything 1 9 veryquick . 2 0 DR . UPTON : Dr . Mahaffey . 2 1 DR . MAHAFFEY : Aquic k questio nabou t the soi l 2 2 lead level s tha t migh t b e set . I canunderstand the nee d t o 2 3 knowabou t bio-availabilit yo f lea d i nsoi l bu t woul d yo u be 2 4 aiming toward s setting a limi t base d o nsoi l typ e an d i f yo u 2 5 di d se t your - process , wh o woul d b e responsibl e fo r

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 0

10 7 1 determinin g th e bio-availability , th e perso nhavin g t o clea n 2 i t u p o r th e agency ? 3 MS . BRISKIN : Jus t ver yquickly . I thin k tha t 4 wha t I sai d wa s somewha t misinterpreted . W e i nfac t wil l 5 no t se t o r d o no t se t soi l standards . W e ca n—ther e ar e 6 tw o effort s underwa yi nEP Atha t ar e lookin g a t th e issu e o f 7 what' s a saf e leve l i nsoil . On e i s th e effor t unde r th e 8 Cleanu p and Outwor k Progra munde r th e Offic e o f Emergenc y 9 Response . An d th e other s ar e ou r suppor t o f HUD' s 1 0 activitie s tha t hav e w e touche dt o d o that . I naddition , w e 1 1 hav e som e modelin g effort s underway , whic hi s lookin g a t 1 2 som e abbreviatio no f bio-availabilit yissues . I d o wan t t o 1 3 sugges t tha t al l o f tha t i s happenin g a s a singl e standar d 1 4 settin g activity . Ther e ar e thre e distinc t activities . 1 5 DR . GRANT : T o b e sure , w e a t OR D d o no t hav e 1 6 responsibilit yo r authorit yo r whateve r t o establis hth e 1 7 leve l o f th e standard , bu t provid e th e technica l suppor t t o 1 8 th e differen t progra moffices . 1 9 DR . MAHAFFEY : Bu t doe s anybod ykno wi f yo u di d 2 0 thi s wh o woul d b e responsibl e legally ? 2 1 DR . GRANT : Ultimately , it' s probabl yOswort hand 2 2 th e offic e tha t woul d hav e tha t responsibility . 2 3 MS . BRISKIN : Bu t no t fo r pape r fo r ove r th e 2 4 soil ? I wante d t o distinguis h—ther e ar e hig hsoi l 2 5 contaminatio nlevel s i nurba narea s an dtha t woul dno t fal l Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 1

10 8 1 necessaril yunde r Superfun dands o yo u jus t nee dto-

- 2 that' s whyI wante d t o sa ytha t ther e ar e differen t 3 activitie s tha t ar e currentl yunderwa yan ds o yo u woul dno t 4 mee t b e a singl e standar d necessarily . 5 DR . GRANT : Whe nSuperfun dwa s aske dabou t this , 6 the ytol d u s tha t al l thei r scienc e wa s don e byR& D and 7 whateve r yo u guy s decide , that' s fin e b ythem , the yreall y 8 didn' t hav e muc hrol e t o pla yi nthi s an ds o on . I s tha t 9 coordinate d wit hwhat' s happenin g i nth e cities ? I s ther e a 1 0 linkag e t o there ? 1 1 MS . BRISKIN : Yes . 1 2 DR . GRANT : Th e Superfund , whateve r - th e bill

1 3 SARA3 whatever , include da mandat e fo r th e agenc yt o carr y 1 4 ou t soi l lea d abatemen t demonstratio nprojects , up t o thre e 1 5 FMAdecisions . Tha t responsibilit yoveral l fall s t o Oswort h 1 6 an d th e managemen t o f Superfund . The yhav e draw nupo nus , 1 7 ORD , myoffic e an d other s a s appropriate , plu s ou r musterin g 1 8 o f outsid e experts , som e o f who mar e sittin g righ t here , i n 1 9 helpin g t o provid e technica l suppor t i ndevelopin g protocol s 2 0 an d a napproac ht o doin g thes e soi l abatemen t projects . And 2 1 the yar e no wunderwa yi nthre e differen t location s - Boston , 2 2 Cincinnat i and Baltimor e - and followin g a timeline , whic h 2 3 w e anticipat e t o produc e som e hopefull yusefu l dat a o r 2 4 informatio nsomewher e ou t i n1991 . We'r e likel yt o b e 2 5 getting— a ful l pictur e wit hth e fina l report s i n1992 . . . I t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 2

10 9 1 shoul d hopefull ytel l u s somethin g abou t th e effectivenes s 2 o f soi l lea d abatement , whethe r ne wo r othe r procedure s fo r 3 lowerin g lea d i nth e soil . Th e effectivenes s o f tha t i n 4 reducin g bloo d lea d level s i nchildre ni nth e urba nareas . 5 S o ther e i s a definit e ti e in , i nwhateve r integratio no r 6 assistanc e goin g o nbetwee nOswort han dth e Offic e o f 7 Researc han d Development . 8 Gary , th e secon d area , th e genera l issu e o f 9 tryin g t o develo p soi l lea d standard s o r tryin g t o com e up 1 0 wit hwhethe r it' s a singl e numbe r o r ther e shoul db e 1 1 differen t number s fo r differen t situations , specific s an ds o 1 2 on . Again , the yar e lookin g ove r t o u s t o provid e 1 3 assistanc e i ndoin g that . That' s par t o f wha t we'v e jus t 1 4 bee ntalkin g abou t a littl e bi t ag o wit hIa nvo nLinder ni n 1 5 term s o f respons e t o hi s questio no f effort s alon g thos e 1 6 lines . 1 7 DR . MUSHAK : A s a follo wu p t o Ian' s question , 1 8 thi s busines s o f th e certai nSuperfun dsit e i nnorther n 1 9 Idah o whic hshal l remai nnameless . Tha t wa s evaluate dby 2 0 Regio nX . An d w e hav e involve d a fe wthing s i nit . 2 1 DR . GRANT : Paul , yo u can' t us e dat a intak e 2 2 becaus e that' s a scal e primaril yfo r chroni c lifetim e 2 3 exposure . 2 4 DR . MUSHAK : Als o i ntha t exercise , th e Agenc y 2 5 kin d o f adopte d th e notio ntha t lea dshal l b e viewe din . a Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 3



### 11 0 1 sub-chroni c sense . Atwo-yea r ol d chil d shal l b e the objec t 2 o f ris k an

d assessment . S o tha t i nterm s o f howOswort h 3 interact s wit hhowlea d i s t o be handled , it' s alread ytaken 4 —i nterm s wit hEPA . S o canyo u come u p wit ha

nAD I tha t 5 going t o keep anybod yhappy ? Yes , I think tha t question' s 6 bee nanswered . 7 DR . SILBERGELD : Again , it' s th e definitio no f 8 wha t i s a hazardou s waste ? The ncome u p wit ha definitio n 9 whic hi s base d o nthe leechabilit yo f lead an d anincredibl e 1 0 multiplie r o f th e existing drinking wate r supply . I think 1 1 peopl e shoul d b e awar e o f it . 1 2 DR . GRANT : Nowthat' s tru e Ellen , i t i s true . 1 3 DR . UPTON : I think unles s ther e ar e pressing 1 4 comment s o r question s tha t hav e t o come ou t a t thi s point , I 1 5 woul d lik e t o expres s o nbehal f o f th e stud ygrou p thank s t o 1 6 th e agenc yspokesme nwh o hav e s o effectivel ybriefe d u s 1 7 during the las t coupl e o f days . I'v e bee nimmensel y 1 8 impresse d wit hth e qualit yo f th e writte nan d verba l 1 9 materia l tha t we'v e bee nprivilege d t o review . 2 0 I don' t knowhowman yo f th e agenc ypeopl e wil l 2 1 come bac k whe nw e reconven e a t 1:45 . Certainl yyou'r e al l 2 2 welcome an

d invited . Bu t unles s some o f yo u wil l no t be 2 3 here , le t m e agai nthan k you verymuc hfo r you r efforts . 2 4 No wI woul d lik e t o propos e tha t th e member s o f 2 5 the stud

ygrou p divid e themselves..int o fou r sub-group s an d I Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P. M

