tion in regulatory debates. The Natural Resources Defense

Council supported many conclu­sions, such as handling of chemical mixtures, susceptible subpopula-tions, 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

to about $90 million, and the grad­uate feUowships program request is cut in half from $15 million to $8 million. The levels largely match last year's funding for both pro­grams, which are key parts of EPA's effort to reassert its role as a leader in environmental research.

Other changes to S&T, ORD, and science-related portions of EPA's overall budgets include:

• The Environmental Technol­ogy Initiative was cut from an $80 million request (including a $37 million share for ORD) to $10 million and limited to ORD-conducted technology verifica­tion.

• Cuts included $2 million from the environmental mapping program, $10 million from cli­mate change research, and $48 million from climate change action plan programs, but $68,000 in climate change action pro­grams remained funded.

• A mix of special programs and projects ranging from $300,000 to $5 million was added by members. In all, about $25 million was earmarked for particular projects and programs, similar to last year's level.

Congress continued to support construction of a consolidated EPA research facility at Research Triangle Park, NC. Funding had been proposed by the House but stricken by the Senate. The final conference report endorses the project and notes that about half the necessary funding for the building was provided in the 1996 and 1997 appropriations.

Report language also directs EPA to enter an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive two-year study of human health im­pacts from chemicals that mimic estrogen. Whether NAS's current study would suffice is unclear, according to the EPA official.

The final bill also deletes pro­visions in the House version that would have allowed EPA the flexi­bility to shift program funds to research, which was a disappoint­ment to ORD staff. "We saw the House language as a very positive step," the staff member said, "but on the positive side they at least considered it." The appropriation report says Congress will recon­sider this issue in the 1998 budget cycle. —JEFF JOHNSON

NEWS S O C I E T Y

Hunting, fishing, environmental groups join in natural resource alliance The 104th Congress, in particular Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, may have succeeded in the nearly im­possible task of uniting fishing and hunting organizations with the environmental movement.

Last year, Shuster's Clean Wa­ter Act reauthorization bill (HR 961) swept through the House, earning accolades from industry and the ire of environ­mental, conservation, and sports fishing organizations {ES&T, June 1995, p. 246A). Fishing groups, such as the 600,000-member Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (BASS), vigorously op­posed provisions they said weak­ened wetlands protection and water quality standards and did little to curb nonpoint runoff.

"When HR 961 passed the House, we were aghast here at BASS," said Bruce Shupp, BASS conservation director and a fish­eries biologist. Although BASS leaders were upset with their dwindling congressional influ­ence, Shupp said, they were in­sulted when congressional lead­ers labeled them "environmental extremists" because of their op­position to the bill.

"We did not like that charac­terization of our members and what we represent. We represent middle America," he said. "If any­thing we are considered rednecks, not environmental extremists."

While Shuster's bill stalled in the Senate, Shupp and BASS initi­ated a plan to raise their future clout by coupling "hook-and-bul-let" organizations with traditional environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club. Shuster's water bill galva­nized them, said Shupp.

In August some 500 activists from 32 environmental, hunting, and fishing organizations met in Birmingham, Ala., and formed the Natural Resource Summit of America. The group laid out a broad platform to work together on resource protection. Partici­pants heard from speakers as di­verse as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt; James Strock, secretary of the California EPA; Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y); and Thomas Jorling, International Paper vice president and former head of the New York Department of Environ­mental Conservation. They will meet Dec. 6 in Washington, D C , at NRDC's headquarters.

Together the groups have 11 million members and publica­tions that reach 30 million people. The organization also includes sev­eral outdoors magazines, such as Sports Afield and Outdoor Life. "We've been competitors, but we are really concerned about the same things," said Shupp, "clean water, clean air, and public land policy. We're creating a conduit for communication. We are not going to make flags and buttons. We will meet to plan strategy, and we could sponsor legislation together."

continued on page 482A

Opposition to a proposed Clean Water Act bill spurred the unlikely coalition.

The initial meeting of the Natural Re­sources Summit of America coincided with the $4 million Bass Anglers Sports­man Society's Master Classic Fishing Tour­nament in Birmingham, Ala., which drew 25,000 fishing enthusiasts.

VOL. 30, NO. 11, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 8 1 A