United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Science Advisory
Board (1400A)
Washington, DC
EPA-SAB-01-002
December 2000
www.epa.gov/sab
&EPA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
FY 2000 ANNUAL STAFF REPORT
Making Science Real
-------
Cover Art: Flask toFishby Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
-------
Afaking Science Real
Science Advisory Board's
FY 2000 Annual Staff Report
Dr. Donald G. Barnes and Ms. Vickie Richardson, Editors
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
-------
This report is an SAB Staff summary of activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory
Board for Fiscal Year 2000, with projections for Fiscal Year 2001. 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
,
T:
goal of environmental protection at the USEPA remains the same: To reduce the
unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. Science contributes in a
fundamental way to identifying, quantifying, and reducing these risks. But in order to do so, science that
originates in lab, field, clinical, etc., studies must become "real" in a regulatory context. That is, the hard-
won technical information must be interpreted and applied to real problems in the real world in a real
time that leads to real solutions.
ThsFY2000 Annual PqxrtcfthsSAB Staff highlights a number of examples in which the SAB has
helped to make science real through innovative actions, broadened scope of science, and new approaches
to transmitting advice. These examples range from the completion of its long-awaited IntEgatBd
fiirarcnrrEnia/Z^kisrcn-iTHfeg-project and joint activities with other Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) committees, to a new SAB seminar series on the human side of environmental protection and a
series of cooperative workshops with the Agency aimed at improving benefits analysis. Played out against
a backdrop of a highly productive year (55 meetings, 37 reports) in which several contentious issues were
addressed (e.g., children and cancer, as well as data derived from human testing), these instances of the
realization of science stand out and hold significant promise for the future.
Regular readers of The Annual Pepatwill note certain formatting changes from previous years. Our
goal, however, remains the same: To provide a concise description of the SAB and succinct a summary of
its activities that are designed to have a positive impact on the production and use of science at EPA.
Donald G. Barnes
SAB Staff Director
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
page ii Annual Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION I
I.I SAB Formation, Authority and Function I
1.2 SAB Organization and Membership I
1.3 SAB Activities 4
1.4 Content of the Report 5
2.0 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR: MAKING SCIENCE "REAL" 9
2.1 Conducting Projects that Make Science Real 9
2.1.1 Twardlnt^at^BivirmnmtalDeasim-Milang 9
2.1.2 Moving Beyond Strictly Peer Review Issues 12
2.2 Making Science Real in the Congressional Arena II
2.3 Making Science Real by Expanding Methods of Outreach 12
2.3.1 Social Sciences 12
2.3.2 SAB/Agency Workshops 13
2.3.3 Increased Interaction with Other FACA Committees 13
2.3.4 Enhanced use of the E-World 15
3.0 FY 2000 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 16
3.1 Executive Committee (EC) 17
3.1.1 Background 17
3.1.2 Activities 18
3.1.3 Products 19
3.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL) 20
3.2.1 Background 20
3.2.2 Activities 21
3.2.3 Products 21
3.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 21
3.3.1 Background 22
3.3.2 Activities 22
3.3.3 Products 22
3.4 Drinking Water Committee fDWC~) 23
o \ /
3.4.1 Background 23
3.4.2 Activities 24
3.4.3 Products 24
3.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) 25
3.5.1 Background 25
3.5.2 Activities 25
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page Hi
3.5.3 Products 25
3.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) 26
3.6.1 Background 26
3.6.2 Activities 26
3.6.3 Products 26
3.7 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) 27
3.7.1 Background 27
3.7.2 Activities 27
3.7.3 Products 28
3.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC) 28
3.8.1 Background 28
3.8.2 Activities 29
3.8.3 Products 29
3.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) 29
3.9.1 Overview 30
3.9.2 Activities 30
3.9.3 Products 30
3.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) 30
3.IO.I Background 31
3.10.2 Activities 31
3.10.3 Products 31
3.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) 32
3.1 I.I Background 32
3.11.2 Activities 32
3.11.3 Products 33
4.0 PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 34
APPENDIX A: SAB's STRUCTURE & AUTHORITIES A-1
AI. Organizational Chart A-2
A2. Introduction to Charters A-3
A2.I EPA Science Advisory Board Charter A-4
A2.2 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Charter A-8
A2.3 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Charter A-11
APPENDIX B: SAB ACTIVITIES & PRODUCTS B-l
BI. SAB FACA Meetings for FY 2000 B-2
B2. SAB Activities for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000 B-6
.Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page iv
B3. Enhanced Descriptions of Selected Committee Activities B-IO
B3.I Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) B-II
B3.2 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) B-I3
B4. SAB FY 2000 Products B-I5
B5. Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories and Commentaries B-I 9
B6. Time-to-Completion B-37
B7. Accessing SAB Reports and Notification of SAB Meetings B-46
B8. Abstracts of the SAB Lecture Series -
"Science & the Human Side of Environmental Protection B-47
APPENDIX C: SAB PEOPLE C-l
CI. Staff Organization Chart C-2
C2. Staff Committee Alignment C-3
C3. SAB Committee Chairs C-4
C4. Guidelines for Service on the SAB C-9
C5. Types of Affiliation with the SAB C-I6
C6. SAB Members for FY 2000 C-I8
C7. SAB Consultations for FY 2000 C-22
C8. Staff Biographical Sketches & Transitions C-32
, Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page v
ION To DR. JOAN
ThsFYZOOO Annual Pepat cf ths SAB Staff \s dedicated to Dr. Joan Daisey of the Lawrence-Berkeley
National Laboratory. Dr. Daisey served as a Consultant to the SAB from I986-I99I, at which point she
became a Member of the Indoor Air Quality Committee (IAQC). In 1993, she became IAQC Chair, as
well as Member of the SAB Executive Committee and Member of the Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC). In 1996, under her guidance, the IAQC was renamed as the Integrated Human
Exposure Committee. In 1997, EPA Administrator Carol Browner appointed her to serve as Chair of the
SAB Executive Committee, a position that she capably held until her untimely death in the spring of
2000.
Dr. Daisey brought to the SAB a deep commitment to its mission, strong leadership to its
organization, unswerving integrity to its process, and bounteous joy and grace to share with its members
and staff, who had the uncommon pleasure of working with her.
, Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
pagel
l.o INTRODUCTION
..ensuring a solid technical basis for environmental protection.
' this repcrtis intended to reveal the Selena? Advisory Board to a wide audience, to these both inside and
JL cutsidetkAgncy. Themtentis fee eachreader togam a. broach: perspective of the SAB, its activities,
audits mpoct Mre specifically, th; purpose cf this Annual Report of the Science Advisory Beard Staff
is three fdd a) Toprovide a succinct introduction to the SAB; b) Toprovidea summary oftheSAB's
activities fa FY2000; andc) To offer a near-term prgecticn of future activities.
1.1 SAB FORMATION,
AUTHORITY AND FUNCTION
; SAB was established by Congress
in 1978 by the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act (ERDDAA) (42 U.S.C.
4365). Since 1978, the SAB has operated as an
EPA Staff Office, reporting directly to the
Administrator. 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 jurisdiction
and responsibility of the EPA Administrator.
The SAB provides independent scientific and
engineering advice to the EPA Administrator on
the technical basis for EPA regulations. The
Board functions as a technical peer review panel.
The purpose of the Board is to make a positive
difference in the production and use of science at
EPA.
The Agency places a value on basing its
regulations on a solid scientific foundation. Over
the past 23 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 1977 (CAAA) require
that technical aspects of decisions related to all
National Ambient Air Quality Standards be
reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC), which is administratively
housed within the SAB.
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 technical merits. At the
same time, the SAB recognizes that EPA is often
forced to take a policy action to prevent an
emerging environmental risk before all of the
rigors of scientific proof are met. To delay
action until the evidence is irrefutable might
result in 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.
1.2 SAB ORGANIZATION AND
MEMBERSHIP
, Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 2
Annual Report
T:
'he Agency 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 23
years are listed in Figure I. Appendix C3
contains a list of the distinguished scientists,
engineers, and economists who served as Chairs
of the SAB Committees in FY 2000.
Figure I. SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades
Executive Committee Chairs
2000- Present Dr. Morton Lippmann (Interim Chair)
New York University
1997-2000 "Dr. Joan Daisey
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1993-1997 Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Johns Hopkins University
1988-1993 Dr. Raymond Loehr
University of Texas-Austin
1983-1988 Dr. Norton Nelson
New York University
1981 -1983 Dr. Earnest Gloyna
University of Texas-Austin
1979-1981 Dr. John Candon
Michigan State University
1974-1978 Dr. EmilMrak
University of California
* deceased February, 2000
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff^
-------
Annual Report
pageS
Staff Office Directors
1988- Present Dr. Donald G. Barnes
I98I-I988
I978-I98I
1975-1977
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Thomas Bath
The Board's Executive Committee serves
as the focal point to coordinate the scientific
reviews by the Board's standing committees.
Appendix AI contains a chart of the FY 2000
SAB's 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 separately chartered CASAC and the
Council are submitted directly to the
Administrator, without need for prior Executive
Committee review or approval. The charters for
SAB, CASAC, and Council are found in
Appendix A2.
Five Committees have historically
conducted most of the 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)
(c) Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
fcT) Environmental Health Committee fEHCT)
\ / \ /
(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
mFY 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.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 4
Annual Report
(d) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council): Mandated by die
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(e) Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC): Requested by die
Administrator in response to die Board's
P&hongRiskreport in FY 1990
The Board supplements the activities of
diese Committees by establishing a variety of ad
hoc Subcommittees as needed.
The Members of die SAB constitute a
distinguished body of scientists, engineers, and
economists who are recognized, non-federal
experts in dieir respective fields. These
individuals are drawn from academia, industry,
state government, and environmental
communities diroughout die United States and,
in some limited cases, odier countries. In some
cases, die SAB also accesses experts via the route
of Federal Expert and Invited Expert. These
categories are described in greater detail in
Appendix C5, "Types of Affiliation widi die
SAB."
The number of Members is flexible. In
FY 2000, SAB consisted of 104 members
appointed by die Administrator for two-year
teams. 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 die Executive Committee
in FY 1993 and has been followed by die
Administrator in making appointments (see
Appendix C4).