11 1 1 hav e though t abou t thi s i nrelationshi p t o th e majo r issue s 2 tha t ar e t o b e addresse dbyth e studygroup . Th e firs t on e 3 include s th e proble mo f carcinogenicity , th e weigh t o f 4 evidenc e classification , andho wth e issu e i s deal t wit hi n 5 th e ai r qualit ylevels . An d I woul dpropos e tha t a sub

6 grou p consistin g o f Drs . Frank , Hammon dandUpto nloo k a t 7 thi s proble m

an dtr yt o develo p a coupl e o f paragraphs , a t 8 leas t ke ybulle t typ e statement s tha t reflec t th e finding s 9 an d conclusion s o f th e stud ygrou p andth e recommendation s 1 0 tha t w e migh t car e t o offer . Tr yt o b e responsiv e t o Dr . 1 1 Cogliano' s ple a a t th e las t momen t fo r advice . 1 2 Th e secon d sub-grou p loo k a t th e treatmen t o f th e 1 3 healt heffects , othe r tha ncancer , includin g suc hmatter s a s 1 4 sensitiv e sub-group s i nth e ai r qualit ydocuments . We'r e 1 5 tryin g t o ge t closur e o nth e ai r qualit ydocuments . Thi s 1 6 issu e o f ho won e handle s th e non-carcinogeni c en dpoint s I 1 7 woul d hop e migh t b e referre d t o a sub-grou p consistin g o f a 1 8 sub-grou p consistin g o f Drs . Chisolm , Rabinowitz , Silbergel d 1 9 an d Weiss . 2 0 Th e thir d sub-grou p I woul d propos e t o concer n 2 1 itsel f wit hexposur e an dexposur e dos e models , th e 2 2 assessmen t o f thos e matters , agai ntakin g int o accoun t suc h 2 3 relevan t consideration s a s sensitiv e sub-groups , differen t 2 4 sources , differen t medi a o f exposure , 2 5 bio-availabilities , efeciation ^ ther e ar e a - family

- o f issue s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 5

11 2 1 tha t hav e t o g o int o th e models . An dI woul dsugges t fo r 2 tha t sub-grou p tha t i t includ e Drs . Carlson , Larson , and 3 Mahaffey . 4 An d the na fourt hsub-grou p I woul das k t o 5 propos e t o loo k a t cross-agenc yconsistency , coordinatio n 6 and othe r relevan t issue s whic hhav e bee nraised , th e mas s 7 balanc e matte r fo r example . Th e nee dfo r a nintegrate ddat a 8 base . An d her e I woul d lik e t o propos e tha t th e grou p 9 includ e Drs . Lippmann , Mushak , vo nLindern , an dWesolowski . 1 0 S o tha t woul d b e th e chairman' s effor t t o tr yt o 1 1 harnes s th e impressiv e talen t o f expertis e an dexperienc e o f 1 2 thi s studygrou p t o addres s th e issue s ou r charg e ha s give n 1 3 t o us . M ysuggestio nwoul db e i f th e stud ygrou p wa s 1 4 amenabl e t o thi s proposal , tha t w e ea t lunc hquickly , g o 1 5 int o sub-groups , wor k togethe r i nsub-groups , brin g bac k 1 6 som e writte nbullet-typ e statements , an dwhe nw e reconven e 1 7 a t 1:4 5 ai m

t o hav e som e discussio no f these , interactio n 1 8 wit hstaf f an d adjourn , star t headin g fo r th e airpor t a t 1 9 3:00 . I' mtol d byDr . Barne s tha t ther e ar e othe r rooms , 2 0 othe r area s i nwhic hsub-group s migh t wor k separately , bu t 2 1 that' s myproposal . An dI ope ni t u p fo r reactions . It' s 2 2 o nth e table . An ycounte r suggestion s o r modifications ? 2 3 .DR . UPTON : Question . Yes . 2 4 DR . YODER : Yesterday , Dr . McClella nsuggeste d 2 5 tha t you'r e stil l ver ymuc hintereste di ninpu t fro mth e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.1 6



### 11 3 1 public . Coul d I as k howyou r report s thi s afternoo nwoul d 2 be - o r howpubli c comment s woul d be worke d int o the repor t 3 tha t yo u woul d be developing thi s afternoon ? 4 DR . UPTON : Obviously , th e report s that we'l l 5 develo

pthi s afternoo

nwil l reflec t everythin gwe'v e hear d 6 toda

y as wel l as comment s whichwer e receivedi nadvanc e of 7 ou r meeting , at th e tim e of th

e March3 0 meeting . M y 8 understanding , an dI thin

kth e doctor ha

demphasize

dearlier 9 that really

to complet e th

e respons e to ou

r charge w

e nee d 1 0 som

e additiona l information . An dI thin

kDr . McClella

n 11 assure

dth e audienc e yesterdaythat th e comment period 1 2 remain s inforce so that n o completio

nca nb e envisaged 1 3 unti l th e en d o f th e commen t period , a s fa r a s I' maware . 

### 14 DR . BARNES : I ntalkin

gabout Dr . McClellan 1 5 yesterday , hi s suggestio ni s that whenth e comment perio

d 1 6 close s th

e progra

m wil l gather al l thos e comment s an dmake 1 7 the

m availabl e to stud y grou pprior to th

e submissio

nof 1 8 thei r report . 19 MS . BRISKIN : I notice dthat i

nyou r assignments , 2 0 there i s i

nfact one issu

e that i s not ver

y wel l covere

din 2 1 term

s of th

e charge that wa s give nto us , an

di nfact , I' m 2 2 not sure that w e ca ncove r it bu

t I woul dhop

e perhap s tha t 2 3 w e coul dsen

da t leas t a forma l statement about ou r 2 4 inability

to cover it . That' s point number three , whichhas 2 5 to do withou r judgment of th

e consistency

o f what' s goin

g Heritage Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 7



### 11 4 1 on . I woul d sugges t tha t it' s sai d t o be ondrinking water . 2 Th e consistenc yof.what' s going o nwithi nth e agencywit h 3 respec t t o the lead , sinc e i nfac t w e di d no t have a 4 complet e opportunit yt o hea r everything that' s going o nwit h 5 respec t t o lea d w e reall ycan' t addres s that . Bu t perhap s 6 w e coul d not e that , tha t w e weren' t abl e t o dea l wit hi t i n 7 par t becaus e it' s a verylarg e topi c bu t als o tha t our 8 effort s wer e hindere d b yth e lac k o f presentations . 9 DR . UPTON : Goo d point . I woul d hop e tha t the 1 0 fourt hsub-grou p tha t addresse s specificall ycross-agenc y 1 1 consistency , coordinatio nwit hothe r relevan t issues , woul d 1 2 d o exactl ywha t you'v e suggested . 1 3 I f ther e ar e no furthe r comment s now , the nwe 1 4 stan

d recesse d unti l 1:45 . 1 5 (Whereupon , th e meeting wa s 1 6 recessed , t o reconven e thi s 1 7 same daya t 1:4 5 p.m. )

