|
Suite 700 11 Dupont Circle, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 April 7, 2000
Hon. Norine E. Noonan Dear Ms. Noonan:
EPA's 1994 draft risk assessment for dioxin and related compounds was extensively reviewed and critiqued by the agency's Science Advisory Board in 1995; as a result the agency decided to prepare a revised draft assessment. In its review, the SAB noted inadequacies, large uncertainties, and gaps in the data on human exposure rates, sources, and time trends. For example, it noted that more recent data on the TEQ content of beef indicated a level 3 to 4 times lower than the value used in the draft assessment, and it noted that limited sediment core and human tissue data appeared to show that there had been substantial decreases in emissions and exposure since the 1970s.
When the SAB issued its report in 1995, it was anticipating that the agency would proceed expeditiously to finalize the risk assessment; therefore, it viewed the emissions and exposure data presented at that time as the best available, and appeared willing to accept the exposure portion of the draft assessment on that basis with only minor revisions. Since then, however, the picture has changed considerably. In the five years since the SAB review, the agency has commendably undertaken a "Dioxin Exposure Initiative" ("DEI") designed to reduce the uncertainties and fill the gaps noted by the SAB. The DEI has resulted in a plethora of new studies and published papers, which EPA has made publicly available on a special section of its website, www.epa.gov/ncea/dei.htm
These post-1995 DEI studies contain significant new data on human exposure that will have to be factored into a revised risk assessment. Among the findings that stand out are --
If the agency were to produce a revised risk assessment that did not incorporate the most current data and analyses, and did not submit it to expert peer review, the assessment would be scientifically incomplete and deficient, and the legitimacy of any risk management policies or actions based on the assessment would be seriously compromised.
We would appreciate being advised of the procedures the agency will employ for incorporating these new studies into the revised dioxin risk assessment and obtaining comment and peer review.
|