More dian 300 technical experts, invited
by the Staff Director, serve on an "as needed"
basis as Consultants to the Board on various issues
where dieir expertise is relevant. The number of
Consultants is flexible, and dieir one-year terms
can be renewed indefinitely. Consultants are
required to meet the same standards of technical
expertise as do die Members. In FY 2000, die
SAB utilized die services of 90 Consultants.
Appendices C6 and C7 contain a list of
die FY 2000 SAB Members and Consultants
(M/C), respectively. Nearly all of diem serve as
Special Government Employees (SGEs), subject
to all relevant Federal requirements, including
compliance widi die conflict of interest statutes
(18 U.S.C. Section 202-209).
The activities of die 400 M/Cs are
supported by die SAB Staff which, during FY
2000, consisted of 22 people: a Staff Director, a
Deputy Staff Director, and die Team Leaders of
die Committee Operations Staff and die
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff; six
scientists/engineers who serve as Designated
Federal Officers (T)FOs\ diree administrative
\ s
staff, five support staff, one detailee, two interns,
and a National Older Worker's Career Center
(NOWCC) Office Assistant (see Appendix C8
for Staff Biographies and Staff Transitions).
The SAB Staff works widi die Agency
to identify potential issues for SAB attention,
focuses questions for review, works widi die
Board to identify and enlist appropriate
Members and Consultants, interfaces between die
Board and die Agency as well as widi die public,
coordinates logistics for reviews, and produces
minutes and reports for submission to the
Administrator.
1.3 SAB ACTIVITIES
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
pageS
A s shown in Table I, the SAB's
-tvbudget in FY 2000 totaled more
than $2.7 million. Table II and Table III show
that these resources enabled the Board to
conduct 55 meetings and to issue 37 reports (see
Appendices BI - B4). 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.
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.
SAB reports most often 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 more timely advice that
is focused at the front-end of the Agency's
involvement with an issue. First, the Board
developed the "Consultation" as a means of
conferring, as a group of knowledgeable
individuals, 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, "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.
Third, 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.
Fourth, 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.
Appendix B2 details meeting activity
and report preparation by Committee.
1.4 CONTENT OF THE REPORT
Tables I, II and III display the
SAB's operating expenses, meeting
activity, report production, and staffing for the
past five fiscal years (1996-2000).
This Report consists of four principal
sections, plus appendices supplementing the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 6
discussion in the main sections. Following this
Introduction f Section I\ Section 2 summarizes
\ x
the Board's highlights of the year, Section 3
focuses on SAB Committee activities during FY
2000, and Section 4 provides the Board's plans
for the future.
Annual Report
The Appendices contain important
information, such as organizational charts,
membership lists, abstracts of SAB reports, and
other information.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
Figure 2. SAB's Estimated Expenses ($K) for Fiscal Year 2000
page 7
Other Expenses
12%
M/C Compcnsaltion
22%
Sltaff Compensation
55%
Table I
Budget Totals for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000*
(In thousands of dollars)
Fiscal
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000*
'Estimated
Staff
Compensation
1,045
1,170
1,250
1,318
1,488
M/C
Compensation
392
555
600
630
603
Total
1,437
1,725
1,850
1,948
2,091
R
Travel
242
282
285
308
290
'eoortofthe
Other
Expenses
88
212
281
298
312
Science Advisoi
Total
1,768
2,219
2,416
2,554
2,693
"v Board Staff
-------
pageS
Annual Report
Figure 3. SAB Activities for Fiscal Year 2000
Closed Meeting
2%
Pimblic Xclcconfcrcmccs
40%
Public Meetings
58%
Table II
SAB Activities for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000
Fiscal Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Public Meeting
28
34
42
33
32
Public
Teleconference
9
21
8
14
22
Closed Meeting
0
I
I
I
I
Total
37
56
51
48
55
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 9
Figure 4. Committee Reports for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000
Short Reports
54%
Full Reports
46%
Table III
Committee Reports and Staffing for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000
Committee Reports
Fiscal Years
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Full
Reports
3
II
II
19
17
Short
Reports
17
18
10
21
20
Total Notifications
of
Consultations
20 2
29 2
21 9
40 8
37 8
Staffing
Members
98
97
102
105
104
Science Advisor
Federal
Staff
16.7
17.6
19.7
19.7
18.8
y Board Staff
-------
page 10-
Annual Report
2.0 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR:
MAKING SCIENCE "REAL"
i;
"n order to help make science "real"
-(that is, effective in the environmental
decision-making context), the SAB needs to
address the appropriate issues in the appropriate
way at the appropriate time. With limited
resources, the Board cannot examine all of the
technical issues confronting the Agency nor
pursue all of the areas in which its Members
believe that they could provide valuable advice.
Therefore, it is important that the Board work
with the Agency and other interested and
affected parties in order to select those issues best
suited for SAB consideration, referring the
remainder to other mechanisms available for peer
involvement and peer review.
As the Board addresses an agenda of
more consistently high-profile issues, it is not
surprising that its activities come under greater
scrutiny. In FY 2000 this attention included
keen interest from Congress and from the courts,
both of whom were interested in making science
real in the Agency's decision-making process.
The Board also reached out in new ways
to make science more real and more relevant.
These efforts included involving social sciences
more directly in SAB activities, co-sponsoring
workshops, coordinating with other FACA
committees inside and outside the Agency, and
broadening the use of more powerful tools that
are becoming available through the Internet.
2.1 CONDUCTING PROJECTS
THAT MAKE SCIENCE REAL
2.1.1 TOWARD INTEGRATED
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-
MAKING
i;
"n FY 2000, the Board completed
-work on the longest, most complex
project that it has ever undertaken. When
originally asked by the Deputy Administrator in
1995 to update its 1990 unprecedented Beduong
Msfcreport, the SAB soon realized that the job
would entail more than a simple updating of a
decade-old report. Instead, in their view, the
job required a broader realization of the
problems that would confront the Agency in the
21st Century and a correspondingly broader
thinking, including considerations of economics
and other social sciences, as well as traditional
risk assessment and risk management concerns.
Therefore, the Board enlisted a group of over
50 experts to explore five aspects of
environmental decision-making:
(a) ecological risk assessment
(b) health risk assessment
(c) risk reduction options
(d) cost-benefit and economics
(e) special ecological valuation issues
The result of these efforts has been a
succinct, peer-reviewed report that encourages
many of the new directions with which the
Agency is already experimenting; e.g., Project
XL, the Common Sense Initiative, and other
activities coordinated through the Office of
Reinvention. The SAB report goes further to
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
present a view of an entirely integrated
environmental decision-making process, ranging
from problem identification/formulation,
through comparative risk assessment procedures
and cost-benefit analysis, to analysis of risk
reduction options and evaluation of regulatory
decisions.
The efforts of the Subcommittees and
Steering Committee have spawned an assortment
of followup efforts, among them being the
following:
(a) Preparation of an article for the peer-
reviewed literature that assesses and
compares ecological risks.
(b) Transfer to the Agency of a procedure for
gauging comparative risk judgments via
the Internet.
(c) Development by the EEC of a companion,
but stand-alone, report on options for
risk reduction.
(d) Preparation by the EPEC of a companion,
but stand-alone, report that provides a
framework for the much-discussed
environmental report cards.
(e) Joint sponsorship with the Agency of a
workshop to explore public values and
attitudes towards ecological risk
management.
In short, in TowardIntEgatBdEnvucnmental
Dgascn-iwlong, the Board has addressed a
complex topic and points the Agency in a
direction to make the relevant science more real.
page 11
2.1.2 MOVING BEYOND
STRICTLY PEER REVIEW
ISSUES
1 most of its 20-year history, the
SAB has been viewed and used as the
Agency's premier peer review organization. In
recent years, the Agency has introduced an
aggressive peer review policy (EPA's Peer Review
Policy, June 7, 1994), along with mechanisms to
implement that policy (EPA's Peer Review
Handbook, January, 1998). Therefore, while
not neglecting its responsibility to be the "peer-
reviewer-of-choice" for particularly prominent
or contentious issues, the Board can now explore
some of the broader issues of scientific and
technical advice that were in the minds of those
who first conceived of the idea of the SAB (Ref:
Congressman George Brown, personal
communication to Dr. Barnes).
For example, in FY 2000 the Board
examined the issue of assessing benefits from
environmental protection. This issue has arisen
during various SAB activities in recent years;
including those of the Council, the EEAC, and
the TcwardlntEgatBdEhvircnrrmtal Deosicn-malong
project. As a result, the Board has worked with
the Agency to plan and conduct workshops that
are aimed at various aspects/contexts of this
issue; i.e.,
(a) SAB/EPA Workshop on the Benefits of
Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Developing Best
Estimates of Dose-Response Functions.
(b) SAB/EPA Workshop on Understanding
Public Values and Attitudes Regarding
Ecological Risk Management.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 12
Also, based on its interactions with a
number of Agency programs over the years,
EPEC concluded that there is a need for a
consistent, ecologically based framework for
assessing and reporting on the state of ecological
resources, whether at the national, regional or
other scale. Therefore, in FY 2000, EPEC
picked up on ideas stemming from the Board's
Tovard Integrated EhvircnnHital Deascn-malong
project, as well as activities by groups outside the
Agency (e.g., Heinz Center, National Research
Council, inter alia) and undertook a self-initiated
project to develop a framework for reporting on
ecological change. The project, which will
continue into FY 2001, will generate an
organizing framework that should be useful in
(a) Evaluating the completeness and usefulness of
proposals to assess and characterize
ecological conditions.
(b) Conveying ecological status and trends
information to decision-makers and the
public; i.e., making the information
"real" to the people who need to know.
To date, the Committee has been
briefed on a variety of EPA environmental
reporting efforts, as well as the U.S. Forest
Service's Forest Health Monitoring program. In
addition, they have surveyed a variety of
ecological indicator reporting schemes,
considered the needs of the Agency to report on
environmental conditions and progress toward
environmental goals, and selected a set of
essential ecological attributes that should be
included in environmental reporting schemes,
including those devised to report on
Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) goals. The draft reporting categories
are as follows:
Annual Report
(a) Landscape structure
(b) Biotic condition
(c) Physical/chemical characteristics
(d) Hydrology/geomorphology
(e) Ecological processes
(f) Natural disturbance regimes.
