United States Science Advisory EPA-SAB-00-001
Environmental Board (1400A) November 1999
Protection Agency Washington, DC www.epa.gov/sab
&EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
FY1999 ANNUAL STAFF REPORT
New Wineskins for New Wine
-------
-------
This report is an SAB Staff summary of activities of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 1999, with projections
for Fiscal Year 2000. This report has not been reviewed by the Board or the Agency,
and should not be construed as representing the views of either organization.
-------
-------
Annual Report . page i
FOREWORD: New Wineskins for New Wine
Just about two millennia ago, it was reported (Luke 5:37-38) that new wine stored in old wineskins causes the
skins to burst with the resultant loss of both the wine and its container. Roughly 2000 years later, the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) has made a similar observation as it relates to environmental decisionmaking, an activity that some have
likened to sausage-making (borrowing from Chancellor Bismark's remark on the legislative process), if not to wine-
making, per se.
In FY 1999, the SAB completed work on the longest and most complex project in its 20+ year history. With
the final peer review now completed, the publication of Environmental Decision Making: Report from the SAB's
Integrated Risk Project (IRP) should occur before the end of the calendar year.
In its report the SAB takes a holistic view of the environmental decisionmaking process. The Board clearly
recognizes the import and pact of science in that process, but it takes a broader perspective and highlights the essential
role that non-scientific information — e.g., social values — plays in appropriately shaping the final decision. Building
on concepts articulated in the report of the Commission on Risk Assessment/Risk Management and in recent National
Research Council reports, the Board has highlighted the importance of working closely throughout the process with risk
managers and "interested and affected parties".
The SAB's report is something less than a "how-to" manual, but it does present a fresh perspective of how
science can contribute to the decisionmaking process, from problem formulation to solution evaluation.
In keeping with its own advice to be more integrative, the SAB has worked to mingle a wider range of issues
and a wider range of points of view in its other deliberations and operations. Specifically, this report documents that
FY 1999 saw
a. A record number of consultants (94) used in SAB reviews.
b. More cross-Board reviews conducted as Subcommittees of the Executive Committee.
c. A 5-year high in the number of SAB reports submitted to the Administrator.
d. The move of the Staff Office to newer, more open, more accessible, and more desirable space in one of the
premiere government office buildings in Washington.
All this bodes well for the Board's continuing to have a positive impact on the Agency as a new millennium —
with a new wine — approaches.
Donald G. Barnes, PhD
SAB Staff Director
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
-------
page ii Annual Report
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 Introduction to the Report 1
1.2 Introduction to the Board 1
1.3 Review of FY 1999 Activities 2
1.4 Projections and Conclusions 3
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT .4
2.1 Purpose of the Report 4
2.2 Content of the Report 4
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD 6
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function 6
3.2 SAB Organization and Membership 6
3.3 SAB Activities Section 12
3.3.1 Overview 12
3.3.2 Reports That Meet SAB Criteria 17
3.3.3 Responses and Reactions to SAB Activities 18
4. REVIEW OF FY 1999 ACTIVITIES 20
4.1 Introduction: Update on the Strategic Plan 20
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities 21
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC) 22
4.2.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL 23
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 23
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC) 24
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) 25
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) 25
4.2.7 Environmental Engineering Committee 26
4.2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC) 26
4.2.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) 27
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) 27
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) 28
4.3 Examples of Transitions 28
4.3.1 Integrated Risk Project (IRP): The SAB's Call for a New View 28
of Environmental Protection
4.3.2 The New Role of Social Scientists and SAB's Activity to Welcome their 29
Participation
4.3.3 New Quarters for the SAB Staff Office 29
4.3.4. Changes in Staffing Structure to Accommodate New Cross-Committee 29
Efforts
4.3.5 New Relations with Other Advisory Committees 29
4.4 Staff Office Operations 30
4.5 SAB Staff in Transition 30
5.0 PROJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ; 32
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page Hi
TABLES
I. SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades 7
II. FY 1999 SAB Committee Chairs 9
III. SAB Expenses for FY 1995-1999 13
IV. SAB Activities and Resources: FY 1995-1999 .13
V. SAB Activities by Committee: FY 1995-1999 14
FIGURES
I. SAB Strategic Plan 20
APPENDICES
A. Charters
A1. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
B. Membership
B1. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
B3. SAB Members for FY 1999
B4. SAB Consultants for FY 1999
C. Organizational Chart of the SAB in FY 1999
D. Staff Support and Committee Leadership in FY 1999
E. SAB Committee Meetings in FY 1999
F. SAB Reports and Abstracts in FY 1999
F1. List of SAB Reports, Letters, Commentaries, Advisories, and Consultations
for FY 1999
F2. Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, and Commentaries for FY 1999
G. Detailed Time-to-Completion Analysis for SAB Products
H. Biographical Sketches of SAB Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
pagel
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction to the Report
This Annual Report provides a succinct
introduction to the Science Advisory Board (SAB); a
summary of the SAB activities for Fiscal Year 1999;
and offers a near-term projection for future SAB
activities.
Section 2 is a brief introduction to the Report.
Section 3 provides background information on the
SAB, its organization, history, membership, and
resources. Section 4 contains summaries of the
activities of each SAB Committee during FY 1999,
details the major activities illustrating the SAB
providing new wineskins for new wine in transition and
notes changes in the SAB Staff Office. Section 5
provides some projections for FY 2000.
This Report also includes several specialized
appendices, containing: charters and leadership
information for the Committees; membership
information; organizational charts; guidelines on
service on the SAB; lists of meetings; abstracts of FY
1999 reports; and biographical information about the
SAB Staff.
1.2 Introduction to the Board
The purpose of the Board is to provide highly
qualified, independent technical advice to the EPA
Administrator on the scientific, engineering, and
economic underpinnings of Agency positions (see
charters in Appendix A). The goal is to make a
positive difference in the production and use of science
at the Agency. To accomplish this goal the SAB often
functions as a peer review panel, -assessing the
technical rationale underlying current or proposed
Agency positions. In recent years it has initiated a
number of activities on its own: e.g., a commentary on
strategic planning in the Office of Research and
Development's engineering program, retrospective
studies on the impacts of past reports by the Radiation
Committee, and a self-study of the Board.
The SAB was formally chartered in 1978 by
the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
although its roots extend back to the birth of EPA in
1970. The Board is a Federal Advisory Committee
and must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA). The Board's membership is composed of
non-Federal scientists, engineers and economists
appointed by the EPA Administrator. The Guidelines
for Service on the SAB are included in Appendix Bl.
Appendix B2 describes the various ways in which
experts are affiliated with the Board. The 105
Members of the Board (see Appendix B3) operate
through ten standing Committees, coordinated
through an Executive Committee (see the
organizational chart in Appendix C and information
on Staff Support and Committee Leadership in
Appendix D). The Members of the Board are some
of the most qualified technical experts in the
country, as evidenced by the credentials of the FY
1999 Committee Chairs (see Table II, pg. 10). The
work of the Board is supported by some 300
Consultants (see Appendix B4), who are scientists,
social scientists, engineers, and economists appointed
by the SAB Staff Director. Technical experts
employed by the Federal Government who have
special skill or knowledge in particular areas
participate as Federal Experts, as needed.
The goal is to make a positive
difference in the production and use of
science at the Agency.
The SAB's operations are supported by a
Staff Office of 20 employees and an FY 1999
budget totaling some $2.6 million. These resources
enabled the Board to conduct 48 meetings in FY
1999 (of which 14 were public conference calls, 33
were public meetings, and 1 closed meeting) and
issue 19 full reports, 29 short reports (generally less
than 10 pages), including 4 Letter Reports, 4
Commentaries, 13 Advisories, and 8 Notifications of
Consultation (see Tables IV and V).
The SAB carries out projects at the request
of the Agency and Congress, as well as on its own
initiative. In recent years, the number of requests
for SAB action have well exceeded the number that
the Board can address. Therefore, the Board has
adopted criteria to establish priorities among the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 2
Annual Report
various requests, based on the degree to which such
requests:
I. GENERAL CRITERION
A. Provides an opportunity to make a
difference in the production and use of
science at EPA.
II. CLIENT-RELATED CRITERIA
B. Supports major regulatory or risk
management initiatives.
C. Serves leadership interests such as
those of the EPA Administrator or
Congress.
D. Supports strategic themes of current
interest.
HI. SCIENCE-DRIVEN CRITERIA
A. Involves scientific approaches that are
new to the Agency.
B. Deals with areas of substantial
uncertainties.
IV. PROBLEM-DRIVEN CRITERIA
A. Involves major environmental risks.
B. Relates to emerging environmental
issues.
C. Exhibits a long-term outlook.
V. ORGANIZATIONAL-RELATED CRITERIA
A. Serves as a model for future Agency
methods.
B. Requires the commitment of substantial
resources to scientific or technological
development.
C. Transcends organizational boundaries,
within or outside EPA (includes
international boundaries).
D. Strengthens the Agency's basic
capabilities.
With all of these activities, attention and
impacts, the Board has maintained a broad base of
support both within and outside the Agency.
1.3 Review of FY 1999 Activities
During FY 1999 the SAB's various
Committees and subcommittees conducted 48 public
meetings that were announced in the Federal
Register. This number includes 14 public
conference calls. These efforts resulted in 48
reports. A wide variety of topics were covered,
from the Agency's efforts to insure quality in its
operations to specific computer models developed
by the Agency. Appendices E and F provide a full
listing of FY 1999 SAB meetings and reports (with
abstracts).
The Board took several steps in FY 1999
to develop new wineskins for its new wine.
New View of Environmental Protection:
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski of Johns Hopkins
University led the Board's effort to produce the
Integrated Risk Project. In the report the Board
advocates a wider, more comprehensive approach to
environmental protection that will encompass both
technical inputs to inform the value-laden
information and consideration needed for decision-
making.
New Role of Social Sciences: The SAB
continued to advocate a more active presence of
social sciences in its own projects, as well as in the
activities of the Agency. For a number of its
reviews the SAB intentionally included social
scientists on its Panels. The Board began
sponsoring an intra-Agency seminar series of
prominent social scientists to speak directly with
EPA staff to discuss how their discipline can — and
has — successfully addressed environmental
problems. The Board's request for a social scientist
to serve as a member of the Executive Committee
in FY 2000 has been acted upon favorably.
New Quarters for the SAB Staff Office:
The SAB Staff Office is literally "in a new
container", having relocated to the renovated Ariel
Rios Building at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in
Washington, DC. The new quarters and associated
amenities have increased morale and productivity.
New Staff Structure: The SAB is
conducting more "cross-Committee" reviews, in
response to the Agency's use of new approaches to
environmental decision-making. To facilitate these
interdisciplinary projects, the SAB has allocated
more resources to high-profile, special projects that
involve participants from several SAB Committees.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 3
New Relations with FACAs: Working with
the Agency's Committee Management Team, the
SAB Office is at the forefront of advocating
"re-inventing advice at EPA". The intent is to
become more strategic in the manner and means by
which the Agency seeks and utilizes technical
advice from the more than a dozen Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committees
chartered to provide advice to the Agency. By
assuming a leadership role in coordinating work
with other FACAs in the Agency and beyond, the
SAB is helping more to bring independent, external
scientific advice to bear on the problems facing
EPA.
The Board increased its use of the Internet
by upgrading its Website by electronic distribution
of its monthly newsletter, and by initiation of an
internet-based SAB Discussion Database to more
effectively and efficiently generate reports.
A retirement and a career move led to the
loss of some notable figures in the SAB
professional staff. Other losses in the support staff
marked transitions. However, these losses were
off-set, to some degree, by the addition of a
productive and provocative senior Staff member and
by the continuing growth and development of other
Staff members.
1.4 Projections and Conclusions
More than 70 requests for FY 2000 SAB
projects have been received by the start of the fiscal
year, meaning the Board is faced with considerable
winnowing and prioritizing. Clearly, some
high-profile issues will be addressed by the Board
in the coming year. In addition, the SAB has some
important initiatives of its own; e.g., exploring the
role of science in the Agency's new approaches to
environmental decision-making.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 4
Annual Report
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
2.1 Purpose of the Report
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) is a
legislatively mandated group of non-federal
government scientists, engineers, and economists
charged with providing independent technical advice
on environmental issues to the EPA Administrator
and others, (e.g., Congressional committees) to help
inform their decisions. The purpose of the Board
is to make a positive difference in the production
and use of science at EPA. Generally, the SAB
does not get involved in or provide advice on
regulatory or policy aspects of problems confronting
the Agency, because such matters are the province
and responsibility of the EPA Administrator.
Additional details of the objectives, responsibilities,
composition, and activities of the SAB and its two
separately mandated entities (the CASAC and the
Council) and the charter documents of these
organizations are found in Appendix A.
Informed observers acknowledge the SAB's
remarkable history and its continuing importance in
the protection of public health and the environment.
However, some people both inside and outside of
the Agency are hard-pressed to describe the extent
of the Board's activities or the detailed nature of its
findings. This is due, in part, to the complex
structure of the Board and the aperiodic issuing of
its reports. To some, the SAB is viewed as a
hurdle which must be cleared on the way to issuing
regulations; much like having to defend one's thesis
on the way to getting an advanced degree. To
others, the SAB is seen as a court of last resort
in which competing scientific arguments are
objectively and dispassionately evaluated.
For some puzzled observers of the SAB,
the biggest problem is simply finding out "What
does the SAB do?" At its November 1997 strategic
retreat, the SAB's Executive Committee (EC)
defined the Board's job as making a positive
difference in the production and use of science at
EPA. For example, the SAB makes a difference in
the type and conduct of scientific, engineering and
economic research at EPA. The SAB makes a
difference in the way that resulting data are
interpreted and used to inform regulatory and other
decisions. The SAB also makes a difference to SAB
Members and Consultants (M/Cs) and SAB staff by
giving them the satisfaction of seeing their
information and guidance used appropriately by the
Agency to better address environmental problems.
In broad terms, this Report is intended to
reveal the SAB to a wide audience: to those both
inside and outside the Agency, to those who
understand the Board, to those who think they
understand the Board, and to those who don't
understand the Board. The intent is that each
reader gain a broader perspective of the SAB, its
activities, and its impact.
More specifically, the purpose of this
Annual Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
is three-fold:
a) To provide a succinct introduction to
the SAB.
b) To provide a summary of the SAB's
activities for FY 1999.
c) . To offer a near-term projection of
future SAB activities.
The Report is designed to provide the
written equivalent of "a group photo" of the
SAB—its people, its products, and its prospects—in
sufficient detail that the interested reader can
distinguish the major features and identify paths for
investigating the finer details.
2.2 Content of the Report
The Report consists of five principal
sections, plus appendices supplementing the
discussion in the main sections. Following the
Executive Summary (Section 1) and this
Introduction (Section 2), Section 3 provides basic
background information on the SAB. Here the
reader will find brief discussions on the history of
the Board, its organization and Membership, and its
principal activities and procedures. Specific
examples are described that illustrate the way in
which the SAB positively impacts the functions and
operations of the Agency. Section 4 focuses on
SAB activities during FY 1999. This portion of
the Report contains descriptions of the activities of
each of the Board's Committees during the past
year. In addition, changes in the SAB Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 5
assignments and other changes in the Office are
highlighted. Section 5 provides a glimpse into what
FY 2000 likely holds in store for the Board.
The Appendices contain important
information, such as organizational charts,
membership lists, abstracts of SAB reports, and the
like. These Appendices provide a source of more
detailed information about specific aspects of the
SAB.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 6
Annual Report
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and
Function
The SAB was established by Congress to
provide independent scientific and engineering
advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical
basis for EPA regulations. Expressed in terms of
the parlance of the risk assessment/risk management
paradigm of decision making (National Research
Council, Managing Risk in the Federal Government,
1983), the SAB deals with risk assessment issues
(hazard identification, dose-response assessment,
exposure assessment and risk characterization)
and only that portion of risk management that
deals strictly with the technical issues associated
with various control options. Issues of Agency and
Administration policy are generally beyond the
scope of the SAB mandate and involvement.
The SAB, in its present form, was
established in 1978 by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act
(ERDDAA) (42 U.S.C. 4365). Predecessor bodies
date back to. the early 1970s. Since 1978, however,
the SAB has operated as an EPA Staff Office,
reporting directly to the Administrator.
In carrying out the mandate of ERDDAA,
the SAB provides "such scientific advice as may be
requested by the Administrator, the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the United
States Senate, or the Committees on Science and
Technology, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, or
Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives." Because the Science Advisory
Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, it must
comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. C) and related regulations.
Consequently, the Board has an approved charter
(Appendix A, 1-3) (which must be renewed every
two years), announces its meetings in the Federal
Register, and provides opportunities for public
comment on issues before the Board.
Members of and Consultants to the SAB
constitute a distinguished body of scientists,
engineers, and economists who are recognized, non-
governmental experts in their respective fields.
These individuals are drawn from academia,
industry, state government, and environmental
communities throughout the United States and, in
some limited cases, other countries. (See Appendices
B3 and B4 for a listing of Members and
Consultants, respectively).
The Agency places a premium on basing
its regulations on a solid scientific foundation.
Consequently, over the past 25 years the SAB has
assumed growing importance and stature. It is now
formal practice that many major scientific issues
associated with environmental problems are
reviewed by the SAB. For example, the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) require that
technical aspects of decisions related to all National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) be
reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC), which is administratively
housed within the SAB.
Generally, the Board functions as a
technical peer review panel. The SAB conducts its
business in public view and benefits from public
input during its deliberations. Through these public
proceedings Agency positions are subjected to
critical examination by leading experts in various
fields in order to test their currency and technical
merits. At the same time, the SAB recognizes that
EPA is often forced to take a policy action to
avert an emerging environmental risk before all of
the rigors of scientific proof are met. To delay
action until the evidence amounts to incontrovertible
proof might court irreversible ecological and health
consequences. In such cases, the Agency makes
certain assumptions and extrapolations from what is
known in order to reach a rational science policy
position regarding the need (or lack thereof) for
regulatory action. In such cases, the SAB serves as
a council of peers to evaluate the soundness of the
technical basis of the science policy position
adopted by the Agency.
3.2 SAB Organization and Membership
The SAB Charter (Appendix Al) includes
the following statements:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page?
TABLE I SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades
Executive Committee
Chairs
Affiliation
Dates
Dr. Joan Daisey
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Dr. Raymond Loehr
Dr. Norton Nelson
Dr. Earnest Gloyna
Dr. John Cantlon
Dr. Emil Mrak
Lawrence Beikeley Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
University of Texas
New York University
University of Texas
Michigan State University
University of California
1997-present
1993-1997
1988-1993
1983-1988
1981-1983
1979-1981
1974-1978
SAB Staff Directors
Dr. Donald Barnes
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Thomas Bath
Dates
1988-present
1981-1988
1978-1981
1975-1977
a) "The objective of the Board is to provide
advice to EPA's Administrator on the scientific
and technical aspects of environmental
problems and issues".
b) "The Board will consist of a body of
independent scientists and engineers [and now
economists] of sufficient size and diversity to
provide the range of expertise required to
assess the scientific and technical aspects of
environmental issues".
c) "No Member of the Board shall be a full-time
employee of the Federal Government."
In addition, the Charter requires formation
of an Executive Committee and inclusion of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (COUNCIL) (see separate charters, also in
Appendix A). Otherwise, the Board may organize
itself as needed to meet its responsibilities.
The Board's Executive Committee serves as
the focal point to coordinate the scientific reviews
by the Board's standing committees. Appendix C
contains a chart of the FY 1999 SAB organization.
The Executive Committee meets to act on Agency
requests for reviews, to hear briefings on pertinent
issues, to initiate actions/reviews by the Board
which it feels are appropriate, and to approve final
reports prior to transmittal to the Administrator.
[Reports from the CAS AC and the Council are
submitted - directly to the Administrator, without
need for prior Executive Committee review or
approval.]
Five Committees have historically
conducted most Science Advisory Board reviews:
a) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC): Mandated by the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments
b) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 8
Annual Report
c) Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
d) Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
e) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Between 1986 and 1990, five additional
committees were added:
a) Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC): Mandated by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act in FY
1986
b) Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC): Requested by the Administrator in
response to the Board's Future Risk report
in FY 1988
c) Drinking Water Committee (DWC): Evolved
from the EHC in FY 1990
d) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council): Mandated by the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments
e) Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC): Requested by the
Administrator in response to the Board's
Reducing Risk report in FY 1990
The Board supplements the activities of
these committees by establishing a variety of ad hoc
subcommittees as needed.
The Board has continually and successfully
recruited top technical talent to fill its leadership
positions. Those scientists and engineers who have
led the SAB (and predecessor organizations) for the
past 24 years are listed in Table I. Table II
testifies to the caliber of individuals who served as
chairs of SAB Committees in FY 1999.
The number of Members is flexible. In FY
1999 SAB consisted of 105 members appointed by
the Administrator for two-year terms, renewable for
not more than two additional two-year terms.
Service as Committee Chair can lead to as much as
an additional four years of continuous service. A
formal guideline on Membership service was
adopted by the Executive Committee in FY 1993
and has been followed by the Administrator in
making appointments (see Appendix Bl).
Over 300 technical experts, invited by the
Staff Director, serve on an. "as needed" basis as
Consultants to the Board on various issues where
their expertise is relevant. The number of
Consultants is flexible, and their one-year terms can
be renewed indefinitely. Consultants are required to
meet the same standards of technical expertise as do
the Members. The term "Member and Consultant"
(M/C) is used throughout this annual report to refer to
these experts. Appendices B3 and B4 contain a list of
the FY 1999 SAB Members and Consultants,
respectively. Nearly all of them serve as Special
Government Employees (SGEs), subject to all relevant
Federal requirements, including compliance with the
conflict of interest statutes (18 U.S.C. Sections 202-
209).
In some few cases, the SAB also accesses
experts via the route of Federal Expert and Invited
Expert. These categories are described in greater detail
in Appendix B2, Types of Affiliation with the SAB.
During FY 1999 the SAB Staff consisted of
23 people: a Staff Director, a Deputy Staff Director,
and the Team Leaders of the Committee Operations
Staff and the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff;
eight scientist/engineers who serve as Designated
Federal Officers (DFOs), three administrative staff,
five support staff, two interns, and a National Older
Worker's Career Center (NOWCC) Office Assistant.
The Staff identifies potential issues for SAB
attention, focuses questions for review by the Board,
works with the Board to identify and enlist
appropriate Members and Consultants, interfaces
between the Board and the Agency as well as with
the public, coordinates logistics for reviews, and
produces minutes and reports for submission to the
Administrator.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 9
TABLE II FY 1999 SAB Committee Chairs
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. Joan Da/sey
Head, Center for Atmospheric and Biospheric Effects Technology, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, American Association for Aerosol Research
Member, Air Pollution Control Association
Member, International Society of Exposure Analysis
Member, Editorial Review Board Aerosol Science and Technology
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
Dr. Maureen Cropper
Principal Economist, Research Department, The World Bank
Past President, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
Professor of Economics, University of Maryland
Member, Visiting Committee, Cornell Center for the Environment
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Dr. Joe Mauderly
Vice President and Director of External Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Research Professor of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of New Mexico
Member, American Thoracic Society
Member, Society of Toxicology
Member, American Physiological Society
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
Member, American Veterinary Medical Association
Member, Editorial Board of Experimental Lung Research
Member, Editorial Board of Inhalation Toxicology
Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Dr. Richard Bull
Senior Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managed by Battelle
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, Sigma Xi -
Member, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Member, Society of Toxicology
Member, American Association for Cancer Research
Member, American Water Works Association
Member, International Society for the Study of Xenobiotics
Member, Editorial Board of Toxicology .
Member, Editorial Board of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health
Member, National Research Council Committee Spacecraft Maximum Contaminant Limits
Member, Science Advisory Panel for Santa Anna River Water Quality and Health Study
Member, Bromide Expert Panel for the CAL-FED Program on the Sacramento River Delta
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 10 Annual Report
TABLE II FY 1999 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. Robert Stavins
Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, and Faculty Chair, Environment and Natural Resources
Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
University Fellow, Resources for the Future
Member, Board of Directors, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
Member, Board of Academic Advisors, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
Member, Editorial Council, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Member, Board of Editors, Resource and Energy Economics
Member, Advisory Board, Environmental Economics Abstracts
Member, Advisory Board, Environmental Law and Policy Abstracts
Member, Editorial Board, Economic Issues
Contributing Editor, Environment
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Dr. Hilary Inyang
University Professor and Director, Center for Environmental Engineering, Science, and Technology,
University of Massachusetts, Lowell, DuPont Young Professor
National Research Council Young Investigator (1996)
Fellow, Geological Society of London
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Member, American Chemical Society, Associate Editor, Journal of Environmental Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers; International Journal of Surface Mining and Reclamation
Editorial Board Member, Journal of Soil Contamination; Waste Management and Research;
Environmental Monitoring and Assessments; Resources Conservation and Recycling
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Terry Young
Senior Consulting Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CA
Member, Advisory Committee to the University California Salinity/Drainage Program
Expert Testimony for EDF before U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittees, California State Water Resources
Control Board, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Mark Utell
Acting Chairman, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester,
New York
Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine,
Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases Sub-specialty
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American College of Chest Physicians
Fellow, American College of Physicians
Associate Editor, Environmental Research
Editorial Board: Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of Aerosol Medicine, Inhalation Toxicology,
Environmental Health Perspectives and Journal of Environmental Medicine
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 11
TABLE II FY 1999 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
Dr. Henry Anderson
Chief Medical Officer, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Certified in Preventive Medicine, American Board of Preventative Medicine
Certified Specialist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American Board of Preventative Medicine
Fellow, American College of Epidemiology
Member, American Public Health Association
Member, American College of Epidemiology
Member, American Medical Association
Member, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Member, Editorial Board, Health and Environment Digest
Member, Editorial Board, Cancer Prevention International
Associate Editor, American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Co-Editor, Wisconsin Medical Journal of Industrial Medicine
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Dr. Stephen Brown
Director, Risks of Radiation and Chemical Compounds (R2C2)
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, Chemical Health and Safety Section, American Chemical Society
Member, International Society of Exposure Analysis
Member, National Academy of Engineering/National Academy of Sciences
Member, Society for Risk Analysis (President, National Capital Area Chapter)
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Dr. W. Randall Seeker
Senior Vice President, GE Energy and Environmental Research Corporation
Member, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Member, Combustion Institute
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 12
Annual Report
3.3 SAB Activities Section
3.3.1 Overview
The types of projects, as well as the range
of subject matter, reviewed by the SAB continue to
grow. The Board takes on reviews at the request of
Congress, the Administrator, and EPA's various
program offices, as well as on its own initiative. In
general, the trend over time has been for more SAB
reviews, addressing more varied subjects, requested
by a wider range of individuals and organizations.
Historically, most of the outputs of the
Board are in the form of full reports. Such reports
present the findings of peer reviews of nearly-
completed Agency projects and contain considerable
detail about the findings and recommendations of the
Board. They are generally structured as responses to
a formal Charge to the Board. The Charge is a set
of specific questions, negotiated by the Agency and
the SAB that guide, but do not constrain, the review.
In recent years the SAB has worked with the
Agency to produce quicker feedback and more
timely advice that is focused at the front-end of the
Agency's involvement with an issue. First, it
developed the "Consultation" as a means of
conferring in public session with the Agency on a
technical matter, before the Agency has begun
substantive work on that issue. The goal is to leaven
EPA's thinking by brainstorming a variety of
approaches to the problem very early in the
development process.
There is no attempt or intent to express an
SAB consensus or to generate a formal SAB
position. The Board, via a brief letter, simply notifies
the Administrator that a Consultation has taken
place.
Second, the Board introduced the "Advisory"
as a means of providing, via a formal SAB
consensus report, critical input on technical issues
during the Agency's position development process.
In most instances, the topic of the Advisory will later
be the subject of an SAB report, once the Agency
has completed its work.
Third, the "Commentary" is a short
communication that provides unsolicited SAB advice
about a technical issue the Board feels should be
drawn to the Administrator's attention.
Fourth, letter reports are similar in origin,
content, and purpose to full reports. They are simply
shorter; thereby generally resulting in more rapid
advice to the Agency.
Tables III and IV display the SAB's
operating expenses, staffing, meeting activity, and
report production for the past five fiscal years (1995-
1999). The increase in total costs over the years
reflects an increase in the number of Board
Members, increases in Federal pay and allowances,
and general increases in the cost of airline travel,
hotel and meeting accommodations.
Table V details meeting activity and report
preparation by Committee.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 13
TABLE III SAB Expenses1 ($K) for Fiscal Years 1995-1999
Fiscal
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
19991
1 Estimated
Compensation
Staff
1186
1045
1170
1250
1318
M/C
650
392
555
600
630
Total
1,836
1,437
1,725
1,850
1,948
Travel
358
242.
282
285
308
Other
Expenses
166
88
212
281
298
TOTAL
2,360
1,768
2,219
2,416
2,554
TABLE IV SAB Activities and Staffing, Fiscal Years 1995-1999
Committee Activities3
Public" Public6 Closed"
Meeting Teleconf Meeting
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
44
28
34
42
33
5'
9
21
8
14
1
0
1
1
1
Total
50
37
56
51
48
Committee Reports
Full6 Short' Total9
27
3
11
11
19
13
17
18
10
29
40
20
29
21
48
Staffing
Federal
Members Staff11
98
98
97
102
105
17.0
16.7
17.6
19.7
19.7
1 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) meetings announced in the Federal Register.
SAB staff and Members meet occasionally to prepare draft materials or to plan for public meetings.
Such meetings are exempt from FACA requirements and are, therefore, not reflected in this table.
b Public meetings held face-to-face
c Public teleconference meetings
d Closed meetings, with approval of the EPA Administrator
c A full report on a topic is a more extensive discussion of the subject, e.g., greater than 10 pages.
' A short report is a more focused discussion of a topic. Included in this category are Letter Reports,
Advisories, and Commentaries to the Administrator on issues of concern to the SAB.
8 Appendix F contains a list of all FY 1999 reports and abstracts.
h Measured in Full Time Equivalents (One FTE equals one employee working one year)
1 Includes one public hearing
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 14
Annual Report
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1995-1999
Committee
EC
EC/
ad hoc
Subcom.
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
Fiscal
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Committee Activities1
Mtqs. Teleconf. Total
6
3
3
3
3
4
10
17
8
9
13
2
1
3
4
5
5
1
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
5
6
1
11
10
0
1
1
1
6
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
8
5
6
8
9
5
21
27
8
10
4
3
7 "'
3
6
5
6
1
3
4
3
3
. 2 ; •
2
2 •:-• :
Number
Full
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
2
2
6
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
of Reports 2
Short Total
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
3
2
3
3
8
1
1
8
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
4
0
0
4
0
2
2
10
2
2
3
2
3
3
8
1
1
9
4
2
2
1
2
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1995-1999 (continued)
Committee
EPEC
EEAC
EEC
EHC
IHEC
Fiscal
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Committee Activities1
Mtas. Teleconf. Total
5
3
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
7
2
3 .