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.1 8



### 11 5 1 AFTERNOO NSESSIO N 2 DR . UPTON : i think we'r e al l assemble d again . 3 Invie wo f the hour , w e have onl yanhou r left . Cab s ar e 4 coming an

d peopl e wil l hav e t o begi nt o mov e awayt o the 5 airport . W e wan t t o as k eac ho f ou r drafting group s t o 6 respond . Le t m e clarif ywha t we'r e trying t o d o a t thi s 7 particula r time . Th e emphasi s i s o na summaryo f th e key , 8 the findings , conclusions , recommendation s tha t hav e emerge d 9 during the pas t two days . 1 0 I t wa s pointe d ou t t o me , afte r w e recesse d thi s 1 1 morning , tha t i t wa s th e understanding o f a numbe r o f th e 1 2 member s o f CSAC tha t w e had reall yessentiall ycome t o 1 3 closur e o nth e Ai r Qualit yDocumen t s o tha t remark s tha t ar e 1 4 being mad e thi s afternoo naddres s broade r issues , no t tha t 1 5 theyhav e n o relevanc e t o th e Ai r Qualit yDocumen t bu t 1 6 addres s broader , mor e generi c questions . I think wit htha t 1 7 introduction , I wonde r i f w e coul d cal l firs t o ngrou p 1 8 numbe r four tha t wa s dealing specificall ywit hcross-Agenc y 1 9 issues . And I' mno t sur e wh o wil l report , whethe r i t wil l 2 0 b e al l o f themo r one. . 2 1 DR . LIPPMANN : I gues s I wa s taking th e notes , s o 2 2 wit hthe indulgenc e o t m yassociates , I wil l giv e yo u a 2 3 report . W e conclude d tha t ther e wa s a striking lac k o f 2 4 consistenc yi nthe preparatio nfo r thi s committee' s revie w 2 5 an d th e documentatio nprovide d t o u s b y-th e variou s progra

m Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4-88 8P.1 9

11 6 1 offices . Wherea s th e Offic e o f Researc handDevelopmen t and 2 th e Ai r Offic e give s extensiv e documentatio nandmad e th e 3 revie wrelativel yeas yt o addres s andth e Wate r Offic e a t 4 leas t showe d up andwa s prepare dt o engag e i nsom e 5 clarificatio nan ddiscussio no f th e issues . Severa l progra m 6 office s wh o ar e likel yt o accoun t fo r a nincreasin g amoun t 7 o f vot e her e i nth e future , Pesticides , Toxi c Substances , 8 Soli d Waste , Superfund , Emergenc yRespons e Office , gav e u s 9 n o informatio no nwhic ht o forma judgmen t —consistenc yo n 1 0 man yo f thes e issues . 1 1 Therefore , a s w e revie wth e othe r issue s fo r 1 2 consistency , w e ca nreall yonl yfocu s o nth e consistenc y 1 3 betwee nORD , Ai r an dWate r t o an yexten t an dth e other s w e 1 4 hav e a cavea t up fron t tha t w e can' t full yaddres s th e 1 5 consistency . 1 6 Wit hregar d t o othe r mor e specifi c issues , ther e 1 7 wa s certainl ya consistenc yi nth e healt heffect s inde x 1 8 whic hi s use d fo r lea d an dtha t i s fo r bloo dlead . 1 9 Certainl yAi r an d Wate r appeare dt o b e ver yconsisten t i n 2 0 acceptin g bloo d lea dleve l and bein g indicativ e o f excessiv e 2 1 exposur e an d likel yhealt heffects . 2 2 I nterm s o f targe t valu e fo r bloo dlea da s a n 2 3 indicator , agai nth e Ai r an dWate r Offic e ha dexplicitl y 2 4 sai d tha t the ywoul db e here . W e don' t kno wabou t 2 5 -consistenc yi nothe r progra moffice s there-,—plu s w e weren' t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4.88 8P.2 0

11 7 1 tol d abou t it . 2 I nterm s o f th e populatio na t risk , again , ther e 3 wa s a genera l consistenc ya s fa r a s w e coul dtel l tha t i t 4 wa s childre nwh o wer e judge d t o b e th e populatio na t 5 greates t risk , bu t w e not e tha t ther e wa s som e apparen t 6 inconsistenc yabou t th e ag e o f th e childre no f th e mos t 7 sensitiv e group . Again , bot hAi r an dWate r an dw e don' t 8 kno wabou t th e othe r areas . 9 Ther e wa s eve nbetwee nAi r an dWater , however , a n 1 0 apparen t inconsistenc yi nth e percentag e o f th e populatio n 1 1 wh o ca nb e i nexceedance . Th e Ai r Offic e appear s t o tal k 1 2 abou t 95 % o f th e populatio nbein g withi nth e lea di nwate r 1 3 targe t a s bein g ho wthe ywil l proceed , wherea s th e Ai r 1 4 Offic e gav e u s a serie s o f percentage s generall yhighe r tha n 1 5 95 % i nterm s o f th e ai r standard . S o ther e i s a napparen t 1 6 inconsistenc ywit hthos e tw o program s an dprobabl yothe r 1 7 inconsistencie s betwee nth e progra mareas . 1 8 I nterm s o f th e consistenc yo f th e exposur e 1 9 models , ther e wa s a napparen t lac k o f consistency , a t leas t 2 0 a s fa r a s w e ca ntell , ther e ma yb e inconsistenc yo f som e 2 1 elements , lik e analytica l methods , bu t samplin g protocol s 2 2 di d no t see mt o b e o na consisten t basis . Ther e wa s n o 2 3 addressin g o f importan t issue s lik e bio-availability , i n 2 4 term s o f dat a o nth e activit ylevel s o f water , ho wmuc h 2 5 wate r wa s consume d wa s inconsisten t wit hth e assume dai r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-408 8P.2 1



### 11 8 1 bodies , question s like that . 2 Bu t basically , w e not e a nimportan t thin

g tha t 3 need s t o be considere d i nthe exposur e model s i s the 4 allocatio no f th e overal l bloo d lead burde nthroughth e 5 variou s media . Eac ho f the Ai r an d Wate r Office s ha s mor e 6 o r les s adopte d a permissibl e fractio no nthei r own , a s far 7 a s w e ca ntell . Wate r appear s t o b e willin g t o accep t fo r 2 8 microgram s pe r decilite r o f th e bod yburden , explicitly . 9 Ai r wa s a littl e les s explici t a s far a s thei r stan d an d th e 1 0 othe r office s w e don' t know . 1 1 W e reall yar e groping whe nw e loo k a t consistenc y 1 2 o nris k reductio nstrategies . W e heard element s o f eac h 1 3 fro

mAi r an

d Water , bu t it' s difficul t fo r u s t o judg e thei r 1 4 consistency . Again , w e don' t kno wth e othe r progra m 1 5 offices . 1 6 Ris k communication s —it' s likel ytha t ther e ar e 1 7 inconsistencie s bu t agai nw e don' t hav e enoughinformatio n 1 8 t o judg e that . 1 9 W e recommend two action s t o th e Administrator , i n 2 0 term s o f ou r recommendation s i nthi s area . One , tha t a 2 1 thoroughmas s balanc e be conducte d o ncurren t levels , flu x 2 2 an d s o forth . Bu t extending bac k int o th e pas t an d forward 2 3 int o the futur e a s well , becaus e o f the knowledg e tha t the 2 4 balanc e elemen t ha s bee nchanging i nth e pas t an d ar e likel y 2 5 t o b e changing.-.in...th e future . And the nmor e genericall y Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.2 2

