FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)OPEN MEETINGINTERPRETATION OF THEECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OFATRAZINE STREAMWATER CONCENTRATIONSUSING A STATISTICALLY DESIGNEDMONITORING PROGRAMDOCKET NUMBER: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0934UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYCROWNE PLAZA HOTEL1480 Crystal DriveArlington Ballroom, Second FloorArlington, Virginia 22202DECEMBER 6, 20078:32 A.M.
US EPA CONSOLIDATED SAFETY 12/06/07 CCR# 15732-3 Page 2
Page 2
1U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY2FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)3OPEN MEETING4INTERPRETATION OF THE ECOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCE OF5ATRAZINE STREAM-WATER CONCENTRATIONS6USING A STATISTICALLY DESIGNEDMONITORING PROGRAM7DECEMBER 6, 20078MR. DOWNING: I'd like to call the9meeting to order. And note that we've gotten a couple10of handouts. One comes from Bill Effland, and it's a11reference for you to consider. And, then, also, the12other handout we just gave that has some photographs on13it is an additional, supplemental information for you14to consider from Syngenta. So, with that, I think we15are about ready to begin. I'll turn it over to our 16chair, Dr. Heeringa.17DR. HEERINGA: Thank you ver much, Jim,18and welcome back everyone to the third day of our 19meeting of the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel on the20topic of the interpretation of the ecological21significance of Atrazine stream water concentrations22using a statistically designed monitoring program.23 I think we have a very full schedule24today. As I indicated at the end of yesterday's
Page 4
1DR. HEERINGA: Yeah, and pardon me for 2getting your last name wrong.3DR. BRADY: That's okay.4DR. HEERINGA: I switched from Doyle to5Brady. I don't know why I did that. Must be some old6friend.7DR. BRADY: It's all the same to us.8DR. ERICKSON: Okay, thank you. This is9Russell Erickson. There was a question yesterday about10positioning of the LOC to equalize false positives and11false negatives, and why that was done. And that I12wasn't prepared to answer yesterday. But, a question13noted that LOC's are, typically, based on more14sensitive species, when based directly on species15sensitivity, and not the median sensitivity of the16species, and why was the, basically, the median17approach used with mesocosm microcosms. Should first18note that, even with species, it's not, necessarily,19the most sensitive. And, also, for any one particular 20species, it's not the most sensitive test, uh, it's not21the most sensitive test for that species, but rather,22the median value for that species is, generally, used.23 So, it's not, strictly, going to the24sensitive end of it. And, so, the question is to25whether to treat mesocosm microcosms like a sensitivity
Page 3
1portion of this meeting today. And the panel, itself,2may be involved in a writing session to write up their 3review comments tomorrow morning.4 But, we'll try to aim to finish the5public meeting today, and just to, sort of, give6everybody a sense of where I'd like to head, we'd like7to use, at least, this morning to finish up the charge8questions, in response to the presentations and the9material that we've had provided to us on the study10design for the monitoring study. And, then, to reserve11the afternoon for the discussion of the final topic,12including presentations and the two charge questions13related to where do we go from here with all of this.14 In the interest of time, I think 15everyone's had a chance to introduce themselves twice,16so I'll pass up on that. Again, I don't think we need17to do that, and I'll turn, right away, to Dr. Doyle or 18Dr. Irene to, sort of, open things up for the EPA.19DR. BRADY: This is Don Brady, and I20thought it'd be appropriate in the interest of 21completing the one discussion where there was an open22question to ask Dr. Erickson to define the question23that he was going to provide an answer for later, and24then, to do so, hopefully, quickly, so we don't disturb25your agenda.