6
4
1
1
1
3
0
2
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
2
3
3
1
0
0
2
3
7
3
3
6
5
1
1
1
3
0
2
1
2
2
.1
Number
Full
3
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
3
4
1
1
0
2
1
4
1
0
0
1
1
of Reports
Short
3
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
2
Total
6
0
7
3
1
0
0
0
1
2
7
1
4
5
6
2
0
3
1
4
1
1
1
2
4
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 16
Annual Report
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1995-1999 (Continued)
Committee
RAC
Fiscal
Year
1 995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Committee Activities1
Mtas.
5
2
4
6
2
Teleconf.
1
4
1
2
1
Total
6
6
5
8
3
Number of Reports 2
Full
4
0
1
0
2
Short
0
2
0
1
4
Total
4
2
1
1
6
RSAC
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
3
0
0
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
0
3
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
EC
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
IHEC
RAC
RSAC
Executive Committee
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Drinking Water Committee
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Environmental Health Committee
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Radiation Advisory Committee
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
1 Indicates meetings and public teleconferences requiring notice in the Federal Register.
2 Reports are entered as Full Reports or Short Reports (which includes Letter Reports, Commentaries, and Advisories).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 17
3.3.2 Reports That Meet SAB Criteria
In the face of more requests than current
resources can address, the Board has had to be selective
about its choice of projects. Increasingly, the SAB Staff
has interacted formally with different parts of the
Agency to determine EPA's priorities. For example, the
majority of requests from the Agency now originate
from an Assistant Administrator's office to help insure
the request is a high priority. In addition, the SAB Staff
has sought the advice and counsel of groups that cut
across program offices hi the Agency; e.g., the Science
Policy Council.
SAB priorities have generally been guided by
a set of criteria that were originally generated in a "self-
study" in 1989 and updated at a Strategic Planning
Retreat of the Executive Committee in 1997. The
current criteria are listed below, together with examples
of the FY 1999 reports that reflect those criteria.
I. GENERAL CRITERION
A. Provides an opportunity to make a
difference in the Agency's operations
Although not quite complete, the Report from
the Integrated Risk Project, was initiated at the request
of the Administrator, has been peer-reviewed and will be
submitted formally before the end of the year. It holds
the promise of significantly changing the way the
Agency has traditionally done its business.
II. CLIENT-RELATED CRITERIA
A. Supports major regulatory
management initiatives.
or risk
"CASAC Review of the Draft Diesel Health
Assessment Document"
EPA-SAB-C AS AC-99-001
This review provided important critical
comments that will help to insure that any eventual
regulation in this important area will be based on sound
science.
B. Serves leadership interests such as those of
the EPA Administrator or Congress.
"Review of the FY 2000 Presidential Science
and Technology Budget Request for EPA"
EPA-S AB-RS AC-99-012
This review was a significant step in helping
the Agency and the.Congress to gam a fuller assessment
and appreciation of the science that is done throughout
the Agency, not only in ORD,
C. Supports strategic themes of current interest
"Data Suitability Assessment"
EPA-SAB-EC-99-010
During FY 1999 the Agency established a new
Assistant Administrator-ship to deal with information.
This review helped focus fundamental concerns about
data quality, which lies at the heart of information.
III. SCIENCE-DRIVEN CRITERIA
A. Involves scientific approaches that are new
to the Agency.
"Review of the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's Comparative Risk
Framework Methodology"
EPA-SAB-DWC-99-016
The Board was able to provide important advice
to the Agency on an innovative method for comparing
the risks posed by disinfection by-products from the
treatment of drinking water and the risks posed by the
microorganisms.
B. Deals with areas of substantial uncertainties.
"Estimating Uncertainties
Cancer Risks"
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-008
in Radiogenic
This review examines a range • of sources of
uncertainty associated with the estimate of cancer risks
posed by some of the more unequivocal and potent
carcinogenic agents the Agency addresses.
IV. PROBLEM-DRIVEN CRITERIA
A. Involves major environmental risks.
"Review of the Agency's Airborne Particulate
Matter Research Agenda"
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-004
The health impacts of PM are a matter of
considerable impact and controversy. The SAB provided
critical review of the Agency's research plan in a manner
that was coordinated with PM activities of the National
Research Council.
"Technical Review of the Proposed TSCA
Section 403 Regulation: Identification of
Dangerous Levels of Lead"
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-003
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 18
Annual Report
Lead pollution is a documented health problem,
especially for children. The SAB provided advice to the
Agency on methods for assessing the risks of levels of
this pollutant.
B. Relates to emerging environmental issues.
"Commentary on the Environmental Impacts
of Natural Hazards: The Need for Agency
Action"
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-004
The SAB called the Agency's attention to the
major — and often unaddressed — environmental impacts
posed by the increasing number and severity of natural
hazards, such as hurricanes and earthquakes.
C. Exhibits a long-term outlook.
"Commentary on the Importance of
Reinstating the pollution Abatement & Control
Expenditures (PACE) Survey"
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-99-001
The SAB urged the Agency to continue funding
the Survey which provides an important longitudinal
record of the costs of environmental protection over
time. This information is of fundamental importance in
determining the costs and benefits of various
environmental management approaches.
V. ORGANIZATIONAL-RELATED CRITERIA
A. Serves as a model for future Agency
methods
"Review of the Disproportionate Impact
Methodologies"
EPA-SAB-IHEC-99-007
The SAB provided review of and guidance on
Agency attempts to quantify the differential impacts of
environmental pollution on different segments of a
population in a specific geographic region. Such
methods are important in dealing with Environmental
Justice issues.
"Review of the Index of Watershed Indicators
(IWI)"
EPA-SAB-EPEC-99-014
The IWI is an attempt to provide an overview
of the conditions of watersheds across the country in a
Web-based system that is accessible to everyone. The
SAB provided important advice on the strengths and
weaknesses of the current status of the project.
"CAAA Section 812 Prospective Study:
Advisories on Assessments of Human and
Ecological Effects and on Modeling and
Emissions"
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-99-012 and 013
These two reports are members of a series of
SAB reports that have provided guidance to the Agency
as it develops ground-breaking approaches to assessing
the costs and benefits of environmental regulations for
air, that can form the basis of similar approaches in
other media.
B. Requires the commitment of substantial
resources to scientific or technological
development.
"Advisory on the PM2.5 Monitoring Program "
EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-99-002
The SAB critically reviewed Agency plans to
implement a large-scale, multi-million dollar monitoring
program for small diameter particulate matter.
C. Transcends organizational boundaries, within
or outside EPA (includes international
boundaries).
"Advisory on 'White Paper on the Nature and
Scope of Issues on Adoption of Model Use
Acceptability Criteria"
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-011
The SAB provided advice to the Agency and
the larger scientific community on how to go evaluating
the appropriateness of the growing number of computer
models being used to simulate processes in the natural
environment.
D. Strengthens the Agency's basic capabilities.
"Advisory on the Charter for the Council on
Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM) "
EPA-SAB-EC-99-009
The SAB reviewed the Agency's plans to
establish an important new cross-Agency group to
coordinate work on environmental computer models.
3.3.3 Responses
Activities
and Reactions to SAB
Since 1984 the SAB has formally requested
written Agency responses to reports generated by the
Board. The majority of those responses indicate that the
Agency has acted positively on the advice given _by the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 19
Board. In many instances, the Agency has initiated
action on the basis of the advice rendered at the public
SAB meetings and/or in public SAB draft reports, prior
to the actual receipt (via the Administrator) of the formal
reports themselves. In some other cases, upon reviewing
the reports, the Agency has formally disagreed with the
Board.
In FY 2000, the SAB Staff will undertake an
analysis of the responses from the Agency to quantify
more accurately the quantity and quality of those
responses. In the absence of a critical review of
Agency-generated responses by objective, technically
trained personnel in the Administrator's Office, it is
possible that the quality of responses may have changed
over the past few years.
Support for the SAB both inside and outside the
Agency has been strong over the years. In FY 1999, the
Acting Deputy Administrator (Mr. Peter Robertson)
made it a practice to attend face-to-face meetings of the
SAB Executive Committee (EC) in order to discuss
topics of mutual interest. Several Assistant
Administrators also made presentations at EC meetings
in FY 1999. The large number of Agency requests for
SAB assistance (over 70 for FY 2000) speaks to the
EPA's commitment to critical outside peer review, in
general, and to the SAB, in particular. However
resource constraints continue to limit the extent to which
the Board can respond fully to the needs of the Agency.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 20
Annual Report
4. REVIEW OF FY 1999 ACTIVITIES
Figure 1: SAB Strategic Plan
OVERARCHING
GOAL
OBJECTIVES FOR
NEXT FEW YEARS
IMPLEMENTATION
INITIATIVES
Making a Positive Difference in the Production and Use of Science
ACTIVITIES
AND TASKS
Project
Selection
Maintain and
Improve Quality of
Peer Review
Improve SAB-
wide Operations
Provide more
Strategic Advice
Explore Science
Activites in New EPA
Initiatives
Improve Specific
Elements
Start New
Initiatives
Timeliness
Agency Feedback
Intera
ctions
Communication
Integrate
Economics
Social
^ Science
One-
Pagers
Strategic
Projects
4.1 Introduction: Update on the Strategic Plan
In November 1997, the SAB Executive
Committee held a Strategic Planning Retreat, during
which they devised a Strategic Plan that was intended to
guide the work of the Board for the next several years.
The Plan is summarized in Figure 1.
This section of the report contains a brief
update on the Plan: progress made and impact achieved.
The overarching goal of the Board for the next
several years is "To make a Positive Difference in the
Production and Use of Science at EPA". In order to
accomplish this goal, the Board adopted three main
objectives:
1. Maintain and improve the quality of peer review.
This objective has been "the meat and
potatoes" of SAB activities for many years. As
noted below in this Section, in FY 1999 SAB
Committees continued to make contributions in this
area, which in the past has been characterized as
"examining the soundness of the technical
underpinnings of EPA positions".
2. Provide more strategic advice.
The quintessential example of this type of activity
was die work done on the Integrated Risk Project
(IRP); see Section 4.3.1. In addition, individual
Committees worked to provide "the longview
advice" by gleaning lessons from the past (EEC's
Retrospective Review of its past 10 years;
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-00-001), and by looking
forward in a number of different consultations,
commentaries, and liaison meetings with Agency
leadership.
3. Explore science activities in new EPA initiatives
The prime example of this type of activity is the
work of a small subgroup of the EC, headed by Dr.
M. Granger Morgan, who have been charged with
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page21
recommending how science might be better
integrated into the new approaches.
The Strategic Plan called for initiatives at three
levels to help implement the Plan:
a. Improved SAB-wide Operations, including
1) Project Selection
The Board received more than 50 requests
from the Agency in FY 1999 and took
action on more than three dozen of them.
2) Improved timeliness
While improving its overall timeliness of
reports, the Board fell short of its goal of
50% of the reports being completed within
four months of the meeting.
3) Enhanced Agency feedback
The Board received somewhat more
feedback than in earlier year, but it has not
yet consistently applied a systematic
process for gathering such information.
4) Better orientation for members
The Board directed the Staff to develop a
Handbook for New Members by early FY
2000.
5) Increased interactions outside and inside the
Committee.
The Board held EC Subcommittee reviews
where members from several SAB
committees worked outside the traditional
SAB structure. The Board also engaged
Dr. William Paschier from the Netherlands
Health Council on the Data from Testing
Human Subjects review and interacted with
the
6) Liaison meetings between EC members and
Agency management. -
The Board conducted one such session in
FY 2000.
b. Improved Specific Elements
1) More strategic use of RSAC
The RSAC broadened its activities to
include the entire range of science
activities in the Agency, not just
those in ORD. The Agency has been
responsive in working with RSAC to
gain a broader view of science at the
Agency.
2) Greater integration of economic considerations.
More economists were involved with
reviews by different Committees in
FY 1999.
3) More and more strategic activity by EEAC and
the Council
The EEAC undertook a solid agenda
of activities this year, including
review of the precedent-setting Economic
Assessment Guidelines. The Council
continued with its significant contributions
to the innovative assessments of costs and
benefits of the Clean Air Act.
4) Futures
There was some limited activity by the
Board in this area in FY 1999. However,
the ORD is beginning to take actions in
this area that will soon appear in materials
brought to SAB committees (e.g., RSAC)
for view. _/
c. New Initiatives
1) Workshops
The EC discussed possible workshops in
two areas; the role of science in the
Agency's new approaches to environmental
protection and the Agency's approach to
estimating the risks and benefits of
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
2) International
The Board reached out to the Health
Council of the Netherlands to involve its
Vice President in a SAB/SAP major
review.
3) Strategic projects
The EC Subgroup on New Approaches
announced a series of encounters with
Agency risk managers in FY 2000 that will
examine the role of science in the changing
landscape of activities within the Agency.
4) One-page summaries
The Board continued to experiment with its
succinct "Synopsis" series of summaries of
selected SAB reports.
5) Social science
The Board increased the participation of
social scientists in its activities and initiated
a seminar series in the Agency to highlight
the role and contribution of social science
in environmental decision making.
In short, considerable progress has been made on a
broad front in carrying out the Strategic Plan of the Board.
This progress is even more evident in the details of activities
of the individual Committees, as described below. At the
same time, there is still considerable work to be done in
achieving the vision formulated by the Board in FY 1998.
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities
The subsections below contain highlights of the
activities of each of the SAB Committees, as well as a listing
of the Members for each of the Committees for FY 1999.
Clearly, not all of the activities of the Committees can be
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 22
Annual Report
captured in this way, but the descriptions will give the
reader a broad view of what has been going on,
including basic statistical information about the number
of meetings and reports for each group.
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC)
EC Members
Joan Daisey, Chair
Henry Anderson
Stephen Brown
Richard Bull
Maureen Cropper •
Hilary Inyang .
Morton Lippmann
Alan Maki
Joe Mauderly
LIAISON
Costel Denson, BOSC Chair
Gene McConnell, SAP Chair
Routt Reigert, CHPAC Chair
Genevieve Matanoski,
Past Chair
M. Granger Morgan
W. Randall Seeker
Ellen Silbergeld
Robert Stavins
Mark Utell
Terry Young
The Executive Committee acted on its own
recommendation at the November 1997 Strategic Planning
Retreat that more SAB activities should involve members
from different SAB Committees. As a result, over the
course of the year eight different EC subcommittees
formed/met to address cross-cutting issues. Three of them
functioned as joint committees of the SAB and the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP):
a) Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines Subcommittee
Co-Chairs: Dr. Mark Utell, EHC Chair
Dr. Gene McConnell, SAP Chair
DFO: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
b)Data from the Testing of Human Subjects
Subcommittee
Co-Chairs: Dr. Mark Utell, EHC Chair
Dr. Gene McConnell, SAP Chair
DFO: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
c) Endocrine Disrupters Subcommittee
Co-Chairs: Dr. Joan Daisey, EC Chair
Dr. Gene McConnell, SAP Chair
DFO: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
d)IRP Peer Review Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. M. Granger Morgan
DFO: Dr.JohnR.Fowlein
e) Models Subcommittee
.-- - Chair: Dr.IshwarMurarka-
DFO:
f) Scientific and
Subcommittee
Chair:
DFO:
Dr. John R. Fowle III
Technological Achievement Awards
Dr. C. Herb Ward
Mr.A.RobertFlaak
g) Secondary Data Use Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. Morton Lippmann
DFO: Dr. Anne Barton
h) Water Ingestion Estimates Subcommittee
Co-Chairs: Dr. Henry Anderson, IHEC Chair
Dr. Richard Bull, DWC Chair
DFO: Mr. Thomas Miller
The EC also made greater use of publicly accessible
conference call meetings in FY 1999 in order to conserve
resources, including wear-and-tear on members, and produce its
reports more quickly.
Face-to-Face Mtgs.
EC 3
EC Subcommittees 9
12
TOTAL: 19
Conf. Call Mtgs.
6
I
7
In addition to the public meetings and their associated
reports, the EC remained active in working on the Integrated
Risk Project, the results of which are featured elsewhere in this
report.
In carrying out its work for the FY 1999, the EC and its
Subcommittees used 45 .SAB Members, 62 Consultants, and six
Federal Experts.
In FY 1999, the EC and its Subcommittees produced
six reports and three Advisories and conducted one consultation:
REPORTS
a) Review of the Agency's Data Suitability
Assessment Procedures
EPA-SAB-EC-99-010
b) Review of the D-CORMIX Model
EPA-SAB-EC-99-011
c) Review of the EPA's Proposed Environmental
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
EPA-SAB-EC-99-013
d) Review of Revised Sections of the Proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
EPA-SAB-EC-99-015
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 23
e) Recommendations on the 1998 STAA
Nominations
EPA-SAB-EC-99-017
f) Review of the SAB Report "Integrated
Environmental Decision-Making in the
Twenty-First Century
EPA-SAB-EC-99-018
ADVISORIES
a) Advisory on TREVLFaTE Module of the Total
Risk Integrated Methodology (TRIM)
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-003
b) Advisory on the Charter for the Council on
Regulatory Environmental Monitoring
(CREM)
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-009
c) Advisory on 'White Paper on the Nature and
Scope of Issues on Adoption of Model Use
Acceptability Criteria1
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-011
CONSULTATION
a) Consultation on plans for developing an
Agency-wide science strategy
EPA-SAB-EC-CON-99-008
4.2.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (COUNCIL)
COUNCIL Members
Maureen Cropper, Chair
Gardner Brown
A. Myrick Freeman
Don Fullerton
Lawrence Goulder
Jane Hall
Lester Lave
Charles Kolstad
Paul Lioy
Paulette Middleton
The Council has its origin in the requirements of
Section 812 of the Clean Act Amendments of 1990. That
section mandated that a Council be established to provide
independent advice on technical and economic aspects of
analyses and reports that the Agency prepares concerning
the impacts of the Clean Air Act on the public health,
economy, and the environment of the United States.
The Agency is currently developing the first
prospective analysis, which projects the costs and benefits
of implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
over the period 1990-2010. This study is due to Congress by
August30,1999. It will be the first of many prospective studies,
which are required by law to be submitted to Congress every two
years.
The Council has two standing subcommittees: the Air
Quality Modeling Subcommittee (AQMS), which reviews air
quality models and emissions estimates; and the Health and
Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES), which reviews health
and ecological issues associated with the Clean Air Act
Amendments.
During FY 1999, the Council and its subcommittees
conducted four meetings and two teleconferences. The Council
drafted a Letter Advisory reviewing the draft Prospective Study
and submitted three Advisories from its subcommittees to the
Administrator.
The Committee used thirteen consultants in FY 1999.
The Committee issued three advisories in F Y 1999.
ADVISORIES:
a) CAAA (1990) Section 812 Prospective
Study; Health & Ecological Effects Initial
Studies,
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-005
b) The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
Section 812 Prospective Study of Costs and
Benefits (1999): Advisory by the Health and
Ecological Effects Subcommittee on Initial
Assessments of Health and Ecological
Effects; Parti, and
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-012
c) The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
Section 812 Prospective Study of Costs and
Benefits (1999): Advisory by the Air Quality
Models Subcommittee on Modeling and
Emissions.
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-013
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC)
CASAC Members
Joe Mauderly, Chair
John Elston
Philip Hopke
Eva Pell
Arthur Upton
Sverre Vedal
Warren White
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 24
Annual Report
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) held four meetings (including one
teleconference) during FY 1999. Two meetings were
conducted by full CASAC Panels. The first took place in
November 1998 and coveredapeer review ofthe Agency's
draft Ozone Research Needs document, and a consultation
on the Carbon Monoxide Staff Paper schedule. The second
full meeting took place in June 1999 and focused on a peer
review ofthe Carbon Monoxide Criteria Document, a peer
review of the draft Particulate Matter Research Strategy,
and a consultation on the revised draft Diesel Health
Assessment.
A third meeting was conducted in November
1998 by the CASAC Technical Subcommittee for Fine
Particle Monitoring. This subcommittee is working with
the Agency and the National Academy of Sciences on
review of components of the Agency's fine particle
monitoring program. This Subcommittee also held a
teleconference in July 1999 to obtain updates on the
Agency's program.
The Committee used thirteen consultants during
FY1999.
The Committee issued one full report, three letter
reports, one advisory and four consultations in FY 1999:
FULL REPORT:
a) CASAC Review of the draft Diesel Health
Assessment Document
EPA-SAB-CASAC-99-001
LETTER REPORT: '
a) Review of the Ozone Research Needs
Document
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-001
b) CAS AC Review of the Draft Document Air
Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-003
c) CASAC Review of the Draft Document
Airborne Particulate Matter: Research
Strategy
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-004
ADVISORY:
a) CASAC Advisory on the PM2.5 Monitoring
Program
EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-99-002
CONSULTATIONS:
a) Notification of a Consultation on the Development
Schedule for the Carbon Monoxide Staff Paper
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-001
b) Notification of a Consultation on the Diesel Health
Assessment
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-005
c) Notification of a Consultation on the Estimation of
Carbon Monoxide Exposures and Associated
Carboxyhemoglobin Levels in Denver Residents
using pNEM/CO
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-006
d) Notification of a Consultation on the PM 2.5
Chemical Speciation Network and Supersites
Plans
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-007
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
DWC Members
Richard Bull, Chair
David Baker
Mary Davis
Yvonne Dragan
John Evans
Anna Fan-Cheuk
L.D. McMullen
Christine Moe
Charles O'Melia
Gary Toranzos
Rhodes Trussed
Marylynn Yates
The Committee held two meetings during FY 1999,
one of which was scheduled so as to permit members to attend
the EPA Office ofResearch and Development's " 1998 Drinking
Water Progress Review Workshop forthe 1995/1998 Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) Grants," giving the DWC members an
in depth understanding of this important component of the
overall EPA drinking water research program.
1999.
The Committee used seven consultants during FY
- The Committee issued one report during FY 1999:
FULL REPORT:
a) An SAB Report on the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's Comparative Risk
Framework Methodology,
EPA-SAB-DWC-99-016
Report ofthe Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 25
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC)
EPEC Members
Dr. Terry Young, Chair
Miguel Acevedo
William J. Adams
Lisa Alvarez-Cohen
Steven Bartell
Kenneth Cummins
Mark Harwell
Carol Johnston
Paul Montagna
Charles Pittinger
Leslie Real
Frieda Taub
for deriving aquatic life criteria to protect aquatic organisms
from metals toxicity and for deriving sediment quality guidelines
to protect benthic organisms from metals toxicity. The
Committee's report on the integrated approach to metals will be
released in F Y 2000. A third topic at the meeting was discussion
of the Agency's proposed approach to developing consistent
Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSL) for protection of
terrestrial organisms, including wildlife, at Superfund sites. The
Committee plans to produce an advisory on the Eco-SSL process
early in FY 2000.
The committee used three consultants in FY 1999.
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC) is the primary committee responsible for reviews
and advice relating to ecological issues, including
environmental monitoring and assessment, ecological risk
assessment, and ecological criteria. Traditionally, the
Committee has sought to elevate the Agency's attention to
non-chemical stressors (e.g., habitat issues, physical
alterations of ecosystems, and introduced species) and to
raise the visibility of ecological risks in an Agency often
preoccupied with human health concerns.
EPEC held three meetings in FY 1999. In October
1998, the Committee reviewed the Office ofWater's Index
of Watershed Indicators (IWI), a GIS-based set of
indicators intended to provide information on the health and
vulnerability of the nation's watersheds. IWI is a high
priority information initiative in OW featured on the
office's much-visited web site. In a previous advisory, the
Committee had recommended that additional indicators be
included in the IWI to better represent the health of
terrestrial components of watersheds. In this second review
of the IWI, the Committee evaluated progress to date, and
provided additional recommendations for improving the
information that is conveyed by the integrated index. The
Committee applauded early Agency efforts on the IWI, but
recommended strengthening the scientific basis of IWI by
developing a conceptual model, re-examining the
integration algorithm, and adding additional indicators.
In January 1999, the Ecological Risk
Subcommittee met to brief the Agency's Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO) on the ecological risk ranking
procedure developed by the ERS as part-of the SAB's
Integrated RiskProject, and to discuss possible applications
of the method to the ranking of GPRA subobjectives. The
meeting was a followup to an earlier discussion held by the
Strategic Ranking Criteria Subcommittee (an ad hoc
subcommittee of the Executive Committee) on the
application of IRP results to the OCFO task of ranking
subobjectives.
The Committee met again in April 1999 to review
proposals from the Office of Water to revise the procedures
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
(EEAC)
EEAC Members
Robert Stavins, Chair
Nancy Bockstael
Dallas Burtraw
Trudy Cameron
Maureen Cropper
Herman Daly
Myrick Freeman
Dale Jorgenson
Paul Joskow
Catherine Kling
Jason Shogren
Hilary Sigman
In FY 1999, the Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC) met three times (twice in face-to-face
meetings and one time via telephone conference call). Its
Commentary (see below) resulted in Agency support for an
important cross-Governmentdata collection exercise. Its Report
(see below) addressed a seminal Agency guidance document on
economic analysis.
During its second meeting, the Committee also had a
guest speaker, Dr. Mark Mazur, Chief Economist and Advisor
to the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy. This
continued the Committee's custom of inviting and interacting
with notable persons in the field of environmental economics
and public policy development.
The Committee used one consultant during F Y1999.
The Committee issued one report and one
commentary during FY 1999:
FULL REPORT:
a) An SAB Report on the EPA Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses,
EPA-SAB-EEAC-99-020
COMMENTARY:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 26
Annual Report
a) A SAB Commentary on the Importance
of Reinstating the Pollution Abatement
and Control Expenditures (PACE)
Survey
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-99-001
4.2.7 Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
EEC Members
Hilary Inyang, Chair
Ed Berkey
Calvin Chien
Terry Foecke
Nina French
Domenico Grasso
JoAnn Lighty
John Maney
Michael McFarland
Lynne Presto
The EEC and two subcommittees held four face-
to-face meetings and one conference call in FY 1999. The
Committee addressed a range of issues including: review of
Research Plans for Wet Weather Flows and Urban
Infrastructure, the advantages and disadvantages of various
approaches for the development of cleanup goals at waste
sites, attributes of successful technical reviews, waste
leachability, environmental impacts of natural hazards,
measures of environmental technology performance, the
need for research on risk reduction options for participate
matter 2.5(PM25), overcoming barriers to waste utilization,
and uses of social science to address barriers to
implementation of pollution prevention. Six of these
activities are self-initiated and were developed in response
to the Executive Committee's Strategic Retreat.
During FY 1999, the EEC used fourteen
consultants.
The EEC issued one full report, one letter report,
three commentaries and one consultation during the year:
FULL REPORT:
a) Review of 1996 Risk Management Plan for
Wet Weather Flows and the 1997 Urban
Infrastructure Research Plan
EPA-SAB-EEC-99-019
LETTER REPORT:
a) Science Advisory Board Review of the
Implementation of the Agency-Wide Quality
System
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-99-002
COMMENTARIES:
a) Commentary on Waste Leachability: The Need for
Review of Current Agency Procedures
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-002
b) Commentary on the Environmental Impacts of
Natural Hazards: The Need for Agency Action
EPA-SAB-EEC-99-COM-003
c) Commentary on the Need for Research on Risk
Reduction Options for Particulate Matter 2.5
EPA-SAB-EEC-99-COM-004
CONSULTATION:
a) Notification of a Consultation on the Advantages
and Disadvantages of Average or "Not to Exceed"
Concentrations in the Development of Cleanup
Goals at Waste Sites
EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-99-003
4.2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
EHC Members
Mark Utell, Chair
Cynthia Bearer
John Douli
David Hoel
Grace LeMasters
Abby Li
Michele Medinsky
Fredrica Perera
Roy Shore
Lauren Zeise
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) shares
responsibilities for health effects reviews with several
committees of the Board (DWC, fflEC, RAC, and CASAC).
The principal focus for EHC has been issues related to
development and use of guidelines for health risk assessments.
The EHC has continued to maintain a close relationship with the
other SAB health-related Committees, and with the Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) of the Office of Pesticides, often holding
joint meetings and sharing members for reviews.
" The EHC, per se, did not meet during FY 1999.
However, the Chair, and many of the Members were involved in
several reviews as part of two Subcommittee of the Executive
Committee. Eight of the ten EHC Members (including the
Chair) participated in the Cancer Guidelines Review
Subcommittee Committee meeting on January 20-21,1999. On
July 27-28,1999, the Chair and three Members participated in a
meeting of the Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines Review
Subcommittee on the application of the risk assessment
guidelines to children. Details on both of these meetings are
provided in the discussion of Executive Committee activities.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 27
The EHC did not use any consultants in FY 1999.
The EHC issued four reports in FY 1999:
FULL REPORTS:
a) An SAB Report: Review of the RfC
Methods Case Studies
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-002
b) An SAB Report: Review of the Health Risk
Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-003
c) An SAB Report: Technical Review of the
proposed TSCA Section 403 Regulation
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-004
d) An SAB Report: Development of the Acute
Reference Exposure
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-005
4.2.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC)
IHEC Members
Henry Anderson, Chair
Annette Guiseppi-Elie
Robert Harley
MichaelJayjock
Lovell Jones
Michael Lebowitz
Kai-Shan Liu
Thomas Mckone
Jerome Nriagu
Barbara Petersen
David Wallinga
Charles Weschler
The IHEC addresses many of the exposure
assessment issues that come before the Board.
The IHEC used one consultant in FY 1999.
The Committee met once (March 9-10, 1999)
during FY 1999.
The IHEC issued four reports in FY 1999:
FULL REPORT:
a) An SAB Report: Review of
Disproportionate Impact Methodologies
EPA-SAB-IHEC-99-007 .
ADVISORIES:
a) An SAB Advisory: The National Human
Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Pilot
Studies
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-004
b) An SAB Report: Advisory on Energy Cost and
Indoor Air Quality Performance of Ventilation
Systems and Controls
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-007
c) An SAB Report: Advisory on The Building
Assessment Survey Evaluation (BASE) Study
Proposed Data Analyses
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-008
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
RAC Members
Stephen Brown, Chair
William Bair
Vickie Bier
Thomas Gesell
Donald Langmuir
Jill Llpoti
Janet Johnson
Ellen Mangione
John Poston
Genevieve Roessler
In FY 1999, the RAC and its subcommittees held three
public meetings. One was a public teleconference. The
committee addressed four major topics: a) review of uncertainty
in radiogenic cancer risk, b) review of Federal Guidance Report
Number 13 - Part 1, which provides for estimation of health
risks to the public from low-level environmental exposure to
radionuclides, c) an advisory on modeling of radionuclide
releases from disposal of low activity mixed waste, and d) an
advisory on a proposed EPA methodology for assessing risks
from indoor radon based on BEIR VI: white paper, as well as
consultations on e) radon risk and f) Technologically Enhanced
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM).
In FY 1999, RAC used eight consultants, one
representative, and three members as liaisons from two other
standing committees.