The Committee's final report will
discuss these six essential ecological attributes and
use case examples to illustrate potential
applications of the reporting framework for
EPA programs and projects. Such applications
will include use of the framework to assess
whether assessment information is comprehensive,
and to organize information on ecological
conditions in a way that is understandable to
decision-makers and the public.
The goal is to provide the Agency with
a robust tool that can be used to assess and test
any of the several different measures of
ecological health that are under development
both inside and outside the EPA, thereby
making ecological science "real" in the Agency's
context.
2.2 MAKING SCIENCE REAL IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL ARENA
K
I y law, the SAB advises the Congress
'of the United States, as well as the
Administrator of EPA. Congress, in setting its
broad approaches to policy, often bases its
actions on what it refers to as "sound science", in
contrast to what some derisively refer to as "junk
science." The former is characterized by broad
consensus in the scientific community and
positions supported by peer-reviewed
publications; while the latter is variously
characterized as "unproven", "overly
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
conservative", and/or "based on weak theory,
rather than solid fact." While these
characterizations can be debated interminably, it
is encouraging that Congress reaches out to the
scientific community, including specifically the
SAB, for input when making decisions.
The SAB is seen by many in Congress as
a source of independent, balanced advice on
controversial issues. Sometimes the Congress asks
the Board to respond directly to its concerns. In
those cases, Board Members testify before the
Congress on the results of some of the
studies/reviews that it has done, thereby putting
a real face on a real issue in real time. During FY
2000, Members of the Board presented
testimony on two separate occasions.
First, in March, Dr. William Randall
Seeker, Chair of the Research Strategies
Advisory Committee, testified before the Energy
and Environmental Subcommittee of the House
Science Committee regarding the President's
budget request for science at the Agency during
FY 2001. In his testimony, Dr. Seeker
summarized RSAC's review of the issue (EPA-
SAB-RSAC-00-007) and answered questions of
the Committee members, both during the public
hearing and after the session.
Second, the SAB was also asked to
provide testimony before the Subcommittee on
Superfund, Waste, and Risk Assessment of the
Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. The topics discussed included
a) comparative risk assessment and b) the
"residual risk" program, called for under the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Dr.
Morton Lippmann, Interim EC Chair, prepared
written testimony that told the Congressmen of
the importance of comparative risk assessment
page 13
(cf. PeduongRiskEPA-SAE-EC-90-007°) and also
of the difficulties of the task, given the
differences in the information available on
different chemical stressors. Dr. Phil Hopke,
Chair of the EC Subcommittee on Residual
Risk, reviewed for the Senators the
Subcommittee's work on residual risks of lead
smelters that led to an FY 2000 Report
(EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-00-005) and
Commentary (EPA-SAB-EC-COM-00-005).
His message, while encouraging, highlighted the
need for either more resources devoted to the
task or a reassessment as to what could and
should be reasonably expected and required of
science in this program.
Also, in the Appropriations bill for FY
2000, the Congress directed the Agency to
conduct a study of the impact of the pilot
program on the Agency's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). Further, the SAB
was identified as the group to provide oversight
and review of the study. As a consequence in
March 2000, the EC held a Consultation on the
IRIS pilot program and its study design.
Following review of the results of the study, the
Board concluded that the Agency had done a
credible study and forwarded their findings and
recommendations to the Agency and to the
Congress (EPA-SAB-EHC-00-003).
2.3 MAKING SCIENCE REAL BY
EXPANDING METHODS OF
OUTREACH
: best science in the world will not
have an impact unless and until
people are aware of what that science is and
what that science says. Therefore, in FY 2000
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 14
the SAB expanded the methods by which its
Committees give advice and make that advice
known to a wider audience.
2.3.1 SOCIAL SCIENCES
i;
"n recent years, the Board has
.emphasized the importance of the
field of social sciences in environmental decision-
making. To demonstrate and expand upon that
importance, the Board added a social scientist as
an at-large member of the Executive Committee.
Dr. Roger Kasperson of the Stockholm Institute
has been both engaged and provocative in this
role, to the point that the Executive Committee
is exploring the possibility of and need for a
separate committee to address issues focused on
the social sciences.
In addition, the Board initiated a
seminar series — Science and the Human Side of
Environmental Protection — that brings some of
the leading social scientists in the country to the
Agency, each delivering an address on how that
field has made an impact on resolving
environmental issues and how it can help resolve
ones in the future. The list of speakers and topics
for FY 2000 is found in Section 3.1.2 and
abstracts of the seminars are found in Appendix
B7. These seminars have been well-attended and
well-structured, with a high-ranking Agency
official present to act as a lead discussant
following each presentation.
2.3.2 SAB/AGENCY
WORKSHOPS
T:
Board introduced another new
mechanism this year for providing
advice: the SAB/Agency Workshop. The
Annual Report
Agency is faced with several large issues of such
complexity/controversy that EPA has not
worked out proposed approaches to deal with
them. Often the situation calls for a gathering
together of interested and informed parties to
discuss the issue at length and to explore possible
alternative approaches to address the topic. In
FY 2000 the Board joined with the Agency to
plan or co-sponsor five workshops, addressing
complex/ controversial topics (See Section 3.1.2
and 3.7.1). In each case, a joint SAB/Agency
Planning Group met design and structure the
conclave. The goal of these public workshops is
to define the issue, seek common understanding
of the problem, and consider various options for
resolution. In one case, the workshop resulted in
a Commentary on "The Diffusion and
Adaptions of Innovations in Environmental
Protection" that will be completed in FY 2001.
The general expectation is that the Agency will
use this information to develop specific positions
that may well come back to individual SAB
Committees as subjects for an Advisory or a
Report.
2.3.3 INCREASED
INTERACTION WITH OTHER
FACA COMMITTEES
V
JL v
SAB has long sought interaction
with other technically related
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
committees. By involving technical experts from
different FACA Committees who might have
different perspectives on an issue, the Board
believes that it can provide more complete, more
well-rounded advice that would otherwise be
possible. This broader perspective should be of
greater value to the Agency than that which
would be provided by a review from a single
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
committee alone, as EPA seeks to utilize such
advice in the real world.
As one example, the Chair of the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) has
been an invitee to SAB Executive Committee
meetings for several years. Dr. Ernest McConnell
was followed by Dr Ronald Kendall as SAP
chair in FY 2000. Also, SAP members are
always involved when the SAB conducts a review
of the Agency's risk assessment guidelines, which
are applied to pesticides and non-pesticides alike.
In an extension of their cooperation, this year
the SAB and SAP formally conducted a joint
review of the Agency's handling of data resulting
from the testing of human subjects. This
particularly controversial review revealed a
number of areas that will improve future
interactions between the FACA committees.
This year we saw the continued active
involvement of the Chair of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) in meetings of the
SAB Executive Committee. The BOSC is the
FACA Committee that advises the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and
Development on technical aspects of the
operations of that office. Outgoing Chair, Dr.
Costel Denson of the University of Delaware,
was a consistent and valued contributor to the
Board's deliberations. The incoming Chair, Dr.
Jerry Schnoor of the University of Iowa, has
indicated a similar level of interest. FY 2000
also saw completion of the first joint
SAB/BOSC review: Review of the Science to
Achieve Results Program (EPA-SAB-EC-008).
In an extension of inter-FACA
cooperation, the Executive Committee
welcomed the presence of a representative of the
Children's Health Protection Advisory
page 15
Committee (CHPAC), a FACA established to
advise the Agency's Office of Children's Health
Protection (OCHP). Mr. Thomas Carrato of
Monsanto Corporation, served ably in that
capacity. He will be replaced by Dr. Joel
Bender, American Chemistry Council, in FY
2001.
Throughout FY 2001 Dr. Richard Bull,
Chair of the DWC, was a regular attendee at
meetings of the Disinfection/Disinfection
Byproducts FACA operated by the Office of
Water. His attendance was the SAB's attempt to
be close to the negotiations in order to identify
any technical issues that would benefit from SAB
involvement, while not being a party to the
negotiations themselves. This exercise kept the
DWC fully informed of developments at a
modest cost in terms of resources. The process
also demonstrated that, in this case, procedures
could be utilized to effectively address technical
issues without the SAB being directly involved in
the details.
The inter-FACA connection of the
DWC was further enhanced by extensive activity
j ]
of Dr. L.D. McMullen, who served both as a
Member of the DWC and as Chair of the
National Drinking Water Advisory Committee
(NDWAC).
The RAC began preparations to review,
in the coming fiscal year, the Multi-Agency
Radiation and Laboratory Analytical Protocols
(MARLAP), that is the product of an
interagency team of technical staff from the
Department of Defense, the Department of
Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and the US Geological Survey (USGS), as well
as the Agency. We anticipate that the
MARLAP review will mirror the successful
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 16
review of a related inter-agency effort, (Multi-
Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation
Manual (MARSSIM) in September, 1997. The
Board anticipates reaching out to other agencies
and their appropriate FACA committees for
input, insights, and possibly deeper involvement
during the review process.
Finally, the OSAB has been heavily
involved in planning the first meeting of all
Agency FACA Chairs, slated for early FY 2001.
The goal is to broaden the Chairs mutual
understanding of the total FACA community
and to seek ways to work together to enhance
the impact and effectiveness of their advice.
In short, the Board has pursued a
number of approaches to reach out to other
FACA committees, both inside and outside the
Agency, in order to broaden the base — and
hence the utility — of the advice to the Agency
on a range of technical issues. The goal is to
make scientific facts "real" in a real world
context.
2.3.4 ENHANCED USE OF
THE E-WORLD
i;
;t is a well-known fact that the
Internet is changing the way we live
and operate. This truism holds for the SAB as
well. The SAB's monthly newsletter — Happening
attkSAB — entered its 6th continuous year of
production in FY 2000 (Earlier editions were a
periodically produced as early as 1989).
Originally produced as "hardcopy", it was sent
by mail to some 400 interested and affected
parties. Two years ago, production shifted to
the email, whereby distribution of the newsletter
was via the fast-becoming-standard distribution
Annual Report
mode of the electronic age. While email had
many advantages for both the SAB Staff and the
Happening readership, we encountered numerous
compatibility and interface problems that were
distressing to both the sender and the receiver.
