1

Summary Minutes of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

Lead Review Panel

Public Meeting

February 5-6, 2013

Date and Time: Tuesday, February 5, 2013, 8:30 AM – 5:30 PM ET; Wednesday, February 6, 2013,

8:30 AM – 12:30 PM ET

Location: Hilton Garden Inn Raleigh-Cary, 101 Columbus Avenue, Cary, North Carolina 27518

Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a peer review of EPA’s Integrated Science 

Assessment for Lead (Third External Review Draft, November 2012) and Policy 

Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(External Review Draft, January 2013).

Participants: Lead Review Panel (for full panel, see roster1)

Dr. H. Christopher Frey, CASAC Chair

Mr. George Allen

Dr. Herbert Allen

Dr. Richard Canfield

Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta

Dr. Cliff Davidson

Dr. Sean Hays

Dr. Philip Hopke

Dr. Chris Johnson

Dr. Susan Korrick

Dr. Michael Kosnett

Dr. Roman Lanno

Mr. Richard Poirot

Dr. Joel Pounds

Dr. Michael Rabinowitz

Dr. Ian von Lindern

Dr. Gail Wasserman

Dr. Michael Weitzman

Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Office (DFO)

Mr. Christopher Zarba, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office

Mr. Thomas Brennan, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office 

Dr. John Vandenberg, EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)

Dr. Ellen Kirrane, EPA NCEA

Ms. Lydia Wegman, EPA Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (OAQPS) 

Dr. Deirdre Murphy, EPA OAQPS

Ms. Ginger Tennant, EPA OAQPS

Other Attendees (See Attachment A)
2

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Opening Remarks

Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, opened the meeting. He noted that as required under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), the Panel’s deliberations are held in public with advanced notice given in the 

Federal Register2, and the meeting minutes will be made publicly available after the meeting. He noted 

that the Panel did not receive any written public comments nor any requests to make oral statements. He 

did note that there would be additional opportunities for the public to provide clarifying comments. He 

stated that the SAB Staff Office reviewed information provided by the panel and determined that there 

were no issues with conflict-of-interest nor any issues with an appearance of a lack of impartiality. He 

noted that Dr. Christopher Frey had been appointed by the Administrator to be the Chair of the 

Chartered CASAC. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Thomas Brennan, the Deputy Director of the 

SAB Staff Office, welcomed everyone, noted that Dr. Vanessa Vu had retired as Director of the SAB 

Staff Offices and introduced Mr. Christopher Zarba, Acting Director of the SAB Staff Office. Mr. Zarba 

welcomed everyone and discussed the importance of the role that the SAB and the CASAC had in 

ensuring sound science in Agency documents and the importance of achieving balance in SAB and 

CASAC panels. He then turned the meeting over to Dr. Christopher Frey, Chair of the CASAC.

Dr. Frey welcomed everyone and gave an overview of the Agenda3. He had the panel introduce 

themselves, and then discussed the charter of the CASAC, the role of the CASAC, and ways that the 

CASAC could streamline reviews of NAAQS documents. He then introduced Dr. John Vandenberg, 

from EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) for his presentation.

EPA Presentation on the Integrated Science Assessment

Dr. John Vandenberg, EPA NCEA, made a presentation4to the Panel. He thanked the Panel members 

and the public for their comments on the 2nd draft Lead Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) and 

highlighted some of the changes made in the 3rd draft ISA. He then turned it over to Dr. Ellen Kirrane, 

who continued with the presentation, providing an overview of the key revisions to the document.

Public Comments on the ISA

There were no public comments so the panel proceeded to the next item on the agenda.

Panel Discussion of the ISA

Preamble, Legislative and Historical Background; Executive Summary (Chapter 1) and Integrative 

Summary (Chapter 2)

The panel discussed the causality framework and the differences between the “likely to be a causal 

relationship” and “suggestive of a causal relationship”. The panel recommended that it should be made 

clear when animal data is the basis for the determination as opposed to epidemiological data. There was 

discussion about the causal designation for the association between lead (Pb) exposure and renal effects 

and suggested that it should be changed from “likely to be a causal relationship” to “suggestive of a 

causal relationship”.
3

Chapter 3 – Source to Concentration

The panel thought that the Agency did a good job revising the 2nd Draft ISA and encouraged the EPA to 

continue the development of a new high-volume Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) air sampler for Pb. 

There was discussion about the appropriate cut size for the sampler. The members generally agreed that 

15 micrometers was appropriate because inefficiencies in sampling occurred at sizes above 15 

micrometers.