The RAC issued two reports, two advisories, and two
notification of consultations:
REPORTS;
a) An SAB Report: Review of the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air October, 1997 Draft
Document 'Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 28
Annual Report
Draft Addendum: Uncertainty Analysis,
October, 1977'
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-008
b) An SAB Report: Review of the Health Risks
from Low-Level Exposure to Radionuclides,
Federal Guidance Report No. 13 - Part 1,
Interim Version (FOR 13-Part 1)
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-009
ADVISORIES:
a) Advisory on Modeling ofRadionuclide
Releases from Disposal of Low Activity
Mixed Waste (LAMW)
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-99-006
b) Advisory on Proposed EPA Methodology
for Assessing Risks from Indoor Radon
(Based on BEIR VI: White Paper)
EPA-S AB-RAC-ADV-99-010
CONSULTATIONS:
a) Notification of a Consultation on
Approaches to Calculating Radon Risks
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-99-002, and
b) -Notification of a Consultation on
Technologically Enhanced Naturally-
Occurring Radioactive Materials
(TENORM)
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-99-004
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC)
RSAC Members
W. Randall Seeker, Chair
William Adams
Stephen Brown
Theodora Colburn
Philip Hopke
AlanMaki
Genevieve Matanoski
Paulette Middleton
Maria Morandl
Ishwar Murarka
William Smith
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC) held two meetings during FY1999. TheMarchS-
4,1999 meeting was the Committee's annual review of the
Presidential Budget Request for ORD. As a result of last
year's discussions between the RSAC Chair, the Deputy
Administrator and other senior EPA management,
RSAC's review of the budget was expanded to include the
entire Science and Technology (S&T) budget at EPA. The
Committee will continue to offer guidance and advice on the
overall Agency strategic research planning efforts as well as its
overall research budget. As is customary, the RSAC Chair
testified at the House of Representatives budget hearings
following the budget review.
The second meeting was held September 23-24 to be
briefed on the planning for the EPA's FY 2001 Science &
Technology Budget submission and on the Agency's Science
Strategic Plan. The main focus of the meeting was to conduct
a peer review of the Agency's peer review process. Planning of
a joint RSAC/ORD Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
review of the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Program
was also discussed.
The Committee used no consultants in FY 1999.
The Committee issued one report during FY 1999:
a) An SAB Report: Review of the FY 2000
Presidential Science and Technology Budget
Request for the Environmental Protection Agency
EPA-SAB-RSAC-99-012
4.3 Examples of Transitions
4.3.1 Integrated Risk Project (IRP): The SAB's Call for
a New View of Environmental Protection
In FY 1999 the SAB all but completed work on the
longest, most complex, and more far-ranging project it has ever
undertaken. Originally conceived as an updating of "Reducing
Risk", its 1990 report that gave increased credibility to the
concept of comparative risk, the IRP evolved into a broad
examination of the way in which environmental protection
decisions are made. In so doing, the Board consciously moved
beyond the bound of traditional "science" and explored new
territory, using new people and new structures and generating
new results.
In early 1996, in response to a request from Deputy
Administrator Fred Hansen and the Senate Appropriations
Committee, the SAB embarked on a journey to investigate the
various components of regulatory decision-making, including
health and ecological risks, cost/benefit analysis, risk reduction
strategies, incorporation of public values, and evaluation of
regulatory efforts. To address this multi-faceted problem, that
crossed beyond the risk assessment/risk management boundary
that has guided their work in the past, the Board engaged the
resources of more than 50 experts—from the traditional sciences
and economics and from theorists and ethicists. The effort was
divided into five different Subcommittees, led by a steering
committee, whose Chair was Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair of
the SAB Executive Committee. The results of their work will be
in the form of a succinct, "punchy" overview document, a series
of working chapters/papers, and at least one separate report.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 29
4.3.2 The New Role of Social Scientists and SAB's
Activity to Welcome their Participation
At its November 1997 Strategic Planning Retreat,
the Executive Committee committed the Board to become
more involved with the disciplines of the non-economic
social sciences. As a result a conscious effort has been
made to involve more social scientists as Consultants in
SAB reviews that have aspects that lend themselves to this
type of technical analysis.
In FY 1999, the Board utilized seven
non-economic social scientists on three different Panels.
Four ethics-oriented social scientists participate on the Data
from the Testing of Human Subjects Panel and two non-
economic social scientist were participants on the IRP Peer
Review Panel. In addition, one EEC Panel had a social
scientist specializing on interaction in organizations.
Two particular efforts stand out as examples of
how and where social sciences contributed to the work of
the Board. First, the Values Subcommittee of the IRP
involved social scientists in fields ranging from
communications to ethics in considering how ecological
effects should be evaluated. Second, the Data from the
Testing of Human Subjects Subcommittee (DTHSS)
included bioethicists in their deliberations.
The OSAB also initiated the "SAB Social Science
Seminar Series", with the goal of bringing accomplished
social scientists to the Agency to present the results of their
work that illustrates how the social sciences can impact the
kind of problems faced by the Agency. The series also uses
Agency managers as "responders" to the presentations as a
means of engaging the operational arm of the Agency in
confronting how social sciences can/will help the
organization carry out its mission. Dr. Gary Machlis of
Idaho State University was the first invited speaker. He
discussed the impact of social sciences on the National Park
Service.
The Staff Office is exploring the possibility of
working with a social scientist intern in the Agency to
facilitate some of these new activities and to consider
additional ways in which the Board can capitalize on the
increasing interaction with social scientists and the staff has
recommended that a social scientist be appointed to the
Executive Committee in FY 2000.
4.3.3 New Quarters for the SAB Staff Office
In FY 1999, the SAB Staff office moved from
Waterside Mall in SW Washington to the Ariel Rios
Building in NW Washington. The building is a complete
refurbishing of a historical structure that originally housed the
U.S. Post Office. Located on the sixth of seven floors, the new
quarters are well-adapted to service the changing needs of the
office. Among the features that hold promise for improving
what we do and how we do it are the following:
a) Fresh, pleasant, open office spaces
b) A building of considerable architectural interest
c) "Ergonomically correct" furniture
d) Increased number and size of meeting rooms
e) Co-location of computer support
f) "Next-door-neighbor" location to the group that
coordinates the work of all FACA Committees.
g) An interesting and inviting neighborhood—We'd
love to show you around!
4.3.4 Changes in Staffing Structure to Accommodate
New Cross-Committee Efforts
In FY 1999 the staff structure of the DFOs in the Office
was changed to accommodate the Board's new thrusts. The
duties of two DFOs were shifted to emphasize "special projects"
~ activities that operate outside of the structure of the ten formal,
standing committees of the Board. We now have an increased
capability to respond to the Executive Committee's decision to
pursue more activities that involve broader, more
inter-disciplinary, and call for more cross-Committee
participation.
4.3.5 New Relations with Other Advisory Committees
In FY 1999, the SAB was actively involved with the
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) in
developing suggestions for the Administrator on "reinventing
advice at EPA". The number of Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) committees and their combined expenses have risen
remarkably over the past 15 years. More than $ 1OM is currently
expended on more than two dozen FACA committees. OCEM,
as the parent organization for Committee Management of all
FACA groups, is charged with reviewing and improving the
entire FACA process. Building on the SAB experience and
resulting ideas, OCEM is developing proposals to take a more
strategic approach to obtaining and using outside advice at EPA.
The result should be closer cooperation between FACAs,
together with enhanced effectiveness and efficiency. A report,
with associated proposals, will go to the Administrator in FY
2000.
The SAB reached across the Atlantic to involve the
Vice President of the Health Council of The Netherlands (an
advisory group akin to the SAB) in a review on data obtained
from the testing of human subjects. This action served to bring
a European's expertise and perspective expertise to bear on the
new type of science/trans-science problems that are increasingly
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 30
Annual Report
involving the SAB. The activity provided an opportunity
for cross-pollination of ideas on substance and process.
The Board continued its productive relationships
with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP
Chair was an active presence at EC meetings, and a number
of reviews were conducted utilizing members from both
SAB and SAP. Similarly, the ORD Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) continued its fruitful relationship with
the Board, with BOSC Chair participation in EC meetings
and the initiation of a joint review of the ORD Science To
Achieve Results (STAR) program that will be completed in
FY2000.
The Chair of the Children's Health Protection
Advisory Committee (CHPAC) accepted an invitation to sit
with the SAB EC in the same capacity as the chairs of SAP
and BOSC.
An FY1999 publication by the Canadian Council
of Science and Technology Advisors ["Science Advice for
Government Effectiveness (SAGE)"] will be pursued more
fully in FY 2000 as the SAB pursues new interactions with
a wider group of FACA committees inside and outside the
Agency.
4.4 Staff Office Operations
The Staff Office continues to find ways to improve
its services in a climate of constrained resources.
Communication is a continuing point of emphasis: with
SAB Members/Consultants, with the Agency, and with the
public. FY 1999 marked the fourth year of the primarily
electronic distribution of the monthly SAB newsletter,
"HAPPENINGS at the Science Advisory Board". The
newsletter has transitioned from snail-mail to e-mail to a
website version that is easily accessible to everyone via the
SAB's Website.
During FY 1999 the
(www.epa.gov/sab) was enhanced.
view/download:
SAB Website
Net surfers can
a) SAB reports since FY 1994
b) The SAB calendar for the next two months
c) The projected SAB calendar for the next six
months
d) Agendas of upcoming meetings, together
with the draft reports that will be discussed
at the meetings
e) Minutes of recent meetings
f) Project requests that have been received from the
Agency
g) Federal Register notices of SAB activities
h) Quarterly summaries of activities of each of the
SAB Committees
i) "Bon Mots" from recent editions of
HAPPENINGS.
The connection to the Web has dramatically affected
the way business is done in the Office. Rather than
photocopying and mailing requested copies of SAB
reports—which continue to be done, as needed—the Staff can
simply refer people to the Web. As the public becomes more
aware of the presence, utility, and convenience of the Website,
the number of incoming requests will decrease, at the same time
that the number of individuals serviced—more rapidly than was
previously possible—will increase.
InthefallofFY 1999, the entire Staff went on a Retreat
under the supervision of personnel development experts from
the Agency's Office of Human Resources and Organizational
Services. The two-day event resulted in the celebration of a
number of issues and the airing of a number of others. The intent
is to followup this meeting with a one-day session this fall.
As noted above, in FY 1999 the SAB Staff Office
moved to a new location in the Ariel Rios Building, located at
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. For the first time in 20 years the
entire office, including the Staff Director, are co-located in a
pleasant, productive, attractively-appointed office overlooking
a quiet courtyard in the midst of a bustling, comparatively
upscale neighborhood. Combined with the new computer
equipment that has now arrived, FY 2000 promises to be a very
productive year.
4.5 SAB Staff in Transition
Ms. Anne Barton, who served for three years as
Special'Assistant to the Staff Director, retired from Federal
service to pursue other of her many interests/Even in her
absence, her contributions to the Strategic Planning Retreat (FY
1998) and her DFOing of EC Subcommittees continue to
illuminate our way.
Ms. Roslvn Edson. who served effectively as the DFO
for the EHC and IHEC during her two years with us, has taken a
position in the EPA Office of Civil Rights, where she brings her
training as an occupational health scientist to bear on a whole
range of additional problems. We are both amazed and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 31
appreciative ofher contributions to our office and the Board
during her sojourn with us.
Mr. Jason Hotten completed his work with us as
a student intern. He is now completing his degree in
English at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore
campus.
Ms. Nichole Hinds joined the office as a student
intern, while she works on her Bachelor of Science degree
in Environmental Engineering at the University of
Maryland.
Ms. Karen Martin, who came to us as part of the
prestigious EPA Internship Program, completed a
successful rotational assignment to Region IV, Atlanta,
with the Planning and Analysis Branch.
Mr. Tom Miller and Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
received promotions to the OS-15 level in recognition of
their work with individual Committees and in Special
Projects; e.g., the Integrated risk Project (IRP).
Dr. Angela Nugent joined the Staff on an
extended detail to act as DFO for the Council and carry out
special assignments for the Staff Director. In the latter
category, she has been active in pressing forward with the
Board's exploration of the use of science in Agency's "new
approaches" to environmental decision-making and in
initiating the SAB Social Science Seminar Series. In
addition, she has been instrumental in helping the office
design and use new computer techniques.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 32
Annual Report
5.0 PROJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
At the end of FY 1999, the SAB had received
roughly 70 requests for projects for the millennial fiscal year.
While some of them were carry-overs from the previous fiscal
year, the majority of them related to new projects. In addition
to the formal Agency requests, the SAB Committees
themselves have ideas about some special projects that they
would like to pursue. (The Executive Committee has given
guidance that a Committee should devote about 20% of its
effort to these "self-initiated" projects.) The net result is that
once again the number of requests will exceed the Board's
capacity to respond to them all. However, careful
consideration of EPA Goals and application of the Board's
criteria, should lead to a nourishing selection.
Among the projects that are strong candidates for
review by the SAB in FY 2000 are the following:
a) Particulate Matter Criteria Document and
related work
b) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) Re-assessment
c) Radon Risk Assessment
d) Cancer Risk Assessment for Chloroform
e) Costs and Benefits of the Clean Air Act
Amendments
f) EcoRisk Report Card
g) Economics Analysis and Children
h) Multi-Agency Laboratory Analytical
Protocols (MARLAP) Manual
i) Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
j) Data from the Testing of Human Subjects
Among the special projects that may well be pursued
include the following:
a) Workshops on the Role of Science in the
Agency's New Approaches to Environmental
Protection
b) Assistance in Implementing the Results of the
Integrated Risk Project
In addition to the meat-and-potatoes activities of the
Board, FY 2000 promises additional change, such as the
following:
1. Increased interaction with other advisory
groups.
Having taken some initial steps in working with
advisory groups in the Netherlands and Canada, the Board is
likely to seek additional means of broadening its experience
base. Also, a more structured system has evolved to help
guide the interaction between SAB and SAP that should make
that relationship more productive. Further, a closer working
relationship with the office that coordinates all FACA
activities in the EPA (the Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management) holds the promise of the
advisory community's making a bigger, more coordinated
impact on the Agency.
2. A new Web-based system
We are just beginning to use a new system that
allows individual members to contribute more effectively to
the preparation of SAB reports, during the drafting process.
Such a system holds the promise of shortening the length of
time it takes for the Board to complete its report and providing
greater access and "buy in" by the members during the
drafting process.
3. Utilization of new quarters
The new facilities should enhance our operations.
In addition to the positive benefits derived from nicer
surroundings, the increased availability of conference room
space should result in less staff and Member/Consultant time
and hassle in setting up meetings and getting to them.
Increased computer capability should also increase our
effectiveness.
We look forward to F Y 2000 with enthusiasm and
anticipation that the new wineskins will be appropriate for the
Agency's new wine and new millennium.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT paseA-1
APPENDIX A
CHARTERS
A1. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseA-2 ^ ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX A1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This Charter is reissued to renew the Science Advisory Board in accordance
with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9(c). The former Science
Advisory Board, administratively established by the Administrator of EPA on January 11,1974, was terminated in 1978
when the Congress created the statutorily mandated Science Advisory Board by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA) of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 4365. The Science Advisory
Board charter was renewed October 31,1979; November 19,1981; November 3,1983; October 25, 1985; November
6,1987; November 8, 1989, November 8,1991, November 8, 1993, and November 8, 1995.
2. SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The activities of the Board will include analyzing problems, conducting meetings,
reviewing the technical basis of Agency positions, presenting findings, making recommendations, and other activities
necessary for the attainment of the Board's objectives. Ad hoc panels may be established to carry out these special
activities utilizing consultants (i.e., technical experts) who are not members of the Board.
3. OBJECTIVES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The objective of the Board is to provide independent advice
and peer review to EPA's Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental problems and issues.
While the Board reports to the Administrator, it may also be requested to provide advice to U. S. Senate Committees
and Subcommittees and U.S. House Committees and Subcommittees, as appropriate. The Board will review scientific
issues, provide independent scientific and technical advice on EPA's major programs, and perform special assignments
as requested by Agency officials and as required by the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1978, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Responsibilities include the following:
Reviewing and advising on the adequacy and scientific basis of any proposed criteria document, standard,
limitation, or regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or any other authority of the Administrator;
Reviewing and advising on the scientific and technical adequacy of Agency
programs, guidelines, documents, methodologies, protocols, and tests;
Recommending, as appropriate, new or revised scientific criteria or standards for protection of human health
and the environment;
Through the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis, providing the technical review and advice required under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 and 1990;
Reviewing and advising on new information needs and the quality of Agency plans and programs for research,
development and demonstration;
Advising on the relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic pollution sources;
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-3
As appropriate, consulting and coordinating with the Scientific Advisory Panel established by the
Administrator pursuant to section 21 (b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended; and
Consulting and coordinating with other Federal advisory groups, as appropriate, to conduct the business of the
Board.
4. COMPOSITION. The Board will consist of a body of independent scientists, engineers, and economists of
sufficient number and diversity to provide the range of expertise required to assess the scientific and technical aspects
of environmental issues. The Board will be organized into an executive committee and several specialized committees,
all members of which shall be drawn from the Board.
The Board is authorized to constitute such specialized committees and subcommittees as the Administrator and
the Board find necessary to carry out its responsibilities. The Administrator will review the need for such specialized
committees and subcommittees at least once a year to decide which should be continued. These committees and panels
will report through the Executive Committee.
The Administrator also shall appoint a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Board to provide the
scientific review and advice required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990. The Administrator also
shall appoint an Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis of the Board to provide the scientific review and
advice required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990. These groups, established by separate charters,
will be an integral part of the Board, and their members will also be members of the Science Advisory Board.
5. MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS. The Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Science
Advisory Board for two year terms and appoints from the membership a Chair of the Board. The Chair of the Board
serves as Chair of the Executive Committee. Chairs of standing committees or ad hoc specialized subcommittees serve
as members of the Executive Committee during the life of the specialized subcommittee. Each member of the Board
shall be qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters
referred to the Board. Most members will serve as special Government employees.
There will be approximately 50-60 meetings of the specialized committees per year.
Support for the Board's activities will be provided by the Office of the Administrator, EPA. The estimated total
annual operating cost will be approximately $ 1,63 8,500 and the estimated Federal permanent Staff support will be 15.9
work years.
6. DURATION. The Board shall be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective until November
8,1999, at which time the Board charter may be renewed for another two-year period.
November 3. 1997
Agency Approval Date
November?. 1997
Date Filed with Congress
g:\user\sab\chartes\sabch97.doc
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseA-4 : i ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX A2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Of the Science Advisory Board
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
2. Authority:
This charter renews the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) in accordance with the provisions
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. § 9 (c). CASAC is in the public interest and supports
EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities. CASAC was specifically directed by law on August 7,1977 under
§ 109 of the Clean Air Act, as amended [ACT], 42 U.S.C. 7409), and the charter was renewed on August 6,1979; July
22,1981; August 1,1983; July 23,1985; Augusts, 1987; August?, 1989; August 7,1991; September 30,1993, August
7,1995, and August 7,1997.
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
CASAC will provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues
related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, source of air pollution, and the strategies
to attain and maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
The major objectives are to:
a. Not later than January 1,1980, and at five year intervals thereafter, complete a review of the criteria
published under § 108 of the Clean Air Act and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and
recommend to the Administrator any new national ambient air quality standards or revision of existing criteria and
standards as may be appropriate
b. Advise the Administrator of areas where additional knowledge is required concerning the adequacy
and basis of existing, new, or revised national ambient air quality standards
c. Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information
d. Advise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well
as anthropogenic activity
i
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-5
e. Advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects
which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national ambient air quality standards
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of CASAC are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will submit advice and recommendations and report to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this support will be provided
by the Science Advisory Board, Office of the Administrator.
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the CASAC is $260,500 which includes 1.4 work-years of support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The committee expects to meet approximately three (3) to six (6) times a year. Meetings may occur
approximately once every two (2) to four (4) months or as needed and approved by the Designated Federal Officer
(DFO). EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses when determined necessary and appropriate. A full-time or
permanent part-time employee of EPA will be appointed as the DFO. The DFO or a designee will be present at all
meetings and each meeting will be conducted in accordance with an agenda approved in advance by the DFO. The DFO
is authorized to adjourn any meeting when he or she determines it in the public interest to do so. Among other things,
FACA requires open meetings and an opportunity for interested persons to file comments before or after such meetings,
or to make statements to the extent that time permits.
9. Duration and Termination;
CASAC will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective until
August 7,2001, at which time it may be renewed for another two-year period.
10. Member Composition:
CASAC will be composed of seven (7) members. The Administrator will appoint a Chairperson and six
members including at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person
representing State air pollution control agencies. Members shall be persons who have demonstrated high levels of
competence, knowledge, and expertise in the scientific/technical fields relevant to air pollution and air quality issues.
Most members will serve as Special Government Employees (SGE).
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form CASAC subcommittees or workgroups for any purpose consistent with this charter. Such
subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the chartered committee. Subcommittees or workgroups
have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered committee nor can they report directly to the Agency.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseA-6 ANNUAL REPORT
July 29. 1999
Agency Approval Date
August 6.1999
Date Filed with Congress
g:\user\sab\charter\casac.099
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT paseA-7
APPENDIX A3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CHARTER
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
(of the Science Advisory Board)
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title);
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
2. Authority;
This charter renews the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council) in accordance with
the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. § 9 (c). The Council is in the public
interest and supports the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in performing its duties and responsibilities. The
Council was specifically directed under § 812 of the Clean Air Act, as amended on November 15, 1990 (42 U.S.C.
74Qletseq.).
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
The Council will provide advice, information and recommendations on technical and economic aspects of
analyses and reports which EPA prepares concerning the impacts of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on the public health,
economy, and environment of the United States.
The major objectives required of the Council by the Clean Air Act Amendments of November 15, 1990
are:
a. Review data to be used or any analysis required under section 812 and make recommendations on
its use.
b. Review the methodology used to analyze such data and make recommendations on the use of such
methodology.
c. Prior to the issuance of a report to Congress required under Section 812, review the findings of
the report and make recommendations concerning the validity and utility of such findings
At EPA's request, the Council will:
d. Review other reports and studies prepared by EPA relating to the benefits and costs of the CAA.
e. Provide advice on areas where additional knowledge is necessary to fully evaluate the impacts of
the CAA and the research efforts necessary to provide such information.
4. Description of Committees Duties;
The duties of the Council are solely advisory in nature.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseA-8 i i ANNUALREPORT
5- Offlcialfs) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will report to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Advice and
recommendations will also be submitted to the Administrator of EPA.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support;
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this support will be
provided by the Science Advisory Board (SAB).
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the Council is $201,200 which includes 0.25 work-years of support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The Council expects to meet approximately two (2) to four (4) times a year. Meetings will likely occur
approximately once every three (3) to six (6) months, or as needed and approved by the Designated Federal Officer
(DFO). EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses when determined necessary and appropriate. A full-time or
permanent part-time EPA employee will be appointed as DFO. The DFO or a designee will be present at all
meetings, and each meeting will be conducted in accordance with an agenda approved in advance by the DFO. The
DFO is authorized to adjourn any meeting when he or she determines it in the public interest to do so. Among other
things, FACA requires open meetings and an opportunity for interested persons to file comments before or after
such meetings, or to make statements to the extent that time permits.
9. Duration and Termination;
The Council will be needed on a continuing basis, and may be renewed upon the expiration of each
successive two year period following the date of enactment of the CAA (as amended on November 15,1990), as
authorized in accordance with § 14 of FACA.
10. Member Composition:
The Council will be composed of at least 9 members. Members will be appointed by the Administrator
after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor. Most members will serve as Special
Government Employees (SGE), subject to conflict-of-interest restrictions. Members will be selected from among,
but are not limited to, recognized experts from the fields of health and environmental effects of air pollution,
economics analysis, environmental sciences.
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form Council subcommittees or workgroups for any purpose consistent with this charter. Such
subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the chartered committee. Subcommittees or
workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered committee nor can they report directly to
the Agency.
December 14.1998
Agency Approval Date
December 17. 1998
Date Filed with Congress
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-1
APPENDIX B
MEMBERSHIP
B1. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
B3. SAB Members for FY 1999
B4. SAB Consultants for FY 1999
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-2 , ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B1
GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE ON THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Background
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the Administrator. In 1978 the SAB received
a Congressional mandate to serve as an independent source of scientific and engineering advice to the EPA
Administrator.
The SAB consists of approximately 100 Members, who are appointed by the Administrator. These members
serve on specific standing committees. The Chairs of the Committees also serve as members of the Executive
Committee, which oversees all of the activities of the Board.
In many of its activities, the members of the Board are supplemented by Consultants, who are appointed by
the SAB Staff Director after conferring with the Chair of the Committee on which the consultant is to serve. Also, on
occasion, Panels will be supplemented by "liaison members" from other governmental agencies. These people are
invited by the Staff Director to participate in an ad hoc manner in order to bring their particular expertise to bear on a
matter before the Board.
Both the Executive Committee and the permanent Committees may choose to conduct issue-specific business
through Subcommittees that are chaired by SAB members. Reports from Subcommittees are reviewed by the respective
permanent Committees. The Executive Committee reviews all reports, independent of their origin, prior to formal
transmission to the Administrator. The sole exceptions are reports from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, which are separately chartered Federal Advisory
Committees operating within the SAB structure.
Criteria for Selection of Members and Consultants
The SAB is chartered as a Federal Advisory Committee, subject to the rales and regulations of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463). The charter provides guidance and restrictions on selection
of SAB members. The four most significant of which are:
a) Members must be qualified by education, training and experience to evaluate scientific and technical
information on matters referred to the Board.
b) The composition of Board committees, subcommittees and panels must be "balanced", representing
a range of legitimate technical opinion on the matter.
c) No member of the Board may be a full-time government employee.
d) Members are subject to conflict-of-interest regulations.
The scientific and technical quality and the credibility of those selected is a paramount consideration.
Secondary factors considered include the geographic, ethnic, gender, and academic/private sector balance of
committees. Other factors that contribute to, but do not determine, the selection include demonstrated ability to work
well in a committee process, write well, and complete assignments punctually.
Nominations for membership/consultantship on the Board are accepted at any time. On a biannual basis, the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-3
SAB Staff Office publishes a notice in the Federal Register formally soliciting the names of candidates for SAB
activities.
Terms of Appointment
Members serve at the pleasure and by appointment of the Administrator. In order to provide suitable terms
of service and to insure the infusion of new talent, the following guidelines are generally followed:
Members are generally appointed in October for two-year terms which may be renewed for two additional
consecutive terms. Chairs of the standing committees are also appointed for two-year terms which may be renewed for
one additional term. If a member is appointed as Chair, this term of service (2-4 years) is added to whatever term of
service he/she may accrue as a member. For example,
Years Followed by years Followed by year Total
as member as Chair as member years
2 0 0 2
2 2or4 Oor2 4-6
4 2 or 4 0 6-8
6 2or4 0 8-10
Reappointment as a member is possible after a two-year hiatus from the SAB, during which time the individual may
be called upon to serve as a consultant for a specific issue.
Consultants are appointed to provide the necessary expertise for specific issues. Their terms of appointment are
for one year, beginning at any time, and are renewable annually. Their formal appointments may be continued beyond
completion of a given project so that their expertise can be quickly assessed in future with a minimum of paperwork.
In general, interagency liaisons participate for the term of issue resolution only.
Member and Consultant Selection Process
Members are appointed by the Administrator based on nominations forwarded by the SAB Staff Director and
the Chair of the Executive Committee. These nominations, in turn, are based on recommendations made by the
Designated Federal Official (DFO—the member of the SAB Staff with principal responsibility for servicing standing
Committees) and the Chairs of the standing Committees. The DFO has the responsibility for developing a list of
candidates, utilizing all credible sources, including members of the SAB, other DFOs, EPA staff, staff at the National
Academy of Sciences\National Research Council, trade groups, environmental groups, professional organizations,
scientific societies, regulated industries, and the informed public.
On occasion, an ad hoc Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee has been established to assist
in the selection process. This group is consulted about possible names and used as a "sounding board" when decisions
are being made about appointments. The Membership Subcommittee's principal role is to maintain the integrity of the
process and to probe the extent to which objective selection criteria and procedures are being followed. They also raise
questions about adherence to the Statement of Intent on Women and Minorities, adopted by the Executive Committee
in 1990, which was designed to increase the representation of these groups on the Board.
Consultants are appointed by the Staff Director following a similar procedure.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-4 . | ANNUAL REPORT
Panel Selection Process
In general, once the Board and the Agency have agreed upon a topic for SAB review, the subject is assigned to
one of the standing Committees. The Committee Chair and the DFO have primary responsibility for forming a review
Panel (the full Committee or a Subcommittee, as the case may be.) The Panel will contain some or all members of the
Committee. In many instances, consultants may also be added to the Panel in order to obtain specialized expertise on
the particular issue under discussion.
A key aspect in the Panel selection process is the "charge", the mutually agreed upon description of what the
Agency would like the review to accomplish and/or what the SAB expects to focus upon. The most helpful charge is
one that prescribes specific areas/questions that need attention and/or answers. At a minimum, the elements of the
charge should be sufficiently precise that the SAB can determine what additional consultant expertise is needed to
conduct the most helpful review.
Often the DFO begins by soliciting ideas about potential members from the Agency staff who are intimately
acquainted with the issue and will therefore are often aware of the most informed people. A conscious effort is made
to avoid selecting individuals who have had a substantive hand in the development of the document to be reviewed.
At the same time, experience has shown the utility of having some representation from individuals/groups who may
have been involved in prior reviews of the issue or the document. The goal is to minimize the appearance or practice
of an individual's reviewing his/her own work, while at the same time, maintaining an historical link to earlier
deliberations surrounding the document/issue. Once the Agency staff has suggested nominees and provided background
information on the individuals, their direct role in the panel selection process is complete. Agency staff, the requesting
office, and others may be consulted at a later stage for information about nominees received from other sources.
The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an independent assessment of the technical
matters before the Board. Discrete inquiries about the nominees are made with a number of different sources. This
might include, for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters, professional colleagues, and experts who are
on "the other side" of the issue. As time and resources permit and controversy demands, names of nominees will be
investigated via computer search of their publications and pronouncements in public meetings.
Frequently, a determining factor for selection is the availability of the individual to participate in the public
review. In the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the SAB may enlist the assistance of a particularly skilled consultant
who cannot attend all meetings, but who is willing to do additional homework and/or participate via conference call.
In some cases, the Panel Chair consults with key members of the Panel for their advice before completing the
empaneling process. The final selections for consultants are compiled by the DFO in conjunction with the Chair of the
Panel and are submitted to the SAB Staff Director for discussion and appointment.
Conflict-of-interest and Public Disclosure
The intent of FACA is to construct a panel of knowledgeable individuals who are free of conflicts-of-interest.
In this regard, each Panel member must complete a confidential financial information form that is reviewed by the
Deputy Ethics Officer, Donald Barnes, to determine whether there are any obvious conflicts-of-interest.
Legal conflict-of-interests generally arise in connection with "particular party matters" (A particular matter is any
activity in which an employee participates in an official capacity, where he or other persons have a financial interest,
if the direct activity —particular matter— will have a direct and predictable effect on his own or that person's financial
interests.) In general, the SAB (in contrast with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)) does not get involved in
"particular party matters," hence, legal conflicts-of-interest are rare on the SAB. However, technical conflicts-of-interest
can arise, particularly for participants from academic institutions, in connection with Committee recommendations for
•
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-5
additional research studies. In most such cases, the DFO's work with the Committee members to apply for waivers from
the conflict-of-interest concerns on this matter. The requests for waivers are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by EPA's
Office of the General Counsel. (The Agency generally determines that the benefits to the country derived from these
experts' recommendations for additional research, outweigh any technical conflict-of-interest that might be involved.)