(In some cases, subscribers canceled their free
subscriptions, judging that the inconvenience was
not worth the trouble.) This year, we simplified
the process even further by sending a short email
message, announcing the availability of the new
issue of the newsletter and providing a hodink to
the SAB Website where the new issue was
featured prominently, along with back issues for
the last six months. This approach has been
well-received by a hard-working staff and busy
clientele of Happenings readers.
The SAB website itself
(www.epa.gov/sab) underwent the second
facelift of its short life. The layout is now into
conformance with Agency standards, and there is
a system to maintain the currency of the
information. Given the continuing, rapid
evolution of the Internet, we anticipate the need
for further improvements in our Website in FY
2001.
The SAB staff spent considerable time
and effort systematically building an integrated
database that will facilitate its collection,
handling, and analysis of data related to people:
Members, Consultants, Membership,
Nominations, Staff, etc. This "People DataBase
(PDI)" system replaces several stand-alone
databases that have served the office well — but
at considerable cost of labor, currency, and
accuracy. The goal for FY 2001 is to complete
enhancements on PDI and begin development of
a "Products DataBase (PD2)" to facilitate
handling of our more than 600 SAB reports and
background papers that have been generated
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
over the years.
In part, as a result of problems
uncovered during one of the Board's reviews, the
SAB Staff developed an Internet-based SAB
"Discussion DataBase (DDE)" that allows Panel
members working on an SAB report to have
ready access — in a "firewall-protected
environment" — to background documents,
drafts, and one another's comments on drafts.
page 17
The goal is to have a system of report
preparation that is more rapid and more fully
informs the participants during the preparation
process. Introduction of the system during the
winter was halted when the security system of
the entire Agency computer system was called
into question. At the close of the fiscal year, the
DDE system came back on line. That is, it is
becoming "real" again.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 18 Annual Report
3.0 FY
T!
main activity of the SAB are the projects undertaken by its various Committees. In the
face of more requests than current resources can address, the Board has had to be selective
about its choice of projects. In selecting projects, the SAB has generally been guided by criteria that were
originally generated in a "self study" retreat in 1989 and updated at a Strategic Planning Retreat of the
Executive Committee in 1997. Provided below is a list of the SAB criteria.
I. General Criterion
a. Provides an opportunity to make a difference in Agency Operations.
2. Client-related Criteria
a. Supports major regulatory or risk management initiatives.
b. Serves leadership interest such as those of the EPA Administrator or Congress.
c. Support strategic themes of current interest.
3. Science-driven Criteria
a. Involves scientific approaches that are new to the Agency.
b. Deal with areas of substantial uncertainty.
4. Problem-driven Criteria
a. Involves major environmental risks
b. Relates to emerging environmental issues
c. Exhibits long-term outlook
5. 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\
s
d. Strengthens the Agency's basic capability.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
page 19
iCUTIVE
EC Members
Chair: Dr. Joan Daisey, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory*
Interim Chair: Dr. Morton Lippmann, New York University
Dr. Henry Anderson
Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services
Dr. Richard Bull
MoBull Consulting
Dr. Maureen Cropper
The World Bank
Dr. Kenneth Cummins
Humboldt University
Dr. Linda Greer
Natural Resources Defense Council
Dr. Hilary Inyang
University of Massachusetts® Lowell
Dr. Janet Johnson
Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Dr. Roger Kasperson
Clark University
Dr. Joe L. Mauderly
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Dr. M. Granger Morgan
Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. W. Randall Seeker
General Electric Energy & Environmental
Research Corporation
Dr. William H Smith
Yale University
Dr. Robert N. Stavins
Harvard University
Dr. Mark Utell
University of Rochester
Dr. Terry Young
Environmental Defense
*deceased February 2000
Liaison from Other FACA Committees
Board of Scientific Counselors
Dr. Costel Denson (term expired Spring, 2000)
University of Delaware
Dr Gerald Schnoor (term began Spring, 2000)
University of Iowa
Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee
Mr. Thomas Carrato
Monsato Company
FIFRA Scientific Adviswy Panel
Dr. Ronald Kendall
Texas Tech University
3.1.1 BACKGROUND
T:
EC coordinates the work of 10
standing Committees and numerous
ad hoc subcommittees. The EC had 8 active
subcommittees during the year.
(a) Air Toxics Monitoring Strategy
Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. Thomas McKone,
University of California
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 20
(b) Chloroform Subcommittee
Co-Chairs: Dr. Richard Bull,
Battelle Northwest
Dr. Mark Utell,
University of Rochester
Medical Center
(c) Environmental Models Subcommittee-
Total Risk Integrated Methodology
(TRIM)
Chair: Dr. Mitchell Small,
Carnegie Mellon
University
(d) Residual Risk Subcommittee^Secondary
Lead Smelters
Chair: Dr. Philip Hopke,
Clarkson University
(e) Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards (STAA) Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. H. C. Ward,
Rice University
(f) Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Review
Subcommittee
Co-chairs: Dr. W. Randall Seeker,
General Electric—SAB
Dr. Marilyn Brown,
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory- -BOSC
(g) Tcward Integrated Ehvircnrrmtal Deosicn- Making
Review Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. Granger Morgan,
Carnegie-Mellon
University
(h) Use of Data from the Testing of Human
Subjects Subcommittee
Co-Chairs: Dr. Ron Kendall,
Annual Report
Texas Tech University
Dr. Mark Utell,
University of Rochester
Medical Center
Each of these subcommittees met once, for a
total of 8 subcommittee face-to-face meetings,
plus I conference call. In these activities, the EC
utilized the services of 38 Consultants.
With a Membership consisting of the
Chairs of the standing Committees and three At-
large Members, this FACA-chartered institution
is the nerve center of SAB activity, reviewing
reports from the standing Committees (with the
exception of reports from the separately
chartered CASAC and Council), discussing
proposals from standing Committees, and
directing the work of a growing number of ad
hoc subcommittees that address complex issues
calling for multi-disciplinary expertise.
3.1.2 ACTIVITIES
i;
"n FY2000, the EC met 3 times in
_face-to-face meetings and 7 times via
publicly accessible conference calls. Its
subcommittees collectively met 8 times and I
time by publicly accessible conference call. In
these activities, the EC utilized the services of 31
Consultants.
In addition, the EC authorized the
establishment of an SAB lecture series, "Science
and the Human Side of Environmental
Protection"(see Section B7 for details), held at
the Agency. The first year program consisted of
the following noted speakers:
(a) Dr. Gary Machlis, University of Idaho
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
"Ik 7% Shorn"
(b) Dr. Eugene Rosa, Washington State
University
"ProjanrnngYcur VCR and Other
Tedndcgy Chaces"
(c) Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon
University
"SdentiSc Standards fee Public Invdvement in
Envircnnuital Deascns"
(d) Dr. Everett Rogers, University of New
Mexico
"The DifKjscn cfEnvironmental Innosaticns''
Finally, the EC authorized the SAB Staff to
conduct 4 workshops in FY2000, which were
collaborative efforts with the Agency to bring
new advice to the decision-makers in new ways.
(a) SAB/OAR Workshop on the Benefits of
Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Developing Best Estimates of
Dose-Response Functions. June 22-23,
2000.
Report: Being developed by EPA's Office
of Air and Radiation; planned to be
released Winter FY 2001.
(b) Three Workshops on Science and
Stakeholder Involvement. November 30,
1999; March 7, 2000; July 12, 2000.
Report: SAB Letter of Advice planned for
the Spring of 2001.
3.1.3 PRODUCTS
page 21
T
'he EC's efforts resulted in the
following advice being sent to the
Administrator in FY2000:
(a) An SAB Report on EPA's Per Capita Water
Ingestion in the United States
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-003)
(b) An SAB/BOSC Report: Review of the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
Program of the Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-008)
(c) Review of the draft Chloroform Risk
Assessment
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-009)
(d) Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-
making
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-OII)
(V) Recommendations for the 1999 Scientific
\ x
and Technological Achievement Awards
Program
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI4)
(f) Review of draft Air Toxics Monitoring
Strategy Concept Paper
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI5)
(g) Review of the EPA's draft Revised Cancer
Risk Assessment Guidelines Pertaining to
Children
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI6)
(h) Comments on the Use of Data from the
Testing of Human Subjects
(EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI7)
(i) Review of the draft Chloroform Risk
Assessment and Related Issues in the
Proposed Cancer Risk Assessment
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 22
Guidelines
(EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-00-001)
(j) Review of the SAB Report "Towards
Integrated Environmental Decision-
Making"
(EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-00-004)
(k) An SAB Advisory on the Agency's "Total
Risk Integrated Methodology"
(TRIM)
(EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-00-004)
(1) Advisory on the USEPA's Draft Case Study
Analysis of the Residual Risk of
Secondary Lead Smelters
(EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-00-005)
(m) Commentary on the Role of Science in
Annual Report
New Approaches
(EPA-SAB-EC-COM-00-002)
(n) Commentary on the Agency's Proposed
Drinking Water Standard for Radon
(EPA-SAB-EC-COM-00-003)
In addition, the EC conducted I
consultation during FY 2000:
(a) Notification of a Consultation on the Study
\ / /
of the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)
(EPA-SAB-EC-CON-99-003)
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
3.2 COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE
COUNCIL Members
Chair: Dr. Maureen L. Cropper, The World Bank
Dr. Charles Kolstad
University of California
Dr. Lester Lave
Carnegie-Mellon University
Dr. Paul Lioy
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson School of
Medicine
Dr. Paulette Middleton
RAND Center for Environmental
Sciences & Policy
Dr. Gardner M. Brown
University of Washington
Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron
University of California
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman
Bowdoin College
Dr. Don Fullerton
University of Texas
Dr. Lawrence H. Goulder
Stanford University
Dr. Jane V. Hall
California State University
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
3.2.1 BACKGROUND
T:
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 public health, the economy,
and the environment of the United States.
3.2.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
Agency submitted the first
prospective analysis to Congress in
November, 1999. The analysis projected the
costs and benefits of implementation of the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) over the
period 1990-2010. The Council and its
subcommittees provided the Administrator with
3 letters offering advice to strengthen the
prospective analysis in FY2000. The Council
conducted 2 publicly accessible teleconferences.
The Committee used I Consultant in
FY2000.