11 9 1 still , w e recommen d tha t th e EP Adevelo p a nationa l lea d 2 policy . Than k you . 3 DR . UPTON : Ar e ther e anycomment s fro mmember s 4 o f th e sub-group ? Question s fro mth e stud ygroup ? Anyone ? 5 Mr . Jordan . 6 MR . JORDAN : O nth e mas s balance , you'r e thinkin g 7 fro ma sourc e standpoint ? Okay . 8 DR . LIPPMANN : On e o f th e strength s o f th e sourc e 9 i s th e transporte r route s andrates , presentatio no f a 1 0 burde nt o targe t th e Agency . 1 1 MR . JORDAN : The no nwha t scale ? Nationa l scal e 1 2 o r geographica l scal e o r what ? I t coul dg o eithe r way , bu t 1 3 it' s ver ydifficult . 1 4 DR . LIPPMANN : Yo u didn' t addres s it . 1 5 MR . JORDAN : Okay . 1 6 DR . LIPPMANN : It' s u p t o yo u t o interpre t it . 1 7 (Laughter ) 1 8 DR . LIPPMANN : Ther e ar e som e othe r somewha t 1 9 subtl e difference s i f yo u rea d th e Federa l Register . Notic e 2 0 o nth e drinkin g water , the yfo r instanc e don' t hav e any 2 1 mentio no f bloo d pressur e andlea dleve l whic hwoul dsee mt o 2 2 b e importan t base do nwha t wa s i nth e othe r documents . The y 2 3 als o pa ya littl e mor e attentio nI thin k t o carcinogenicit y 2 4 a s on e o f th e reason s fo r makin g zer o a s th e LP . An d thos e 2 5 tw o thing s aren't

- necessaril ybad , the ynee dt o b e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.2 3

12 0 1 straightene d ou t a t leas t withi nth e agenc ys o tha t - - No w 2 the yd o focu s als o o nth e neuroto xprocedure , wha t w e 3 focuse d o nyesterday . S o ther e i s som e consistency , bu t i t 4 coul d b e better . 5 DR . VO NLINDERN : Well , w e didn' t addres s tha t a t 6 all . I gues s I wa s operatin g o nth e premis e tha t th e 7 variou s effect s whic hwer e discusse di nth e contex t o f th e 8 erro r ar e applicabl e an d the nho wi t get s t o th e point . 9 DR . LIPPMANN : That' s true . An dthat' s 1 0 conclusive . Wh ythe ycouldn' t decide , ther e wer e stil l som e 1 1 problems . I t ma yb e becaus e i t wa s don e befor e th e 1 2 document s wer e complete . We'r e goin g bac k t o las t summer , 1 3 las t year . 1 4 DR . VO NLINDERN : Okay . Th e Ai r an dWate r 1 5 document s use d differen t en dpoints . Ho wd o yo u defin e - - 1 6 DR . LIPPMANN : Use dsom e o f th e sam e bu t no t 1 7 necessaril y—same . 1 8 DR . GRANT : I thin k th e accurat e statemen t i s 1 9 tha t th e attemp t wa s mad e t o hav e consistenc ybetwee nthe m 2 0 an d certainl yth e mai nfocu s i nthes e i s o nth e neurotoxi c 2 1 an d earl yfeta l development , whateve r yo u cal l that . An d 2 2 wher e ther e ma yb e a differenc e woul db e o nemphasis . Fo r 2 3 example , th e discussioni s o ncarcinogenicit yi non e mor e s o 2 4 tha ni nth e other . An dthe nth e bloo dpressure , I' mno t 2 5 sur e i f i t wa s totall ylef t ou t o f on e o f .th e document s bu t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.2 4



### 12 1 1 i t wa s probabl yhighl yfocused onchildre na s the ke y- - 2 DR . LIPPMANN : Th e numbe r on e poin t we'r e making 3 a t zer o i s numbe r one , a s far a s the waytheylisted , wa s 4 th e lac k o f threshol d fo r AL D dehydrates . 5 DR . VO NLINDERN : I t says , liste d unde r th e majo r 6 point s fo r the toxicity . That' s on e tha t migh t b e an y 7 numbe r o f point s ; —bu t i t read s funny . It' s jus t thi s typ e 8 o f thing . And I' msur e thi s only , whe ntheycome t o th e 9 fina l rule , I' msur e i t wil l b e bette r an d I jus t wante d t o 1 0 giv e u s tha t remark . 1 1 DR . UPTON : We'r e getting int o exposur e modeling , 1 2 exposur e ris k relationship s an d I wonde r i f w e coul d hea r 1 3 fro

m the third sub-grou p tha t had t o d o wit hthi s whol e 1 4 serie s o f problem s suc ha s exposure , bio-availability , 1 5 speciatio nan

d s o on . 1 6 AUDIENC E MEMBER : Dr . Upton , befor e yo u g o on , 1 7 coul d I mak e on e remar k abou t consistency ? 1 8 DR . UPTON : Sure . 1 9 AUDIENC E MEMBER : Thi s mayno t nee d saying , bu t I 2 0 fee l some urg e t o sa yi t anywaytha t a s t o ho wth e differen t 2 1 program s g o abou t setting standards , i t shoul d b e remembere d 2 2 tha t the differen t office s wor k unde r differen t statute s an d 2 3 the basi s fo r standard s i s differen t an d t o giv e perhap s the 2 4 stronges t example , i f on e offic e i s setting standar d tha t i s 2 5 based onhealt heffects , yo u wil l ge t on e result . I f

Heritag e Reporting Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.2 5

12 2 1 anothe r offic e i s basin g a standar do navailabl e contro l 2 technology , th e chance s ar e tha t you'l l ge t a differen t 3 result . An d o f cours e th e discussion s leadin g up t o th e tw o 4 standard s wil l focu s o ndifferen t things . S o t o som e 5 extent , a wis hfo r dat a consistenc yma ynee dt o b e addresse d 6 t o Congres s an d I jus t urg e tha t yo u kee p i nmin dtha t ther e 7 ma yb e thos e differences.