However, the Board is also concerned about "apparent conflicts-of-interest." Consequently, Members and
Consultants to the Panel are generally selected from the "broad middle" spectrum of opinion on the technical issue under
discussion. Experience has shown that achieving balance through equal representation of extreme views reduces the
chance of achieving a workable consensus—pro or con—that the Agency needs to more forward.
The "public disclosure" (see Attached) process (a standard part of all SAB Committee meetings) is a mechanism
aimed resolving the apparent conflicts-of-interest issues. This procedure involves an oral statement (sometimes Board
members supplement this with a written document) that lays out the individual's connection with the issue under
discussion; e.g., his/her area of expertise, length of experience with the issue, sources of research grants, previous
appearance in public forms where he/she might have expressed an opinion, etc. This recitation of prior and/or
continuing contacts on the issue assists the public, the Agency, and fellow Panel members understand the background
from which particular individual's comments spring, so that those comments can be evaluated accordingly.
Conclusion
These Guidelines are intended to assist the SAB in adhering to the mandates and spirit of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. By following these Guidelines the Board should be well-positioned to provide technically-sound,
independent, balanced advice to the Agency. At the same time, they provide assurance that there will be adequate
participation by and renewal with well-qualified experts from the various communities served by the Board.
Prepared: Oct 14,1991
Revised: Nov26, 1991
Revised: Oct. 12,1994
Revised: Nov 12, 1996
ATTACHMENT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-6 . ANNUAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT
Guidelines for Public Disclosure at SAB Meetings
Background
Conflict-of-interest (COI) statutes and regulations are aimed at preventing individuals from (knowingly or
unknowingly) bringing inappropriate influence to bear on Agency decisions which might affect the financial interests
of those individuals. The SAB contributes to the decision-making process of the Agency by evaluating the technical
underpinnings upon which rales and regulations are built. SAB Members and consultants (M/Cs) carry our their duties
as Special Government Employees (SGE's) and are subject to the COI regulations.
Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the advisory process itself and the reputations of those involved,
procedures have been established to prevent actual COI and minimize the possibility of perceived COI. These
procedures include the following:
a) Having M/C's file, at the time of appointment, OGE Form 450, Confidential Statement of
Employment and Financial Interest. This form is a legal requirement and is maintained by the
Agency as a confidential document.
b) Providing M/C's with written material; e.g. copies of the Effect of Special Government Employee
Status on Applicability of Criminal Conflict of Interest Statutes and Other Ethics Related
Provisions, the Standard of Ethical Conduct Synopsis and Ethics Advisories 97-01 and 96-18.
c) Delivering briefings to M/C's on COI issues on a regular basis.
The following is a description of an additional voluntary' procedure that is designed to allow both fellow M/Cs
and the observing public to learn more about the backgrounds that M/C's bring to a discussion of a particular issue. In
this way, all parties will gain a broader understanding of "where people are coming from" and provide additional
insights to help observers and participants evaluate comments made during the discussion.
Procedure
When an agenda item is introduced that has the potential for COI~actual or perceived—the Designated Federal
Official (DFO) will ask each M/C on the panel to speak for the record on his/her background, experience, and interests
that relate to the issue at hand. The following items are examples of the type of material that is appropriate to mention
in such a disclosure:
a) Research conducted on the matter.
b) Previous pronouncements made on the matter.
c) Interests of employer in the matter.
d) A general description of any other financial interests in the matter: e.g., having investments that
1 Note: The disclosure procedure is voluntary, and members/consultants are not obligated to reveal information contained in their Form 450
that would otherwise remain confidential.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-7
might be directly affected by the matter.
e) Other links: e.g., research grants from parties—including EPA—that would be affected by the
matter.
The DFO will also publicly refer to any waivers from the COI regulations which have been granted for the
purposes of the meeting.
The DFO will assure that the minutes of the meeting reflect that fact suchdisclosures were made and, if possible,
the nature of the disclosures. In addition, the minutes should describe any situations in which, hi the opinion of the
DFO, an actual or perceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-8 , ^ ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B2
TYPES OF AFFILIATION WITH THE SAB
1. SAB Members
SAB members are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the Deputy Administrator
for two-year terms. Members participate fully in their review committees, which are generally conducted in a collegial,
consensus-building style. Their names appear as members on relevant rosters and generated reports.
Note that SAB reports are formally endorsed by SAB members by action of the Executive Committee.
2. SAB Consultants
SAB Consultants are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the SAB Staff Director
for one-year terms. Generally, Consultants are appointed in order to augment the expertise for a particular review and/or
for mutual exploration of future membership on the Board. Consultants participate fully in then- review panels and
committees, which are generally conducted in a collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as Consultants
on relevant rosters and generated reports.
3. Federal Experts
The SAB charter precludes Federal employees from being members of the Board. However, in some instances,
certain Federal experts have technical knowledge and expertise that can add significant value of the work of the SAB.
In order to access that expertise for the benefit of the Board and the Administrator, the SAB staff will work with
the Office of the General Counsel to identify appropriate mechanisms for assessing the potential for conflicts of interest.
The SAB Staff Director can invite Federal experts who do not have a real or apparent conflict-of-interest (either
personally or through their agencies) to service on an SAB committee for the duration of a particular the review/study.
Federal Experts participate fully on the committees, which are generally conducted in a collegial, consensus-building
style. Their names appear as Federal Experts on relevant rosters and generated reports.
4. Invited Expert Resource
In some situations, there are individuals (both Federal employees and non-Federal employees) who have expertise
and/or knowledge of data that bears on an SAB review but who also have real or perceived COIs that would preclude
their participation as Members or Consultants. There people can attend the SAB meeting as Invited Expert Resources.
The SAB pays travel expenses, if needed.
For example, the person could be the author of a key study of PCBs when the EHC is reviewing the Agency's
reference dose for PCBs. The SAB would fund the travel expenses for the person. This person could be either Federal
or non-Federal employee. The intent is to have a source real-time, authoritative feedback available during the SAB
discussion of the issue. The person would not be asked to serve as a consultant in this case, due to a professional
conflict-of-interest; i.e., he would be placed in the position of reviewing his own work.
Another example would be a researcher who has access to some important data, alternative analysis, etc. at
another agency, but that is germane to the SAB review. The person would not be asked to serve as a consultant in this
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-9
case because of a real or apparent conflict-of-interest; e.g., works for an organization (private or Federal) that would
be so directly impacted by the Agency's position as to cause a M/C from such an organization to ask for a recusal.
Invited Expert Resources have limited participation in SAB reviews. They are available to answer questions of
the SAB committee panel, provide invited presentations, and enlighten the discussion with pertinent pieces of
information. Their names are listed as Invited Expert Resources on rosters and reports, with an explanatory footnote
recording their presence and role at the meeting. They are not a part of the Board's consensus/decision about the report.
The intent is to indicate that such experts were available during the meeting, but that they were not a party to the
judgment.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-10
ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B3
SAB MEMBERS FOR FY 1999
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE
AFFILIATION
CITY, STATE
Acevedo
Adams
Alvarez-Cohen
Anderson
Bair
Baker
Bartell
Bearer
Berkey
Bier
Bockstael
Brown
Brown
Bull
Burtraw
Cameron
Chien
Colborn
Cropper
Cummins
Daisey
Daly
Davis
Doull
Dragan
Elston
Evans
Fan-Cheuk
Foecke
Freeman
French
Fullerton
Gerba
Gesell
Goulder
Grasso
Miguel
William J.
Lisa
Henry A.
William
David
Steven
Cynthia
Edgar
Vicki
Nancy E.
Gardner M.
Stephen L.
Richard
Dennis
Trudy
Calvin
Theodora
Maureen L.
Kenneth
JoanM.
Herman
Mary
John
Yvonne
John
John
Anna
Terry
A. Myrick
Nina Bergen
Don
Charles P.
Thomas F.
Lawrence
Domenico
EPEC
EPEC/RSAC
EPEC
IHEC
RAC
DWC
EPEC
EHC
EEC
RAC
EEAC
COUNCIL
EC/RAC/RSAC
EC/DWC
EHC/EEAC
EEAC
EEC
RSAC
EC/COUNCIL/EEAC
EC/EPEC
EC
EEAC
DWC
EHC
DWC
CASAC
DWC
DWC
EEC
COUNCIL/EEAC
EEC
COUNCIL
DWC/RSAC
RAC
COUNCIL
EEC
University of North Texas
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation
University of California-Berkeley
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Consultant
Heidelberg College
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Case Western Reserve University
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
University of Wisconsin
University of Maryland
University of Washington
Risks of Radiation Chemical Compounds
Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Lab
Resources for the Future
University of California
DuPont Company
World Wildlife Fund
The World Bank
South Florida Water Mgmt District
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
University of Maryland
West Virginia University Health Sci Cntr
University of Kansas
Ohio State University
New Jersey Dept of Env Protection
Harvard School of Public Health
California Env Protection Agency
Waste Reduction Institute
Bowdoin College
SKY+
University of Texas
University of Arizona
Idaho State University
Stanford University
University of Connecticut
Denton, TX
Magna, UT
Berkeley, CA
Madison, WI
Richland, WA
Tiffin, OH
Oak Ridge.TN
Cleveland, OH
Pittsburgh, PA
Madison, WI
College Park, MD
Seattle, WA
Oakland, CA
Richland, WA
Washington, DC
Los Angeles, CA
Wilmington, DE
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Sanibel, FL
Berkeley, CA
College Park, MD
Morgantown, WV
Kansas City, KS
Columbus, OH
Trenton, NJ
Boston, MA
Oakland, CA
St. Paul, MN
Brunswick, ME
Oakland, CA
Austin, TX
Tucson, AZ
Pocatello, ID
Stanford, CA
Storrs, CT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-ll
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE
Guiseppi-Elie Annette
IHEC
AFFILIATION
Dupont Engineering
CITY, STATE
Wilmington, DE
Hall
Harley
Harwell
Hoel
Hopke
Inyang
Jayjock
Johnson
Johnston
Jones
Jorgenson
Joskow
Kling
Kolstad
Langmuir
Lave
Lebowitz
Lemasters
Li
Lighty
Lioy
Lipoti
Lippmann
Liu
Maki
Maney
Mangione
Matanoski
Mauderly
McFarland
McKone
McMullen
Medinsky
Middleton
Moe
Montagna
Morandi
Morgan
Murarka
Jane
Robert A.
Mark A.
David
Philip
Hilary
Michael
Janet A.
Carol A.
Lovell
Dale
Paul
Catherine
Charles
Donald
Lester B.
Michael
Grace
Abby
Jo Ann S.
Paul J.
Jill
Morton
Kai-Shen
Alan
John P.
Ellen
Genevieve
Joe
Michael J.
Thomas
LeeD.
Michele
Paulette
Christine
Paul
Maria
M. Granger
Ishwar
COUNCIL
IHEC
EPEC
EHC
CASAC/RSAC
EC/EEC
IHEC
RAC
EPEC
IHEC
EEAC
EEAC
EEAC
COUNCIL
RAC
COUNCIL
IHEC
EHC
EHC
EEC
IHEC/COUNCIL
RAC
EC
IHEC
RSAC
EEC
RAC
RSAC
EC/CASAC
EEC
IHEC
DWC
EHC
COUNCEL/RSAC
DWC
EPEC
RSAC
EC
RSAC
California State University
University of California
University of Miami
Medical University of South Carolina
Clarkson University
University of Massachusetts
Rohm and Haas Co.
Shepherd Miller, Inc.
University of Minnesota
University of Texas
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Iowa State University
University of California
Hydrochem Systems Corporation
Carnegie-Mellon University
University of Arizona
University of Cincinnati
Monsanto Life Sciences
University of Utah
EOHSI-Robert Wood Johnson Med School
New Jersey Dept of Env Protection
New York University
California Department of Health Services
Exxon Company, USA
Env Measurements Assessment
Colorado Department of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Utah State University
University of California
Des Moines Water Works
Consultant
RAND Ctr for Env Sciences & Policy
University of North Carolina
University of Texas @ Austin
University of Texas
Carnegie Mellon University
ISH, Inc.
Fullerton, CA
Berkeley, CA
Miami, FL
Charleston, SC
Potsdam, NY
Lowell, MA
Spring House, PA
Fort Collins, CO
Duluth, MN
Houston, TX
Cambridge, MA
Cambridge, MA
Ames, LA
Santa Barbara, CA
Golden, CO
Pittsburgh, PA
Tucson, AZ
Cincinnati, OH
St. Louis, MO
Salt Lake City, UT
Piscataway, NJ
Trenton, NJ
Tuxedo, NY
Berkeley, CA
Houston, TX
S. Hamilton, MA
Denver, CO
Baltimore, MD
Albuquerque, NM
River Heights, UT
Berkeley, CA
Des Moines, LA
Durham, NC
Boulder, CO
Chapel Hill, NC
Port Aransas, TX
Houston, TX
Pittsburgh, PA
Sunnyvale, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-12
LAST NAME
Nriagu
O'Melia
Pell
Perera
Petersen
Poston
Preslo
Real
Roessler
Schmalensee
Seeker
Shogren
Shore
Sigman
Silbergeld
Smith
Stavins
Taub
Toranzos
Trussell
Upton
Utell
Vedal
Wallinga
Weschler
White
Yates
Young
ANNUAL REPORT
FIRST NAME
Jerome
Charles
Eva
Frederica
Barbara J.
John
Lynne
Leslie A.
Genevieve
Richard
W. Randall
Jason
Roy
Hilary
Ellen
William H.
Robert
Frieda B.
Gary
R. Rhodes
Arthur C
Mark
Sverre
David
Charles
Warren H.
Marylynn
Terry F.
COMMITTEE
IHEC
DWC
CASAC
EHC
IHEC
RAC
EEC
EPEC
RAC
EEAC
EC/RSAC
EEAC
EHC
EEAC
EC
EC/RSAC
EC/EEAC
EPEC
DWC
DWC
CASAC
EC/EHC
CASAC
IHEC
IHEC
CASAC
DWC
EC/EPEC
AFFILIATION
University of Michigan
Johns Hopkins University
Perm State University
Columbia University
Novigen Sciences, Inc.
Texas A&M University
Earth Tech
Emory University
Consultant
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
General Electric Energy & Env Res Corp.
University of Wyoming
New York University Medical Center
Rutgers University
University of Maryland
Yale University
Harvard University
University of Washington
University of Puerto Rico
Montgomery Watson Consulting Eng
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch
University of Rochester Medical Center
University of British Columbia
Natural Resources Defense Council
Telcordia Technologies
Washington University
University of California
Environmental Defense Fund
CITY, STATE
Ann Arbor, MI
Baltimore, MD
University Park, PA
New York, NY
Washington, DC
College Stn, TX
Long Beach, CA
Atlanta, GA
Elysian, MN
Cambridge, MA
Irvine, CA
Laramie, WY
New York, NY
New Brunswick, NJ
Baltimore, MD
New Haven, CT
Cambridge, MA
Seattle, WA
San Juan, PR
Pasadena, CA
Piscataway, NJ
Rochester, NY
Vancouver, BC CAN
Washington, DC
Red Bank, NJ
St. Louis, MO
Riverside, CA
Oakland, CA
Zeise
Lauren
EHC
California Env Protection Agency
Oakland, CA
g:\user\sab\members\99mcrost.xls
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-13
APPENDIX B4
SAB CONSULTANTS FOR FY 1999
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE
AFFILIATION
CITY, STATE
Adams
Albertini
Alexander
Alexeeff
Allen
Anderson
Anderson
Ansari
Ayres
Bailar
Bailey
Bates
Bean
Beck
Beck
Bedford
Bellinger
Biddinger
Bishop
Bloom
Boesch
Bond
Boston
Bostrom
Bowers
Brierley
Brown
Brown
Buchsbaum
Buist
Bunn
Burbacher
Burke
Byus
Carlson
Cams
Carpenter
Chapman
Charbeneau
E. Eric
Richard
Martin
George
Herbert
Mary P.
Yolanda
Mohammad
Stephen M.
JohnC.
Paul
David
Judy
Barbara D.
Michael
Barbara
David
Gregory
William E.
Nicolas
Donald
James A.
Harry L.
Anne
Dorothy
Corale
Halina S.
Linfield
Robert
A. Sonia
William
Thomas
Thomas
Craig
Gary P.
Keith E.
George F.
Peter
Randall J.
EC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
RSAC
EEC
fflEC
EEC
CASAC
EHC
fflEC
RAC
DWC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
EHC
EC
EPEC
EHC
EPEC
EHC
EPEC
RAC
EEC
EPEC
EHC
EC
EPEC
CASAC
EHC
EHC
EC
RAC
EHC
DWC
EEC
EPEC
EEC
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Vermont
Cornell University
California Env Protection Agency
University of Delaware
University of Wisconsin
North Carolina Central University
Oshman Group LLC
Virginia Commonwealth University
University of Chicago
Mobil Business Resource Corp.
Univ of British Columbia
University of Miami
Gradient Corp.
University of Georgia
Cornell University
Children's Hospital
Exxon Company, USA
Procter & Gamble Company
Frontier Geosciences, Inc.
University of Maryland
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
Georgia Institute of Technology
Merck & Company, Inc.
VistaTech Partnership, Ltd.
Clark University
Tufts University
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Oregon Health Sciences University
Navistar International
University of Washington
Johns Hopkins University
University of California
Purdue University
Washington University
Michigan Dept of Natural Resources
EVS Environment Consultants
University of Texas at Austin
Cambridge, MA
Burlington, VT
Ithaca, NY
Sacramento, CA
Newark, DE
Madison, WI
Durham, NC
Chester, VA
Richmond, VA
Chicago, IL
Paulsboro, NJ
Vancouver, CAN
Miami, FL
Cambridge, MA
Athens, GA
Ithaca, NY
Boston, MA
Houston, TX
Cincinnati, OH
Seattle, WA
Cambridge, MD
RTF, NC
Oak Ridge, TN
Atlanta, GA
Whitehouse Stn, NJ
Highlands Rch,CO
Worcester, MA
Medford, MA
Wenham, MA
Portland, OR
Chicago, IL
Seattle, WA
Baltimore, MD
Riverside, CA
West Lafayette, IN
St. Louis, MO
Lansing, MI
Vancouver, CAN
Austin, TX
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-14
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
Chess
Christman
Clapp
Clesceri
Cochran
Colome
Gonway
Cooper
Cooper
Coppock
Correa
Cortese
Cory-Slechta
Costanza
Crapo
Cramp
Cummings
Cutshall
Dabberdt
Dahms
Dale
Daston
Davies
DeBaun
Deisler
D'Elia
Bellinger
Bellinger
Benison
Biamond
Biaz-Sanchez
Bickson
Bietrich
Bietz
BiGiovanni
BiGiulio
Bockery
Born
Burbin-Heavey
Ediger
Elliot
Ensley
Epstein
Estabrook
FIRST NAME
Caron
Russell
Richard
Lenore
Roger
Steven
Richard A.
Edwin
William E.
Robert
Adolfo
Anthony B.
Beborah
Robert
James B.
Kenny
Ronald G.
Norman H.
Walter
Thomas
Virginia
George P.
Terry
Michael
PaulF.
Christopher
H. Barry
John A.
Richard
GaryL.
Bavid
Kenneth L.
Kim
Thomas
John
Richard
Bouglas W.
Philip B.
Patricia
Richard
Biane L.
BurtB.
Lois
Ronald W.
COMMITTEE
EC/VS
BWC
EHC
BWC
RSAC
CASAC
EEC
RSAC
EPEC
EEC
EHC
RSAC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
EHC
COUNCIL
EC
EPEC
CASAC
EPEC/RSAC
EHC
EC
EHC
RSAC
EPEC
EEC
EHC
EEC
EHC
CASAC
EPEC
EHC
EC
RAC
EPEC
CASAC
EPEC
RAC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
EEC
EHC
AFFILIATION
Rutgers University
University of North Carolina
Boston University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
California EPA
Integrated Environmental Services
Union Carbide Corporation
University of California at Los Angeles
Michigan State University
National Academy of Sciences
Johns Hopkins University
Second Nature
University of Rochester
University of Maryland
National Jewish Medical & Rsch Cntr
KS Cramp Group, Inc.
Georgia State University
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Ctr for Atmospheric Research
St. Louis University
Lockheed Martin Energy Research
Procter & Gamble
Resources for the Future
Washington University
Consultant
University of Maryland
Louisiana State University
Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council
Environmental Befense Fund
Syracuse Research Corporation
University of California
University of North Texas
University of Cincinnati
George Mason University
University of Texas
Buke University
Harvard School of Public Health
Equillon Enterprise, LLC
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
The Perkin-Elmer Corporation
Oregon Health Sciences University
Phytotech
Environmental Befense Fund
University of Texas
CITY, S
NewBrui
Chapel H
Boston, N
Troy, NY
Sacramen
Irvine, Q
Charlesto
Los Ange
East Lans
Washing!
Baltimore
Boston, ft
Rochestei
Solomon!
Benver, C
Ruston, L
Atlanta, (
Germanic
Boulder, i
St. Louis
OakRidg
Cincinnat
Washingt
St. Louis,
Austin, T
College P
Baton Ro
Chicago,
Washingt
Syracuse,
Los Ang£
Benton, 1
Cincinnal
Fairfax, \
Smithvill
Burham,
Boston, ^
Houston,
Berkeley,
Norwalk,
Portland,
Monmoui
Washingt
Ballas, T
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-15
LAST NAME
Fabryka-Martin
Faison
Faustman
Feero
Fiedler
Fischer
Fischhoff
Fowler
Frantz
Frey
Fullerton
Gallagher
Gallo
Gandolfi
Garber
Garshick
Gasiewicz
Gentile
Gentry
Gibson
Giesy
Gilbert
Gilbert
Gilmour
Ginevan
Glaze
Gold
Goldstein
Goldstein
Gomez
Gonzalez-Mendez
Gordon
Gorovitz
Gosselink
Gough
Goyer
Graham
Greenberg
Greenlee
Greer
Grimes
Groer
Grogan
Guilmette
Guzelian
FIRST NAME
June
Brendlyn
Elaine
William
Nancy
Lawrence
Baruch
Bruce
Robert W.
H. Christopher
Don
John
Michael
A. Jay.
Steven
Eric
Thomas A.
Thomas J.
Bradford S.
James
John P.
Richard O.
Steven
Cynthia
Michael
William
Arthur
Bernard
Robert A.
Manuel
Ricardo
Theodore
Samuel
James G.
Michael
Robert
JohnD.
Michael
William
Linda
Darrell
Peter
Helen Ann
Raymond
Philip
COMMITTEE
RAC
EEC
EHC
RAC
EC/SAP
EHC
CASAC
EHC
EEC
EC
COUNCIL
EPEC
EHC
DWC
COUNCIL
CASAC
EHC
EC
EEC
EC
EPEC
EHC
EHC
EHC
RAC
EC
EC
EHC
CASAC
EC
RAC
EEC
EC/SAP
EPEC
EHC
EHC
EHC
EEC
EHC
EEC .
DWC
RAC
EC
RAC
EHC
AFFILIATION
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
University of Washington
Electric Research and Management, Inc.
Env & Occ Health Sciences Institute
Michigan State University
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Maryland
General Electric Company
North Carolina State University
University of Texas
University of Delaware
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch
University of Arizona
RAND
Brockton/West Roxbury
University of Rochester
NY State Dept of Env Conservation
Yale University
Dow AgroSciences
Michigan State University
Battelle Memorial Institute
Biosupport, Inc
The Academy of Natural Sciences
M.E. Ginevan & Associates
University of North Carolina
University of Rhode Island
EOHSI
Electric Power Research Institute
American Industrial Hygiene Association
University of Puerto Rico
Consultant
Syracuse University
Consultant
CATO Institute
Consultant
Harvard University
Rutgers University
University of Massachusetts
Natural Resources Defense Council
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of Tennessee
Cascade Scientific, Inc.
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
University of Colorado Health Sci Cntr
CITY, STATE
Los Alamos, NM
Oak Ridge, TN
Seattle, WA
State College, PA
Piscataway, NJ
East Lansing, MI
Pittsburgh, PA
Baltimore, MD
Cincinnati, OH
Raleigh, NC
Austin, TX
Lewes, DE
Piscataway, NJ
Tucson, AZ
Santa Monica, CA
West Roxbury, MA
Rochester, NY
Albany, NY
New Haven, CT
Indianapolis, IN
East Lansing, MI
Washington, DC
Redmond, WA
St. Leonard, MD
Silver Spring, MD
Chapel Hill, NC
Kingston, RI
Piscataway, NJ
Palo Alto, CA
Fairfax, VA
San Juan, PR
Vero Beach, FL
Syracuse, NY
Baton Rouge, LA
Washington, DC
Chapel Hill, NC
Boston, MA
New Brunswick, NJ
Worcester, MA
Washington, DC
Ocean Springs,MS
Knoxville, TN
Bend, OR
Albuquerque, NM
Denver, CO
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-16
LAST NAME
Hallberg
Hamilton
Hammond
Harper
Harrington
Harris
Harrison
Hartung
Hattis
Hawkins
Hazen
Heath
Helfand
Henderson
Kites
Hoffman
Hornung
Hueter
Humphrey
Hurley
Jacobson
Jacobson
Jahnke
Jasanoff
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson
Kabat
Kachel
Kahn
Kahn
Kalton
Kaminski
Kareiva
Kasperson
Kaufman
Kelsey
Kendall
Kim
Kim
Kimerle
Kingsley
Klaassen
Kleinman
Knobeloch
Knopman
FIRST NAME
George
Martin
S. Katharine
Barbara
Winston
Stuart
Keith
Rolf
Dale
Charles
Robert
Clark
Gloria
Rogene
Ronald A.
F. Owen
Richard
Robert
Harold
James
Jay S.
Joseph L.
James
Sheila
Harvey E.
Kenneth
James H.
Geoffrey C.
Wayne M.
Bernd
Jeffrey
G. Graham
Norbert
Peter
Roger E.
David G.
Karl
Ronald J.
Byung
Nancy K.
Richard A.
Gordon
Curtis
Michael
Lynda
Debra
COMMITTEE
EEC
DWC
IHEC
EC
DWC
EC
EPEC
EPEC
CASAC
EPEC
IHEC
RAC
EEAC
EHC
IHEC
RAC
RAC
EHC
EHC
EHC
CASAC
EHC
EEC
EC
CASAC
EPEC
EEC
IHEC
EEC
RAC
EC/SAP
RAC
EHC
EPEC
EPEC
DWC
EHC
EPEC
EEC.
EHC
EPEC
EEC
DWC
COUNCIL
EHC
EC
ANNUAL
AFFILIATION
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Montana State University
University of California
Yakama Indian Nation
Resources for the Future
Conf Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reserv
Michigan Environmental Science Board
University of Michigan
Clark University
Utah State University
NJ Dept. of Env Protection and Energy
American Cancer Society
University of Michigan
Lovelace Biomedical & Env. Rsch Inst
Indiana University
SENES Oak Ridge, Inc.
University of Cincinnati
Mote Marine Laboratory
Michigan State University
University of Wisconsin
Boyce Thompson Inst. at Cornell Univ.
Wayne State University
Source Technology Associates
Harvard University
University of North Carolina
California State University
Howard University
State University of New York
Mele Associates
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Minnesota
Westat
Michigan State University
. University of Washington
Clark University
University of North Carolina
Harvard School of Public Health
Texas Tech University
Ford Motor Company
New York State Department of Health
Consultant
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Kansas Medical Center
University of California, Irvine
Wisconsin Dept of Health & Family Ser
Progressive Policy Institute
REPORT
CITY, STATE
Waltham, MA
Bozeman, MT
Berkeley, CA
Richland, WA
Washington, DC
Pendleton, OR
Lansing, MI
Ann Arbor, MI
Worcester, MA
Logan, UT
Trenton, NJ
Atlanta, GA
Ann Arbor, MI
Albuquerque, NM
Bloomington, IN
Oak Ridge, TN
Cincinnati, OH
Sarasota, FL
East Lansing, MI
Madison, WI
Ithaca, NY
Detroit, MI
RTP.NC
Cambridge, MA
Chapel Hill, NC
Long Beach, CA
Washington, DC
Stony Brook, NY
Brooks AFB, TX
Atlanta, GA
Minneapolis, MN
Rockville, MD
East Lansing, MI
Seattle, WA
Worcester, MA
Chapel Hill, NC
Boston, MA
Lubbock,TX
Dearborn, MI
Albany, NY
Eureka, MO
Atlanta, GA
Kansas City, KS
Irvine, CA
Madison, WI
Washington, DC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
pageB-17
LAST NAME
Knuckles
Koenig
Koutrakis
•Kreamer
Kripke
Krupnick
La Point
Laird
Lamb
Lambert
Lanza
Larntz
Larson
Laskin
Latties
Leaderer
Lederman
Lee
Legge
Lewis
Lewis
Lindberg
Little
Loehr
Longo
Loomis
Lue-Hing
Lung
Lurmann
Luthy
MacGregor
Mack
MacKay
MacLean
Mahadevan
Malone
Manning
Martin
Marty
McBee
McClellan
McConnell
McCurdy
McCurdy
McElroy
FIRST NAME
Maurice
Jane Q.
Petros
David K.
Margaret
AlanJ.
Thomas W.
NanM.
James C.
George
Guy
Kinley
Timothy V.
Debra L.
Victor
Brian P.
Peter
Kun-Chieh
Allan
Robert J.
Steven C.
Steve
JohnC.
Raymond C.
Lawrence D.
JohnB.
Cecil
Wu-Seng
Frederick
Richard G.
Judy
Thomas M.
Donald
Douglas E.
Kumar
Thomas
William
James
Melanie
Karen
Roger O.
Ernest
David E.
Leyla
Anne
COMMITTEE
IHEC
CASAC
CASAC
RAC
RSAC
COUNCIL
EPEC
RAC
RSAC
EC
EEC
CASAC
IHEC
CASAC
CASAC
IHEC
EEC
EC
CASAC
EC
EHC
EHC
IHEC
EC
CASAC
EEAC
DWC
EPEC
IHEC
EEC
EHC
EHC
EPEC
EC/VS
EPEC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC
CASAC
EPEC
RSAC
EC
RAC
IHEC
EPEC
AFFILIATION
Meharry Medical College
University of Washington
Harvard University
University of Nevada
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Resources for the Future
Clemson University
Harvard School of Public Health
Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc.
Univ of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ
University of Massachusetts
University of Minnesota
University of Washington
Rutgers University
University of Rochester
Yale University
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Union Carbide Corporation
Biosphere Solutions
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Virginia Tech
University of Texas at Austin
Loma Linda University
Colorado State University
Cecil Lue-Hung & Associates Inc.
University of Virginia
Sonoma Technology, Inc.
Carnegie-Mellon University
Toxicology Consulting Services
University of Southern California
University of Toronto
University of Maryland
Mote Marine Laboratory
Horn Point Environmental Laboratory
University of Massachusetts
University of Michigan
Office of Env Health Hazard Assess
Oklahoma State University
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
ToxPath, Inc.
Duke Engineering & Services
American Lung Association
State University of New York
CITY, STATE
Nashville, TN
Seattle, WA
Boston, MA
Las Vegas, NV
Houston, TX
Washington, DC
Pendleton, SC
Boston, MA
Arlington, VA
New Brunswick, NJ
Amherst, MA
Shoreview, MN
Seattle, WA
Piscataway, NJ
Rochester, NY
New Haven, CT
Newark, NJ
S. Charleston, WV
Calgary, CAN
East Millstone, NJ
East Millstone, NJ
Oak Ridge, TN
Blacksburg, VA
Austin, TX
Loma Linda, CA
Fort Collins, CO
Chicago, IL
Charlottesville, VA
Santa Rosa, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
Rockville, MD
Los Angeles, CA
Toronto, Ontario
Baltimore, MD
Sarasota, FL
Cambridge, MA
Amherst, MA
Ann Arbor, MI
Oakland, CA
Stillwater, OK
RTF, NC
Raleigh, NC
Marlborough, MA
Washington, DC
Stony Brook, NY
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff"
-------
page B-18
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
McFeters
McLachlan
McManus
McMuny
Meijer
Menzel
Mercer
Merges
Meyer
Meyer
Meyer
Milford
Miller
Milon
Molina
Monson
Moomaw
Mueller
Napier
Natan
Nerode
Neuberger
Newland
Nixon
North
Norton
Noss
Nygaard
Oberdorster
O'Connor
Olivieri
Omenn
Otwell
Ozonoff
Parker
Parkin
Parkinson
Paustenbach
Payne
Payton
Pease
Peck
Peeler
Pellizzari
FIRST NAME
Gordon
John A.
Terrence
Peter
Arend
Daniel B.
James W.
Paul J.
Joseph S.
Michael
H. Robert
Jana
Frederick J.
J. Walter
Nicholas
Richard
William R
Peter K.
Bruce A.
Thomas
Anil
John S.
M. Christopher
Scott
D. Warner
Bryan
Charles
Oddvar
Gunter
Mary Ellen
Adam
Gilbert
Steve
David M.
Frank L.
Rebecca
David K.
Dennis J.
John W.
Marinelle
William S.
Stephen
James
Edo D.
COMMITTEE
DWC
EHC
EEC
CASAC
RAC
EHC
EEC
RAC
COUNCIL
EHC
RAC
EC
EHC
EPEC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC
EEC
RSAC
EHC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
EEAC
EEC
RAC
CASAC
RAC
DWC
CASAC
EHC
EHC
RAC
EEC
EHC
EC . ,
EC ;
IHEC
IHEC
EEAC
EEC
DWC
AFFILIATION
Montana State University
Tulane/Xavier Ctr for Bioenv Research
Intel Corporation
University of Minnesota
OCX Inc.
University of California-Irvine
HSI GeoTrans, Inc.
NY State Dept of Env Cons
University of Wyoming
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
Keystone Science
University of Colorado
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
University of Florida
PA Department of Environmental Protection
Harvard School of Public Health
Tufts University
Electric Power Research Institute
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Environmental Information Center
Cornell University
University of Kansas
Auburn University
University of Rhode Island
North Works, Inc.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Water Environment Research Foundation
Case Western Reserve University
University of Rochester
University of Tulsa
EOA, Inc.
University of Michigan
University of Florida
Boston University
Vanderbilt University
American Public Health Association
Long Island Occup. &Env. Health Center
Exponent
Duke University
Harvard School of Public Health
Environmental Defense Fund
Electric Power Research Institute
Emission Monitoring Inc.
Research Triangle Institute
CITY, STATE
Bozeman, MT
New Orleans, LA
Chandler, AZ
Minneapolis, MN
Albuquerque, NM
Irvine, CA
Sterling, VA
Albany, NY
Laramie, WY
Rhinelander, WI
Fort Collins, CO
Boulder, CO
RTF, NC
Gainesville, FL
Harrisburg, PA
Boston, MA
Medford, MA
Palo Alto, CA
Richland, WA
Washington, DC
Ithaca, NY
Kansas City, KS
Auburn, AL
Narragansett, RI
Belmont, CA
Atlanta, GA
Alexandria, VA
Cleveland, OH
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Oakland, CA
Ann Arbor, MI
Gainesville, FL
Boston, MA
Nashville, TN
Washington, DC
Port Jefferson, NY
Menlo Park, CA
Durham, NC
Boston, MA
Oakland, CA
Palo Alto, CA
Raleigh, NC
RTP,NC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-19
LAST NAME
Peterson
Peterson
Pfaender
Pfitzer
Pierce
Pierson
Pitot
Pittinger
Plaa
Podkulski
Pohland
Pojasek
Pounds
Power
Prather
Price
Rabinowitz
Rail
Ray
Reed
Repetto
Reuhl
Revesz
Rice
Ringen
Risser
Rocco
Rockette
Rodier
Rose
Rowe
Rozman
Russell
Russell
Ryan
Safe
Samet
Sawyer
Schenck
Schlager
Schlesinger
Schmalensee
Schnoor
Schubel
Schull
Scialli
FIRST NAME
Leif
Richard
Frederic K.
Emil A.
Donald
William R.
Henry C.
Charles A.
Gabriel
Daniel
Frederick
Robert B.
Joel B.
Alison G.
Kimberly
James
Michael B.
David
Verne A.
Donald
Robert
Kenneth R.
Richard
Deborah
Knut
Paul G .
James R.
Howard
Patricia
JoanB.
Robert D.
Karl K.
Clifford S.
Milton
John Jake
Stephen H.
Jonathan M.
Robert
RitaC.
Edella
Richard
Richard
Jerald
Jerry
William
Anthony
COMMITTEE
RAC
EPEC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
EHC
EEC
EEC
EEC
DWC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
CASAC
EHC/DWC
EC/DWC
EHC
EEAC
EHC
EEAC
EHC
EHC
EPEC
EEC
IHEC
EHC
DWC
COUNCIL
EHC
EPEC
EC
EHC/IHEC
EHC
IHEC
CASAC
EEC
EC
EHC
EEAC
EPEC
EC/EPEC
RAC
EHC
AFFILIATION
Baylor College of Medicine
University of Wisconsin
University of North Carolina
Consultant
Oregon State University
Desert Research Institute
University of Wisconsin
The Procter & Gamble Co.
University of Montreal
EXXON Chemical Company
University of Pittsburgh
Pojasek & Associates
Wayne State University
Cornell University
University of California
Texas Natural Resources Cons Comm
Marine Biological Laboratory
Consultant
Pfizer, Inc.
Oregon State University
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Rutgers University
New York University School of Law
Health Canada
Center to Protect Workers' Rights
Oregon State University
Sage Risk Solutions LLC
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
University of South Florida
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
University of Kansas Medical Center
Vanderbilt University
University of Tennessee
Health Canada
Texas A&M University
Johns Hopkins University
University of California
Institute for Env. Research & Education
University of Arizona
New York University Medical Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Iowa
The New England Aquarium
University of Texas
Georgetown University Medical School
CITY, STATE
Houston, TX
Madison, WI
Chapel Hill, NC
Ramsey, NJ
Corvallis, OR
Reno, NV
Madison, WI
Cincinnati, OH
Montreal, CAN
Baytown, TX
Pittsburgh, PA
E. Arlington, MA
Detroit, MI
Ithaca, NY
Riverside, CA
Austin, TX
Woods Hole, MA
Washington, DC
Groton, CT
Corvallis, OR
Boulder, CO
Piscataway, NJ
New York, NY
Ottawa, CAN
Des Moines, WA
Corvallis, OR
Aurora, OH
Pittsburgh, PA
Rochester, NY
St. Petersburg, FL
Boulder, CO
Kansas City, KS
Nashville, TN
Knoxville, TN
Ottawa, CAN
College Station,TX
Baltimore, MD
Berkeley, CA
Vashon, WA
Tucson, AZ
Tuxedo, NY
Cambridge, MA
Iowa City, IA
Boston, MA
Houston, TX
Washington, DC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-20
LAST NAME
Segerson
Seigneur
Sextro
Shannon
Shy
Silverstone
Simonin
Sinclair
Small
Smith
Snoeymk
Spacie
Speizer
Spengler
Splitstone
Stein
Stohs
Stolwijk
Stolzenbach
Stout
Strimaitis
Susskind
Suter
Swenberg
Taylor
Templet
Teta
Thein
Theis
Thomas
Tiedje
Tietenberg
Tikuisis
Toman
Tonn
Tran
Trehy
Trulear
Valentine
Viscusi
Voilleque
von Lindern
ANNUAL REPORT
FIRST NAME
Kathleen
Christian
Richard
Margaret
CarlM.
Allen E.
Howard
Warren
Mitchell
Clifford V
Veraon L.
Anne
Frank
JohnD.
Douglas
Michael
Sidney
Jan
Keith
Judy
David
Charles
Glenn
James A.
George E.
Paul H.
Mary Jane
Myint
Thomas
Valerie
James M.
Thomas
Peter
Michael
Bruce
NgaL.
Michael
Michael G.
Jane
W.Kip
Paul
Ian
COMMITTEE
CASAC
CASAC
RAC
EC
CASAC
EHC
EHC
RAC
EEC
RAC
DWC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
EEC
EC
EHC
IHEC
EC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
CASAC
EC/IRP
EC
EC
EC
IHEC
EPEC
COUNCIL
CASAC
EEC
EC
EEC
RSAC
EEC
EHC .
EEAC
RAC
CASAC
AFFILIATION
University of Connecticut
Atmospheric & Env Research, Inc.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Syracuse University
University of North Carolina
State University of New York
NY State Dept of Env. Conservation
National Council on Radiation Protection
Carnegie Mellon University
GE Foundation
University of Illinois
Purdue University
Harvard Medical School
Harvard University
Spiltstone and Associates
University of Chicago
Creighton University
Yale University School of Medicine
University of California
Marine Env Sciences Consortium
Earth Tech
University of California
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
University of North Carolina
George Mason University
Louisiana State University
Union Crarbide Corp.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Clarkson University
Princeton University
Michigan State University
Colby College
Defense Civil Inst of Env. Medicine
Resources for the Future
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
Monsanto Corporation
ChemTreat, Inc.
University of California at Los Angeles
Harvard Law School
MJP Risk Assessment, Inc.
TerraGraphics Environmental Eng
CITY, STATE
Storrs, CT
San Ramon, CA
Berkeley, CA
Syracuse, NY
Chapel Hill, NC
Syracuse, NY
Rome, NY
Bethesda, MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairfield, CT
Urbana, IL
West Lafayette, IN
Boston, MA
Boston, MA
Murrysville, PA
Chicago, IL
Omaha, NE
New Haven, CT
Los Angeles, CA
Dauphin Island, AL
Concord, MA
Berkeley, CA
Oak Ridge, TN
Chapel Hill, NC
Fairfax, VA
Baton Rouge, LA
Danbury, CT
Oak Ridge, TN
Potsdam, NY
Princeton, NJ
East Lansing, MI
Waterville, ME
Ontario CAN
Washington, DC
Oak Ridge, TN
Baltimore, MD
St. Louis, MO
Richmond, VA
Los Angeles, CA
Cambridge, MA
Idaho Falls, ID
Moscow, U3
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-21
LAST NAME
Ward
Watson
Weis
Weiss
Whipple
White
Wiesner
Williams
Williams
Wilson
Windom
Winner
Wolff
Wood
Woods
Wright
Wyzga
Yosie
Zacharewski
Zedler
Zeldin
Zimmerman
FIRST NAME
C. Herb
James E.
Judith S.
Bernard
Christopher
Ronald
Mark
Marcia
Philip B.
Richard
Herbert L.
William
George T.
Ronald W.
James E.
Steven
Ronald
Terry F.
Timothy R.
JoyB.
Melvin
Rae
COMMITTEE
EEC
RAC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
IHEC
EEC
RSAC
EPEC
RAC
EPEC •
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
fflEC
EC
EHC
EC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
EC
AFFILIATION
Rice University
University of North Carolina
Rutgers University
University of Rochester
ICF Kaiser
American Lung Association
Rice University
Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc.
Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.
Harvard University
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Oregon State University
General Motors Corporation
New York University Medical Center
HP- Woods Research Institute
University of Michigan
Electric Power Research Institute
Ruder Finn- Washington
Michigan State University
University of Wisconsin
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt District
New York University
CITY, S
Houston,
Chapel H
Newark, '.
Rocheste
Oakland,
Washingl
Houston,
Los Angc
San Frani
Cambridj
Savanna!
Corvallis
Detroit, I
New Yor
Herndon,
Ann Arb<
Palo Alto
Washingl
East Lan:
Madison,
Diamond
New Yor
g:\user\sab\members\99mcrost.xls
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
-------
ANNUAL REPORT . page C-l
Appendix C Science Advisory Board
Organizational Chart
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-2
ANNUAL REPORT
U.S.' Environmental Protection
Agency
Science Advisory Board
Chartered under
Section 812 of
CAA of 1990
COUNCIL
EEC
EPEC
Chartered under
Section 109 of
CAA of 1977
Mandated under
SDWAofl988
CASAC
DWC
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
Chartered under
ERDDAA of 1978
IHEC
RAC
Formerly Ecology Mandated by Title IV
and of Superrund (1986)
Environmental Formerly Indoor Air Quality/
Transport/Fate Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)
Formed at request of
Administrator in 1992
EEAC
RSAC
Formed as a result of SAB
Future Risk Report in 1988
All Committees (except COUNCIL and CASAC which report directly) report to the Administrator
through the Executive Committee
Council=Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, CASAC=Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, DWC=Drinking Water Committee,
EEAC=*Envtronmental Economics Advisory Committee, EEC=Environmental Engineering Committee, ErK>EnvironnientaI Health Committee, EPEC"Ecological
Processes & Effects Committee, IHEC=Integrated Human Exposure Committee, RAC=Radiation Advisory Committee, RSAC=Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
pageD-l
APPENDIX D
STAFF SUPPORT AND COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP IN FY 1999
Some of the following positions were filled by two people during the year as changes in personnel or staff
alignments were made. Where two people occupied a position during the year, both are listed. The latter name is
the incumbent at the close of FY 1999.
I - STAFF STRUCTURE
STAFF DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Staff Director:
Special Assistant:
Program Specialist:
NOWCC Office Assistant:
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Ms. Anne Barton
Dr. Angela Nugent
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Ms. Betty Fortune
DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
Deputy Staff Director:
Program Specialist:
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
Team Leader:
Management Analyst:
Project Coordinator:
Management Analyst:
Student Intern:
Ms. Patricia Thomas
Ms. Janice Mercer
Ms. Carolyn Osborne
Ms. Vickie Richardson
Ms. Nicole Hinds
Dr. John R. Fowle III
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Committee Operations Staff
Team Leader: Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Designated Federal Officers:
Ms. Kathleen Conway
Ms. Roslyn Edson
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Ms. Karen Martin
Mr. Tom Miller
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Management Assistants
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
naeeD-2 : ; ANNUAL REPORT
II - Staff Committee Alignment
Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Joan Daisey
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Program Specialist: Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Integrated Risk Steering Subcommittee of the Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Joan Daisey
Designated Federal Officers: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Mr. Tom Miller
Management Assistant: Ms. Wanda Fields
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Chair: Dr. Maureen Cropper
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Dr. Angela Nugent
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Joe Mauderly
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Management Assistant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Diana Pozun
Drinking Water Committee
Chair: Dr. Richard Bull
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. Thomas Miller
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Chair: Dr. Terry Young
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Staff Secretary: Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT vase D-3
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Robert Stavins
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. Thomas Miller
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Environmental Engineering Committee
Chair: Dr. Hilary Inyang
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Kathleen Conway
Management Assistant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
Environmental Health Committee
Chair: Dr. Mark Utell
Designated Federal Officers: Ms. Roslyn Edson
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Chair: Dr. Henry Anderson
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Roslyn Edson
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Co-Designated Federal Officer: Dr. Dorothy Canter
(Disproportionate Impact Review)
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Radiation Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Stephen Brown
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. W. Randall Seeker
Designated Federal Officers: Dr. John R. Fowle III
Management Assistant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
vase D-l
APPENDIX D
STAFF SUPPORT AND COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP IN FY 1999
Some of the following positions were filled by two people during the year as changes in personnel or staff
alignments were made. Where two persons occupied a position during the year, both are listed. The latter name is
the incumbent at the close of FY 1999.
I - STAFF STRUCTURE
STAFF DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Staff Director:
Special Assistant:
Program Specialist:
NOWCC Office Assistant:
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Ms. Anne Barton
Dr. Angela Nugent
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Ms. Betty Fortune
DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
Deputy Staff Director:
Program Specialist:
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
Team Leader:
Management Analyst:
Project Coordinator:
Management Analyst:
Student Intern:
Ms. Patricia Thomas
Ms. Janice Mercer
Ms. Carolyn Osborne
Ms. Vickie Richardson
Ms. Nicole Hinds
Dr. John R. Fowle III
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Committee Operations Staff
Team Leader: Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Designated Federal Officers:
Ms. Kathleen Conway
Ms. Roslyn Edson
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Ms. Karen Martin
Mr. Tom Miller
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Management Assistants
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vaeeD-2 ANNUAL REPORT
II - Staff Committee Alignment
Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Joan Daisey
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Program Specialist: Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Integrated Risk Steering Subcommittee of the Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Joan Daisey
Designated Federal Officers: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Mr. Tom Miller
Management Assistant: Ms. Wanda Fields
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Chair: Dr. Maureen Cropper
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Dr. Angela Nugent
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Joe Mauderly
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Management Assistant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Diana Pozun
Drinking Water Committee
Chair: Dr. Richard Bull
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. Thomas Miller
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Chair: Dr. Mark Harwell
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Staff Secretary: Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT paseD-3
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Robert Stavins
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. Thomas Miller
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Environmental Engineering Committee
Chair: Dr. Hilary Inyang
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Kathleen Conway
Management Assistant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
Environmental Health Committee
Chair: Dr. Emil Pfitzer
Co-Chair: Dr. Mark Utell
Designated Federal Officers: Ms. Roslyn Edson
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Chair: Dr. Henry Anderson
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Roslyn Edson
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Co-Designated Federal Officer: Dr. Dorothy Canter
(Disproportionate Impact Review)
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Radiation Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Stephen Brown
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. W. Randall Seeker
Designated Federal Officers: Mr. A. Robert Flaak
.Dr. JohnR. Fowlelll
Management Assistant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
-------
naee E-l
ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX E - SAB MEETINGS FOR FY 1999
Key to Committees of the Science Advisory Board
COUNCIL Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
AQMS Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee
HEES Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
DWC Drinking Water Committee
EC Executive Committee
EEAC Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
EEC Environmental Engineering Committee
EHC Environmental Health Committee
EPEC Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
IHEC Integrated Human Exposure Committee
IRP Integrated Risk Project
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
SAP Scientific Advisory Panel
Note: Meetings listed in bold are face to face meetings, and'italics are teleconference calls.
All meetings in Washington, DC unless otherwise noted.
1st Quarter
October 13-15
October 28-29
November 16
November 17-19
November 18
November 30
December 1-3
December 10-11
December 10-11
December 15
December 15-16
2nd Quarter
January 15
January 20-21
January 26
January 27-28
Committee
EPEC
EC
CASAC
RAC
EEAC
CASAC Subc.
EEC
EC Subc./SAP
DWC
RAC
EC Subc.
EC
EC Subc.
EPEC Subc.
EC
Topic(s)
Ecological Report Card and Integrated Watershed
Indicators
Quarterly Meeting
Ozone NAAQS Research Needs and CO Staff Paper
Schedule (RTP, NC)
Diffuse Norm Report, Approaches to Calculating
Radon Risks, Disposal of Low Activity Mixed
Radioactive Waste and URRS Closure by RAC
Economic Guidelines
Fine Particle Monitoring - PM (RTP, NC)
Various Issues
Use of Human Data
Risk Comparison Framework -1
Low Activity Mixed Radioactive Waste
Secondary Data Use - II
Review Meeting
Cancer Guidelines Revisions
Eco Risk Subcommittee Working Meeting
Quarterly Meeting
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
oageE-2
February 10
February 17-18
February 23-24
February 24
February 25-26
March 3-4
March 8
March 9-10
EECSubc.
DWC
EC Subc.
EEC
EEC Subc.
RSAC
£C
IHEC
Wet Weather Flows
Risk Comparison Framework - II (Ft. Mitchell, KY)
Models 2000
Various Issues
Wet Weather Flows
Annual Budget Review
Review Meeting
Draft Action Plan for Healthy Bldgs/Healthy People
Ml,
March 16
March 24-26
March 30-Apr 1
3rd Quarter
April 6-7
AprilS
April 20
April 20-21
May 4-5
May 27
June 3
June 9-10
June 22
June 28-29
June 30
4th Quarter
July 1-2
July 8
July 13-14
July 13-14
July 19-20
July 21-22
July 27
July 27-28
July 29
EEC Subc.
RAC
EC Subc./SAP
EPEC
EC
EEAC
Council/HEES
Council/AQMS
EC
Council/AQMS
CASAC
COUNCIL
Council/HEES
EC
EC Subcomm.
ECSubcomm.
EC
Council
EC Subcomm.
EC Subcomm.
EEAC
BASE Intervention Study, NAS Asthma Study and
Water Consumption Report
Development of Clean up Goals at Waste Sites
Committee Planning, Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation(BEIR VI) and Technologically Enhanced
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
(TENORM)
Endocrine Disrupters
Methods for Metals Criteria in Water & Sediments
Review Meeting
Economic Analysis Guidelines - II
Prospective Study: Report to Congress
Cost/Benefit CAA: Air Models
Review Meeting
Cost/Benefit CAA: Air Models
Carbon Monoxide NAAQS, PM Research Strategic
Document and Diesel Health Assessment
Cost/Benefit CAA
Cost/Benefit CAA: Health/Eco Effects - II
Review Meeting
Peer Review of the IRP Project
Water Consumption
Review Meeting
Cost/Benefit CAA
Water Consumption
Scientific & Technological Achievement Awards
Economic Analysis Guidelines -W
EC Subcomm. Cancer Guidelines: Children's Issues
CASAC Subcomm. Fine Particle Monitpring/PM -II
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
E-3
ANNUAL REPORT
September 23-24 RSAC
September 30
EC
Agency Peer Review Program, FY2000 Budget
Process/Schedule and BOSC Review of STAR
Program
Review Meeting
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page F-l
APPENDIX F
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD FY 1999 REPORTS AND ABSTRACTS
F1 List of SAB Reports, Letters, Advisories, Commentaries
and Consultations for FY 1999
EPA-S AB-CAS AC-99-001
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-002
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-003
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-004
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-005
EPA-SAB-99-006
EPA-SAB-IHEC-99-007
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-008
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-009
EPA-S AB-EC-99-010
EPA-S AB-EC-99-011
EPA-SAB-RSAC-99-012
EPA-S AB-EC-99-013
EPA-SAB-EPEC-99-014
EPA-S AB-EC-99-015
EPA-SAB-DWC-99-016
EPA-S AB-EC-99-017
EPA-S AB-EC-99-018
EPA-S AB-EEC-99-019
EPA-SAB-EEAC-99-020
FULL REPORTS
Review of the Draft Diesel Health Assessment Document
Review of the RfC Methods Case Studies
Review of the Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene
Technical Review of the Proposed TSCA Section403
Regulation (Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead)
Development of the Acute Reference Exposure
FY1998 SAB Annual Report
Disproportionate Impact Methodologies
Estimating Uncertainties in Radiogenic Cancer Risks
Health Risks from Low-Level Exposure to Radionuclides,
Federal Guidance Report No. 13 - Part 1, Interim Version
(FOR 13-Part 1)
Data Suitability Assessment
Review of the D-Cormix Model
Review of the FY2000 Presidential Science & Technology
Budget Request for the EPA
Review of EPA's Proposed Environmental Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program
An SAB Report: Review of the Index of Watershed
Indicators
Review of Revised Sections of the Proposed Guideline for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment
An SAB Report on the National Center for Environmental
Assessment's Comparative Risk Framework
Methodology
An SAB Report: Recommendations on the 1998 Scientific and
Technological Achievement Award (STAA) Nominations
Review of the SAB Report "Integrated Environmental
Decision-Making in the Twenty-First Century"
Review of the 1996 Risk Management Plan for Wet
Weather Flows and the 1997 Urban Infrastructure
Research Plan
Review of the Economics Analysis Guidelines
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-2
ANNUAL REPORT
LETTER REPORTS
EPA-S AB-CAS AC-LTR-99-001
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-99-002
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-003
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-004
Review of the ORD Ozone Research Needs Document
Review of the Implementation of the Agency-Wide
Quality System
CASAC Review of the Draft Document Air Quality
Criteria for Carbon Monoxide (EPA/600/P-99/045)
CASAC Review of the Draft Document: Airborne
Particulate Matter: Research Strategy
(EPA/600/R- 99/045)
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-99-001
EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-99-002
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-003
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-004
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-005
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-99-006
EPA-S AB-IHEC-ADV-99-007
EPA-SAB-fflEC-ADV-99-008
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-009
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-99-010
EPA-S AB-EC-ADV-99-011
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-012
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-013
National-Level Affordability Criteria and Technologies for
Small Systems Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act
Advisory on the PM2.5 Monitoring Program
TREVLFaTE Module of the Total Risk Integrated
Methodology (TRIM)
National Human Exposure Assessment (NHEXAS) Pilot
Studies
CAA (1990) Section 812 Prospective Study Health &
Ecological Effects Initial Studies
Modeling of Radionuclide Releases from Disposal of Low
Activity Mixed Waste
Advisory on Defining the Trade-offs Between Instituting
Indoor Air Quality and Energy Coils
Building Assessment and Survey Evaluation (BASE)
Study Proposed Data Analysis
Advisory on the Charter for the Council on Regulatory
Environmental Modeling (CREM)
An SAB Advisory: Assessing Risks from Indoor Radon
Advisory on the "White Paper on the Nature and Scope of
Issues on Adoption of Model use Acceptability Criteria"
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812
Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits (1999):
Advisory by the Health and Ecological Effects
Subcommittee on Modeling and Emissions
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812
Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits (1999):
Advisory by the Air Quality Models Subcommittee on
Modeling and Emissions
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
pageF-3
COMMENTARIES
EPA-S AB-EE AC-COM-99-001
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-002
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-003
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-004
Importance of Reinstating the Pollution Abatement and
Control Expenditures (PACE) Survey
Waste Leachability: The Need for Review of Current Agency
Procedures
Environmental Impacts of Natural Hazards: The Need for
Agency Action
Commentary on the Need for Research on Risk Reduction
Options for Particulate Matter PM2.5
CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-CAS AC-CON-99-001
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-99-002
EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-99-003
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-99-004
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-005
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-006
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-007
EPA-SAB-EC-CON-99-008
Consultation on the Development Schedule for the Carbon
Monoxide Staff Paper
Consultation on Approaches to Calculating Radon Risks
Consultation on the Advantages and Disadvantages of
Average or "Not to Exceed" Concentrations in the
Development of Cleanup Goals at Waste Sites
Notification of a Consultation on Technologically Enhanced
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM)
Notification of a Consultation on the Diesel Health
Assessment
Notification of a Consultation on the Estimation of Carbon
Monoxide Exposures and Associated
Carboxyhemoglobin Levels in Denver Residents Using
pNEM/CO (ver. 2.0)
Notification of a Consultation on the PM2.5 Chemical
Speciation Network & Supersites Plans
Notification of a Consultation on the Agency's Science
Strategy
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-4 i ANNUAL REPORT
F2 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, and Commentaries
forFY1999
FULL REPORTS
EPA-SAB-CASAC-99-001 CASAC Review of the Draft Diesel Health
Assessment Document
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the
Agency's Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions. While acknowledging the difficulty of the task, the CASAC
encouraged the Agency to revise the document, which the Committee judged to be not acceptable as a summary of the
current knowledge of the health effects of diesel exhaust inhaled in the environment. Consequently, in CASAC's view, it
does not serve as an acceptable basis for regulatory decision making, based on adverse health effects. The Committee's main
concerns are as follows: a) Some of the information was judged to be considerably out of date. For example, the changes
in diesel engines and their emissions that have occurred in the 1990s is not reflected in the document; b) Neither of the two
approaches employed by the Agency to use animal data to generate estimates of human risks associated with environmental
exposure to diesel exhaust was found to be supported by present knowledge; c) The document fails to distinguish the effects
of diesel exhaust, per se, from the effects of PM25 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter), of which it is a
constituent; and d) The human epidemiological data from occupational exposures present the strongest current evidence for
human cancer risk from inhaled diesel exhaust. However, the Agency's document does not effectively address ongoing
debates about the existing data. In the end the CASAC could not reach a consensus on whether a quantitative, rather than
a qualitative, assessment can be scientifically justified at this time. This marks the second time that the CASAC has
reviewed the Agency's health risk assessment of diesel exhaust. In its 1995 review, the Committee identified a number of
shortcomings, some of which persist in the current document.
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-002 Review of the RfC Methods Case Studies
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) reviewed the EPA's Inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC)
Methods Case Studies for selected chemicals. The Committee commends the Agency's efforts to demonstrate the
application of the dosimetric adjustments and to illustrate the methodology.
The EHC found the concepts and application of the RfC methodology to be articulated clearly in some of the case
studies and unclear in others. Similarly, the Committee concurred with the derivation of the RfC in some case studies and
had concerns about the derivation in others. The same findings also held for the IRIS Summaries. For some of the case
studies, there was a difference in opinion amongst the EHC regarding the clarity of the documents, the derivation of the RfC
and/or the comprehensiveness of the summary.
The Committee made several recommendations for improvement: a) improve the clarity of the documents by
summarizing some of the data using figures and tables; b) include more recent studies in the RfC case studies; c) incorporate
human data into the derivation of the RfC, when available; d) expand the case studies to include a review of the newer
models; e) include a statement on children, and whether the RfC is protective of children; f) explain the term susceptible
population; g) give reasons for including or excluding available data; h) define scientific terminology used in the documents;
i) clarify the calculations; j) make the units consistent; k) provide chemical structures; and 1) reassess the application of
uncertainty factors hi the development of the RfC.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-5
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-003 Review of the Health Risk Assessment of 1,3
Butadiene
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) reviewed the EPA's updated draft health risk assessment of
1,3-Butadiene, which had a cutoff date of January, 1997. A significant amount of new and important information has been
developed since then, and the Committee felt that the report should reflect the most current research data.
The majority of the Environmental Health Committee did not support the proposed classification of 1,3-Butadiene
as a known human carcinogen due to the lack of consistency between exposure response rates for leukemia or
lymphosarcoma when both pertinent studies were considered. The majority opined that 1,3-Butadiene should be classified
as a probable human carcinogen.
The Committee found the approaches taken to characterize plausible cancer risks to be reasonable but points out
specific data that may have been misinterpreted by the Agency. The Committee supported the use of the benchmark dose
procedure in developing Reference levels, and suggested how to further improve the approaches for quantitative assessment
of non-cancer endpoints. Greater explanation is needed of the safety factors applied to the benchmark, and of the newly
proposed models, especially those modeling time to impact. Also, the EHC recommends that the Agency explain, in more
detail, the rationale for the selection of the toxic non-cancer endpoint that is utilized in the derivation of the RfC.
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-004 Technical Review of the Proposed TSCA Section 403
Regulation (Identification of Dangerous Levels
of Lead)
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) commends the Agency for its effort to conduct a risk analysis for
proposing standards for lead levels in dust and soil as required by the Lead 403 Rule and for the wealth of knowledge on
the Lead 403 risk analysis that the Agency displayed during the meeting which was held on September 8-9,1998. Overall,
the EHC found many of the approaches used in the risk analysis to be technically sound, appropriate, and scientifically
defensible.