Page 5
1distribution for species, or as a more analogous to the2spread of results within a species. And, especially,3given the fact that mesocosm microcosms already contain4a spread of species sensitivities. Another factor in5this is that, another way to state this is, the overlap6that I showed on the mesocosm microcosms scores, how7much does that reflect a difference in sensitivity of 8different systems, that we think is relevant to the9field; and how much might represent variation or even10test error, that we don't necessarily want to11completely go to the low end for this, uh, low end of 12sensitivity.13 And related to this, although, I would14take some exceptions to Syngenta's analysis regarding15the false positives and negatives, there, admittedly,16should be some rate at which tests do produce false17negatives statistically in any large collection of 18tests. And there should be some care in just, simply,19identifying the most sensitive mesocosm. Another 20aspect of this is that the false positives and false21negatives, also, include any modeling error.22 And it was noted yesterday that the23model results do not sort out exactly with the mesocosm24microcosm test, even within a category. For example,25the most sensitive category rated three with the model
US EPA CONSOLIDATED SAFETY 12/06/07 CCR# 15732-3 Page 3
Page 6
1is not corresponding to the lowest rated three2concentration of the mesocosm microcosm. And for 3these reasons, there was a decision, not made by me,4but a decision made earlier to take the approach of 5equalizing the false positives and false negatives,6though that was the rationale behind it. Although, I7would just, then, finally, add that, you know, this is8a decision that, you know, could be revisited, and9subject to, you know, feedback from the panel.10DR. HEERINGA: Thank you very much, Dr.11Erickson. Yes, Bob Gilliom.12DR. GILLIOM: I know you're trying to13move on, but I asked that question, and I just want to14make an observation, maybe, for the moment, and then15leave it for the time being, is that, one of the16things, in sifting through all of this, which effects17almost everything we've talked about, is the18sensitivity of the whole final decision making process19you do to the decisions starting with the Brock scores,20and then proceeding to the LOC, which you just21described.22 And then, how to relate the LOC, in23terms of the Steinhardt deviation back to24concentrations and all that. And part of the whole25discussion's been about model error, model error or
Page 8
1strike the median, even in that, based on the empirical2data. And so, the, for, I mean, just to clarify that.3This wasn't, strictly, the model trumping the results.4It was a decision about the results themselves. Again,5that could be argued, as far as the appropriateness.6DR. HEERINGA: Okay, at this point, thank 7you very much for that additional clarification and the8discussion. I think that's helpful. Dr. Effland.9DR. EFFLAND: I wonder, will there be an10opportunity to ask one or two clarifying questions11before we go to the charge questions, or should we do12that - -13DR. HEERINGA: I'm about to go to the14charge questions, so if you have a clarifying question,15please ask it.16DR. EFFLAND: Okay, I'd like to, I guess17the question is addressed to Dr. Olsen. You showed a18correlation plot between the HUC warp score and the19sub-watershed warp score. And I'm curious how, it20looks like a very strong positive correlation, but I'm21curious how the calculation of the sub-watershed warp22scores was conducted, I guess, is my first question?23DR. OLSEN: The sub warp scores,24actually, were calculated by Syngenta. They, actually,25did delineate the sub-watershed, and went through the
Page 7
1uncertainty or reliability in filling in the time2domains, which was the main reason it was used to3supplement the mesocosm results as a correlate.4 So, the one thing I would say that seems5relevant to that whole decision thing is, whether it's6revisited or not, at some point, where that LOC should7be with the mesocosm scores and the Brock scores, is it8seems like, the mesocosm results that are, actually,9at the time domain, that you have of interest, in terms10of moving averages, should, in effect, trump model11results. You know, in other words, you have empirical12data at exactly the time domain that you want, and you13have a collection of studies, why would you, then,14instead of using the empirical data from the lab15studies, you know, go to the model and fill in. So,16it's a big issue, maybe, but I want to raise it,17because it's something that's come up in discussions18from time to time.19DR. HEERINGA: Sure.20DR. ERICKSON: Just to clarify that, I21would say that the arguments I presented, really,22weren't, necessarily, just pertaining to the model. It23was arguments pertaining, if, even if we went directly24to the mesocosm microcosm in that overlap region, and25so, the, this was a, sort of, a pre-model decision to
Page 9
1same process, presumably, the same process they used2with the HUC 10 to get the use rates down to the sub-3watershed, and then apply the work model, the same way4they did for the HUC 10. But, you know, if it, you5know, they may, whether they'll need to clarify any6more than that. It was done exactly the same process,7though.8DR. THURMAN: This is Nelson Thurman.9Is, from what we looked at, in doing a preliminary look 10at it, it looks like, basically, you end up with the11same use data because you can't get that, you know,12because of scale refinement. But, what you saw13variation differences in some of the other site factors14that result in those differences.15DR. EFFLAND: That helps, because the16warp score is driven so much by the use component. I17mean, those other, those other variables are a, fairly,18small contribution to the overall prediction. And that19helps that, basically, that was the, that's why that20correlation is so strong. And I wonder, when you start21zooming in to those scales, I think you're use data may22be somewhat different from what it would be at HUC23level.24DR. THURMAN: Stay tuned this afternoon.25I think this is the type of discussion that will come
of 00
Environmental Protection Agency: dec 6
68 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/27/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment