Laboratories, concurred: "Within the legal constraints, EPA gave us what they could." A potentially tougher question for NELAC is whether to include the Good Laboratory Program (GLP) in national accreditation. The GLP was implemented to serve the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Inspections and enforcement for the program are primarily by federal rather than state agencies. A number of representatives from GLP testing laboratories argued for an exemption from the NELAC program. "There is the potential for increased accreditation programs," said Stan Wollen of the Food and Drug Administration. Ramona Trovato, director of NELAC and head of EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, said, "It was an EPA policy decision to include GLP under the NELAC program." NELAC's program structure committee seems to support EPA's view; it recommended "to reconfirm that all EPA laboratory evaluations will be brought under the umbrella of NELAC." According to NELAC Executive Secretary Jeanne Mourrain from EPA at Research Triangle Park, NC, the key to integrating GLP into NELAC will be flexibility in the standards. "A lot of information needs to be exchanged with the GLP community." Adds Trovato, "The differences are not insurmountable." Future meetings of the committees and next year's conference will be announced in the Federal Register, said Mourrain. She expects that NELAC's committees will soon begin meeting to flesh out the complex technical details of a national accreditation program. Among their duties will be to refine NELAC's constitution for a vote at the next conference. In addition, Mourrain said, "I want to have standards that people can vote on at the next NELAC." —ALAN NEWMAN
Risk assessment commission working to define scope
T
he congressionally mandated commission charged with developing risk assessment doctrine for the federal government acknowledged the enormity of its task on March 1 at the group's first working meeting since it formed last May. After several months of public hearings around the country, the National Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management met in Washington to begin focusing their efforts on producing formal recommendations to Congress next year. The commission must decide which of a wide range of issues to address, including determining benefits against cost, accounting for sensitive populations, establishing acceptable exposures, and even redefining the goals of environmental law. Although the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 mandate a risk assessment model based on cancer and chronic health effects, the panel wants to produce a model that can be used in almost any scenario. First, the commission must define risk assessment. Risk assessment has roughly as many definitions as the number of people asked to define it, board members said. loshua Lederberg of New York's Rockefeller University offered a clinical definition that members found reasonable: "Risk assessment is the application of physical, chemical, and biological theory to the consequences of exposure of human individuals to environmental insult." But some board members found even that definition lacking. David Rail, former head of me National Institute of Environmental Science and Health, said the board lacked a definition of "reasonable risk." The panel debated sensitive populations, a potentially contro-
versial issue. The regulations already require a decreased exposurelevel to protect sensitive populations, Lederberg said, adding that there will be people with sensitivities below that level who cannot justifiably be protected by regulation under risk assessment scenarios. "How far are you willing to go?" he asked. This issue could be explosive under the scrutiny of environmental justice advocates. (Environmental justice will be another future issue). One major issue the board discussed is cost-benefit analysis. "We can't evade the question, 'If you want clean air, how much are willing to pay for it?' " said Lederberg. But Rail believes the committee is not equipped to handle the idea of cost-benefit analysis. The commission is also addressing whether the economics of cost-benefit analysis should be subject to peer review. Most panelists were uncertain whether the economics should be peer reviewed, though many think it is a good idea. The issue of economic peer review was raised on Capitol Hill; the House of Representatives that same day passed a bill requiring it (H.R. 1022). The board must provide recommendations in its report, said Board Chairman Gilbert Omenn. But the report will not be produced for another year; a selfimposed March 1996 due date has been set for the draft report, and the mandated deadline is November 1996. Omenn is concerned that such a late report date may make the board's work obsolete during its tenure. The board will meet again in New Jersey to continue refining its risk assessment model and to hear more testimony, including that of environmental justice advocates. —DANI SHANNON
VOL. 29, NO. 4, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 1 6 7 A