- 8 DR . UPTON : Than k you . Dr . Carlson . 9 DR . CARLSON : Yes . Wha t you'r e als o pointin g ou t 1 0 i s th e differenc e i nth e NCL Gandth e NC L fo r th e drinkin g 1 1 water . S o I generally , th e thing s tha t Dr . Larso n 1 2 talke d abou t yesterda yi ntha t repor t covere da lo t o f 1 3 feeling s wit hregar d t o th e overal l acceptanc e o f thi s 1 4 document , th e exposur e analysi s methodolog yvalidation . An d 1 5 generall yfel t tha t th e revie wo f th e Nationa l Standar dAi r 1 6 Qualities , standar d fo r lead , exposur e analysi s methodolog y 1 7 and validation , serve s a s a regiona l mode l o nwhic ht o 1 8 build . Ou r rea l concer nwa s that' s no t th e b e al l an dth e 1 9 en d al l bu t i t seeme dlik e a goo dplac e t o g o andi t 2 0 provide d mean s fo r identifyin g gap s i nknowledg e an darea s 2 1 fo r additiona l researc htha t coul dsomeda yhav e answers , 2 2 suc ha s writin g th e report . Bu t it' s reall ytru e i nth e 2 3 sens e tha t afte r discussio ni nth e las t coupl e o f day s w e 2 4 realiz e tha t ther e ar e som e point s tha t w e mak e tha t ar e 2 5 prett y- - an dother s w e reall yhav e a difficul t tim e Heritag e Reportin qCorporatio n

(202 ) 620-488 8P.2 6

12 3 1 dealin g with . 2 A s fa r a s sensitivit ygoes , thi s i s a difficul t 3 issue , obviously . We'v e bee ntalkin g abou t it . Th e mother

4 feta l uni t certainl ypresent s a sens e o f th e population . 5 However , unles s w e us e extrem e assumption s o f transfe r o f 6 environmenta l lead s o ntransfe r o f environmenta l lea dt o th e 7 mothe r and int o th e fetus . It' s problemati c t o focu s o n 8 this . Furthermore , ther e ar e fe wdat a set s o nfeta l tissu e 9 tha t coul d b e use d t o addres s th e question . An dsom e o f 1 0 thes e impl yth e questionabl e methodolog yan dth e 1 1 questionabl e methodolog yreall yrefer s t o th e ag e o f thes e 1 2 studie s rathe r tha n- - a t thei r tim e the yma yhav e bee nal l 1 3 right . 1 4 Fortunately , ther e i s researc hno wo nproject s 1 5 utilizin g Australia npopulation s nea r lea dsmelter s tha t 1 6 shoul d provid e som e o f thi s data . Dr . Mahaffe ytalke dt o u s 1 7 a littl e bi t abou t thi s an d thi s i s a ver yextensiv e study . 1 8 I t i s ver ydifficult , s o w e shoul dge t som e informatio ntha t 1 9 yo u woul d b e abl e t o plu g int o thes e models , i f yo u wan t t o 2 0 us e tha t mother-feta l uni t a s a sensitiv e population . 2 1 W e endors e th e multi-medi a model . I t shoul db e 2 2 o f suc ha natur e t o recogniz e tha t th e ag e o f th e sensitiv e 2 3 grou p ma ychang e wit hmedia , tha t i s a t thre e months , a s Dr . 2 4 Chisol m

pointe d ou t thi s morning , tha t a t thre e month s wate r 2 5 ma yb e th e mos t importan t grou p for. . exposur e an dlate r o n Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.2 7

12 4 1 thoug hwhe nyo u hav e th e typ e tha t ar e crawlin g aroun do n 2 th e floor s an d int o th e dust . I t i s note di nth e documen t 3 tim e spen t indoor s and outdoor s als o varie dgreatl ywit hag e 4 and shoul d b e considered . W e go t i na bi g discussio ntoda y 5 abou t th e Drinkin g Wate r peopl e usin g a certai nag e group 6 perhaps , and Dr . Marcus ' repor t wa s si xanda hal f months , 7 an d th e documen t o nth e ai r wa s tw o years . Thos e ar e no t 8 necessaril yinconsisten t i f yo u conside r th e importanc e o f 9 th e differen t exposur e medium . Whic hi s reall ywha t w e ar e 1 0 after . 1 1 Speciatio ni s importan t i ndistinguishin g organi c 1 2 fro mcommo nlead . However , i t i s suspecte dtha t som e 1 3 population s o r subspecie s ma yno t b e tha t useful . Ji misn' t 1 4 here , I kno wh e presente d tha t slid e yesterday , an dtha t 1 5 reall yha d som e interestin g informatio no ni t bu t th e 1 6 difference s amon g speciatio nwithi nth e organic s i s no t muc h 1 7 compare d t o th e tetra-ethy l lea dversu s th e iner t soluble s 1 8 i norgani c salt s versu s lea dmetals . I t woul db e mor e 1 9 profitabl e t o spen d mor e effor t o nth e influenc e o f 2 0 particulate , o f a particl e siz e o nabsorptio n 2 1 characteristic s i nth e formo f a salt . Finally , furthe r 2 2 studie s o nth e acquisitio no f dat a t o correlat e exposur e 2 3 wit hbloo d levels , a s muc hinformatio na s possibl e regardin g 2 4 exposur e condition s b ywhateve r rout e practice s best . I t 2 5 - •need s t o obtaine dbyth e agenc yt o bette r understan dth e

vHeritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.2 8

12 5 1 relativ e sourc e contributions

- Thi s seem s t o b e i nthi s 2 modelin g business , yo u g o and yo u loo k a t th e contribution s 3 and thing s tha t ar e alreadyinvolve dthi s morning , th e 4 inquir yuse s 20 % a s a defaul t value , unles s the yca njustif y 5 a differen t number , that' s wha t the yuse . I' mno t sure , I 6 shoul d know , bu t I apologiz e fo r that . Whethe r o r no t 7 that' s wha t the ydi dthi s time . Bu t the yofte nd o that . 8 Man yo f th e times , that' s wha t the yd o becaus e the ydon' t 9 hav e th e dat a and w e shoul dreall yb e ther e collectin g that , 1 0 th e exposure s byth e variou s source s an dcomparin g thos e t o 1 1 th e bloo d level s o f pain t rathe r tha njus t obtainin g bloo d 1 2 level s an d the nno t bein g abl e t o attribut e anysor t o f 1 3 sourc e contribution . 1 4 DR . UPTON : Than k yo u ver ymuch . Othe r member s 1 5 o f th e draftin g group ? Dr . Mahaffe yi s no t wit hus . Dr . 1 6 Silbergeld ? 1 7 DR . SILBERGELD : I t woul db e usefu l i f yo u woul d 1 8 addres s thi s issu e whic hcome s up i nth e Staf f Pape r betwee n 1 9 sor t o f responsiv e population s an dsusceptibl e population s 2 0 an d cause s potentia l fo r confusio ni nthos e term s andals o I 2 1 thin k eac hon e raise s separat e scientifi c issues . Wha t th e 2 2 Staf f Pape r identifie s a s population s mos t likel yt o respon d 2 3 t o a chang e i na nexterna l sourc e term , a s wel l a s 4 population s mos t likel yt o respon di na biologi c sens e t o a 2 5 give nexposure . —. Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8 - >P.2 9

12 6 1 DR . UPTON : Othe r comments ? 2 We'r e seeing , I think , i nth e las t coupl e o f 3 days , wha t amount s t o ne wan dvexin g bu t increasingl y 4 importan t serie s o f issue s dealin g wit hnon-carcinogeni c 5 effect s fo r whic hther e appear s t o b e risk s o f lowe r level s 6 o f exposur e and I wonde r i f w e coul dcal l o nth e secon dsub