Chapter 4 – Exposure, Toxicokinetics and Biomarkers

The panel found that the EPA was responsive in addressing the panel’s comments on the 2nd Draft ISA. 

Although the consumer products section was a nice addition, the discussion about the health effects from 

exposure to them and the importance of them is not adequate. The panel found the presentation and 

discussion of air-to-blood relationships to be thorough, but that conclusions or summary statements 

regarding the utility of the relationships for current Pb exposures (and even lower) would be helpful. 

Chapter 5 – Integrated Health Effects of Lead

The panel commended the EPA in doing an incredible job of trying to tackle a lot of complicated issues 

and that the chapter was an improvement over the previous version. There was discussion about the need 

for more transparency between the determinations made between the “likely to be a causal relationship” 

to “suggestive of a causal relationship” designations. 

The panel found that the revised grouping according to health effects was a major improvement. 

However, there was some discussion regarding the classification of certain effects as internalizing or 

externalizing behaviors.

Chapter 6 – Potentially At-Risk Populations

The panel found the chapter to be much improved in terms of the reorganization, better delineation of 

the sources of risks, and better discussion of at-risk vulnerability and susceptibility. However, the panel 

found that additional discussion of the magnitude of the impact of these risk factors (e.g., effect 

modifiers) would be helpful. 

Chapter 7 – Ecological Effects of Lead

The panel thought that the EPA did a good job in revising the chapter and that the standardized 

concentration units made it easier to make comparisons between studies. However, the panel found that

a critical loads approach would help in establishing the relationship between ecological effects and Pb in 

air, water, and soil.

Clarifying Comments from the Public on the ISA

Mr. Yeow read a clarifying comment5from Anita Meyer, Department of Defense Chemical and Material 

Risk Management Program.
4

EPA Presentation on the Policy Assessment

Ms. Lydia Wegman, EPA OAQPS, made a presentation6that provided an overview of the Pb NAAQS 

review. Dr. Deirdre Murphy then continued the presentation, which provided an overview of the PA 

document. 

Public Comments

There were no public comments so the panel proceeded to the next item on the agenda.

Panel Discussion on the PA

Chapter 1 – Introduction

The panel thought that the EPA did a nice job on Chapter 1 and provided a good foundation for the rest 

of the document. The panel pointed out that Pb is a very unique environmental success story compared 

to any other pollutant. However, it also has the biggest legacy problem of any pollutant and that the lack 

of information on human exposures to the legacy Pb is a problem. Although some panel members found 

the PA to be adequate for its intended purpose, they found the scope to be too narrow and that there was 

not any mention of the global impacts of Pb.

Chapter 2 – Ambient Air Lead

The panel generally found that the relevant information on emissions, air quality and Pb concentrations 

in other media was appropriately characterized and clearly communicated. There was discussion of the 

need for inclusion of more monitoring data, especially for aviation gasoline. The panel was supportive 

of the EPA developing a new air sampler for Pb and there was discussion about various cut sizes for the 

sampler. There was discussion of the uncertainty surrounding exposure to legacy Pb through 

resuspension of soil, dust, diet, and water.

Chapter 3 – Health Effects and Exposure/Risk Information

The panel found that the PA generally captures the key aspects of the health effects evidence presented 

in the ISA. There were suggestions that the PA could be made more concise and clear by providing 

summary conclusions regarding the health effects evidence at the beginning of the sections. They found 

that the risk and exposure information from the previous Pb NAAQS review was adequately presented 

and concluded that a new risk and exposure assessment (REA) was not needed. 

The panel was a little ahead of schedule and Dr. Frey suggested beginning the discussion on Chapter 4.

Chapter 4 – Review of the Primary Standard

The panel generally found that the application of the evidence-based framework and the use of the 

health risk and exposure information from the previous Pb NAAQS review seemed appropriate. They 

generally agreed with the EPA that the evidence did not support a revision to current primary standard. 

They found that the PA lacked discussion of the rationale behind the averaging time and form of the 

current primary standard.

The panel recessed for the day at 5:30 pm.
5

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 am.

Panel Discussion on the PA (cont'd.)

Chapter 5 – Welfare Effects and Risk Information

The panel generally found that the chapter did a good job summarizing the welfare effects and risk 

information. However, they noted that they had concerns with the risk assessment performed in the 

previous NAAQS review. The EPA judged that four out of the five case studies in that risk assessment 

had limited or no value for the purposes of the PA. The panel recommended a robust critical loads 

approach as a research priority to fill in this need.

Chapter 6 – Review of the Secondary Standard

The panel generally agreed with the EPA that the scientific evidence did not support a revision to the 

current secondary standard. There was further discussion about research needs, particularly a detailed 

discussion about the critical loads approach.

