An Interview with Dr. James Crapo, Medical Professor and Member of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
 Dr. James Crapo is a member of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, an advisory board to the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He works at National Jewish
Medical and Research Center in Denver and as a member of the Committee,
reviews National Ambient Air Quality Standards and makes
recommendations as to whether they should be revised.
What are National Ambient Air Quality Standards? They are air quality
thresholds that protect human health everywhere in this country. They
cannot be exceeded anywhere, and state and federal rules must be
written to keep air quality from violating these standards. They are
one of our most important safeguards under the Clean Air Act. National
Ambient Air Quality Standards are established for six pollutants—carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulates, and sulfur
dioxide. Every five years, criteria documents for ambient air quality
standards are reviewed. Criteria documents are like user’s guides to
ambient air quality standards. They are an overview of all relevant
science and form the basis of recommendations to revise ambient air
quality standards.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and its work have been in
the news a lot lately. The EPA recently adopted particulate air
standards that drew fire from the Committee. The Committee also
recently recommended that standards for ozone, also known as smog, be
strengthened and is in the process of reviewing standards for lead in our air.
Dr. Crapo graciously set aside time in October to do an interview with Rocky
Mountain Clean Air Action to discuss the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, his work, and the role of the public. Our interview follows.
RMCAA: How did you get on the Committee?
The
EPA contacted me two to three years ago and asked if I was willing to
be considered for a nomination to the CASAC. From there the nomination went
through a review by the agency and led to the final appointment by the
EPA administrator. It took around 3-4 months from the day I was invited
to day I was appointed.
RMCAA: What is your time investment?
Overall,
I’d say several hundred hours are put into reviewing criteria documents
for six criteria pollutants every five years, which is the timeline
required by law. The process also includes several meetings that may
last up to three days, along with several teleconference calls. We just
finished with particulates and now ozone and lead are on the table.
The
material we are asked to review for each of the criteria pollutants is
enormous. We review scientific literature with a focus of new
literature dating from the last time that criteria pollutant was
reviewed. We primarily focus on studies of low level exposures that are
relevant to current ambient air exposure in this country and determine
if there is evidence of an adverse health effect and the severity of
those effects. We then assess whether changes to ambient air quality
standards are needed in order to adequately protect human health.
RMCAA: How many people are on the Committee?
There
are seven standing members. But for each criteria pollutant review, an
ad hoc committee is created by inviting 10-20 additional scientists to
join in the review.
RMCAA: What backgrounds do Committee members represent?
Members
come from broad backgrounds, including chemistry, medicine,
epidemiology, and work with flora and fauna. They represent the broad
range of expertise needed to understand and discuss each of these
topics when reviewing air quality criteria and making recommendations.
RMCAA: How would you describe your background?
I’m
a physician. I specialize in pulmonary medicine, and my experience is
in lung structure and function and in inhalation toxicology. I’ve done
research on the mechanisms of lung injury, including studies of
airborne pollutants that enter lungs.
RMCAA: How long have you been in medicine?
I
got my Medical Degree from the University of Rochester in 1971. I
started doing research in 1972 and have been doing it ever since, so
almost 35 years now.
RMCAA: What is your work like today?
My
focus is on oxidant stress to lungs. We’re attempting to develop new
potent antioxidant drugs to treat diseases involving oxidant stress. My
primary research focus is on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD). We’re also trying to understand the genetic basis for COPD so
that we can use this information to guide the development of new
approaches to therapy.
COPD
is otherwise known as emphysema. It’s primarily caused by smoking and
is a chronic disease where the lung is destroyed. It’s associated with
chronic cough, shortness of breath, and hypoxemia.
RMCAA: Do criteria pollutants cause or contribute to emphysema?
They
can exacerbate lung problems, such as asthma, which has a close tie to
air pollution. It is likely that pollutants lead to exacerbation of
COPD. With comprised lungs, these pollutants can cause inflammation as
a result of irritation of the delicate airways in the lung – and they
can help initiate lung infections.
RMCAA: Can you describe the function of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee?
The
Committee is described as an advisory body. It was set up by the Clean
Air Act to advise the Administrator of the EPA as to whether or not
current air quality standards are protective of human health and
welfare.
RMCAA: As an advisory committee, how much weight should CASAC advice receive?
The advice of Committee should be the primary advice considered when setting ambient air quality standards.
RMCAA: What role does public input play in your work on the CASAC?
Public
comments are a very important part of our review of criteria documents
and the setting of ambient air quality standards. We don’t enter into a
debate with the public, but take input from the public that will be
considered by the Committee. There is lots of helpful input from the
public on all sides of each issue.
RMCAA: What happens once you’ve reviewed one of the criteria pollutants?
At
the end of our review, we send a letter to Administrator setting forth
our recommendations. The EPA staff then make recommendations regarding
any change in the National Air Quality Standard for that criteria
pollutant. CASAC then reviews and comments on those staff
recommendations, and many provide additional recommendations to the EPA
Administrator. After that, the ball is in the court of the EPA
Administrator, who issues the final standard.
RMCAA: How important are National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
Well,
they’re the law of the land. Ambient air quality standards are
incredibly important; they are the foundation of the Clean Air Act. The
Clean Air Act gives EPA the power to enforce standards and set limits
through regulations to protect those standards. I think it’s a very
appropriate approach that has resulted in a substantial number of
actions over the last decade that have led to cleaner air for our
country.
RMCAA: Do you see a
parallel path between the strengthening of air quality standards and
our level of knowledge on health impacts?
Our
knowledge of adverse health effects continues to improve and as such,
the standards often get tighter and our air quality improves. We’re not
done finding the right air quality standard nor with bringing every
part of the country into conformance with those standards. We still
have a lot of work to do, and science continues to guide our
understanding and our actions.
| 