The EHC offers several recommendations, including: a) providing a clearer presentation on how IQ is used for risk
and cost benefit analysis, the significance of lack of a threshold, the impact of IQ shifts, the use of additional literature
references for the below 70 IQ scores, emphasis on IQ as a neurological surrogate, and improving the explanation that the
IQ fractional point loss is valid for risk and economic analysis but not for interpretations for individual children; b) adding
more animal data since they support human data by establishing causality, due to the absence of confounding variables, and
potential mechanisms for adverse health effects; c) clarifying the discussion regarding the basis for setting the lead standards
given the marginal costs and marginal net benefits, d) including a plan for follow-up to specific interventions; e) evaluating
the potential role of education as an intervention strategy; f) stating, explicitly, the difference between a soil-lead standard
of 2000 parts per million (ppm) and the soil-lead level of concern of 400 parts per million (ppm) and its impact on current
practices by the Department of Housing and Development, as well as some States; f) expanding the sensitivity analysis with
a case study of a real community that is highly susceptible to lead exposure and a presentation of the costs and benefits
associated with the case study; and h) developing a plan for follow-up to evaluate the effectiveness of the specific
interventions and lead standards on public health.
Some of these recommendations will require further research. However, there is sufficient scientific evidence to
indicate that delaying rulemaking for additional research would leave a significant number of children unnecessarily at risk.
The Agency is highly commended for its stated intent to prepare and distribute educational material tailored to
specific circumstances for helping the public comply with the lead standards of the Lead 403 Rule.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-6 t ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-005 Development of the Acute Reference Exposure
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) reviewed the EPA's methodology document, Methods for Exposure-
Response Analysis for Acute Inhalation Exposure to Chemicals, Development of the Acute Reference Exposure. The EHC
commends the Agency for developing methodology to derive Acute Reference Exposures (ARE), a chemical-specific acute
exposure (with an uncertainty spanning an order of magnitude) that is not likely to cause adverse effects in a human
population. Overall, approaches for the NOAEL and the benchmark concentration and for duration extrapolation were found
to be clear and appropriate. However, the EHC does not support the use of the categorical regression (CatReg) approach
for developing an ARE based on the lack of biological-plausibility for the methodology, the lack of justification for the
scaling factor to accommodate within-group correlations and group size, and the unreliability of the types of confidence
limits used. Also, the Agency did not determine the applicability of categorical regression or provide a basis for this
determination with examples of its usefulness with specific chemicals. Regarding the statistical methodology, the EHC
recommends that the Agency validate its assumption that all probability curves for the various severities are parallel. The
EHC found the expert system for categorizing severity to be inadequate due to the reliance on only a few lexicologists to
make decisions on severity of both animal and clinical responses. A workshop to discuss the scientific merit of guidelines
for defining severity categories was recommended. The EHC also found that the calculations are lacking in defining risk
to children. At the end of the meeting, the Committee recommended that the Agency reassess the database to determine the
applicability of categorical regression, the basis for this determination with, if appropriate, examples of its usefulness with
specific chemicals, and then return to the SAB for a follow-up review of a revised ARE methodology.
EPA-SAB-99-006 FY1998 Annual Report
The Science Advisory Board Staffs annual report captures the SAB's activities for FY 1998.
EPA-SAB-IHEC-99-007 Disproportionate Impact Methodologies
The Disproportionate Impact Analysis Methodologies Panel of the USEPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) met in public session on September 3-4, 1998 to review the Agency's
proposed methods for calculating disproportionate impacts of air emissions on surrounding populations of different race,
color, or national origin. The Agency is developing these methodologies in connection with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (as amended).
The Panel reviewed two methods: the first was the Relative Burden Analysis (RBA) [in two versions: the Basic
RBA (BRBA) and the Enhanced RBA (ERBA)]; the second was the Cumulative Outdoor Air Toxics Concentration
Exposure Methodology (COATCEM). The former has been applied on a trial basis to a site in Louisiana; the latter has not
yet been applied to a particular site.
The Panel commends the Agency for these initial efforts in trying to determine analytically disproportionate
impacts. However, each of the two methods has its limitations in terms of accuracy, uncertainty, data availability, resources,
and level of development. The report contains a number of findings, nine specific recommendations, including suggested
guidance for moving forward in this important area, and detailed responses to the 14 Charge questions.
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-008 Estimating Uncertainties in Radiogenic Cancer Risk
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was asked by EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) to review the
1997 draft document entitled "Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks Draft Addendum: Uncertainty Analysis," October, 1997.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-7
The Charge to the SAB focused on evaluating sources of uncertainty, methods of quantifying uncertainties, and the
mathematical quantification of sources of uncertainty.
The review of the Uncertainty in Radiogenic Risk Subcommittee (URRS) of the SAB has concluded that EPA has
generated a credible document. The state of knowledge of uncertain input variables has been properly described by the
Agency staff within the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) as subjective probability distributions. Monte Carlo
simulation is properly employed to combine these input uncertainties into a subjective probability distribution of radiogenic
cancer risk. EPA is encouraged to build on the draft methodology and issue a single document that clearly describes its
methodology for estimating specific cancer-incidence and mortality risks per unit intake of radioactivity, along with their
associated uncertainty.
URRS recommendations for improving the draft report include (a) use of primary data based on cancer morbidity
rather than mortality; (b) expansion of the subjective probability distribution for extrapolating from high to low dose and
dose rates; (c) accounting explicitly for alternative modeling approaches used to transfer risk coefficients from data on the
survivors of the atomic bombings of Japan to estimated risks in the U.S. population; and (d) the use of formal methods of
expert elicitation to quantify uncertainty for the most important input variables, so that subjective probability distributions
reflect the current state of knowledge.
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-009 Health Risks from Low-Level Exposure to
Radionuclides, Federal Guidance Report No.
13-Part 1, Interim Version (FGR 13-Part 1)
On May 6-7, 1998, the Federal Guidance Report Review Subcommittee (FGRRS) reviewed technical aspects of
the draft document, "Health Risks from Low-Level Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides," Federal Guidance Report
13 - Part 1 - Interim Version (FGR 13 - Part 1). This document provides tabulations of unit risk coefficients for cancer
morbidity and mortality attributable to exposure to approximately 100 radionuclides through various environmental media,
in a population approximated by the age, gender, and mortality experienced in the United States.
The Subcommittee found the report to be well organized and well written and to have used up-to-date scientific
methods and data to determine the health risk estimates. Although most of the important limitations of the risk estimates
are noted in FGR 13 - Part 1, they are not sufficiently prominent in the current draft, given the potential for misuse or
misinterpretation of the estimates. In particular, the magnitudes of the uncertainties in the computed numbers are difficult
to ascertain. Other concerns included partial reliance on unpublished methodologies, lack of dose information, insufficient
discussion of alternatives to the linear, no-threshold risk model, and several other technical issues. The Subcommittee found
that the Agency's plan to calculate risk coefficients for an extended list of radionuclides was appropriate, except that radon
and its decay products should also be included. The Subcommittee strongly supports the Agency's stated intent to publish
supporting information in electronic form to accompany release of the final version of FGR 13 - Part 1, and recommends
that it include the data, models, and dose values used in formulating the risk coefficients.
EPA-SAB-EC-99-010 Data Suitability Assessment
The Secondary Data Use Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's Executive Committee reviewed the
Agency's draft "Data Suitability Assessment of Major EPA Databases". This assessment examines and reports upon the
extent to which individual EPA regulatory databases can be used for a range of uses other than the use for which the database
was designed. The Suitability Assessment is being performed in several stages of which the first, qualitative review, has
been completed for six databases.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageF-8 ANNUAL REPORT
The Subcommittee found that the Data Suitability Assessment is appropriate for evaluating the general suitability
of databases for a range of secondary uses. There was also a consensus that additions to what is in the present draft would
improve the usefulness of the data bases to secondary users. The subcommittee not only recommended additions to the
assessment but also suggested documents and activities beyond the assessment that would help researchers and the public
understand the appropriate secondary uses of specific regulatory databases.
EPA-SAB-EC-99-011 Review of the D-Cormix Model
The US EPAs Science Advisory Board (SAB) convened the D-CORMIX Review Subcommittee to conduct an
external peer review of the Agency's D-CORMIX model. The Subcommittee met in public session on August 25-26,1998
in Washington, DC and reviewed a number a technical aspects as well as implementation issues with the D-CORMIX model
for mixing zone analysis.
The charge to the Subcommittee is summarized as follows: a) Is D-CORMIX an appropriate mixing zone model
to use for continuous dredged material discharge mixing zone analysis?; b) Does the model accurately capture the physics
of negatively buoyant surface plumes, in particular, behavior of the density current and particle settling associated with
dredged disposal plumes?; c) What are the essential differences between the D-CORMDC and CD-FATE models and which
is preferable as a mixing zone model for continuous dredged material discharge?); d) Does the SAB approve of our outline
for laboratory validation? What further suggestions can be offered?; and e) What factors should be considered hi developing
an AIZ that will not adversely impact the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem? How should the AIZ be sized, especially in
relation to distance from the bottom (substrate), and portion of water column encompassed?
In its report, the Subcommittee provided responses to the above questions, addressed several concerns over the
actual model itself, and made suggestions for improvements in validation.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-99-012 Review of the FY2000 Presidential Science &
Technology Budget Request for the
Environmental Protection Agency
On March 3 and 4,1999, the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) met to review the FY2000 Presidential Budget Request for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Committee responded to six charge questions. Its findings were that the science and technology activities in the request were
selected by a priority-setting process that identifies the highest environmental risks within each environmental goal
established in the EPA Strategic Plan using the sound scientific principles of the risk assessment/risk management
framework. The RSAC also found the funding request priorities to be appropriate to the environmental goals established
in the Agency Strategic Plan. The ORD strategic plan and budget were developed in concert with the Program Offices to
develop goals consistent with customer needs. It was possible to examine and evaluate how the budget is allocated to various
programs, to science and technology activities, and to various strategic goals. While pleased with the presentation of the
budget, RSAC concluded that the budgets proposed in several areas were not likely to be sufficient to meet the goals
established by the Agency and ORD in their Strategic Plans. These areas included trophospheric ozone, endocrine
disrupters, ecosystem protection, waste site remediation technologies, microbial pathogens and indoor air. Also, the
requirements of the "Thompson Report" will require a new program in research to address the knowledge gaps which inhibit
comprehensive cost-benefit analyses. Because environmental concerns are becoming ever more complex, and need more
scientific insights than the requested budget can likely deliver, the Committee concluded that goals need to be expanded with
respect to identifying and addressing emerging environmental problems. Although RSAC understands that budget realities
may not permit the funding of every proposed program, even if cost-effective, it recommends that the Agency make available
information on high ranking programs that the Agency entertained during the budget-making process, but could not fund
due to overall budget-constraints and competition with other programs.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-9
EPA-SAB-EC-99-013 Review of the EPA's Proposed Environmental
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
The 1996 passage of the Food Quality Protection Act and amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
required EPA to develop a screening and testing strategy for environmental endocrine disrupters. The EPA subsequently
asked the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to form a Joint Subcommittee
to review a set of scientific issues concerning the development of the Agency's endocrine disrupter screening and testing
program. The review Subcommittee met on March 30-April 1, 1999, in Arlington VA.
The Charge was broad and complex, posing 18 major questions within four broad areas: a) scope of the program;
b) priority-setting; c) the high throughput pre-screening approach; and d) the proposed endocrine disrupter screening
program.
The Subcommittee recommended: a mid-course evaluation or optimization of the screening; an initial focus on the
methods development effort; the inclusion of more and better-detailed case studies; the use of sub-populations as a criterion
within the existing compartments already identified, but not as a separate stand-alone compartment; making users aware
of validation problems in systems like IRIS; the inclusion of both dose and timing of exposure, particularly with respect to
developmental or reproductive events; minimizing the number of animals needed for testing; inclusion of an introductory
statement; support with data decisions about which assays are selected, and which protocols are adopted for those assays,
should be with data; be aware of the imperfect nature of any future agreed strategy; define and agree on some negative
control agents for environmental disruption assay validation; do not expand the set of agents until the Agency develops or
adopts validated systems and can provide clear decision criteria.
Although the review identified several areas of concern, we wish to congratulate the Agency for dealing effectively
with an extraordinarily complex set of issues, many of which are on the cutting edge of the relevant science.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-99-014 An SAB Report: Review of the Index of
Watershed Indicators
On October 13-15,1998, the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the Science Advisory Board met to
review and comment on the Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI) developed by the Office of Water. The stated purpose of
the IWI is to provide available data on aquatic resources in a Geographic Information System (GIS) format for assessing
the condition and vulnerability of watersheds. Phase I of the IWI, released in 1997, consisted of information on 15 indicators
presented individually and in aggregate. In a previous review (EPA-SAB-EPEC-ADV-97-003), the Committee supported
in concept Agency plans to include 6 additional indicators (i.e., biological integrity, habitat, groundwater, coastal condition
indicator, air deposition, and downstream effects) and further recommended that land use change and other indicators of
terrestrial condition be considered. The Committee also recommended that the algorithm used to calculate composite scores
for watershed condition and vulnerability be examined prior to the Agency's release of a revised version of the IWI. The
primary focus of this second EPEC review was to follow up on the previous Committee recommendations.
The Committee applauds early Agency efforts on the IWI, but recommends strengthening the scientific basis of
IWI. The Committee recommends that the Agency: develop a strategic plan to articulate IWI's goals and objectives, identify
target audiences, and identify data gaps; develop a conceptual model for the IWI that can be used to guide the selection of
additional data layers and refinements to the integrating algorithm; add more indicators of biological and ecosystem effects
to the IWI; develop terrestrial indicators using the MRLC data set; and evaluate each indicator to demonstrate that changes
in the indicator correspond to meaningful changes in environmental quality. The Committee also urges the Agency to revisit
the current integrated index, which falls short of the goal of characterizing watershed condition and vulnerability. As part
of this exercise, the Agency should undertake the appropriate analyses to assign differential weights to the individual
indicators based on their relative importance as predictors of watershed integrity.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageF-10 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-EC-99-015 Review of Revised Sections of the Proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment's
Comparative Risk Framework
A Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board reviewed EPA's revised Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines (GL)
on January 20-21, 1999, addressing the proposed narrative summaries and hazard descriptors; the use of Mode of Action
(MOA) information; the use of dose response analysis to calculate the point of departure; and margin of exposure analysis,
including human intraspecies variability.
The Subcommittee recommended that the GLs should be released as soon as possible and found the GLs were a
significant improvement. Other general findings/recommendations included:
a) State that "...the primary goal of EPA actions is public health protection..."
b) Re-consider the loss of flexibility for risk assessors.
c) Discuss sensitive subpopulations for all agents to which the public is exposed.
d) Discuss the need consider background and concurrent exposures.
e) Provide guidance on the use of biologically-based models
More specific findings are:
a) The narrative descriptor "known to be carcinogenic to humans" or "known human carcinogen" should be
retained. The Subcommittee did not agree on whether to restrict use of this category to scenarios in which
there was conclusive epidemiological data.
b) A common format for the hazard narrative is essential.
c) Continue efforts to achieve compatibility with international organizations.
d) Specific criteria for judging the adequacy of data on a mode of action are needed .
e) The GL remain vague about what data are required to reject default assumptions.
f) The GLs should require testing of the hypothesis before rejecting the default assumption.
g) There should be guidance on whether mode of action data support linear or non-linear extrapolation of risk
h) The Subcommittee is concerned about the linkage between selected risk levels and the incorporation of
adjustment and uncertainty factors.
i) Clarify the relationship of the LED10,ED10 and the NOAEL.
EPA-SAB-DWC-99-016 An SAB Report on the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's Comparative
Risk Framework Methodology
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed a methodology developed
by the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Cincinnati
entitled Comparative Risk Framework Methodology and Case Study. The document presents a methodology intended for
analyzing, and describing in comparable terms, disparate health risks associated with alternative drinking water treatment
approaches. The Committee supported the continued development of this method and the research necessary to allow its
further development.
The Committee noted that the proposed methodology presents a potentially powerful tool that provides a structural
framework for identifying important variables that influence the nature and extent of complex environmental problems. The
case study that was conducted to illustrate the method's application, while demonstrating its promise, highlighted the
difficulties that can be anticipated when such a framework is applied. The Committee suggested that with further
development, the Comparative Risk Framework Methodology has the potential to provide valuable insights to officials
responsible for local and national decisions on the most appropriate intervention to apply to control human health risks
associated with drinking water. The text of the report provides advice that highlights the further efforts that will be necessary
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-11
for its development and use by the Agency.
EPA-SAB-EC-99-017 An SAB Report: Recommendations on the 1998 Scientific
and Technological Achievement Award (STAA)
Nominations
This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Science Advisory Board regarding the 1998 EPA Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Program. The
STAA Program is an Agency-wide competition to promote and recognize scientific and technological achievements by EPA
employees, fostering a greater exposure of EPA research to the public. The Program was initiated in 1980 and is managed
by the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The Agency submitted for review 94 nominations from the first nine of the eleven award categories this year
(Control Systems & Technology, Ecology & Ecosystems Risk Assessment, Health Effects & Health Risk Assessment,
Monitoring & Measurement Methods, Transport & Fate, Review Articles, Risk Management and Policy Formulation,
Integrated Risk Management, Social Science Research, Environmental Education, and Environmental Trends for Drivers
of Future Risk). After the review, the STAA Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board revised the number of
nominations to 89. Of these, the Subcommittee recommended 32 nominations (36 percent of the nominations) for awards
at three levels and also recommended that ten additional papers be recognized with Honorable Mention. The Subcommittee
recommended awards for 30 Development and two nominations submitted by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
The Subcommittee encouraged the Agency to continue support for the STAA program as a mechanism for recognizing and
promoting high quality research in support of the Agency's mission.
EPA-SAB-EC-99-018 Review of the SAB Report "Integrated Environmental
Decision-Making in the Twenty-First Century"
A Subcommittee comprised of some SAB Executive Committee members, and Board consultants, reviewed the
SAB "Integrated Environmental Decision-Making" report. To ensure an independent peer review, EC members who had
served on the IRP were not included on the review subcommittee. The Subcommittee found the approach to be sensible and
constructive. Many of the concepts have scientific merit, and provide a good starting point for improving the way in which
EPA and other agencies charged with environmental risk management go about their business. The report should encourage
the Agency and other environmental risk managers in the direction of a more holistic and rational approach to analyzing
problems and making decisions. However, the Subcommittee noted that the report appears to be of two minds as to whether
it is recommending a single strategy, or a menu of approaches and tools that hold promise for improved integration. While
the report contains many promising ideas that deserve research attention and experimental application, the Subcommittee
believes that few of the concepts discussed are ready for direct routine application by EPA and other federal agencies. In
most cases such application will require: more solid theoretical and empirical foundations; better natural and social scientific
knowledge; and, Agency staff willing to and capable of applying ideas in a critical and inventive way, since their complexity
makes it unlikely that it will ever be possible to reduce many of them to routine formulas or step-by-step instructions.
Volume 1 should be significantly revised and published as a stand-alone document under a new title which points to a
direction, but does not imply a firm strategy. The revised report needs to address the enormous practical difficulties involved
in coming to grips with the many different specific pieces of incomplete and uncertain science that underlie the various parts
that must be integrated. The report also needs to more explicitly discuss the various objectives that underlie risk-ranking,
because even though the results from risk assessments are a useful input to decision-making, most risk managers would not
want to use them as the sole basis for setting risk management priorities. If the SAB is going to continue to work on issues
that lie at the interface between science, values and decision-making, the peer review subcommittee believes it needs to
substantially increase its behavioral and decision science expertise. Similarly, if the Agency is going to begin experimental
applications and conduct expanded research on issues of the sort discussed in this report, it will need to increase expertise
in these areas.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageF-12 t ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-EEC-99-019 Review of the 1996 Risk Management Plan for Wet
Weather Flows and the 1997 Urban
Infrastructure Research Plan
The Wet Weather Flows and Urban Infrastructure Subcommittee of the EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
Environmental Engineering Committee reviewed the Office of Research and Development's 1996 Risk Management Plan
for Wet Weather Flows and the 1997 Urban Infrastructure Research Plan. Wet weather flows are one of the largest
remaining threats to water quality, aquatic life and human health and the Subcommittee commends EPA for its initiative in
developing these two research plans. -
The Subcommittee's most important recommendation is that EPA fully address both risk reduction and costs within
its wet weather flows research activities.
The five research areas identified in the 1996 Risk Management Plan for Wet Weather Flows are appropriate.
However, the corresponding research efforts are too narrow and must be couched in the context of risk reduction. The
Subcommittee makes specific suggestions for broadening the research program to improve the basis for risk management
decisions. The 1997 Urban Infrastructure Plan— Water and Wastewater Issues identified appropriate areas and addressed
them in a thoughtful manner.
EPA-SAB-EEAC-99-020 Review of the Economics Analysis Guidelines
The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed
the Agency's draft Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses during a series of meetings extending from August 1998
to July 1999, in response to a request received from EPA to perform a full and complete review. The draft Guidelines have
been revised and greatly improved as a result of the interactions between the EEAC and EPA staff during the public meetings
over the past year. The EEAC's general conclusion is that the Guidelines now succeed in reflecting methods and practices
that enjoy widespread acceptance in the environmental economics profession, notwithstanding the concerns that remain with
several particular parts of the Guidelines.
LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-001 Review of ORD Ozone Research Needs Document
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board, met on November 16,
1998 to review the March 31,1998 draft EPA document, "Ozone Research Needs to Improve Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment". The Committee found that the draft document provides little sense of the factors influencing recent decisions
and the key issues remaining unresolved at those times. Those critical information gaps provide a platform from which the
extensive list of current questions regarding the health and welfare effects of ozone can be developed intp a prioritized list
of research needs which, if met, would significantly improve the basis for future reviews of the standard. While the draft
document appropriately notes a number of important research needs within numerous categories, it does little to integrate
or prioritize the needs across categories. Additional integration of the information contained in the draft document is needed
to provide a useful basis for development of an ozone research strategy.
It was the consensus of the Committee that the Agency should develop and sustain a substantive, well-prioritized
and integrated program of research on the health and welfare effects of ozone. The present level of research and the likely
funding portrayed by EPA Staff falls far short of an adequate effort. The Committee strongly urges the Agency to develop
an ozone research strategy that prioritizes information needs and describes the resources and time required to meet those
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-13
needs. The Committee also noted the likely importance of co-pollutant effects, and encourages greater integration of
research strategies for ozone, particulate matter, and other air contaminants.
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-99-002 Review of the Implementation of the Agency-Wide
Quality System
EPA's National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance requested that the Quality Management
Subcommittee (QMS) of the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Engineering Committee review the implementation
of the Agency-wide Quality System.
The Charge asked the QMS to evaluate the Agency's success in implementing the Agency-wide Quality System.
The following ideas emerged in the review, and aim at assisting management in countering incomplete buy-in of the Quality
System:
a) Consider revisiting the reporting status of the Quality System and institutionalizing it within the Agency
structure.
b) Create senior and lower level champions for the Quality System within EPA, states and tribal organizations.
c) Emphasize the bench marking and oversight advantages of the Quality System as management tools.
d) Articulate the need to have independent oversight of the quality of the Agency's products and services.
e) Articulate the benefits and cost reductions that will eventually accrue following incorporation of a Quality
System within the Agency structure.
The Subcommittee finds that the .Quality System cannot be successfully implemented without buy-in and
demonstrated commitment from senior management. The Subcommittee also finds the Agency to be the national and
international leader for quality assurance activities within the environmental community.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-003 CASAC Review of the Draft Document Air Quality
Criteria for Carbon Monoxide
(EPA/600/P-99/001)
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviewed the February 1999 draft document, Air Quality
Criteria For Carbon Monoxide (EPA/600/P-99/001). The Committee expressed the unanimous view that the document
required revision and re-review by CASAC before it could constitute an adequate statement of the current scientific
knowledge as a basis for reviewing the appropriateness of the existing CO NAAQS. Although attention must be given to
numerous issues raised by the Panel in order for the document to be acceptable, the extent of the required revisions is modest.
The Panel especially complimented Staff for following through with the agreed-upon plan to focus on how new information
might alter previous views of the effects of CO, rather than developing an exhaustive compilation of historic information.
The Panel recommended that information be added on the evolution of CO oximetry and its impact on interpretation
of results, the implication for standard setting of the involvement of CO in ozone chemistry, interspecies differences in CO
toxicokinetics, and potentially susceptible subpopulations. It noted the need for more analytical treatments of CO
measurement methods, current health effects data, and uncertainties regarding both exposures and health risks. Additional
recent literature on CO epidemiology and certain other topics was recommended for inclusion. The Panel questioned the
emphasis given to information on acute high-level exposures and the health effects of CO poisoning, and the lack of
justification given for its inclusion. It was recommended that each chapter contain a summary of whether or not, and how,
new information changes previously-held views of CO exposures and their health impacts. The Panel raised a broad range
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-14 ANNUAL REPORT
of other specific issues and editorial points that also need to be addressed.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-004 CASAC Review of the Draft Document: Airborne
Participate Matter: Research Strategy
(EPA/600/R-99/045)
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviewed the May 1999 draft document, Airborne
Paniculate Matter: Research Strategy (EPA/600/R-99/045). The Committee complimented the Agency staff for its effort
in developing a revised document substantially different in scope and format than the previous draft, and one that clearly
demonstrated intent to be responsive to both CASAC's previous comments and to the recommendations of the National
Research Council (NRC) PM Research Committee.
The Panel recommended revising the introductory material substantially to focus on the need for the information
to be developed by the PM research program, rather than on the mission, structure, and capabilities of the Office of Research
and Development. The Panel agreed with the Agency's selection of key research topics, and noted its general consistency
with recommendations of the NRC Committee. The Panel recommended strengthening the descriptions of relative priorities
and the prioritization process. The strategy also needs strengthening in the areas of coordination with other PM research
activities within and outside the Agency, monitoring progress, communication, measuring success in meeting specific
information needs, and human resources.
The Panel was unanimous in its opinion that, although the revised document was substantially improved from the
last draft, it needs further revision and re-review by CASAC.
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-001 National-Level Affordability Criteria and
Technologies for Small Systems Under the
1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
\ Act
This Advisory was developed by the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
as a result of its June 19,1998 meeting with the Agency. The DWC recognized the Agency's substantial efforts and progress
in developing the criteria described in their draft report entitled, National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Revised Draft Report dated April 30, 1998). The Committee noted that no
statutory definition exists for the concept of Affordability and that the deadline for developing criteria for affordability did
not provide ample time for the Agency to conduct original studies that would lead to an empirically derived meaning of
affordability. The Committee thought that some of the comparisons between incremental costs for treatment technologies
and other expenditures made in the Agency's background document had a raw intuitive appeal while others did not. The
Committee thought that the focus on defining affordability by reference to median household income was not well explained
by the report. The DWC thought that without a clear conceptual framework, efforts to determine affordability become highly
arbitrary. The DWC thought that the Agency analysis was adequate given the lack of guidance and short deadline provided.
in the legislation; however, they suggested that the report reviewed would benefit from additional input by economists and
policy analysts.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-99-002 Advisory on the PM2.5 Monitoring Program
The Technical Subcommittee on Fine Particle Monitoring of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) met on November 30, 1998, at the request "of the Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page ¥-15
(O AQPS), to provide advice and commentary on two major components of the Agency' s PM2 5 Monitoring Program, namely,
the chemical speciation program, and the "supersites" program. The Subcommittee addressed the following issues: a)
evaluating the proposed plan for the initial establishment of 53 sites in the speciation network that would serve as the trends
network sites; b) reviewing the revised plans for deployment of the supersite network; c) examining the availability of data
(while considerable work has been done in the Agency to characterize the FRM monitor, the results have not yet been
presented in the peer-reviewed journal literature.); and d) evaluating provisions for sufficient time and resources to fully
utilize the extensive quantity of data that will be collected as a result of the Fine PM Monitoring Program.
To respond to the need for continuing scientific input into the design and implementation of the monitoring
program, the Subcommittee agreed that it would be willing to serve as the scientific advisory body to the PM monitoring
program. This role would require the Subcommittee to both react to materials prepared by EPA as CAS AC has traditionally
done and to provide input to the EPA management team as scientific information relevant to the monitoring program
becomes available. Thus, a more proactive role is envisioned for the Subcommittee as the monitoring program evolves.
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-003 TRIM.FaTE Module of the Total Risk Integrated
Methodology(TRlM)
The Environmental Models Subcommittee (EMS) of the Executive Committee (EC) of the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) reviewed the TRIM.FaTE Module of the Total Risk Integrated Methodology (TRIM) being developed by the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). TRIM is designed to provide
a method for integrating multimedia, multipathway sources of pollutants to more accurately estimate exposure to pollutants
and effects from environmental releases. The Subcommittee found the development of TRIM and the TRIM.FaTE module
to be conceptually sound and scientifically based. It is a very complex model in terms of interconnections, so care needs
to be taken to insure that it is applied appropriately and produces realistic results. Recommendations are made to seek input
from users before and after the methodology is developed to maximize its utility, to know how it is being used, and to guard
against inappropriate uses; to provide documentation of recommended and inappropriate applications; to provide training
for users; to test the model and its subcomponents against current data and models to evaluate its ability to provide realistic
results; and to apply terminology consistently.
EPA-5AB-IHEC-ADV-99-004 National Human Exposure Assessment (NHEXAS)
Pilot Studies
On September 29-30, 1998, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC) reviewed the preliminary data on the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) pilot studies in
Durham, North Carolina. The NHEXAS pilot studies were designed to provide critical information about multipathway,
multimedia population exposure distribution for selected chemical classes.
IHEC found NHEXAS to be an excellent project that has significant promise for improving public health in a cost-
effective manner. The Committee also found NHEXAS to be outstanding in both design and implementation. When
completed, NHEXAS should greatly improve understanding of human exposure to selected pollutants. This, in turn, would
be helpful in determining the most effective strategies to reduce the public's risk to hazardous environmental chemicals. (The
uncertainty and limitations associated with the data should be presented along with the data in order to add to the
transparency of the information.) Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the EPA to pursue the completion of the
study results in an expeditious manner.
To increase the utility of NHEXAS, the Committee recommends that the EPA: a) develop a strategic plan for
analyzing the data; b) publicize the NHEXAS framework by informing the public through various media such as an EPA
publication that is available in hardcopy and on the Internet; c) evaluate the flexibility of NHEXAS to study special
populations such as minorities and sensitive populations; d) link the exposure data from NHEXAS with biological markers
from NHANES where possible; and e) improve the communication between the NHEXAS investigators and state and local
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseF-16 ANNUAL REPORT
health officials.
The Committee was particularly concerned about the limited resources allocated to the analysis of the NHEXAS
data and the lack of a strategic plan for follow-up studies. If NHEXAS were to stop at this time, the considerable efforts
and expenditures incurred during the last five years would be of limited utility to the Agency. It is important, therefore, that
the costs of this program be presented within a frame of future savings as a result of improved public health resulting from
better targeted, more effective, and less costly regulatory efforts. The Committee was also concerned about the selection
of the chemicals that were measured in NHEXAS. Several recommendations are provided for the planned analyses of the
data, actions for the increased utility of the data, and follow-up studies in both the near term and in the future.
