15 



Would you agree that this is particularly difficult when we in 

 Government have an oversight function? It is difficult sometimes to 

 have that oversight function done by outsiders. Do you follow what 

 I mean? 



Dr. Foley. Yes. 



Senator Reid. Would you agree that that is a problem? 



Dr. Foley. Yes. We recognize that there are quite a number of 

 inherently governmental functions and places where you want to 

 have Federal expertise. We do base our recommendations on that. 



We also recognize that we need to work more with academia 

 than we have in the past. 



Senator REID. For example, grant-writing — we shouldn't have 

 outside people involved in that, should we? 



Dr. Foley. Grant writing? 



Senator Reid. In some cases, I have been told that we have a sit- 

 uation where inherently Government functions, such as oversight 

 and grant-writing, are being carried out by outside contractors. 



Dr. Foley. We have been working very hard to make sure that 

 that doesn't occur at all, but it does put an additional burden on 

 the current Federal work force. We recognize that it is unaccept- 

 able to have that happening. 



Senator Reid. One of the concerns is that EPA's lab reorganiza- 

 tion proposal provides for an increase in extramural competitive 

 peer review research from approximately $20 million this year to 

 $100 million after the lab reorganization. The concern is, from 

 where will this extra money come? 



Dr. Foley. We intend to make that shift within the base of our 

 work, which would mean that there would be less money for con- 

 tracting and more money for these extramural competitive grants 

 within our base. 



Senator Reid. EPA has been working on a risk assessment of 

 dioxin. As I understand, that report is still under review, but let 

 me ask you a few questions anyway. 



Why was dioxin, in particular, chosen for this review? Do you in- 

 tend for this risk assessment to serve as a model for other sub- 

 stances? 



Dr. Foley. I don't know that I can answer the first question. 



Senator Reid. Would you see if you could gather the information 

 and submit it in writing, then? 



Dr. Foley. Yes, I will do that. 



[The information requested follows:] 



Question. Why was dioxin chosen for this review? Do you intend for this risk as- 

 sessment to serve as a model for other substances? 



Answer: The EPA has been involved in the assessment of the health and ecologi- 

 cal effects of dioxin and related compounds since the early 1980s. The latest reas- 

 sessment, begun in May 1991, was in part stimulated by the recognition that dioxin 

 and related compounds would continue to be important substances when considering 

 regulatory actions, particularly in the air, water, and waste programs. In addition, 

 two scientific advances caused us to reconsider reexamining our position. The first 

 was an October 1990 meeting at the Banbury Center in Cold Spring Harbor, New 

 York, at which some 30 prominent experts discussed the probable processes through 

 which dioxin causes toxic effects in bumans and animals. Included in this discus- 

 sion, was new information on mechanisms of toxic action, toxicity equivalence of 

 members of the chemical class, levels of the compounds in the general population 

 and in more highly exposed special populations, and new data suggesting the poten- 