Dr. Frey asked the lead discussants to summarize the main points of their consensus responses. There 

was then discussion about the research agenda. The members stated that the main human health research 

needs were a better understanding of air Pb to blood Pb relationship, a better understanding of the 

pathways of Pb exposure, particularly to young children, and a better understanding of effects of low 

level Pb exposure in children.

Due to declining U.S. Pb emissions and the possibility that lowering the Pb NAAQS might not provide 

any additional health benefit, some panel members suggested that EPA should consider delisting Pb as a 

criteria pollutant in the future. There was no clear consensus and the panel discussed the benefits of 

keeping Pb as a criteria pollutant and the benefits of maintaining a Pb NAAQS. 

Clarifying Comments from the Public on the PA

There were no clarifying comments from the public so the panel proceeded to the next item on the 

agenda.

Summary and Action Items

Dr. Frey discussed the writing assignment deadlines as well as the remaining schedule for the review, 

including a follow-up teleconference on April 1, 2013 from 1:00 – 4:00 PM ET to discuss the draft 

reports. 

With the panel business concluded, the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Yeow at 11:30 am.
6

Respectfully Submitted: Certified as Accurate:

/Signed/ /Signed/

Mr. Aaron Yeow Dr. H. Christopher Frey

Designated Federal Officer Chair

EPA SAB Staff Office CASAC

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

offered by Panel members during the course of deliberations within the meeting. Such ideas, suggestions and 

deliberations do not necessarily reflect consensus advice from the Panel members. The reader is cautioned to 

not rely on the minutes to represent final, approved, consensus advice and recommendations offered to the 

Agency. Such advice and recommendations may be found in the final advisories, commentaries, letters or 

reports prepared and transmitted to the EPA Administrator following the public meetings.
7

Materials Cited

The following meeting materials are available on the CASAC website: http://www.epa.gov/casac, at the 

February 5-6, 2013 CASAC Lead Review Panel Meeting page:

 

1 Roster

2

Federal Register Notice Announcing the Meeting

3 Agenda for February 5-6, 2013 Public Meeting

4 EPA Presentation of Revisions to Draft Lead Integrated Science Assessment

5

Public Comments from Anita Meyer, Department of Defense Chemical and Material Risk Management Program

6 EPA Presentation - Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead - Draft Policy Assessment
A-1

ATTACHMENT A – Other Attendees

CASAC Lead Review Panel Public Meeting

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Name Affiliation

Brown, James USEPA

Buonanduci, Michele* ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 

Cakir, Halil USEPA

Cavender, Kevin USEPA

Datko-Willliams, Laura USEPA

Dubois, Jean Jacques USEPA

Hines, Erin USEPA

Hopkinson, Jenny* Inside EPA

Hoyer, Marion USEPA

Kotcham, DJ USEPA

Lassiter, Meredith USEPA

Lorenz, Alyson* USEPA

Madden, Meagan USEPA

Martin, Karen USEPA

McDow, Steve USEPA

Meacham, Connie USEPA

Meyer, Anita* US Army Corps of Engineers

Nichols, Jennifer USEPA

Nystrom, Marci* California Air Resources Board

Oakes, Michelle USEPA

Orlin, David USEPA

Owens, Beth USEPA

Peddle, Meredith USEPA

Pekar, Zachary USEPA

Pugh, Barbara* ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 

Puthrath, Resha* Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center

Rak, Drew* Noblis

Richmond-Bryant, Jen USEPA

Ross, Mary USEPA

Sipon, Kaylan USEPA

Stevens, Tina USEPA

Svendsgaard, David USEPA

Tennant, Ginger USEPA
A-2

Vinikoor-Imler, Lisa* USEPA

Weinstock, Lewis USEPA

Wilkie, Adrien USEPA

Wilson, Linda* New York State Office of the Attorney General

Young, Brianna USEPA

*via teleconference

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Name Affiliation

Blase, Kurt* Holland & Knight

Buonanduci, Michele* ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 

Cavender, Kevin USEPA

Hines, Erin USEPA

Hopkinson, Jenny* Inside EPA

Hoyer, Marion USEPA

Lassiter, Meredith USEPA

Lorenz, Alyson* USEPA

Martin, Karen USEPA

Meacham, Connie USEPA

Orlin, David USEPA

Owens, Beth Osterling* USEPA

Peddle, Meredith USEPA

Pugh, Barbara* ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 

Rak, Drew* Noblis

Ross, Mary* USEPA

Ryman, Jessica International Lead & Zinc Research Organization

*via teleconference