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-005 CAAA (1990) Section 812 Prospective Study Health &
Ecological Effects Initial Studies
The Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES) of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council), of the Science Advisory Board, has reviewed precursors to the first Prospective Study: Report to
Congress. The HEES concludes that the approach to the health/ecological effects assessment lacks a framework for
ecological evaluations. The Agency should develop a comprehensive methodology for valuing natural resources and
ecological services, incorporating contemporary ecological thinking and findings. This framework must be made explicit
and clear to the user. The HEES encourages the Agency to explore valuations at the watershed level or larger (or other scales
of concern) to avoid double-counting of pollutant effects and interactions among pollutants.
The absence of disaggregation of costs and benefits by pollutant or source category was highlighted as a deficiency.
The Agency should progress toward disaggregation in the Prospective Studies, in order to evaluate the various parts of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA-90) (e.g.,industrial sectors by title).
The HEES has provided guidelines and a proposed framework for evaluating ecological effects, provided advice
on air toxics, and recommended a procedure for selecting toxic chemicals that might yield quantifiable risks, as well as a
procedure for screening the list of 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) for identifying candidate pollutants warranting more
in-depth analysis. The HEES has also provided advice on a number of specific technical issues, including particulate matter
(PM) mortality response functions and has recommended that PM-related infant mortality data not be included in the current
analyses, and that the use of time lags to adjust for downward trends is premature.
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-99-006 Modeling of Radionuclide Releases from Disposal of
Low Activity Mixed Waste
On November 17-19,1998, the Science Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory Committee conducted an advisory
of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air's (ORIA) modeling of low activity mixed waste, including: dose assessment over
a wide range of disposal site-specific hydrogeologic and climatic settings; the 1000 year modeling time frame; and using
a "high" release rate from concrete for the modeling.
The Committee found that the sites modeled do not necessarily cover the range of conditions that might be
encountered at RCRA-C facilities. It recommends that ORIA should further assess the impact of site-specific conditions
to bound probable site performance better. While the Committee did not reach consensus on the modeling time frame, it
recommends that ORIA consider: conducting a sensitivity analysis to address the variation of peak dose with time; improving
its waste characterization; the relationship between radioactive and hazardous waste modeling time frames; uncertainties
in its technical assumptions and future medical and social conditions; site ownership; and its degree of conservatism given
the intent of the proposal. The Committee recommends that ORIA perform a simulation to verify that its assumptions about
the releases from concrete are reasonably conservative.
Beyond the Charge, the Committee recommends that ORIA: better justify choosing the PRESTO model; consider
classifying radionuclides^ according to half-life; consider whether the total quantity_of waste as well as its radionuclide
concentrations should be part of the decision process; re-examine certain modeling assumptions; propose concentration
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-17
criteria addressing "dry" and "wet" sites; and compare control systems and acceptance criteria for radioactive and hazardous
wastes.
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-Q07 Advisory on Defining the Trade-offs between
Instituting Indoor Air Quality and Energy Coils
The Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board, supplemented by an
economist (a liaison from the SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee), reviewed the draft EPA project reports
on Energy Costs and Indoor Air Quality Performance of Ventilation Systems and Controls. The purpose of this project was
to assess the compatibilities and trade-offs between energy and indoor air quality objectives in the design and operation of
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in commercial buildings. In its draft reports, the EPA concludes
that indoor environmental quality appears to be compatible with energy efficiency goals when energy saving measures and
retrofits are applied wisely.
Overall, the Committee found the Energy Cost and Indoor Air Quality Performance of Ventilation Systems and
Controls Project to be well-executed and clearly presented. The Committee was particularly impressed with the technical
components of the methodology. The Committee also found that, in general, the findings of the report were supported by
the modeling results and that, in general, the analyses were adequate for understanding some differences in the costs
associated with having good indoor air quality amongst different ventilation systems. The Committee found that the major
contribution of this modeling effort is that the results suggests that the tradeoffs are not very large, rather than that they do
not exist.
The IHEC found the EPA reports to be ready for dissemination and broader discussion as long as the Agency
further clarifies the limitations and caveats of the model and addresses the Committee's immediate concerns which are
identified in the report. The Committee also found that additional work in several areas would strengthen the analysis when
it is used to support specific policies. Specifically, the IHEC recommends that: a) the EPA work with DOE to further
validate the DOE-2 model; b) the Agency clarify the significance of applying the ASHRAE standard and state whether or
not the Agency is assuming that compliance with the ASHRAE standard implies that the indoor air quality is good for a
given building and; c) the EPA further explain the cost of achieving improvements in IAQ by adjustments in the HVAC
system, the cost associated with poor indoor air quality, and the benefits of improving indoor air quality through reduced
occupant illness. The IHEC also offered several suggestions to be considered as ongoing research directions for future
analyses.
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-008 Building Assessment and Survey Evaluation (BASE)
Study Proposed Data Analysis
The Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) of the Science Advisory Board met on March 9, 1999 in
Washington, DC to conduct an advisory on the proposed data analyses for the Building Assessment Survey Evaluation
(BASE) study. BASE is a cross-sectional multi-year study designed to define key characteristics of IAQ in 100 public and
commercial buildings. The ultimate goal of the BASE study is to improve public health through improvements in indoor
air quality. .
Overall, the Committee found the proposed analyses to be the most relevant and extremely useful in providing
significant data on the contributions of indoor environments to human exposure and reported symptoms. The BASE data
is expected to be normative (typical of public and commercial buildings) because the buildings used in the study were
randomly selected. The frequency distributions of the normative data are the hallmark of this project and should be
extremely useful in supplying relevant and useful yardsticks to practitioners studying indoor air. The Committee found the
overall proposed analyses to be useful in helping the Agency to meet GPRA Goal 4, Objective 4, which states that "By 2005,
15 million more Americans will live or work in homes, schools, or office buildings with healthier indoor air than in 1994."
The analyses of the study parameters can also be useful in determining good IAQ practices and, subsequently, in helping
the EPA to achieve its GPRA goal of having 5% of the office buildings managed with good IAQ practices by 2005. The
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageF-18 | ANNUAL REPORT
IHEC highly encouraged the Agency integrate the BASE project into the Agency's efforts to analyze cumulative exposure
in order to maximize the impact of BASE on the overall protection of public health.
The IHEC strongly recommended that the Agency focus on conducting Quality Assurance/Quality Control on the
data and then conduct an in-depth evaluation of the descriptive statistics in order to provide critically needed baseline
information on the various parameters that have been monitored in the 100 commercial and public buildings that were
included in the study. The Committee urged the Agency to release the information to the public as soon as the QA/QC and
descriptive statistics analyses are completed. It was recommended that more complex analyses, such as testing for
associations, be considered after the baseline data are released. The IHEC provides several recommendations for the
subsequent data analyses. The IHEC emphasized that the Agency should determine (a priori) the acceptable power before
testing for associations.
The IHEC recommended that the Agency incorporate guidelines regarding the scientific limitations in using the
data. Such guidelines would reduce the likelihood that the data are misinterpreted or that invalid associations are inferred
and would minimize the likelihood of data dredging, especially given the large number of variables in the study. The
Committee cited a few data sets with analyses that EPA may be able to use as guidance in its data analysis efforts and
emphasized the importance of analyzing both the BASE data and the data from the Office of Research and Development
longitudinal study, the Temporal Indoor Monitoring and Evaluation Study (TIME). The Committee also encouraged the
Agency to establish collaborative relationships with other researchers when developing the strategy to conduct the BASE
analyses and while conducting the BASE analyses.
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-009 Advisory on the Charter for the Council on
Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM)
The Environmental Models Subcommittee (EMS) reviewed the draft "Proposed Charter, Council on Regulatory
Environmental Modeling". They concluded that the draft charter provides adequate and appropriate guidance to help the
Agency develop, apply, evaluate and improve, scientifically-based and defensible models of high quality, and it made
recommendations for improving the CREM charter. The Subcommittee also felt that the proposed CREM charter should
help the Agency communicate its activities to the public.
The Subcommittee strongly urged the Agency to charter and employ CREM to develop policies and procedures
for the development, validation and use of environmental regulatory models at EPA. The Subcommittee felt that mis is
necessary and long overdue to ensure that models used by EPA are of the highest quality and that they are scientifically-
based and defensible. However, the Subcommittee was not convinced that EPA is fully committed and willing to launch
the CREM with the level of senior management support needed for its success. Given the past difficulty within EPA of
establishing Agency-wide guidance for model development and use the Subcommittee strongly urged EPA senior
management to establish CREM and support its charter strongly recommending that the CREM be given sufficient authority
to do its job, as well as the appropriate oversight and support from EPA senior management.
The Subcommittee believes that a "carrot and stick" approach is the best way for CREM to accomplish its mission.
This can be done by providing incentives and support for those who provide input and share their modeling efforts through
the CREM. In addition, by instituting a mechanism for full disclosure of modeling activities at the Agency, pressure will
be exerted to improve the quality of these activities. Through a well-designed process of highlighting Agency modeling
efforts in a unique and distinctive manner, CREM can identify where modeling practices are working well; CREM can also
identify gaps and areas that need improvement. To be effective in this important activity CREM must have input and access
to information about model development and model use in the Programs and Regions.
The Subcommittee commends EPA's proposal for involving the public in this effort. This process can lead not only
to a better understanding of EPA's models, but a better acceptance of models used in regulatory activities. It also provides
a way to tap the work done by others, thereby leveraging EPA's resources.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-19
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-99-010 An SAB Advisory: Assessing Risks from Indoor
Radon
On March 24-26,1999, the Science Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory Committee conducted an advisory for
the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) on a White Paper concerning proposed methodologies for assessing risks
from indoor radon, which was based on the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Biological Effects
of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VI report.
The Committee found that ORIA has proposed a reasonable method for extending the findings from BEIR VI to
form an Agency radon risk model, and made a thorough effort in considering most aspects of this complex task. The
comments offered are intended to help ORIA improve a good product, sharpen its approach, and communicate its
recommendations more clearly.
A model that would provide risk estimates between those of the concentration and duration models was
recommended by the Committee, although an exact method was not proposed. This recommendation is supported by other
models discussed in BEIR VI, which yield intermediate risk estimates.
The Committee generally supports modifications of the BEIR VI models intended to improve the usefulness of the
EPA radon model, including expanded treatment of smoking prevalence by age and continued investigation on distinguishing
the risks of current and former smokers. While ORIA identified and quantified numerous important uncertainties in the
radon risk estimates, further identification, discussion, and quantification is desirable.
The final radon risk model should be made usable for assessments that require specific mixes of sex, age, and
smoking status. Further, easily used tools should be provided so that the model can be used outside of ORIA to estimate
radon risks for a variety of situations.
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-011 Advisory on the "White Paper on the Nature and
Scope of Issues on Adoption of Model use
Acceptability Criteria"
The general approach contained in the "White Paper on the Nature and Scope of Issues on adoption of Model use
Acceptability Criteria" and the specific points raised in it are very constructive. The "White Paper" can provide the basis
for a more effective and consistent process of model development and application across the Agency. However, there is a
lack of a common nomenclature surrounding model application and usage. The models acceptability "White Paper" could
help by defining key terms, and then using these definitions consistently throughout the document as well as in its future
work. In addition, the "White Paper" needs a broader view of what needs to be included for effective model development
and the associated steps required for implementation. EPA can benefit greatly from targeted stakeholder participation to
obtain insight into the range of applications, available data and constraints that exist in different locales throughout the U.S.
EPA also needs to ensure that the public, the regulatory community and local decision-makers appreciate the role that value
judgments play in the selection of a model and the way a model is used. EPA Program Offices should consider developing
educational materials to assist stakeholders in the selection, understanding and use of models to address their program's
mandates. Tracking model selection and model use by state and local decision-makers will provide a valuable data set to
EPA regarding the efficacy of its programs. The Subcommittee supports the establishment of the Committee for Regulatory
Environmental Modeling (CREM) and a model clearinghouse by the CREM. This will allow model users to document the
model evaluation process to help others understand. As an additional benefit, it will allow those outside the EPA to access
this information and it will provide them with an opportunity to provide feedback.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-20
ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-012 The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812
Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits
(1999): Advisory by the Health and Ecological
Effects Subcommittee on Initial Assessments
of Health and Ecological Effects; Part 1
This HEES Advisory for the Section 812 Prospective Study of the Costs and Benefits of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAAs) of 1990 provides comment on the draft health and ecological assessments provided for review and
the degree of uncertainty or certainty associations with the individual tasks necessary to complete the current Study. The
recommendations are designed to strengthen the health and ecological assessments that will provide the basis for the cost
and benefits analysis in this year's Prospective Study. The Council will review the draft Study at its meeting on July 13-14,
1999, pursuant to the requirements of the CAAA.
This Advisory also identifies gaps in information, data, and methods that need to be filled to strengthen future
Prospective Studies, which the CAAA require to be submitted to Congress every two years. The study will be the first
attempt at a prospective analysis. It is expected that the comprehensiveness of the analysis will increase over time, especially
as further research becomes available for use in model simulations of emissions, exposure, health and ecological effects,
and costs and benefits.
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-013
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812
Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits
(1999): Advisory by the Air Quality Models
Subcommittee on Modeling and Emissions
This AQMS Advisory commends the Agency for the progress on developing the Prospective Study. It provides
advice on three levels: (1) assumptions in the analysis, uncertainties in the results, and implications for overall conclusions
that need to be more clearly discussed in the current Prospective Study; (2) changes in the general modeling approach, data
bases and analysis to be used in the next prospective study; and (3) recommendations for Agency-wide review of emissions
models to enhance validity not only of this 812 Prospective Study, but also other studies.
For the current Prospective Study, the AQMS recommends that the Agency describe the uncertainties associated
with the analytical tools and data used and how those uncertainties could affect the air quality trends analysis and impact
the cost/benefit analysis. The Subcommittee recommends that these considerations be summarized at each step in the
analysis in tables that include the data and tools, their limitations, the implications of the limitations for study results, and
to the extent possible, that the Agency provide an estimate of the uncertainty in the findings that result.
The AQMS recommends that future prospective studies benefit from an Agency-wide analysis of emissions
modeling, use of a high quality air quality modeling system platform (such as EPA's Models-3) across the entire United
States, and further exploration of more robust techniques for dealing with uncertainties in complex assessments.
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-99-001
Importance of Reinstating the Pollution Abatement
and Control Expenditures (PACE) Survey
The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) received
a briefing by representatives from EPA's Office of Policy (OP) on the now discontinued Pollution Abatement and Control
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-21
Expenditures Survey which until 1994 was conducted by the Bureau of the Census. The survey has provided data for many
economic reports by EPA, including the Section 812 Retrospective on Clean Air ActCosts, the Cost of Clean, and a number
of Regulatory Impact Analyses. By this Commentary, the SAB endorses the reinstitution of this Survey with the help and
joint funding by various EPA offices.
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-002 Waste Leachability: The Need for Review of Current
Agency Procedures
The Science Advisory Board's Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) initiated a Commentary to highlight
the need to review and improve EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP is applied too
broadly, and when used to characterize toxicity, can be improved by accounting for additional parameters. Current lawsuits
support the view that EPA needs greater flexibility in waste leachate testing, and that EPA's testing needs to account for
more parameters affecting actual leaching of contaminants in the field.
The current state of the science encourages the development and use of different leach tests for different
applications. A leaching protocol should be both accurate and reasonably related to conditions governing leachability under
actual conditions. The underlying science supports consideration of scenarios other than the municipal solid waste scenario
on which the TCLP currently relies for determining waste toxicity characteristic. When leach testing is applied in a
regulatory program to characterize toxicity, it may be appropriate for the leaching protocol to be waste-specific within the
context of one or more accepted generic worst-case mismanagement scenarios.
The Committee's single most important recommendation is that EPA improve leach test procedures, validate them
in the field, and then implement them. The Committee recognizes the difficulty of developing different leach tests for
different applications while at the same time retaining sufficient consistency and commonality to be both workable and
logical. Maximum use should be made of a conceptual model followed by an analogue model with good statistical rigor.
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-003 Environmental Impacts of Natural Hazards: The Need
for Agency Action
The Environmental Engineering Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommends that EPA
develop programs to deal with environmental impacts of natural hazards and their effects, including human health. The
Committee first raised this issue in its 1995 report Future Issues in Environmental Engineering (SAB, 1995).
The Agency can reasonably expect that natural hazards will continue to occur, that there will be impacts on the
environment and human health, and that it is possible, in general, to both anticipate the ramifications of extreme events to
prevent or reduce them. The Committee therefore recommends that Agency expand its activities to reduce environmental
impacts of natural hazards. A range of options is available to the Agency including research, communication, education,
guidance, permit requirements, etc. EPA should continue collaborating with other government programs.
Because of EPA's expertise and compatibility with existing elements of EPA's research, the Committee
recommends that EPA lead research on the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts arising from natural hazards.
The Agency might find it useful to develop hazard zoning schemes in which environmental sensitivity is a key parameter,
for example, or develop revised design methodologies to cover the reliability of structures in hazard-prone locations. Such
methodologies could be connected and extended to ecosystem and human health risk assessments through estimates of
probable contaminant release quantities and concentrations and their effects.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageF-22 . ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-004 Commentary on the Need for Research on Risk
Reduction Options for Participate Matter
PM2.5
In this commentary, the Environmental Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board recommends that
research on options for reducing risks from Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM15) be conducted in parallel with research on the
relationship of PM2J to health effects. The time needed to test and evaluate a risk reduction option depends upon the nature
of the option, the opportunities for testing it, and the quality & quantity of the data needed for decision-making. For some
options, the time between the decision to evaluate and the availability of the results may be measured in years. Therefore,
research on a limited number of promising options will improve the scientific basis for regulatory decision making and
associated technical support programs to address both primary and secondary particulate matter standards.
The Agency has initiated source control research and the Committee encourages research on an expanded range
of options. Research planning should consider a number of hypotheses about the sources of risk and various options for
intervention (such as control technology, pollution prevention, and market incentives). The following research themes are
examples of those that could be considered:
a) Approaches that enhance and explore technologies which capture particles and which can capture both primary
particles and secondary particulate matter precursors.
b) Development of source-specific "chemical fingerprints" to better understand contributions of specific sources
to atmospheric concentrations of PM2J.
c) The linkage between source processes (e.g., combustion conditions, secondary PM^ formation) and composition
ofPM2J.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-23
F3 SAB REPORTS AND THE INTERNET
Single copies of this document can be obtained by writing or faxing your request to:
Science Advisory Board (1400A)
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FAX: 202-501-0256
Please request the FY1999 Annual Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff, and include your name and
complete mailing address.
You can also find copies of this document and other SAB documents on the SAB Website at URL:
http://www.epa.gov/SAB. In addition, you can subscribe to the SAB Listserver, and automatically receive copies
of all Federal Register notices announcing SAB meetings, together with brief descriptions of the topics to be
covered at the meetings. These notices will be mailed to you within 24 hours of their publication in the Federal
Register.
To subscribe, simply send the following message, inserting your names,
Subscribe epa-sab FIRST NAME LAST NAME
to
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
-------
pageG-1 . ANNUAL REPORT
The Science Advisory Board is concerned that its advice be accurate, useful, and timely. Accuracy is addressed
through the qualified and balanced Panels that conduct the reviews. Usefulness is measured, in part, by the degree to
which the Panels complete the Charge, i.e., the list of questions that guide the review. Timeliness depends on a number
of factors including the complexity of the issue, size of the SAB Panel and report, and the capacity of the SAB process
(members and staff) to focus on the report.
In FY 1994 the SAB adopted as a measure of timeliness the length of time that transpires from the last public
meeting on an issue (some issues may require more than one such meeting) until the final report is transmitted to the
Administrator. This time period is referred to as "time-to-completion (TOC)". For most reports (those of the Council
and CASAC being the exceptions) this time period can be divided into two segments:
Segment 1: The time from the last public meeting until approval by the Executive Committee (EC). This
period is devoted to drafting the report and reaching Committee consensus on its content.
Segment 2: The time from approval by the EC until the transmission of final report to the Administrator.
During this period of time, the DFO and Committee Chair address generally minor concerns raised by the
Executive Committee that has formally approved the report, sometimes subject to final approval by members
who are designated to vet the report on behalf of the entire EC.
In FY 1995 the SAB reached its self-proclaimed goal of a TOC averaging no more than six months. Hence,
in keeping with the tenants of Total Quality Management (TQM), the Board announced another timeliness goal: an
average TOC of no more than 4 months.
The TOC data for FY 1999 are displayed in Charts, in text/numerical form, and in graphical form.
Note that the data from the Council and CASAC consist of only a single figure; i.e., the time from the public
meeting to the time of transmission to the Administrator. These two Committees are separately chartered and report
directly to the Administrator, without having to past through the EC.
This year, we are continuing our efforts to improve our time to completion for SAB Reports. The full report
average of time to completion falls to approximately 4.8 months. The time to complete letter reports was 3.2 months.
Please note: CASAC and Council reports (as well as the review of the IRP) do not have an EC approval requirement.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Report of the Science Advisory Staff
Activity Name
FULL REPORTS
Diesel Health Assessment
EPA-SAB-CASAC-99-001
Final Meeting
n/a
To Administrator
RfC Methods Case
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-002
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
1,3 Butadiene
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-003
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
TSCA Section 403 Reg.
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-004
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Acute Reference Exposure
EPA-SAB-EHC-99-005
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Report
Date
10/1/98
11/17/98
5/19/98
11/20/98
11/20/98
Days
156
121
44
159
45
67
10
141
27
Months
5.2
4.0
1.4
5.3
1.5
2.2
0.3
4.7
0.9
Start
Date
5/5/98
5/5/98
6/10/98
6/10/98
10/8/98
5/1/98
5/1/98
10/6/98
9/9/9B
9/9/98
11/14/9E
6/10/98
6/10/98
10/28/96
Finish
Date
10/7/98
10/8/98
11/20/98
10/6/98
11/19/98
11/14/98
11/23/98
10/28/98
11/23/98
Days/
Months
156/5.2
165/5.5
204/6.8
77/2.5
168/5.6
laau
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
•
'4
C
Apr
May
<>
>
)
May
Jun
*
( )
*
( )
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
o
; )
Sept
Oct
J7
t )
&X.
)
Seaa
(
J
Oct
Nov
OEX7
zS7
( )
AS7
La
Nov
Dec
Dec
I au*f~
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
May
Jun
-
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
Legend
<^> Final Meeting
s
cr
Amount of days from last public meeting until EC Approval
Number of days from EC approval until transmittal
-------
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
Activity Name
Disproportionate Impact
EPA-SAB-IHEC-99-007
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Radiogenic Cancer Risk
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-008
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Federal Guidance 13
EPA-SAB-RAC-99-009
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Data Suitability Assessment
EPA-SAB-EC-99-010
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
D-CORMIX Model
EPA-SAB-EC-99-011
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Report
Date
12/8/98
2/18/99
12/23&8
2/19/99
2/24/99
Days
89
8
330
23
176
56
44
24
136
48
Months
2.9
0.3
11
0.7
5.8
1.9
1.4
0.8
4.5
1.6
Start
Date
9/4/98
9/4/98
12/1/98
3/4/98
3/4/98
1/27/99
5/7/98
5/7/98
11/1/98
12/15/9!
12/15/9!
1/27/99
8/26/98
8/26/98
1/8/99
Finish
Date
12/1/98
12/8/98
1/27/99
2/18/99
10/29/98
12/26/98
1/27/99
2/19/99
1/8/99
2/24/99
luiai
Days/
Months
97/3.2
353/11.7
232/7.7
68/2.2
184/6.1
199U
Jan
Jan
Feb
Heb
Mar
¥
._)
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
»
)
May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
«
rj
Aug
Sept
»
. )
Sept
Oct
Oct
Nov
L
)
UJ
Nov
Dec
P
r
Ur*7
$
cd
Dec
1999
Jan
(
A
=d
1
>
Eitx.
Jan
Feb
\
r
af£j
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
May
Apr | May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
Legend
<^> Final Meeting
Ott
£
I
i
§
CL
Amount of days from last public meeting until EC Approval
Number of days from EC approval until transmittal
-------
Report of the Science Advisory Staff
Mtimiy iidine
FY2000 Presidential Science and
Technology Budget Request
EPA-SAB-RSAC-99-01 2
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Hormone Disrupters
EPA-SAB-EC-99-013
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Watershed Indicators
EPA-SAB-EPEC-99-014
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Cancer Risk Assessment
EPA-SAB-EEC-99-015
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Comparative Risk Framework
EPA-S AB-DWC-99-01 6
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
;
Dale
3/16/93
7/9/99
7/27/99
7/29/99
B/12/S9
5
2
91
29
176
111
127
64
147
32
0
0
3.1
0.9
5.8
3.7
4.2
2.1
4.9
1.0
Dale
3/4/99
3/4/99
3/8/99
4/1/99
4/1/99
6/30/99
10/15/98
10/15/98
4/8/99
1/21/99
1/21/99
5/27/99
2/17/99
2/17/99
7/13/99
Date
3/8/99
3/9/99
6/30/99
7/28/99
4/8/99
7/27/99
5/27/99
7/29/99
7/13/99
8/13/99
Months
7/0
120/4.0
287/9.5
191/6.3
179/5.9
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Sept
Aug |Sept
Oct
*
< )
Oct
Nov
Nov
Dec
Dec
Jan
*
( >
•
Jan
Feb
^
( )
heb
Mar
¥
r
s
<
(
Mar
Apr
>
)
! )
/y*J
Apr
May
fXKl
(
£
May
Jun
•
Jul
6
J
-jor*
\
Final Meeting
^
I
b*
1
1
£
ID Amount of days from last public meeting until EC Approval
Number of days from EC approval until transmittal
-------
Activity Name
An SAB Report: Recommen- dations on
the 1998 Scientific and Technological
Achievement Award (STAA)
Nominations
EPA-SAB-EC-99-017
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Reveiw of the SAB Report "Integrated
Environmental Decison-Making In the
Twenty-First Century"
EPA-SAB-EC-99-018
Final Meeting
N/A
SAB Chair
Review of the 1996 Risk Management
Plan for Wet Weather Flows and The
1997 Urban Infrastructure Research
Plan
EPA-SAB-EEC-99-019
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Dale
9/30/99
9/(7/99
OTO/S9
Day:
71
1
78
219
1
Momns
2.4
0.03
2.6
7.3
0.03
Dale
7/22/99
7/22/99
9/30/99
7/2/99
7/2/99
2/24/99
2/24/99
9/30/99
Dale
9/30/99
9/30/99
9/17/99
9/30/99
9/30/99
uays/
Months
72/2.4
78/2.6
220/7.3
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Aug
Jul] Aug
Sep
Sept
Oct
Oct
Nov
Nov
Dec
Dec
Jan
Jan
Feb
*
(
-eb
Mar
Apr
1
May
Jun
•
Jul
A
A
9TZZ
Aug
fcZZ
Sept
K*7
(
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
i
Sept
Legend
^ , Final Meeting
<8
£
WOJaW 7¥flMAl¥
Number of days from EC approval until transmittal
-------
Report of the Science Advisory Staff
Review of the Economic Analysis
Guidelines
EPA-SAB-EEAC-99-020
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
LETTER REPORTS
Ozone Research Needs
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-001
Final Meeting
N/A
To Administrator
Agency-Wide Quality System
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-99-002
, Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
Air Quality Criteria for Carbon
Monoxide .
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-003
Final Meeting
N/A
To Administrator
! Legend
C ) ( 1 Amount nt rtays
9/30/99
1/29/99
2/25/99
B/10/99
66
1
79
152
5
63
2.2
0.03
2.6
5.0
0.2
2.0
7/27/99
7/27/99
9/30/99
11/16/9E
,
11/16/9E
9/24/98
9/24/9B
2/22/99
6/9/99
6/9/99
1
|Monms •""'
9/30/99
9/30/99
2/2/99
2/22/99
2/26/99
B/10/S9
67/2.2
79/2.6
157/5.2
63/2.0
Jan
I cut ividi 1 r-\pi I iviay I UU1 1 | UUi j^MJ^ Otspl
l-eb
Mar
Apr |May| Jun
^
(
WUl | INOV
Jul |Aug|Sept| Oct
o
\
Nov
uec| jan | reo | iviar| «pr
Dec
Jan
7
(_,
&
Feb
way] Jun
'
^
Mar j Apr |May| Jun
Jul |Aug|Sept
-------
Report oj 'the Science Advisory Board Staff
Activity Name
Airborne Participate Matter
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-99-004
Final Meeting
N/A
To Administrator
ADVISORIES
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-99-001
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
PM25 Monitoring Program
EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-99-002
Final Meeting
N/A
To the Administrator
TRIM
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-003
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To the Adminisrator
Legend
O
r'l . { ) Amount of davb
liegjuil
Date
fl/t(/B9
J2/2J/98
J/28/99
12/31/9B
Days
2
131
58
64
240
6
Months
0.06
4.3
1.9
2.1
•
6.0
0.2
Mart
Date
8/9/99
8/9/99
6/19/98
6/19/98
10/27/9!
11/30/9!
1 1/30/9!
5/6/98
5/6/98
12/31/9E
Hnish
Data
8/10/99
10/27/98
12/23/98
2/1/99
12/31/98
1/5/99
Days/
Months
2/0.06
189/6.3
64/2.1
246/8.2
1998
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
»
J
May
Jun
+
( )
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
Oct
r
/\
Oct
Nov
5ZZ2
<
L
Nov
Dec
*
-f^J
•
rfjr~
_i
J
Dec
1999
Jan
^
57
Jan
Feb
/
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
•
Apr
May
-
May
Jun
•
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
•
H
Aug
Sept
Sept
Final Meeting
rom last public meeting until EC Approval
§
Number of days from EC approval until transmitta!
-------
Report of the Scienc
(^
ttt
1
§
,s
Orj
4
Activity Name
NHEXAS
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-004
Final Meeting '
Executive Committee Approval
To the Administrator
Section 812 Prospective Study
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-005
Final Meeting
N/A
To the Administrator
Radlonuclide Releases
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-99-006
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To the Administrator
Trade-offs Between Instituting Indoor
Air Quality and Energy Colls
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-007
Final Meeting ,
Executive Committee Approval
To the .Administrator
'-• • - .-.: ; ' '-'• "••: '• . -
Legend
^
( y— ( ) Amount of days
Date
2/9/99
2/10/99
2/22/99
4/22/99
Days
127
9
377
58
15
44
Months
4.2
0.3
12.5
1.9
0.5
1.4
Jiml
Date
9/27/98
9/29/98
2/2/99
1/30/98
1/30/9B
12/15/9E
12/15/9E
2/10/99
3/10/99
3/10/99
rililan
Date
2/2/99
2/10/99
2/10/99
2/10/99
2/24/99
4/22/99
Days/
Months
136/4.5
377/12.5
73/2.4
44/1.4
1 w *«w
Jan
Feb
«.
/ ^'^uf
Jan
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
'jgrgrji
Aug
Sept
4
(
rzprgr^r
Sept
Oct
)
f_j^y^
Oct
Nov
Nov
Dec
*
CL
Dec
iaua
Jan
(
L
Jan
Feb
r>
K
K7
Jj
Z*S7
Feb
Mar
*
ZVor
Mar
Apr
'.