7 grou p t o shar e wit hu s it s thought s o n* th e ho wth e agenc y 8 ca nbes t approac hthi s categor yo nth e th e nex t issue . 9 DR . GRANT : W e hav e fou r reports . 1 0 DR . WEISS : I wonde r i f it' s necessar yfo r m e t o 1 1 rea d everythin g tha t I wrote , bu t I bega nwit hth e assertio n 1 2 tha t w e typicall ydefin e a nadvers e effec t byit s expressio n 1 3 i nresiduals , fo r example , i ncance r cases . Bu t wit h 1 4 neurotoxicgens , w e fac e anothe r kin do f interpretativ e 1 5 proble mbecaus e a s yo u sa wfro mth e documen t wha t w e reall y 1 6 hav e t o conten d wit hi s th e expressio no f risk s pose db ya 1 7 shif t i nth e distributio no f som e en dpoint . Fo r example , 1 8 I Q scores . An d eve nsmal l shift s i nth e mea nar e amplifie d 1 9 greatl ywhe nyo u loo k a t th e extreme s o f th e distribution . 2 0 Ashif t o f 5 I Q point s o r 5 % fo r exampl e i na populatio no f 2 1 a hundre d million , change s th e number * o f individual s wit h 2 2 IQ' s abov e 13 0 fro m2. 3 millio nt o 990,000 , wit ha 2 3 correspondin g expansio no f th e numbe r o f individual s wit h 2 4 IQ' s belo w7 0 whic hi s a nimportan t lega l valu e fo r 2 5 . intervention-i nth e schools- . A s a resul t o f thi s reason^

- i t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.3 0

12 7 1 make s th e mos t sens e fo r regulator ydecision s t o formulat e 2 ris k i nterm s o f shift s anddistribution . Simila r 3 distribution s o r simila r expression s o f ris k I thin k woul d 4 als o hel p visualiz e th e tota l impac t o f relativel ysmal l 5 displacement s o f th e bloo dpressur e distribution . W e 6 recommen d tha t th e supplemen t trea t ris k i nthi s wa yi nth e 7 nex t draft , perhap s wit ha naccompanyin g tabl e showin g th e 8 proportio no f childre ncorrespondin g t o postulate dshift s i n 9 th e mea no f intelligenc e test s scores . Suc ha schem e 1 0 present s th e Administrato r wit ha clea r statemen t o f th e 1 1 consequence s stemmin g fro manyspecifi c choic e o f a targete d 1 2 bloo d level . I naddition , suc ha napproac hmake s i t 1 3 unnecessar yt o us e term s suc ha s leve l o f concer nwhic h 1 4 appear s throughou t th e documen t an dwhic ht o som e reader s 1 5 migh t impl ysuppor t fo r th e concep t o f a threshold . 1 6 DR . UPTON : Comments ? 1 7 DR . GRANT : Bernie , let' s b e sur e —ar e yo u 1 8 referrin g t o level s o f concer no r whateve r i nrelatio nt o 1 9 what' s i nth e supplemen t versu s i nth e Staf f Paper ? 2 0 D RWEISS : It' s i nboth . Yes , w e discusse dwha t 2 1 leve l o f concern , then , an dw e hav e fou r differen t 2 2 interpretations . 2 3 DR . GRANT : W e settle dwit hattemp t t o add 2 4 additiona l informatio na s w e note dyesterda ytha t yo u wer e 2 5 tryin g t o da . I can' t giv e yo u a nabsolut e definit e topi c Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.3 1

12 8 1 a s t o wha t wil l b e th e outcom e o f thi s becaus e it' s highl y 2 dependen t upo nwha t som e o f th e researc hgroups , fo r 3 example , ar e goin g t o b e abl e t o d o fo r us , t o provid e fo r 4 us . It' s a s simpl e a s that . W e don' t hav e th e dat a i nou r 5 hands , w e don' t hav e contro l o f th e dat a an ds o forth , an d 6 w e wil l b e highl ydependen t o nth e cooperatio nt o th e exten t 7 tha t it' s possibl e t o ge t it . 8 DR . WEISS : Perhap s yo u chang e th e wa yyo u state d 9 i t t o anothe r kin do f formulation . Fo r example , a statemen t 1 0 t o th e effec t tha t advers e effect s hav e bee nobserve da t 1 1 level s a s lo was , say, 1 0 t o 15 . Bu t there' s n o 1 2 documentatio nher e o r n o cogen t documentatio nt o allo wyo u 1 3 t o examin e th e risk s a t bloo dlevel s belo wthos e values . S o 1 4 yo u ca nonl yhypothesiz e dependin g upo nho wyo u exten d th e 1 5 dos e effec t function , a s t o wha t th e actua l risk s migh t be . 1 6 DR . GRANT : I thin k w e ca ncertainl yattemp t som e 1 7 kin d o f reworkin g o f languag e tha t get s toward s tha t 1 8 conveyin g o nth e leve l o f competence , wher e there' s lac k o f 1 9 sufficien t informatio no r softe r information , w e ca nbuil d 2 0 i nsomethin g o nthat . 2 1 DR . UPTON : Ther e wer e othe r member s o f th e sub

2 2 group . D o w e hav e comment s fro mothers ? 2 3 DR . SILBERGELD : W e als o treate dth e issu e o f 2 4 incorporatin g th e experimenta l studie s an dbot hMik e 2 5 Rabinowit z and I wrot e som e comments-o nthat . Wha t I wrot e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.3 2

12 9 1 deal t wit hessentiall ywit hth e justificatio nfo r lookin g a t 2 th e experimenta l dat a because , a s wa s note dhere , i t ca n 3 suppor t th e huma nstudie s remarkably . Firs t off , there' s a 4 lo t o f i nth e cas e o f lead . I t support s th e huma nstudie s 5 providin g confirmatio nbot ho f th e kin dan dquantitativel y 6 a s wel l o f th e observation s tha t hav e bee nmad e i nthos e 7 huma npopulation s an di t ha s th e advantag e o f eliminatin g 8 man yo f th e confirmin g variable s whic har e inevitabl y 9 presen t i nthos e huma nstudies . An dals o ver yimportantly , 1 0 th e experimenta l dat a provid e a mechanisti c basi s fo r 1 1 developin g health-base dgoal s t o reduc e toxicity . S o w e 1 2 recommen d tha t th e addendumsummariz e recen t studies , 1 3 particularl ythos e incarnate s an dals o loo k a t th e recen t 1 4 mechanisti c studie s i nconjunctio nwit hinference s fro mth e 1 5 basi c neuroscienc e o nevent s i nneurogenesi s ove r th e lat e 1 6 feta l an d earl yneo-nata l period . W e conclud e tha t thes e 1 7 experimenta l dat a ar e a basi s fo r proposin g tha t there' s 1 8 likel yt o b e n o lea d threshol dfo r lea dneurotoxicit ya t 1 9 leas t ove r th e contemporar yrang e o f level s o f exposure , 2 0 i.e. , fro m1 throug h2 9 gram s pe r deciliter . W e woul dlik e 2 1 som e kin d o f statemen t i nparticularl yi nrespons e t o you r 2 2 comments , Dr . Upton , abou t th e perspectiv e her e tha t th e us e 2 3 o f mechanisti c dat a i nris k assessmen t i s i neffec t a lon g 2 4 established

- practiced . An dwe'r e presente dwit ha n 2 5 opportunity,—because

- of-th e richnes s o f dat a o nlead , t o g o Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 620-4888 'P.3 3

13 0 1 beyon d th e standar d practic e i nnon-carcinoge nris k 2 assessmen t o f usin g lo wL' s and n o L' s i ndevelopin g health

3 base d goals . Therefore , w e woul durg e th e agenc yt o explor e 4 th e mechanisti c model s specificall yavailabl e fro mth e lea d 5 dat a fo r ris k assessmen t fo r thi s purpose . 6 DR . UPTON : Than k you , Dr . Silbergeld . Paul ? 7 DR . MUSHAK : I woul dthin k i t woul db e importanc e 8 i ntha t regard , tha t i s connectio nwit ha mechanisti c study , 9 t o loo k specificall yo r t o highligh t evidenc e fo r 1 0 irreversibilit yo f th e facts . O f course , I've com e bac k t o 1 1 thi s matte r a s som e o f th e neuromaturationa l studies . 1 2 DR . SILBERGELD : I thin k w e mean t t o poin t t o 1 3 tha t whe nw e talke dabou t linkin g tha t t o wha t w e no wkno w 1 4 abou t neurogenesi s an d I thin k tha t that' s exactl yright . 1 5 DR . UPTON : DR . RABINOWIT Z 1 6 DR . RABINOWITZ : Overlappin g area s o f interes t 1 7 here . wha t I wan t t o sa yi s althoug hth e supplemen t 1 8 include s gradin g o nth e availabl e informatio no f th e healt h 1 9 effect s i nth e Criteri a Document , som e gap s nee dfilling . I 2 0 wonde r whethe r th e lac k o f recen t anima l studie s woul d she d 2 1 ligh t o npossibl e mechanism s o f lea dtoxication . Bu t o f 2 2 particula r importanc e i s th e usefulnes s o f thes e studie s a s 2 3 a basi s fo r downwar dextrapolatio no f dos e effect s o f lea d 2 4 fro m

th e huma nstudie s whic hgenerall yinvolv e dose s o f lea d 2 5 i nexces s o f th e curren t range--of

- interest, , less , tha n1 5 Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-4888 'P.3 4

13 1 1 microgram s pe r deciliter . It' s a rang e wit hpreciou s littl e 2 data . 3 Othe r area s o f healt heffect s no t adequatel y 4 discusse d i nth e supplemen t includ e bloo dpressur e andth e 5 diagnosi s o f hypertensio namon g women ; infants , mino r 6 congenita l anomalie s whic hma yb e marker s fo r th e 7 interferenc e wit hothe r les s physica l system s suc ha s th e 8 nervou s syste mand whic hsho wn o threshol do f detectabl e 9 effect . Th e effec t o f lea do nbirt hweigh t and i nth e 1 0 extensiv e anima l literatur e deserve s mor e explici t 1 1 presentation , depresse dbirt hweights , hea dsize , bod ysize , 1 2 ma yb e considere dhealt hen dpoint s o nthei r ow nasid e from 1 3 thei r rol e a s a mediator s o f othe r effects . 1 4 DR . UPTON : Than k you . Comments ? Dr . Chisolm ? 1 5 DR . CHISOLM : Thi s carrie s o nwit hwha t Dr . 1 6 Carlso nha d t o say . Th e mos t sensitiv e populatio nma y 1 7 diffe r fo r differen t environmenta l source s o f lead . Fo r 1 8 example , wit hregar d t o dus t lead , drinkin g wate r lea di n 1 9 earl ylife , sensitiv e populatio ndiffer s fo r differen t 2 0 developmenta l an dbiologica l reasons . Th e mobilit yandth e 2 1 prevalenc e o f norma l huma nactivit ymak e th e 1 2 t o 3 6 mont h 2 2 old s th e mos t sensitiv e fo r dus t lead . Bycontrast , wate r 3 requirement s var ywit hage , th e highes t fro mbirt ht o 3 2 4 month s o f age . Primarily , though , thi s ag e rang e ha s th e 2 5 highes t -growt hrate , —th e highes t -metaboli c rat e andth e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8 nP.3 5

13 2 1 greates t rat e o f maturity . Wate r ca nb e calculate do nth e 2 basi s o f bodyweight , preferabl yo nth e basi s o f wate r 3 requiremen t t o whic hth e requiremen t i s attached . Therefor e 4 th e 3 mont hol d shoul db e selecte da s critica l t o th e 5 drinkin g wate r whil e 2 4 month s woul dserv e mor e abou t dust . 6 Simila r consideration s wit hregar dt o wate r ma ywel l appl y 7 a t th e geriatri c en do f th e ag e spectrumi nrelatio nt o 8 diminishin g function . Studie s i nagin g rats , fo r example , 9 als o indicat e wit hnorma l demalnurizatio ntha t ther e i s th e 1 0 translocatio no f lea dfro mbon e primaril yt o th e brai nan d 1 1 kidneys . An d that' s th e reaso nwe'r e jus t no t goin g t o 1 2 accep t it . 1 3 DR . UPTON : Than k yo u ver ymuch . Comments ? 1 4 Questions ? Anyone ? 1 5 DR . GRANT : Yesterda yw e discusse da t th e en do f 1 6 th e CASA C revie wo r whatever , th e recommendation s o r 1 7 whateve r whic har e ver ysimila r t o what , essentiall yth e 1 8 sam e a s wha t yo u ar e sayin g now . W e certainl ywil l g o bac k 1 9 i nther e and tak e a loo k a t severa l o f thing s tha t you'v e 2 0 jus t noted . Fo r example , a s I indicate dt o Berni e 2 1 yesterday , w e wil l loo k a t th e dat a an dinformatio n 2 2 concernin g th e anima l studies , thing s lik e th e Ric e study 2 3 an d s o fort han d brin g int o th e addendu minformatio nalon g 2 4 tha t line . We'l l tak e a loo k a t som e o f th e mechanis mstuf f 2 5 a s well . - A s I indicate dt o Mik e yesterday , thing s suc ha s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-48.88 'P.3 6

13 3 1 studie s o nth e bloo d pressur e i nwomen , pregnan t women , and 2 s o on . S o we'l l certainl ytak e thos e int o accoun t andtr y 3 t o brin g the m i nhere . 4 I wil l repea t wha t I sai dyesterday , andon e 5 test , beside s th e fac t tha t w e d o no t inten dt o a nall

6 comprehensiv e totall yall-inclusiv e kin do f literatur e 7 revie wo r whatever . Wha t w e ar e talkin g abou t her e andwha t 8 I' m

sayin g tha t we'r e goin g t o tr yt o d o i s indee dt o focu s 9 i nan d presen t enoug hinformatio nonth e subjec t t o ge t 1 0 acros s th e mai npoint s andt o illustrat e them , o r whatever . 1 1 Jus t s o tha t there' s n o misunderstandin g her e o nth e par t o f 1 2 al l o f u s a s t o wha t w e inten d t o do . 1 3 DR . UPTON : I thin k w e ca nthe nmov e o nt o th e 1 4 firs t an d las t o f th e sub-group s o ncarcinogenicity , lookin g 1 5 particularl ya t th e documen t an dattemptin g t o respon dt o 1 6 Dr . Cogliano' s inguir yabou t furthe r elaboratio no f th e ris k 1 7 assessment , qualification , etc . Dr . Hammond . Dr . Frank . 1 8 DR . FRANK : Th e evidenc e tha t lea di s a huma n 1 9 carcinoge nshoul d b e amplified , i nbot hth e AQC D supplemen t 2 0 an d th e OAQP S staf f paper . Bot hth e paucit yo f 2 1 epidemiologica l evidenc e wit hwhic ht o attemp t quantitativ e 2 2 ris k assessmen t an d th e uncertaint ysurroundin g th e us e o f 2 3 extrapolatio nfro mth e hig hleve l anima l exposur e studie s 2 4 currentl yavailabl e t o predic t huma nris k o f cance r shoul d 2 5 b e amplified

