tion in regulatory debates. The Natural Resources Defense Council supported many conclusions, such as handling of chemical mixtures, susceptible subpopulations, stakeholder participation, and noncancer risks. But it detailed concerns about the report's recommendations on the relevance of animal bioassays, its abandonment of the "maximally exposed individual" concept, and the procedures proposed for comparative risk assessment in priority setting. Even public participation was debated in comments. "Will nontechnical stakeholders be more trouble than they're worth?" asked Jane Walker Pfister, an environmental advocate in Massachusetts. "In my experience, any stakeholder willing to put in the time and effort to be involved is an asset overall." But David Burmaster, president of Alceon Corporation, asked, "Does the commission think that government agencies can use only methods that are fully understood by die public? I do not." Discussing the cacophony of responses, Omenn narrowed the primary areas of controversy to margin of exposure, "bright lines," and uncertainly. Concerning margin of exposure, the ratio of dose divided by exposure, Omenn said many people are against "even trying" a margin-of-exposure approach to toxicity assessments, even though EPA has found the number useful in risk communication. "Bright lines," quantitative values used to measure regulatory compliance, also drew concern, ahhough risk managers use mem for monitoring everything from ambient ozone to aflatoxin in peanuts. "Scientists say you can't draw lines like that," Omenn said. But the commission endorses the flexible use of bright lines and recommends using multiple lines for susceptible subpopulations, he said. Uncertainty analysis also hit raw nerves. "Risk managers all over the country have told us mat they do not find mat kind of stuff helpful," Omenn said. The final report will elaborate on technical issues as well as approaches agencies can use to encourage stakeholder and public participation, Omenn said. —JANET BYRON
EPA budget gets small boost for 1997 In late September before adjourning for the November elections, Congress passed a 1997 EPA appropriation of $6,799 billion, 4% or $276 million more than the 1996 level but $228 million below the president's request. Unlike 1995 and 1996 appropriations, however, the 1997 budget contains no riders and came out on time (ES&T, July 1996, p. 282A). The president signed the bill Sept. 25. Looking at the agency's $552 million science and technology (S&T) appropriation, an EPA budget official said Congress "gave with one hand, took away with the other." S&T funding is $28 million more than 1996 and $26 million less than the administration's request. The lion's share of the S&T account goes to the Office of Research and Development (ORD), but a portion also funds EPA program laboratories. However, as a result of congressional direction in the appropriation, ORD wound up with a $40 million to $50 million cut from its requested amount for 1997. In 1997, Superfund research funding will grow from $20 million in 1996 to $30 million. Al-
though the amount increased, it is $12.5 million short of the president's request and less than half of what EPA received in 1995 for Superfund research. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program also fared better this year than last: Report language specifies that it not be cut from the requested level of $6.8 million. In 1996, congressional cuts nearly zeroed out the program. The assurance for SITE, however, may put stress on other parts of the Superfund research program, the staff member said. Congress provided new funds for research-related projects in two environmental laws recently passed: the Safe Drinking Water Act 1996 Amendments and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. ORD specifically receives $10 million for health effects Drinking Water Act research. Program offices receive $30 million for the two new laws and $10 million to collect pesticide residue information for Food Quality Act risk assessments. EPA's $100 million extramural grant program request is trimmed
INTERNATIONAL Eight nations, indigenous peoples form Arctic Council Environmental protection of the once-pristine Arctic is the goal of the Arctic Council, created Sept. 19 in Ottawa after several years of preparation led by the Canadian government. The council is intended to provide a forum for communication and cooperation among the Arctic states and the indigenous people who inhabit the region. Its members are Canada; Greenland; Finland; Iceland; Norway; the Russian Federation; Sweden; the United States; and three indigenous groups, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council (Scandinavia, Finland, and Russia), and the Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of the Russian Federation. The organization has few formal powers and will meet only biannually but, according to Canadian officials, it will help focus other programs that protect the Arctic and encourage sustainable development. The council's importance was noted by U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, who in a prepared statement delivered at the inauguration, said that even this remote area was showing signs of environmental degradation. Increasingly, Wirth said, Arctic marine mammals have been found to carry high levels of toxic chemicals that originate thousands of miles away. The importance of Arctic protection continues to rise on the international agenda as more incidents are uncovered of persistent organic pollutants and other industrial compounds gathering in northern latitudes and advancing through the food chain (ES&l Sept. 1996, p. 390A). —JEFF JOHNSON
4 8 0 A • VOL. 30, NO. 11, 1996/ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