*j%
Apr
May
May
^Jurr
,
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
Final Meeting
from last public meeting until EC Approval :
iu
^
^
^
a:
rr
•t'
•».
*
'a
£
ns
c
Oc
ad? Number of days from EC approval until transmittal
-------
Activity Name
BASE Study
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-008
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To the Administrator
CREM
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-009
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To the Administrator
Assessing Risks from Indoor Radon
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-99-010
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To the Administrator
Adoption of Model Use Acceptability
Criteria
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-99-01 1
Final Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To the Administrator
Legend
<»
( j ( ) Amount of days
nepou
Date
4/22/99
en/aa
7/14/99
7/29/99
Days
45
93
3
63 .
19
127
31
Months
1.5
3.1
0.1
2.1
0.6
4.2
1.0
man
Date
3/9/99
3/9/99
2/24/99
2/24/99
5/27/99
3/26/99
3/28/99
5/27/99
2/24/99
2/24/99
6/30/99
l-inisn
Date
4/22/99
5/27/99
5/29/99
5/29/99
6/14/99
6/30/99
7/30/99
Days/
Months
45/1.5
96/3.2
82/2.7
158/5.2
1 «JWU
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
Oct
Oct
Nov
Nov
Dec
Dec
1333
Jan
Jan
Feb
•
(
+
(
Feb
Mar
*
Oat.
4
(
Mar
Apr
Grf7
Apr
May
(
&
(
Q
May
Jun
,
)
rSJ
(
j
Jun
Jul
J
ff£i
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
Final Meeting
from last public meeting until EC Approval
I
g
1
H
Number of days from EC approval until transmittal
-------
Report of the Science Advisory Staff
Activity Name
Section 812 Prospective Study
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-01 2
Final Meeting
N/A
To the Administrator
Section 812 Prospective Study
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-01 3
Final Meeting
N/A
To Administrator
COMMENTARIES
3ACE Survey
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-99-001
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
i .
; Le
( ) ( ) Amounl
Date
7/30/99
&12&9
1/22/99
Days
99
100
59
8
Months
3.3
3.3
1.9
0.3
Dale
4/21/99
4/21/99
5/5/99
5/5/99
11/18/9£
11/18/9E
1/15/99
1
riiiibii
Dale
7/28/99
8/12/99
1/15/99
1/22/99
Days/
Months
99/3.3
100/3.3
67/2.2
1330
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
Oct
Nov
*
ct
Oct | Nov
Dec
Dec
1999
Jan
p
£57
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
^~
Apr
4
ZK
.
Mar | Apr
May
23ZF.
*
f&Xi
May
Jun
2Z2
Jun
Jul
asasK
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
Sept
gend
Final Meeting
of days from last public meeting until EC Approval
fy/fWt^mff^,mmMMmmMMWf^l Nlimbpr of <1py? fmm F<": approval until (ransmittal
fc
5
R
c
i
c
-------
Activity Name
Waste Leachability
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-002
Final Meeting
Executive Committee
To Administrator
The Need for Agency Action
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-003
Final Meeting
Executive Commiltee Approval
To Administrator
Partlculate Matter PM 2.5
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-004
Final Meeting
Executive Commiltee Approval
To Administrator
Legend
^
(. J ,'.,,,() Amount of da
Report
Dale
2/26/99
7/29/39
7/30/99
Days
114
43
93
64
93
64
Months
3.8
1.4
3.1
2.1
3.1
2.1
Start
Date
9/24/98
9/24/98
1/15/99
2/24/99
2/24/99
5/27/99
2/24/99
2/24/99
5/27/99
Finish
Dale
1/15/99
2/26/99
5/27/99
7/29/99
5/27/99
7/29/99
Total
Days/
Months
157/5.2
157/5.2
157/5.2
1998
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
May
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sept
4
n
Sept
Oct
Oct
Nov
Nov
Dec
Dec
1999
Jan
( )
[30
Jan
Feb
•X3&
4
(
«
(
Feb
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
(
£
_JH
£
May
Jun
)
r^fj
rxza
Jun
Jul
'^ff\
rxrSj
Jul
Aug
^
Aug
Sept
_-..
Sept
/
Final Meeting
/s from last public meeting until EC Approval
f davs from EC approval until Iransmiltnl
-------
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
naeeH-l
APPENDIX H
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS
Staff Director
Special Assistants
Deputy Staff Director
Team Leader, Committee Operations Staff
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Ms. Anne Barton
Dr. John R. Fowle III
Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Designated Federal Officers
Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Ms. Roslyn Edson
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Ms. Karen Martin
Mr. Tom Miller
Ms. Angela Nugent
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Management Assistants
NOWCC Office Assistant
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Betty Fortune
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-2 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. DONALD G. BARNES
Staff Director
Designated Federal Official for the Executive Committee
DR. DONALD G. BARNES assumed his position as Staff Director in 1988. Since arriving, he has overseen
a 25% growth in the Committees of the Board and a 50% increase in the membership of the Board. During his tenure
the Board has completed four major de novo reports [Future Risk (1988), Reducing Risk (1990), Beyond the Horizon
(1995), and Integrated Decisionmaking (1999)] and two self-studies (1989 and 1994), in addition to more than 300
reports to the Administrator.
Dr. Barnes is active in Agency-wide issues associated with science and risk assessment. For example, he
serves on the Administrator's Science Policy Council and on the Steering committee for the Council.
Dr. Barnes came to the SAB following ten years' service as Senior Science Advisor to the Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. In that role he became involved with a number of controversial
issues; e.g., pesticide re-registrations, the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA, and "dioxin", for which he received
two EPA Gold Medals for Superior Service.
He has been active in the area of risk assessment for nearly two decades as practitioner, reviewer and instructor.
For example, he participated in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy-led effort to produce a
consensus view of cancer in the Federal government; i.e., Cancer Principles. He has been was active in the writing of
a number of the Agency's risk assessment guide-lines; e.g., for cancer and for mixtures. In a tangential activity he has
worked with the government of Bulgaria to inculcate risk-based decision making in their emerging environmental
protection program, both at the ministry and regional levels. He is on the editorial staff of a peer-review journal and
serves as a reviewer for a second risk-related journal.
Prior to coming to EPA, Dr. Barnes was Associate Professor and Science Division Chair at St. Andrews
Presbyterian College hi North Carolina. His formal education includes a BA (chemistry) from the College of Wooster,
a PhD (physical chemistry, with a minor in physics) from the Institute of Molecular Biophysics at Florida State
University, and subsequent graduate courses in several health-related areas; i.e., pharmacology, toxicology, immunology
and epidemiology.
His real world education continues to be provided by Dr. Karen K. Barnes and their two sons.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pa¥e ff-3
DR. JOHN R. "JACK" FOWLE III
Deputy Staff Director
DR. JACK FOWLE joined the staff as Deputy Director in September 1995. In addition to duties with
the SAB staff, Dr. Fowle is interested in the use of science to inform policy and works with the Agency's Science
Policy Council, cochairing efforts to implement EPA's Risk Characterization Policy. He is also a member of the
Agency's Risk Assessment Forum(RAF), and he chairs the Public Policy Committee for the Society for Risk
Analysis.
Dr. Fowle was detailed from EPA to the U.S. Senate as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Science
Advisor from January 1992 until December 1994. While focusing on environmental legislation, he provided advice
to the Senator and to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on a wide range of issues. He was
the principal staff person working on Senator Moynihan's risk bills in the 102nd and 103rd Congresses.
Before joining' Senator Moynihan's staff, Dr. Fowle spent three years in Research Triangle Park, NC as
Associate Director of EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory. He planned and managed EPA's Drinking Water
Health Research Program, and coordinated EPA's R&D work efforts with the World Health organization.
Dr. Fowle first came to EPA in 1979 when he joined ORD's Carcinogen Assessment Group, and has
served in a variety of other capacities since then. He managed the development of EPA's initial Biotechnology
Research Program in 1983 and 1984 and was subsequently detailed to Congressman Gore's Investigation and
Oversight Subcommittee, Committee on Science and Technology, as a Science Advisor on Biotechnology issues.
He directed the Environmental Health Research staff of the Office of Health Research in ORD at EPA headquarters
from 1985 to 1987, and was Health Advisor to EPA's Assistant Administrator for Research & Development in 1988
and 1989, and in 1995.
Dr. Fowle received both his baccalaureate and doctoral degrees in genetics from George Washington
University in Washington, DC.
Dr. Fowle, a resident of Washington, DC, is an amateur musician. As a member of the BOOGAG
("Bunch of Old Guys and Gals") bicycle riding club puts in 40 to 60 miles each weekend climbing the hills of
western Maryland, northern Virginia and southern Pennsylvania. "It's not a ride unless you climb over 1800 feet."
His daughter, Eliza, is a junior at Smith College.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-4 ; . ANNUAL REPORT
MS. ANNE BARTON
Special Assistant to the Staff Director
MS. ANNE BARTON was on detail to the SAB from November 1996 to March, 1999, when she retired from
federal service. She worked primarily on the futures project and the SAB strategic plan and its follow-up, but has also
served as DFO for the Endocrine Disrupters panel and die Secondary Data Use Subcommittee.
Ms. Barton has long taken an interest in the science/policy interface in regulatory agencies, particularly in the
area of ecological risk. During her last year with EPA, she served as co-chair of an Agency workgroup which is
developing guidance for EPA risk managers to help them set ecological objectives. She is continuing to contribute to
that project during her retirement.
Ms. Barton came to EPA in 1975 and spent most of her EPA career in the Office of Pesticide Programs. She
lives in northwest DC with her husband, two cats, a lot of goldfish and some frogs.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT oaeeH-5
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
Team Leader, Committee Operations Staff; Designated Federal
Officer for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK served as the Board's Assistant Staff Director from 1991 through 1995. Under
the current staff reorganization, he serves as the Team Leader of the Committee Operations Staff of the Board and as
Designated Federal Official for one committee. Mr. Flaak was first associated with the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
in 1978 when he became the DFO for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) when the committee was
first chartered. Since then he has been .the DFO for the following SAB committees: CASAC (1978-1979; 1984-1991;
1995-present); Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (now the Integrated Human Exposure Committee)
(1986-1993); Drinking Water Committee (1991-1993; 1995); ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Panel (1992-95);
Environmental Futures Committee (1993-1995); Research Strategies Advisory Committee (1995-1998), and a host of
SAB subcommittees and working groups involved with issues such as global climate, biotechnology and reducing risk.
In addition to his duties with the Board, Mr. Flaak has continued his part-time detail to the Agency's Science
Policy Council as a member of the Agency's Peer Review Advisory Group, providing oversight to EPA on the
implementation of its peer review policy. As part of that peer review process oversight, the Agency published the new
EPA Peer Review Handbook which was coauthored by Mr. Flaak. For his efforts on peer review, Mr. Flaak was
awarded The EPA Bronze Medal in 1999. Since 1988 Mr. Flaak has assisted the General Services Administration
(GSA) in the development and presentation of its National training course on Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
Management. Along the way he has helped teach over 1500 Federal workers how to run Federal Advisory Committees
legally and effectively. Mr. Flaak also has conducted training on FACA and peer review for other Federal agencies
including the Office of Government Ethics, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes for Health, Bureau of Land
Management, and the US Forest Service.
Mr. Flaak's academic training is in biological oceanography. He graduated from the City College of New York
(BS, Zoology); University of Delaware's Graduate College of Marine Studies (MS, Marine Studies); and Central
Michigan University (MA, Public Administration). He has taken other graduate level environment and management
courses and has over 20 years of experience as a trainer. He has developed national environmental policy for bridge
construction and highway modifications with the Department of Transportation; designed oceanographic surveys and
coordination field sampling, laboratory analysis and data analysis and interpretation as Staff Marine Biologist with an
engineering consulting firm; conducted original research on phytoplankton dynamics and was a consulting Marine
Taxonomist for clients including Du Pont, Roy F. Weston, Inc., and the University of Delaware.
Mr. Flaak was a member of the US Army Reserves from 1966-1995. He retired in 1995 after 29 years
including wartime service in South Vietnam in 1968-69, and in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Desert
Storm in 1990-91. He lives in Clifton, Virginia with his wife Dottie, their 14 year old son Chris, and their dog Jennie.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-6 i ; ANNUAL REPORT
MS. KATHLEEN CONWAY
Designated Federal Official for the
Environmental Engineering Committee
MS. KATHLEEN WHITE CONWAY received her BS and MS from Tufts University where she studied
biology, public health, and sanitary engineering. Between degrees she wrote for the Hartford Courant. Her work as
sanitary engineer—first for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and later for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Region I — involved inspecting and trouble shooting problems with water supplies, landfills, and wastewater
treatment plants. She also reviewed plans, assisted with outbreak investigations, proposed and provided training.
During this time she chaired the Boston Section of the Society of Women Engineers.
Ms. Gonway left field work in New England for EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Her subsequent
service as acting Director for two divisions in the Office of Health Research led to her selection, in 1982, as a participant
in the President's Executive Exchange Program. During her exchange year she worked with an occupational health and
safety unit at IBM. After returning to EPA, she joined the Science Advisory Board staff as Deputy Director.
In 1989, after deciding to work less and enjoy life more, she resigned as Deputy. She continued to work
part-time as a Designated Federal Officer and has supported the Environmental Engineering Committee as DFO since
1993. She is a visual arts volunteer for Arlington County where she lives with her three sons, two ferrets, elderly rabbit
and chow.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageH-8 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. K. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Act Compliance
Analysis Council and the Radiation Advisory Committee
DR. JACKKOOYOOMJIAN joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July, 1988 as Designated Federal
Official (DFO) of the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC). In 1993, he transitioned to the Radiation Advisory
Committee (RAC). In January of 1994, he also served concurrently as DFO of the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (Council) through March of 1999. He brings to his work at the SAB over 29 years of engineering
and professional experience with environmental issues, including over 25 years of diverse experience within EPA
Headquarters.
In the mid-1970's he worked in the Office of Solid Waste (OSW), documenting cases involving the improper
disposal of hazardous wastes, which contributed to the passage of the landmark legislation known as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. He has over four years experience in the Office of Water developing
guidelines and regulations for industrial wastewater sources. From 1979 through 1988, Jack was involved with the
Superfund's Emergency Response program and developed the multi-media hazardous substance reportable quantity
regulations. He was also responsible for oil and hazardous substance pollution prevention regulations, oil spill
reporting, as well as the oil and dispersant testing and registration program of the National Contingency Plan.
Dr. Kooyoomjian received a BS (Mechanical Engineering) from the University of Massachusetts, and a MS
(Management Science) and a Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering, with a minor in Economics) from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute. His academic career included his induction into a number of honorary societies: e.g., Sigma Xi
(research), Chi-Epsilon (civil engineering), Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics). His professional activities include
membership of the Board of Control of the Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) [now known as the Water
Environment Federation (WEF)] from 1986 to 1989, as well as a being a member of its Policy Advisory Committee in
1988/1989. In 1988 he received the Arthur Sidney Bedell Award from WEF for extraordinary personal service in the
water pollution control field. He served as Local Arrangements Co-Chair of WEF's 63rd Conference and Exposition.
He is also very active in the Federal Water Quality Association (FWQA), the local member association of WEF, where
he has served in numerous capacities, including President, and "Ambassador-at-Large." He is currently Chairman of
the Government Affairs Committee of the FWQA. He is listed in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering," and "Who's
Who in the Eastern United States."
In April 26, 1992, he received an honorary professorship for his work as part of a five-person team from the
United States to develop an environmental engineering bachelors program for the State Engineering University of
Armenia (SEUA), which has over 23,000 students, as well as to assist in addressing the newly-independent republic
of Armenia's environmental problems. In the summer of 1995, he was an invited lecturer in environmental management
to the American University of Armenia (AUA) in Yerevan, Armenia. In this capacity, he taught a University of
Southern California sponsored course in Environmental Management focusing on environmental ethics and
sustainability concepts to three classes of graduate students, who were majoring in Public Health, Political Science, and
Business Administration. In 1997, he was selected as Chairman of the Organizing Committee to form the Greater
Metropolitan Washington Area Section (GMWAS) of the Armenian Engineers and Scientists of America (AESA).
Closer to home, which he shares with his wife Gerry, and their three daughters, Jennifer (25), Melissa (20)
and Jessica (18), Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous civic activities which focus on development, land-use and
environmental issues in his area. He was a candidate for the Governor's Award for volunteerism for the state of
Virginia in 1991. He also has received the EPA Public Service Recognition Award in 1988 and 1992 and several
County Recognition Awards, and in 1995 a Virginia State Planning Association award for his civic involvement. In
addition to his civic activities, since 1996 he has been serving on the Board of Directors of the Prince William County
Service Authority.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT nase H-7
MS. ROSLYN EDSON
Designated Federal Official
for the Environmental Health Committee and the
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
LIEUTENANT-COMMANDER ROSLYN EDSON is a commissioned officer in the United States Public
Health Service. Ms. Edson has been detailed to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) since July 1997. She serves
as the DFO for the Environmental Health Committee and the Integrated Human Exposure Committee.
Prior to joining the SAB, Ms. Edson worked as an industrial hygienist in the EPA Safety, Health and
Environmental Management Division where she developed health and safety guidance material for the EPA Safety and
Health Program Management.(SHEMP) managers. She also conducted ergonomic worksite assessments and
ergonomics training to reduce the number and severity of work-related musculoskeletal disorders experienced by EPA
employees. Ms. Edson has also worked as an industrial hygienist for the National Institutes of Health, the United States
Government Printing Office, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Potomac Electric Power Company
and Service Employees International Union.
Ms. Edson pursed undergraduate studies (B.S. in Biology, 1988) at the City College of New York and graduate
studies (Sc.M. in Environmental Health (Industrial Hygiene), 1990) at the Harvard School of Public Health. Ms. Edson
continues to pursue her strong interest in ergonomics by conducting training for professional organizations and public
school systems. She plans ultimately to obtain a doctorate degree in a public health field. Ms. Edson resides with her
daughter Samantha who will begin second grade this Fall. Ms. Edson enjoys hiking, jogging, cooking exotic meals,
and the challenge of motherhood.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT , pope H-9
MS. KAREN L. MARTIN
Designated Federal Official
MS. KAREN L. MARTIN R.S., joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in September 1998 as a Intern
with Environmental Protection Agency Intern Program (EIP). The EIP program is a component of the Environmental
Protection Agency's commitment to diversity action plans and work force development strategies which will have long
term positive impacts on the Agency and the environment. This Internship, will allow Ms. Martin to participate in a
intensive two-year program of rotational assignments combined with career development training. During Ms. Martin's
rotation with the SAB, she assisted the DFO for the Integrated Human Exposure Committee and the Environmental
Health Committee. Other assignments included assisting other DFO's with meeting planning, meeting minutes and
report preparation.
Prior to joining the SAB, Ms. Martin worked as a Public Health Sanitarian with the Adams County Health
Department in West Union, OH. In this position she worked to promote environmental health and the control of
sanitation through enforcement of state and local laws and regulations. She also worked closely with other state and
local agencies, public officials and the general public to improve environmental health in Adams County.
Ms. Martin pursued undergraduate (B.S. in Biology, 1992) and graduate studies (M.S. in Environmental
Health, 1994) at Mississippi Valley State University.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-10 ANNUAL REPORT
MR. TOM MILLER
Designated Federal Official for the Drinking Water Committee and the
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
MR. TOM MILLER joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in June, 1996 as Designated Federal Official
(DFO) for the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) and the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC).
Tom was detailed to the SAB during 1994 and served as the DFO for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
CASAQ and the Drinking Water Committee at that time. Tom is also the DFO for the Valuation Subcommittee and
the Economic Analysis Subcommittee of the Integrated Risk Project. Tom has worked at the Environmental Protection
Agency in regulatory (pesticides, toxic substances), budget, and planning activities (research and development
programs) since 1974.
Mr. Miller received a BS (Wildlife Management) in 1972 and an MS (Wildlife Management) in 1975, both
from West Virginia University. For his Master's research, Mr. Miller conducted a radio-telemetry study of the black
bear in the Monongahela National Forest of West Virginia. In 1993, Tom received a Masters of Public Policy from the
University of Maryland School of Public Affairs. Tom's major professional interest is the study of the ways that science
and policy development interact to identify and implement appropriate approaches to environmental management, and
the role of citizens in decisions leading to the selection of management approaches. He also has an interest in the
development of techniques and strategies, to add this body of knowledge to the science curricula in secondary education,
the primary venue for science learning for the vast majority of our citizens.
Tom is married and is the father of one daughter (who is a University Senior) and one son (who is a Junior in
high school). Tom is involved with leadership positions in his church, and he enjoys flyfishing, backpacking,
woodworking, and baseball.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
DR. ANGELA NUGENT
Designated Federal Official for the
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
DR. ANGELA NUGENT is a historian who has found work at EPA as interesting as combing the archives
for the history of public health, science and technology. Angela has been detailed to the EPA Science Advisory
Board(SAB) since March 1999. She serves as the DFO for the Council and its two subcommittees, the Health and
Ecological Effects Subcommittee and the Air Quality Monitoring Subcommittee. She also serves as adviser to the Staff
Director on SAB's "New Approaches" project and implementation of the SAB Strategic Plan.
Prior to joining the SAB, Angela served as a coordinator for the inter-agency Clean Water Action Plan in EPA's
Office of Water. From 1995 to 1998, she was Deputy Director of the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities in EPA's Policy Office, and from 1992-1995 headed the Science Policy Staff in the same office. She has
also worked in the Office of Air and Radiation on peer review and air toxics issues, in the Office of Pesticide Programs
on reregistration issues, and in the Office of Toxic Substances on biotechnology and new chemical regulation. Prior
to joining EPA in 1985, Angela worked at Arthur Andersen & Associates as a Management Information Consultant
(which partly explains her fascination with new computer applications). She was an Assistant Professor of the History
of Public Health and Medicine at the University of Maryland and a post-doctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins School
of Medicine. She holds a Ph.D. (1982) and M.A. (1976) from Brown University, where her research focused on the
history of industrial toxicology. She received a B.S.F.S. degree from Georgetown University's School of Foreign
Service in 1974.
Angela is married to Bruce Odessey, a writer-editor for the U.S. Information Agency. She enjoys most of all
spending time with him and their four-year old daughter, Rachel. Together, they like to dance, sing, travel, and read.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-12 ; , ANNUAL REPORT
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
Designated Federal Official
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG retired from the Senior Executive Service (SES) in August, 1988 and re-entered
federal service in November 1988, when he joined the SAB staff. During his previous full and fruitful career at EPA,
he served as an Office Director and Associate Office Director in EPA's Office of Research Development (ORD) and
the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM).
Before joining EPA in 1974, Mr. Rondberg held research management, analytical, and policy formulation posi-
tions with the Department of Transportation and the Veterans Administration's Department of Medicine and Surgery.
He also served in the US Army for two years, with the rank of Captain. Most of his federal career has been devoted
to advancing the use of analytic methodologies to address public policy issues, and to improving the management of
federal research activities. At EPA, he has directed particular efforts to the complex problems and issues engendered
by operating a research program within the context of a regulatory agency-coordination between legal and scientific
"cultures"; maintaining a stable long-term program in the face of urgent and frequently changing needs for short-term
support; and maintaining an adequate resource base in the face of competition from regulatory programs struggling to
meet court or Gongressionally mandated deadlines.
Mr. Rondberg pursued undergraduate (AB, 1959) and graduate studies at Washington University, where he
also served as a Teaching Assistant in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and as a Public Health Service Fellow
and Research Associate in the Medical School. In 1967, he was awarded a National Institute of Public Administration
Fellowship in Systematic Analysis at Stanford University and completed a special interdisciplinary curriculum in the
Schools of Engineering, Graduate Business, and the Departments of Economics and Computer Science.
Mr. Rondberg has authored publications in clinical psychology, research management, and the applications
of electronic systems and telemetry to urban transportation.
Sam's wife (Ruth) of 35 years is a Rehabilitation Counselor; they have one daughter, who completed a Master's
degree in Social Work. Sam attempts to find time to pursue interests in modern history, the impacts of technology on
society and culture, amateur radio, marine aquaria keeping, and antique posters and advertising graphics as a reflection
of our social history.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT oaeeH-13
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE
Designated Federal Official for the
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE has been a Designated Federal Official at the EPA Science Advisory Board
for 6 years, working primarily with the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. Ms. Sanzone received a B.A. in
Biology, with a minor in chemistry, from the University of Virginia, and a M.S. in Marine Science from the University
of South Carolina. Prior to coming to SAB, she spent 4 years with EPA's National Estuary Program, a program which
assists states and local communities to manage and protect bays and estuaries based on sound science. Ms. Sanzone
has also worked to bring science to the legislative process, serving as legislative staff at both the state and federal levels.
Her professional interests include management of coastal environments, the role of science and risk assessment in policy
making, and making science and scientists intelligible to lay audiences (e.g., policy makers, managers and the public).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageH-14 ANNUAL REPORT
MS. DOROTHY MAXINE CLARK
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MS. DOROTHY MAXINE CLARK is the Management Assistant who assists Thomas Miller with the
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, Drinking Water Committee and along with Samuel Rondberg with
the Chloroform Risk Assessment Review Subcommittee, also Jack Fowle and Jack Kooyoomjian with the
Environmental Models Subcommittee. Dorothy joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) March 17, 1980, as a
secretary for the Environmental Engineering Committee, Highlevel Radioactive Level Subcommittee and several other
Subcommittees and standing Committees. During her tenure at EPA, Dorothy has worked for several SAB Committees.
She enjoys working with committee members and getting along with all levels of staff.
Last but not least, in Dorothy's spare time she enjoys reading, shopping, and most of all watching the
Washington Redskins play football.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT DazeJL-15
MS. WANDA R. FIELDS
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MS. WANDA R. FIELDS is the Management Assistant who assists Samuel Rondberg with the Environmental
Health Committee (EHC) and the Integrated Human Exposure (IHEC). She also assisted Thomas Miller and Stephanie
Sanzone with the Integrated Risk Project Steering Committee (IRP). Wanda joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
in the spring of 1997 as a secretary for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) and the Integrated Risk
Project Steering Committee (IRP) were she assisted Stephanie Sanzone. In 1998, her title changed to management
assistant. Prior to joining us she was a secretary with the Office of Water for nine years here at the Environmental
Protection Agency. During her tour with Water, she took a tremendous amount of computer and administrative training.
She graduated with honors from a career enhancement program that was offered by EPA. She is also currently a
member of the Office of the Administrator Customer Service Workgroup, established to help implement customer
service standards and improve customer service. She came to EPA in 1988 after leaving the Office of Personnel
Management where her government career began.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paeeH-16 ANNUAL REPORT
MS. DIANA L POZUN
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MS. DIANA L. POZUN joined the Science Advisory Board as a Staff Secretary in August, 1991. She was
assigned to the Environmental Engineering Committee and various subcommittees. In June of 1993 she switched
committee responsibilities to be the Staff Secretary for the Radiation Advisory Committee. In May 1998 her title was
changed to Management Assistant. She is now responsible for the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC), Advisory
Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL) and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
She comes to us from the private sector, where she was Executive Secretary in the Big Six accounting firm of Ernst &
Whinney in their tax department in Washington, D.C. for about eight years. In that position, she was involved in all
aspects of the proposal process and maintained State and Local tracking systems, mailing lists, travel arrangements and
word processing support. Prior to that, she worked for the National League of Cities in Washington, D.C. for four years,
where she maintained files, worked on guidebooks and various case studies and helped coordinate several national
conferences among other duties. Diana has a broad range of experience with various D.C. area firms.
She lives in Mt. Airy, Maryland with her fifteen year old daughter, Megan.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT naee H-l7
MS. PRISCILLA Y. TILLERY-GADSON
PROGRAM SPECIALIST
MS. PRISCILLA Y. TILLERY-GADSON joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) as the Staff Secretary
to the Staff Director in March 1993. She serves as SAB Coordinator and Liaison for the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) Executive Committee (EC) meetings. In August 1998, she was reassigned as a Program Specialist
providing special assistance to the Staff Director, Deputy Staff Director, and the Team Leader for the Committee
Operations Staff (COS). She is the Team Leader for the Management Assistants (MA) and immediate supervisor of
the National Older Worker Career Center (NOWCC) SEE Program Enrollee (Office Assistant). She is the SAB Travel
Management Center Program Office Coordinator, Correspondence Control Point, Freedom of Information Act
Coordinator, Property Custodial Officer, and the SAB's Customer Service Representative on the Office of the
Administrator's (OA) Customer Service Workgroup.
Ms. Tillery-Gadson came to us from EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of Health
Research (OHR) where she held several positions as Secretary for about 15'/2years. She served as OHR International
Travel Coordinator and ORD's Headquarters Black Employment Program (BEP) Representative. She also provided
updates to the budgetary data in the Office of Research and Development Information System (ORDIS). Prior to
working with ORD, she worked with the EPA Office of Pesticides Program (OPP), Registration Division, Insecticide-
Rodenticide Branch as a Clerk-Typist and Pesticide Products Clerk for about four years and 10 months. She compiled
historical and statistical data for answering inquiries containing scientific data from registrants who applied for
registration of their pesticide products.
Prior to coming to EPA, she worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for about 1-year under a
school/work program. As you can see, Ms. Tillery-Gadson brings a broad range of work experience to SAB, especially
the ability to work as a team with her co-workers. She has 28 years of government services, and resides in the Maryland
suburbs with her husband and her 26-year-old daughter. She receives a joy in doing for others and has a special love
for children.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-18 . ANNUAL REPORT
MS. MARY L. WINSTON
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MS. MARYL. WINSTON joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1988. Prior to joining us she worked
in the Test Rules and Development Branch here at the Environmental Protection Agency. Mary came to the
Environmental Protection Agency after leaving the U.S. Coast Guard where she worked for 14 years as a secretary.
In May of 1998 her title changed from secretary to Management Assistant. Before the reorganization she worked with
Samuel Rondberg on the Environmental Health Committee and with Thomas Miller on the Drinking Water Committee.
Mary now assists Kathleen Conway with the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC), also Stephanie Sanzone
with the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC), and A. Robert Flaak with the Scientific & Technological
Achievement Award (STAA) Nominations. •
Mary resides in Maryland where she enjoys quilt making, reading and knitting.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT ; pa$eH-19
MS. BETTY B. FORTUNE
OFFICE ASSISTANT
MS. BETTY B. FORTUNE joined the Science Advisory Board in September 1993. Her job title is Office
Assistant in the Director's Office. She works closely with the Director, Program Specialist and the Executive
Committee. During her years with SAB, and several administrative changes, she has worked for the entire staff and
with other SAB committees. Betty came to SAB after completing a long tenure with the District of Columbia Public
Schools (DCPS). She was the administrative assistant at Hardy Middle School during the final years of her
employment in DCPS. She had always worked in the field of Education and has many pleasant memories of her work
years with staff, parents, and students. She has received many plaques, awards, and certificates. She is a member of
the Senior Choir at her church which performs excerpts from the Messiah during the Christmas season. She lives in
Washington, DC and her family consists of two children and four grand-children which she greatly enjoys.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
------- |