3.2.3 PRODUCTS
page 23
The Council generated the following
Advisories in FY2000:
(V) The Clean Air Amendments fCAAA')
\ / \ /
Section 812 Prospective Study of Costs
and Benefits (1999): Advisory by the
\ / 77
Health and Ecological Effects
Subcommittee on Initial Assessments of
Health and Ecological Effects; Part 2
(EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-AD V-00-001)
\ x
(b) The Clean Air Amendments (CAAA)
Section 812 Prospective Study of Costs
and Benefits (1999): Advisory by the
Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis: Costs and Benefits
of the CAAA
(EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-00-002 )
(c) Final Advisory on the 1999 Prospective
Study of Costs and Benefits (1999) of
Implementation of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA)
(EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-00-003).
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 24-
Annual Report
3.3 AIR
CASAC Members
Chair: Dr. Joe Mauderly, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Dr. John Elston
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Dr. Philip Hopke
Clarkson University
Dr. Eva Pell
Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Arthur Upton
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School
Dr. Sverre Vedal
University of British Columbia
Dr. Warren White
Washington University
3.3.1 BACKGROUND
; CASAC is a separately chartered
Federal advisory committee that is
administratively housed within the offices of the
SAB. As an independent advisory committee,
however, the Committee reports directly to the
EPA Administrator. The Chair of CASAC
serves as a Member of the SAB Executive
Committee, and the Members of CASAC are
also Members of the SAB.
The CASAC has a statutorily mandated
responsibility (under the 1977 and 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments) to review and offer
scientific and technical advice to the
Administrator on the air quality criteria and
regulatory documents which form the basis for
the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). NAAQS have been established for
lead, particulate matter (PM), ozone and other
photochemical oxidants (O3), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides
(SOx). The CASAC process includes a peer
review of the Office of Research and
Development's Air Quality Criteria Document
for a given NAAQS, followed by peer review of
the Office of Air and Radiation's Staff Paper
for that NAAQS. The Criteria Document
contains all the relevant scientific and technical
information on the pollutant, while the staff
paper is the bridge between the science in the
criteria document and the policy decision that
has to be made by the EPA Administrator.
When asked by EPA, the Committee also
reviews the scientific and technical issues in the
regulatory proposal for a NAAQS prior to its
promulgation. The Committee also offers
research recommendations for individual
NAAQS pollutants on a periodic basis, often in
conjunction with a review of the Agency's
Strategic Research Plan for that pollutant.
3.3.2 ACTIVITIES
Tl
CASAC met 5 times during
Pf 2000—3 face-to-face meetings
and 2 publicly accessible conference calls. In
addition, the CASAC Subcommittee on Fine
Particle Monitoring held two meetings—I face-
to-face and I by publicly accessible conference
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
call. A total of 29 Consultants participated in
CASAC activities during the year.
More detailed information on CASAC
NAAQS-specific activities are found in
Appendix B3.
3.3.3 PRODUCTS
The CASAC issued the following
reports during FY2000
(a) Review of EPA's Health Assessment
Document for Diesel Emissions
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-00-004)
(b)Advisory on the PM2 5 Monitoring Network
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-00-006)
(c) Review of the Air Quality Criteria for
Carbon Monoxide
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-00-002)
(d) Review of the Draft Air Quality Criteria
Document for Particulate Matter
page 25
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-00-003)
(e) Review of the EPA Response to Section
6102 (e) of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-00-006)
\ s
and Notifications of Consultations during FY
2000:
(a) Consultation on the Development of the
Carbon Monoxide Staff Paper
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-00-001)
(b) Consultation on the Development of the
Particulate Matter Staff Paper
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-00-004)
(c) Consultation on Thermal Carbon Analysis
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-00-006)
(d) Consultation on Sampler Intercomparison
Study
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-00-007)
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 26-
Annual Report
3.4
DWC Members
Chair: Dr. Richard Bull, Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Dr. David Baker
Heidelberg College
Dr. Mary Davis
West Virginia University
Dr. Ricardo DeLeon
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Dr. Yvonne Dragan
Ohio State University
Dr. John Evans
Harvard University
Dr. Barbara Harper
Yakama Indian Nation
Dr. L.D. McMullen
Des Moines Water Works
Dr. Christine Moe
University of North Carolina
Dr. Charles O'Melia
Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Gary Toranzos
University of Puerto Rico
Dr. Rhodes Trussell
Montgomery Watson Consulting
Engineers
3.4.1 BACKGROUND
r.
'he DWC provides independent
advice and peer reviews to EPA's
Administrator on the technical aspects of
problems and issues associated with the drinking
water program, including the research that
supports the program. Consequently, the
primary clients for the Committee are EPA's
Office of Water and the Office of Research and
Development.
The importance of SAB interactions
with the Agency was reinforced in the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments which requires
consultation with the SAB on many Drinking
Water actions. Specifically, that Act states at
Section I4I2(V) that:
\ /
"Tbe Adninistratcr shall request comments fron the Science
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
Advisory Board (established unda: the Environmental
Research, Devdoprrmt, and Demonstration Act of 1978)
prior toproposal of a maximum contaminant levd gpal and
national primary dcmlong water regulation. The Beard
shall respcnd, as it deems appropriate, within the time period
applicable fcr promulgation of the national primary drinking
water standard concerned This subsection shall, under no
circumstances, be used to dday Gnal promulgaticn of any
national primary drinking water standard"
3.4.2 ACTIVITIES
DWC conducted 3 public face-
to-face meetings during the year.
Topics discussed during the meetings included:
T:
(a) Proposed Long-Term I Surface Water
Treatment/Filter Backwash Rule
(b) Proposed Ground Water Rule
-------
Annual Report
(c) Contaminant Candidate List Research Plan
(d) Non-Radon Radionuclides
(e) Proposed Radon Drinking Water Standard
(f) Proposed Arsenic Drinking Water Standard
(g) Stage 2 Microbial/Disinfection Byproducts
Stakeholder Proceedings
A total of 5 Consultants were involved in these
activities.
3.4.3 PRODUCTS
page 27
T
'hese efforts resulted in the
following advice being sent to the
EPA Administrator during the year:
(a) Report on EPA's Draft Proposal for the
Groundwater Rule
(EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-00-005)
\ x
(b) Advisory on EPA's Draft Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) Research Plan
(EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-00-007)
\ x
(c) Commentary on EPA's Draft Proposal for a
Long-Term I Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule
(EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-00-004)
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 28-
Annual Report
3.5 ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS COMMITTEE (EPEC)
EPEC Members
Chair: Terry Young, Environmental Defense
Dr. Miguel Acevedo
University of North Texas
Dr. William J. Adam
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation
Dr. Lisa Alvarez-Cohen
University of California-Berkeley
Dr. Steven Bartell
Cadmus Group, Inc.
Dr. Kenneth Cummins
Humboldt State University
Dr. Cynthia Gilmour
Academy of Natural Sciences/Estuarine Research Center
Dr. Carol Johnston
University of Minnesota
Dr. Paul Montagna
University of Texas
Dr. Charles Pittinger
The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Leslie Real
Emory University
Dr. Frieda Taub
University of Washington
3.5.1 BACKGROUND
T:
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.
3.5.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
EPEC held 2 face-to-face
meetings and I teleconference,
involving 10 Members and 5 Consultants in FY
2000. The Committee finalized work on its
review of the Office of Water's proposed
approaches for developing aquatic life criteria
and sediment quality guidelines for metals. In
addition, EPEC undertook a strategic, self-
initiated project to define and illustrate the
application of a framework for reporting on
ecological condition. This project is more fully
described in Chapter 2, Major Highlights of the
Year.
3.5.3 PRODUCTS
(a) Review of an Integrated Approach to Metals
Assessment in Surface Waters and
Sediments
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-00-005)
(b) Review of the Biotic Ligand Model of the
Acute Toxicity of Metals
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-00-006)
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
page 29
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(EEAC)
EEAC Members
Chair: Dr. Robert Stavins, Harvard U
Dr. Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future
Dr. Trudy Cameron
University of California
Dr. Maureen Cropper
The World Bank
Dr. Herman Daly
University of Maryland
Dr. Lawrence Goulder
Stanford University
Dr. Dale Jorgenson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Paul Joskow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Catherine Kling
Iowa State University
Dr. Richard Revesz
New York University
Dr. Jason Shogren
University of Wyoming
Dr. Hilary Sigman
University of California
3.6.1 BACKGROUND
The EEAC was formed at the request of
the Agency upon receipt of the Board's 1990
Reducing Risk rtpott, in which the SAB cited
problems that it saw in the application of
economics to environmental issues. The EEAC
provides advice to the Administrator on cross-
cutting guidance for EPA's offices that conduct
analyses of economics, cost, and benefits. The
Members also advise the Agency on its
economics research efforts. On occasion, the
EEAC provides independent advice and peer
reviews to the EPA Administrator on the
technical aspects of specific economic analyses
that are used in the regulatory impact analysis of
proposed rulemaking and other Agency
initiatives.
3.6.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
EEAC conducted 2 face-to-face
meetings in FY2000. Topics
discussed during the meetings included:
a. EPA's Economics Research Priorities
b. Induced Travel
c. Valuing Fatal Cancer Risk Reductions
A total of 3 Consultants were involved in these
activities.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 30
3.6.3 PRODUCTS
T
'he Committee issued the following
report
(a) Report on EPA's White Paper Valuing the
Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013)
and Notification of Consultation during
FY2000:
Annual Report
(b) Consultation on the Topic: Induced Travel:
Does Additional Highway Capacity
Influence Travel Demand?
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-00-002)
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE (EEC)
EEC Members
Chair: Dr. Hilary Inyang, University of Massachusetts-Lowell
Dr. Domenico Grasso
University of Connecticut
Dr. Byung Kim
Ford Motor Company
Dr. John Maney
Environmental Measurement Assessments
Dr. Michael McFarland
Utah State University
Dr. Ed Berkey
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Dr. Calvin Chien
DuPont Company
Dr. Barry Dellinger
Louisiana State University
Dr. Terry Foecke
Waste Reduction Institute
Dr. Nina French
SKY+
3.7.1 BACKGROUND
•'he EEC is one of the original five
SAB committees. There was clear
recognition from the earliest days of the Agency
that EPA can benefit from advice on what can
be done to alleviate problems (i.e., reduce risk),
as well as to identify problems (i.e., risk
assessment). The interests/responsibilities of this
interdisciplinary Committee, anchored by the
presence and leadership of environmental
engineers, have grown to include such cross-
Agency issues as pollution prevention,
development, and implementation of the
Quality System.
3.7.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
EEC conducted 4 face-to-face
meetings and 8 publicly accessible
conference calls, in addition to 3 other non-
FACA interactions among Members to gather
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
information and/or work on drafting a report
that was later reviewed in public session.
The EEC used 9 consultants in FY 2000.
More detailed information on EEC
activities can be found in Appendix B3.
Additionally, the EEC authorized I
workshop in FY 2000,
a. Workshop on the Diffusion and Adoption of
Innovations in Environmental
Protection, conducted as an activity of
the Environmental Engineering
Committee. June 28, 2000.
Report: SAB Commentary under review
by the Executive Committee.
3.7.3 PRODUCTS
T
'he EEC's work resulted in the
page 31
following advice being submitted
to the Administrator:
fa) Review of EPA's Environmental
\ s
Technology Verification Program
(EPA-SAB-EEC-00-012)
(b) Improving the Efficacy of Science Advisory
Board Reviews: A Study of the
Attributes of Successful Technical
Reviews by the Environmental
Engineering Committee
(EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-00-001)
fc~) Commentary and Recommendations on
\ / J
Overcoming Barriers to Waste
Utilization
(EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-006)
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE (EHC)
Dr. Cynthia Bearer
Case Western Reserve University
Dr. John Doull
University of Kansas
Dr. David Hoel
University of South Carolina
Dr. George Lambert
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital
Dr. Grace Lemasters
University of Cincinnati
EHC Members
Chair: Dr. Mark Utell, University of Rochester
Dr. Abby Li
Monsanto Life Sciences
Dr. Michele Medinsky
Toxicology Consultant
Dr. Roy Shore
New York University
Dr. Lauren Zeise
California Environmental Protection
Agency
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 32
3.8.1 BACKGROUND
: EHC, one of the original five
SAB Committees, now shares
responsibilities for the review of health effects-
related issues with several Committees of the
Board (DWC, IHEC, RAC, and CASAC).
Over the past several years, the principal focus
for the EHC has been on issues related to
development and use of guidelines for health
risk assessments, rather than the review of agent-
specific
assessments which had previously been a major
activity.
The Chair and Members of EHC have
been active leaders in several of the EC's ad hoc
Subcommittees that have focused on a number
of controversial, high-profile topics; such as, the
cancer risk assessment of chloroform and the
appropriate use of the data from the testing of
human subjects. In the process, they have
reached out to other technically-related FACA
Committees in the Agency; e.g., the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) and the
Children's Health Protection Advisory
Committee (CHPAC). Therefore, the impact
of the expertise found in EHC extends far
beyond the activities of the Committee, per se.
Annual Report
3.8.2 ACTIVITIES
EHC conducted one face-to-
face meeting during FY 2000 to
review the Agency's Congressionally-mandated
report on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). No Consultants were used for
this particular review.
3.8.3 PRODUCTS
i;
"n addition to its Members'
Lparticipation in the activities and
reports of other SAB Committees and
Subcommittees, the EHC, per se, issued one
report,
(a) Review of the Draft Report to the Congress:
Characterization of Data Uncertainty
and Variability in IRIS Assessments,
Pre-Pilot vs Pilot/post-Pilot
(EPA-SAB-EHC-LTR-00-007).
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB website, http://ww.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
page 33
3.9 INTEGRATED HUMAN EXPOSURE COMMITTEE (IHEC)
IHEC Members
Chair: Dr. Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services
Dr. Thomas McKone
University of California
Dr. Jerome Nriagu
University of Michigan
Dr. Barbara Petersen
Novigen Sciences, Inc.
Dr. David Wallinga
Natural Resources Defense Council
Dr. Charles Weschler
Telcordia Technologies
Dr. Annette Guiseppi-Elie
EXXON Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Dr. Robert Harley
University of California
Dr. Michael Jayjock
Rohm and Haas Co.
Dr. Lovell Jones
University of Texas
Dr. Michael Lebowitz
University of Arizona
Kai-Shen Liu
California Department of Health Services
3.9.1 OVERVIEW
he Indoor Air Quality Committee
(IAQC) was formed in response to
Congressional recognition in the Superfund Act
of 1986 that determined the actual exposure,
including indoor air, of the human population
to various environmental agents is a key factor in
determining the nature and extent of possible
health risks. In 1996, the Executive Committee
gave the Integrated Human Exposure
Committee(IHEC) its current name in growing
recognition of the need for the Agency — and
the Board — to consider risk factors, including
exposure, in a more holistic fashion.
3.9.2 ACTIVITIES
T
The IHEC conducted I face-to-
face meeting during FY2000 in
order to review the Agency's
draft strategy document on the analysis of data
from the National Human Exposure Assessment
Survey (NHEXAS). The Committee used 2
Consultants to assist them in this review.
3.9.3 PRODUCTS
"n addition to the involvement of its
^Members in the conduct of other
reviews that resulted in SAB reports to the
Administrator, the IHEC submitted the
following report during FY2000:
(a) Review of the Draft Strategic Plan for the
Analysis of National Human Exposure
Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Pilot
Study Data
(EPA-SAB-IHEC-00-017).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 34
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB website, ttp://ww.epa.gov/sab.
Annual Report
3.10 RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RAC Members
Chair: Dr. Janet A. Johnson, Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Past Chair: Dr. Stephen Brown, Risks of Radiation Chemical Compounds
Dr. Lynn R. Anspaugh
University of Utah
Dr. Vicki Bier
University of Wisconsin
Dr. Bruce B. Boecker
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Dr. Gilles Bussod
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dr. Thomas F. Gesell
Idaho State University
Dr. Jill Lipoti
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Dr. Ellen Mangione
Colorado Department of Public Health
Dr. John Poston
Texas A&M University
Dr. Genevieve Roessler
Radiation Consultant
3.10.1 BACKGROUND
T:
RAC is one of the original SAB
Committees. Throughout its
history, the RAC has had a principal customer
with the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
Over the years, the emphasis given to radiation
issues at the Agency has slackened. At the same
time, there has been a great increase in the
attention that the Agency gives to inter-agency
aspects of radiation protection. As a
consequence, EPA is actively involved in a
number of joint projects with other significant
players in the radiation field; e.g., the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Department of
Energy, and the Department of Defense. The
products of several of these inter-agency efforts
have been jointly brought to the RAC for
critical, independent peer review.
3.10.2 ACTIVITIES
i;
-n FY2000, the RAC conducted two
-face-to-face meetings, one publicly
accessible conference call, and 3 non-FACA
technical editing sessions via conference call.
The Committee involved 5 Consultants in their
work during the course of the year.
Among the issues addressed at these
meetings were the following:
a. GENII, Version 2 (v.2), A Computer Model
with Improved Capabilities for
Evaluating Atmospheric Transport of
Radionuclides
(SAB Project No. 00-20)
b. EPA's Proposed Approach to Evaluating
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
TENORM (Technologically Enhanced
Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials) Occurrence and Risks
(SAB Project No. 00-21)
c. The Interagency Steering Committee on
Radiation Standards' (ISCORS)
Proposed Sewage Sludge Scenarios for
Dose Modeling as they prepare a
guidance document for sewage treatment
plant operators on radioactive material
in sewage sludge.
3.10.3 PRODUCTS
page 35
T
'he RAG efforts resulted in I report
being submitted to the EPA
Administrator in FY2000:
(a) Report on the Assessment of Risks from
Radon in Homes
(EPA-SAB-RAC-00-10)
\ x
and one Notification of Consultation,
(a) Consultation on the Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards'
(ISCORS) Proposed Sewage Sludge
Dose Modeling Scenarios
(EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-00-008)
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB website, http://ww.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 36-
Annual Report
3.11 RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RSAC)
RSAC Members
Chair: Dr. W. Randall Seeker, General Electric Energy & Environmental Research Corporation
Dr. William Adams
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation
Dr. Richard Bull
MoBull Consulting
Dr. Stephen Brown
Risks of Radiation Chemical Compounds
Dr. Theodora Colburn
World Wildlife Fund
Dr. Philip Hopke
Clarkson University
Dr. Alan Maki
Exxon Company, USA
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Paulette Middleton
RAND Center for Environmental Sciences & Policy
Dr. Maria Morandi
University of Texas
Dr. Ishwar Murarka
Ish Inc.
Dr. William Smith
Yale University
3.11.1 BACKGROUND
: RSAC was created by the SAB
at the request of the EPA
Administrator in 1988. The request stemmed
from the SAB's FutureMsfereport, that same year,
in which the Board suggested that they could be
of greater benefit to the Agency by being more
closely involved with the broad strategic Agency
discussions of its research role and plans.
As a result, RSAC now advises the
Agency and the Congress on the overall EPA
Science and Technology (S&T) Budget, as well
as the Agency's overarching science programs and
policies (e.g., STAR program, peer review
policy, etc.). Each spring RSAC conducts a
review of the President's budget request for the
following fiscal year and testifies before the
House Committee on Science and Technology's
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
An important RSAC role is to be a
spokesperson for long-term science at EPA. The
RSAC helps the Agency find ways to use science
for its immediate and intermediate needs ("i.e.,
\
"problem-driven" research) and while
maintaining a credible long-term science
program (i.e., "core" research).
Members of RSAC are generally those
who serve or have served on other SAB
Committees and have a broader perspective of
research in a regulatory agency, such as EPA. As
a result, RSAC Members are generally more
senior (in SAB experience) than Members of
other SAB committees. This arrangement insures
that the Committee is familiar with EPA
operations and its science needs.
3.11.2 ACTIVITIES
T
'he RSAC conducted I face-to-face
-------
Annual Report
meeting and I publically accessible
teleconference in Fiscal Year 2000. There were
no Consultants involved in these efforts.
In March, Dr. William Randall Seeker,
the RSAC Chair, testified before the Energy
and Environment Subcommittee of the House
Science Committee on the RSAC review of the
S&T portion of the Agency's budget.
3.11.3 PRODUCTS
page 37
T
'he RSAC efforts resulted
submitting two reports to the
Administrator this year:
(a) Review of the Peer Review Program of the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-00-002)
(b) Review of the FY 2001 Presidential Science
and Technology Budget Request for the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-00-007).
Appendix B5 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB website, http://ww.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 38-
Annual Report
IONS FOR 11 IK FIJI UK
T:
*he SAB enters FY 2001 with 25
new Members, including new Chairs
for 3 of its Committees. As of the end of
November 2000, the Administrator had not yet
announced her decision regarding the new Chair
of the Executive Committee. Therefore, Dr.
Morton Lippmann will continue to serve in that
capacity in the interim.
A major event for FY 2001 will be a
Strategic Planning Retreat for the Executive
Committee next spring. When Dr. Daisey
assumed the Chair of the EC, one of her first
acts was to preside over the first Strategic
Planning Retreat in November, 1997. Now,
roughly three years later and with another new
EC Chair in the offing, it is appropriate to draw
aside and make plans/set goals for the next four
years. A number of challenges/opportunities
await the new generation of SAB leadership,
including the following:
fa) The evolving role of science f and
\ / o \
SAB) in an evolving EPA.
(b) The Committee and disciplinary
structure of the SAB, including
social sciences
(c) The use of new technology to
enhance the performance and
advice of the Board.
The SAB will continue its efforts to
reach out to other FACA Committees, inside
and outside the Agency. The Board played a
key role in instigating the first meeting of FACA
Chairs in November, 2000. The SAB seeks to
enhance the value of FACA advice to the
Agency by strategically inter-linking the efforts
of the different FACA Committees. This
pursuit may well include having additional
liaison participation between SAB and other
FACA Committees. [The SAB Executive
Committee currently invites the chairs of three
FACA committees to its meetings: the Board of
Scientific Counselors, the Children's Health
Protection Advisory Committee, and the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel.] The SAB will likely
7 J /
have additional opportunities to review cross-
Agency products (e.g., the RAC's review of the
multi-Agency authored MARLAP [Multi-
Agency Radiological Analytical Protocols]
manual), involving members of FACA
committees from other Agency, as appropriate.
The Board will build on its experience
with the joint SAB/Agency workshop
mechanism as a means of providing advice in new
ways on important, complex issues. These issues
will include the following:
(a) The role of the SAB in the
innovative stakeholder processes
being used by the Agency.
(b) The continuing challenge to reflect
public values in the process of
estimating benefits of selected
Agency actions.
FY 2001 will find the Board exploring
new ways to provide more timely advice, while
conserving resources and making its processes even
more accessible to the public. The Board should
realize increased benefits from the advances in
computer technology that were the subject of
significant investments in the year 2000, which
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
included:
(a) A fire-wall protected Discussion
DataBase that allows SAB Panel
members to edit their reports
more expeditiously, while being
fully informed of every
participant's views.
(b) An office-focused People DataBase
that allows more rapid and
more reliable entry and
maintenance of critical
information regarding SAB
M/Cs.
(c) A computer projector whose use will
facilitate capturing SAB Panel
consensus and editing selected
critical portions of text.
In addition, the Board anticipates experimenting
with "Net meetings" in FY 2001, where SAB
Members interact through publicly accessible
page 39
means via the Internet.
Within the office, a list of more
mundane, but no less important, matters of
infrastructure enhancements include the
following:
(a) An updated draft of office standard
operating procedures and SAB
Member/Consultant
Handbook.
(b) Conversion of SAB office files to the
Agency-wide filing system.
In short, FY 2001 will be a
continuation of the SAB's efforts to bring some
of the nation's finest technical talent together in
order to take the highest quality scientific
information and make it real in the context of
the protection of public health and the
environment.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page A-1
A
'S &
Al. Organizational Chart
A2. Introduction to Charters
A2.1 EPA Science Advisory Board Charter
A2.2 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Charter
A2.3 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Charter
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-2
Annual Report
Al
U,S, Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
fiafrtld Of, Af falrf,
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
/
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
EPEC
ir EEDDAA of 15>7R
IHEC
RAC
RSAC
IV ftr
All ^^±mxu_1:iv£ (jvc^pt f*i~& TKTfTTT
r. tli^ &.i3nuni!tEr3d:rt
EHC—Eiu«iaunHiiJ.H«kiltk.CUuu»iTC4,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page A-3
INTRODUCTION TO
The Science Advisory Board was formally established in 1978 by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA). The Board is a Federal Advisory
Committee and must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)(5 U.S.C.) and regulated
regulations. The Board is a consists of 10 Committees coordinated by an Executive Committee.
The Charter describes an Executive Committee that includes representation from the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
(COUNCIL). Otherwise, the Board may organize itself as needed to meet its responsibilities. These
groups must renew their charters every two years, announce their meetings in the Federal Register, and
provide opportunities for public comment on issues under consideration. CASAC and COUNCIL are
independently chartered FACA committees. As such, they report directly to the Administrator. However,
they are administratively housed within the SAB and their Chairs participate as fully integrated members
of the SAB Executive Committee.
An advisory committee charter is intended to provide a description of a committee's mission,
goals, and objectives. It also provides a basis for evaluating a committee's progress and its effectiveness.
The advisory committee charter must contain the following information:
(I) The committee's official designation;
(2) The objectives and the scope of the committee's activity
(3) The period of time necessary to carry out the committee's purpose(s)
(4) The agency or official to whom the committee reports
(5) The agency responsible for providing the necessary support to the committee
(6) A description of the duties for which the committee is responsible and specification of
the authority for any non-advisory functions
(7) The established annual operation costs to operate the committee in dollars and person
years
The estimated number and frequency of committee meetings
The planned termination date, if less than 2 years from the date of establishment of the
committee
(10) The name of the individual and/or organization responsible for fulfilling the provisions
of section 6(b) of FACA, which requires a report to the Congress one year after a
Presidential advisory committee provides public recommendations to the President; and
(II) The date the committee charter is filed.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-4 Annual Report
A2.1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
EPA Science Advisory Board
2. Authority:
This charter renews the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App § 9 (c). SAB is in the public interest and
supports EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities. 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, November 8, 1995, and November 7, 1997.
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
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.
The major objectives are to review and provide EPA advice and recommendations on:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page A-5
(I) 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
(2) The scientific and technical adequacy of Agency programs, guidelines, documents,
methodologies, protocols, and tests
(3) New or revised scientific criteria or standards for protection of human health and the
environment
d. Matters as required under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 and 1990,
through the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean
Air Compliance Analysis
e. New information needs and the quality of Agency plans and programs for research,
development and demonstration
f. The relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic pollution sources
As appropriate, the SAB consults and coordinates with:
a. The Scientific Advisory Panel established by the Administrator pursuant to section 21
(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended; and other
Agency FACA Committees; and
b. Other Federal advisory groups, as appropriate, to conduct the business of the Board
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of the SAB are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will report with its advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-6 Annual Report
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this support will
be provided by the Office of the Administrator.
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the SAB is $2,143,900 which includes 16.70
work-years of support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
There will be approximately fifty (50) meetings of SAB's standing committees and specialized
subcommittees each year. Meetings may occur approximately four (4) to five (5) times a month, 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:
The SAB will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective until November 8,
2001, at which time it may be renewed for another two-year period.
10. Member Composition:
The SAB's Executive Committee will be composed of approximately seventeen (17) members,
who are the chairs of SAB's standing committees, chairs from the separately chartered Advisory Council
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, and at-large
members. Most members will serve as Special Government Employees. Members will be selected from
among, but are not limited to; independent scientists, engineers, and economists to provide a range of
expertise required to assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues.
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form SAB 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 _
-------
Annual Report page A-7
November 2. 1999
Agency Approval Date
Novembers. 1999
Date Filed with Congress
G:\SAB\REPORTS\Annual.OO\OOannualwebversion.wpd
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-8 Annual Report
A2.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
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 I, 1983; July 23, 1985;
August 5, 1987; August 7, 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 I, 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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page A-9
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
Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information
Advise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of
natural as well as anthropogenic activity
(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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-10 Annual Report
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.
Tulv29. 1999
Agency Approval Date
August 6. 1999
Date Filed with Congress
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff_
-------
Annual Report page A-l 1
A2.3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE 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. 7401 etseq).
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.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-12 Annual Report
(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
theCAA.
(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.
j j
5. Official(s) 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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page A-13
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
j ]
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 page B-l
B
&
B1. SAB FACA Meetings for FY 2000
B2. SAB Activities for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000
B3. Enhanced Descriptions of Selected Committee Activities
B3.1 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
B3.2 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
B4. SAB FY 2000 Products
B5. Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories and Commentaries
B6. Time-to-Completion
B7. Accessing SAB Reports and Notification of SAB Meetings
B8. Abstracts of the SAB Lecture Series - "Science & the Human Side of
Environmental Protection"
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-2.
Annual Report
A FDR FY
Glossary of Acronyms for the Science Advisory
Board
BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
COUNCIL Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
AQMS Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee
HEES Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee
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
RROS Risk Reduction Options Subcommittee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
* mdcates tdamferences; all other masting are face to face.
werehddm Wadrngm, DC unless otherwise noted
First Quarter
• October I
• October 7
• October 15
October 27-28
Committee
COUNCIL
EEC
COUNCIL
EC Subcommittee
Topicfs)
Benefits and Costs of Clean Air
Act
Planning
Benefits and Costs of Clean Air
Act
Chloroform
November 12
November 16-18
EEAC
RAC
Induced Travel
Radon Risk Assessment, Orphan
Source Continuation of
Metals, Border Detectors;
Planning
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report —
November 18
• November 22
November 29-30
November 30
December I
December 2
December 13-14
• December 21
CASAC
EC
EC
EC Subcommittee/SAP
CASAC
CASAC
EC Subcommittee
EC
page B-3
Carbon Monoxide CD II,
Carbon Monoxide SP I;
PM
Review Update
(Durham, NC)
Review Meeting
Regular Meeting
Use of Human Data
Diesel Health Assessment
(Durham, NC)
Particulate Matter CD; PM
Staff Paper Development
Plan and PM Risk
Assessment Development
Plan (Durham, NC)
TRIM (RTP, NC)
Review Meeting
Second Quarter
January 12-13
* January 26
• February 16
February 23-24
* February 24
February 25
March 1-2
March 6-8
March 7-8
March 9-10
Committee
EC Subcommittee/BOSC
EEC Subcommittee
RSAC
RSAC
EEC Subcommittee
EEAC
EC Subcommittee
EEC Subcommittee
EC
EEC
Topicfs)
Science to Achieve Results
(STAR)
Natural Attenuation
Peer Review - Phase II
Budget Review
Natural Attenuation
Benefits Adjustment White
Paper
Residual Risk for Lead Smelters
(RTP, NC)
Environmental Technology
Verification
Regular Meeting; Science &
Stakeholder Involvement
Pollution Prevention/Social
Sciences, Measures of
Technical Performance;
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-4.