—Justificatio nfo r th e emphasi s o nnon- . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.3 7

13 4 1 cancerou s advers e effects , especiall ythos e involvin g 2 cognitiv e function s an d neurotoxicity , effectin g th e 3 younges t element s o f a populatio nshoul dals o b e spelle dou t 4 i ngreate r detail s a s par t o f thi s implication . Tha t is , w e 5 didn' t recal l a simpl e compariso no f th e tw o ag e group s tha t 6 migh t b e involve do nth e on e han do nthes e non-cancerou s 7 effects , peopl e a t th e beginnin g o f life , an dthos e tha t 8 migh t b e involve dwit hrena l cancer , peopl e myage . 9 Secondly , th e evaluatio nmad e o f th e availabl e 1 0 epidemiologica l dat a byDrs

- Mac k an dShanke r i nth e 1 1 handout s tha t al l o f u s go t upo narrivin g here , shoul db e 1 2 reflecte d i nth e tw o document s a s par t o f thi s exercise . 1 3 An d third , an dlastly , i nth e futur e 1 4 consideratio nshoul d b e give nt o Dr . Lippmann' s 1 5 recommendation , andthi s i s apar t fro mth e Ai r Qualit y 1 6 Criteri a Document , t o Dr . Lippmann' s recommendatio n 1 7 concernin g monitorin g o f th e incidenc e o f rena l carcinom a a s 1 8 i t ma yb e influence d byreduce d emission s fro mtranslocatio n 1 9 an d othe r sources . Tha t is , i nth e nex t on e t o tw o decade s 2 0 thi s effor t woul d o f cours e involv e element s bot ho f 1 retroactiv e dat a analysi s and futur e dat a collection . 2 2 DR . UPTON : Than k you , Dr . Frank . Dr . Hammond , 2 3 any- - 2 4 DR . HAMMOND : No , othe r tha nfo r th e benefi t o f 2 5 thos e wh o hav e no t had

- achanc e t o rea dth e repor t o nth e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-48.8 8 - >P.3 8

13 5 1 Marc h3 0 study , I thin k tha t Dr . Mack' s focusin g o nth e 2 rena l tumo r incidenc e rathe r tha no nth e lun g tumo r o r th e 3 gastrointestina l tumo r simpl yresult s fro mth e fac t tha t i n 4 thos e epidemiologica l studie s —ther e wa s neve r any 5 adequat e control s fo r smoking , fo r ethnicit yo r dietar y 6 habits , whic hd o substantiall yinfluenc e th e incidenc e o f 7 thos e othe r tw o kind s o f tumor s fo r whic hther e i s som e 8 element s o f a nelevate d incidenc e relate dt o lead . S o 9 that' s th e reaso nfo r th e focu s o nth e renal . I gather , 1 0 thoug hI don' t kno wthis , bu t Dr . Mac k fel t tha t a rena l 1 1 tumo r i s indee dsomethin g tha t occur s mor e o r les s 1 2 independen t o f smok e th e diseas e compounds . 1 3 DR . UPTON : Comments , anyone ? 1 4 DR . FRANK : It' s a littl e confusin g whe nyo u jus t 1 5 no wsai d Paul . Fro myesterday , I though t i t wa s mentione d 1 6 tha t smokin g di d contribut e t o rena l tumor s an dalthoug hi t 1 7 wa s lo wi t wa s no t necessaril yver yrar e fo r certai ntype s 1 8 o f tumors . Mayb e w e misunderstood . 1 9 DR . UPTON : I thin k th e questio ncam e t o m e and 2 0 i t wa s m yrecollectio ntha t ther e wa s a nelevate drelativ e 2 1 ris k i nsmokers , althoug hmayb e no t highl yelevated . Dr . 2 2 Mac k woul d certainl ykno wbette r tha nI . It' s hi s opinion . 2 3 Whe nyo u thin k abou t age , Dr . Frank , I am 2 4 reminde d tha t a t NY Uw e hav e a professo r wh o wil l b e 10 1 2 5 -thi s mont hand he--get s ou t o f be deveryday . Stil l ver y Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 62U-488 8P.3 9

13 6 1 sharp , ver yproductive , ver yactive . 2 DR . FRANK : Dr . Upton , andI thin k th e reaso nh e 3 live d tha t lon g i s tha t h e neve r ha danylea di nth e wate r 4 h e drinks . 5 (Laughter. ) 6 DR . UPTON : Well , the discussio ngroup s have eac h 7 mad e thei r reports . I wonde r whethe r ther e i s anythin g 8 else . Th e Dr . Barne s remind s me tha t he woul dhop e t o 9 receiv e fro

m thos e wh o hav e reporte dthei r handwritte nnote s 1 0 s o tha t they ca nbe type du

pan dmad e availabl e t o CASA C and 1 1 thi s Join t Stud yGroup . 1 2 I thinki f ther e ar e no othe r items o f business , 1 3 I woul dlik e t o thankthos e wh o have labore dt o mak e thi s 1 4 meetin ga productiv e on e an dexpres s particula r appreciation 1 5 t o ou r recorde r wh o ha s bee nbus y ther e andI a

m sur e ha s 1 6 capture dth e remark s throughou t the meeting . Thank s als o t o 1 7 Dr . Barne s for hi s behind-the-scene s administrativ e suppor t 1 8 a s wel l t o thos e a t al l stages . 1 9 Andwithou t furthe r ado , we ca nconside r the 2 0 meetin gadjourned .

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8P.4 0



### 13 7

-\ 

### 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 Certificat e o f Reporter , Transcribe r an d Proofreade r Scienc e AdvisoryBoard - CleanAi r Scientifi c AdvisoryCommitte e Name o f Hearing Jo 

### i n t 

### stud yGrou p onLead - Publi c Meeting Docke t No . (I f applicable ) Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina Plac e of Hearin

g Apri l 28 , 198 9 Dat e of Hearin

g~ We , th e undersigned , d

o hereb y certify

that th

e foregoin

g pages , number s 1 throug h13 7 , inclusive , are th e true , accurat e an

dcomplet e transcript preparedfro m th e reportin

gb y ff.I- JfenTf-__

S i nattendanc e a

t th e abov e identifiedhearings , i naccordanc e withapplicabl e provision s of th

e current GSA

professiona l verbatim reportin

g an dtranscriptioncontract , an dhav e verifiedth

e accurac

y of . . th e transcript b

y (1 ) comparin

gth e typewrittentranscript agains t th

e reportin

gor recordin

gaccomplishedat th e hearing s an d(2 ) comparin

gth e fina l proofedtypewrittentranscript agains t th

e reportin

gor recordin

gaccomplishedat th e hearings . Dat e Nam e an dSignatur e of Transcribe r Heritag e Reportin

gCorporation 

## \y Tune

;< 

## ? 3 Dat e 

## ib Jun e '? 3 Dat e 

# R. \JhjJL0m, t



## r Nam e an dSignatur e o f Proofreade r Heritag e ReportingCorporation

Nam e an dS i Heritag e ReportingCorporation

iignature of Reporte r

Heritag e ReportingCorporation

(202 ) 628-488 8