March 13-14
March 29-30
• March 30
DWG
EC Subcommittee
EEC Subcommittee
Annual Report
Environmental Technology
Verification
Long Term I ESWTR - Filter
Backwash; Arsenic;
Candidate Contaminant
List; Groundwater Rule
Toxics Monitoring Strategy
Natural Attenuation
Third Quarter
• April 17
April 18-19
April 25-26
April 25-27
May I
May I
May 3
• May 30
* June 5
June 5-7
* June 16
• June 19
• June 21
June 22-23
June 22-23
Committee
IRP
CASAC Subcommittee
EPEC
RAC
EEC Subcommittee
EC
EEC
EC
EEC Subcommittee
DWC
EC
EPEC
CASAC Subcommittee
EC Subcommittee
EC Subcommittee
Topics(s)
Integrated Risk Report Peer
Review
Fine Particles (RTF, NC)
A Framework for Reporting on
Ecological Conditions
TENORM, GENII Version
2.0 Model; Sewage Sludge
Natural Attenuation
Review Meeting
Measures of Technology
Performance; Environmental
Technology Verification
Review Meeting
Diffusion & Adoption of
Innovations in
Environmental Protection
Arsenic in Drinking Water
Review Meeting
A Framework for Reporting on
Ecological Conditions
Federal Reference Method
Report to Congress
Scientific & Technological
Achievement Awards
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Workshop
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
page B-5
June 28
• June 30
Fourth Quarter
• July 5
July 10-11
July 12-13
July 28
August I
August 8-9
August 14-15
August 30
EEC Subcommittee
EC
Committee
CASAC
IHEC
EC
CASAC
RAC
DWC
EEC Subcommittee
EHC
Diffusion & Adoption of
Innovations in
Environmental Protection
Review Meeting
Topicfs)
Review Subcommittee Report
on PM 2.5 Monitoring
Network
NHEXAS (RTP, NC)
Environmental Justice Public
Health Research.; Science &
Stakeholder Involvement
(RTP, NC)
Section 6I02(e) of the
Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century
Various Issues
Candidate Containment List
Research Strategy
(Cincinnati, OH)
Natural Attenuation
IRIS
September 20
September 20-22
September 22
EEC
EPEC
EC
Diffusion Workshop Results
A Framework for Reporting on
Ecological Conditions
Review Meeting
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-6.
Annual Report
SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000
Committee
EC
EC/ad hoc
Subcom.
COUNCIL
CASAC
Fiscal
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Committee Acrivites1
Meetings Teleconference Total
3
3
3
3
3
10
17
8
9
8
2
I
3
4
0
5
I
3
3
4
2
3
5
6
7
II
10
0
I
I
I
6
0
2
2
I
0
0
I
3
5
6
8
9
10
21
27
8
10
9
3
7
3
6
2
6
I
3
4
7
Number of Reports2
Full Short Total
I
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
6
8
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
2
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
4
I
3
2
3
3
8
I
I
8
4
3
4
0
0
3
0
2
2
10
12
2
3
2
3
3
8
I
I
9
5
Report of the Stimce Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
pageB-7
SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000 (continued)
Committee
DWG
EPEC
EEAC
EEC
Fiscal
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Committee Activites1 Number of Reports2
Meetings Teleconference Total Full Short Total
2
I
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
3
6
4
4
I
I
0
0
0
I
0
I
I
I
0
0
0
I
0
I
0
0
I
8
3 0
2 I
2 0
2 I
3 0
4
2
3
3
3
0
0
2
3
2
3
3
6
5
12
0
2
2
I
2
0
0
0
I
I
I
3
4
I
I
2
I
I
I
3
0
5
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
0
0
I
I
5
2
2
2
I
2
3
0
7
3
I
2
0
0
I
2
I
I
4
5
6
3
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-8.
Annual Report
SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000 (continued)
Committee
EHC
IHEC
RAG
RSAC
Fiscal
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Committee Activites1
Meetings Teleconference Total
I
I
3
0
I
I
2
2
I
I
2
4
6
2
2
0
0
3
2
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
I
2
I
I
2
0
0
0
I
I
I
3
0
I
I
2
2
I
I
6
5
8
3
3
2
0
3
2
2
Number of Reports2
Full Short Total
0
2
I
4
0
0
0
I
I
I
0
I
0
2
I
0
0
I
I
2
0
I
0
0
I
I
I
I
3
0
2
0
I
4
0
I
0
I
0
0
0
3
I
4
I
I
I
2
4
I
2
I
I
6
I
I
0
2
I
2
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-9
EC Executive Committee
COUNCIL Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
DWC Drinking Water 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
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Indicates meetings and public teleconferences requiring notice in the Federal Register.
Reports are entered as Full Reports or Short Reports (which includes Letter Reports, Commentaries, and Advisories).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-10. Annual Report
APPENDIX B3
ENHANCED DESCRIPTIONS OF SELECTED COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
B3.1 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
(arranged by Criteria Pollutant)
B3.2 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-l 1
B3.1
ENHANCED DESCRIPTION
OF
CAS AC ACTIVITIES FOR FY 2000
(Arranged by Criteria Pollutant)
I) Particulate Matter (PM) NAAOS
a) Criteria Document/Staff Paper - The CASAC previously met on this issue in December, 1999. A
detailed peer review will take place at the next meeting which is planned for May 2001.
b) PM Research Strategy - The Committee last met to review the ORD draft Airbcme Particulate Mitter:
ResearchStrategy in late FYI999. A meeting to review the revised document is planned for early FY200I.
c) Fine Particles/Federal Reference Method fFRM^i - The CASAC Technical Subcommittee for
s \ /
Fine Particle Monitoring (the "Subcommittee") has been providing advice to the Office of Air and
Radiation on PM monitoring activities since FYI999. The Subcommittee will continue to meet over the
next few years to respond to its developing charge and to ensure that appropriate coordination is
established with the National Research Council (NRC) committee on particles. During the past year, the
Subcommittee was briefed on the status for the fine particle monitoring program with an emphasis on the
chemical speciation and "Supersites" study programs and conducted an Advisory on the PM 2.5
monitoring network. The Subcommittee also met via teleconference on June 21, 2000 to conduct a peer
review of the ORD draft report to Congress on its response to Section 6I02(e) of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (a report which requires " Tk Administrator [to] conduct a Sddstudy of tkability
oftkPM^s Federal Reference M^haJ to differentiate thcsepartides thatarelarger than 2.5 mcrcg:ams [sic] in diameter. This
study shall be completed andprovidad to tk Committee en Commerce of tk House of Representatives and tk Committee on
Environment and Public Wrfe oftk United States Senate no later than 2 years from tk date of enactment of this A£). This
report was due to Congress in early June, but EPA decided to delay the report in order to obtain peer
review by CASAC.
CASAC completed the peer review conducted by its Subcommittee at a teleconference on July 28th.
2) Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS - On November 18, 1999, the Committee completed its review
(reaching closure) of the CO Criteria Document, producing a report on January IP, 2000 (EPA-SAB-
CASAC-LTR-00-002). A meeting on the first draft of the CO Staff Paper is planned for late 2001.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-12. Annual Report
3) Ozone (CX) NAAQS - No action during this fiscal year. The Committee plans to review the Ozone
Research Strategy and Ozone Research Needs documents and Ozone Criteria Document Development
Plan at a meeting that is planned for mid-FY200I.
4) Nitrogen Oxides (NO..) (NAAQS) - No action during this fiscal year.
5) Lead (Pb) NAAQS - No action during this fiscal year.
6) Sulfur Oxides (SO..-, NAAQS - No action during this fiscal year.
7) Other Issues:
a) Diesel Health Assessment Document - The Committee reviewed this draft ORD document in May
s ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~ j
1995 and May 1998, noting in both cases that the document was not scientifically adequate for making
regulatory decisions. On June 10, 1999, the Committee held a Consultation with the Agency concerning
the planned approaches for revising the draft Diesel Health Assessment. Then, based on output from that
Consultation, CASAC conducted a third peer review of the revised draft document on December I,
1999. Once again, the Committee was unable to reach closure on the draft report, although noting that
the Agency had vastly improved its previous draft. Another meeting is planned for October 12-13,
2000.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-13
B3.2
AMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION
OF
SELECTED EEC ACTIVITIES FOR FY 2000
The EEC's commitment to risk reduction can be seen in the welcome it has extended to the Board's
social scientists. The EEC is the institutional home of the Subcommittee on the Diffusion and Adoption
of Innovations in Environmental Protection (Dr. Roger Kasperson, Chair) which held a day-long
consultative workshop a day-long consultative workshop June 28, 2000. The purpose of the workshop
was to identify how the use of data, theories, and research methods derived from the study of the social
process of diffusion and adoption of innovations may improve the adoption of innovative approaches to
environmental protection: (a) within EPA; (b) by state, tribal, and local government partners; and (c) by
corporate and non-governmental organization partners in environmental protection. The Subcommittee
is preparing a Commentary letter to the Administrator on major recommendations identified in the
workshop.
The Committee also involved a social scientist in its review of the Agency's Environmental
Technology Verification pilot program designed to test different approaches to environmental
technology verification. ETV has tested, or has tests underway for, ISO technologies. Because the
technologies addressed are diverse, as are their applications, ETV has made extensive use of stakeholders
and technical panels to design testing protocols to assure the data quality needs of the customers for the
data are met. The ETV program has successfully adopted major elements of the Agency's Quality
System early, well, and with enthusiasm. Overall, the EEC found the ETV program fundamentally sound
and valuable. The Committee's draft commentary on Measures of Environmental Technology
Performance, to be issued in early FY2001 is an outgrowth of the Committee's experiences with reviews
of EPA's technology programs and quality system coupled with the members' real-world national and
international experience with technology development, commercialization, and application in both
regulatory and non-regulatory but environmentally principled environments.
The Committee's real-world expertise and participation on a variety of advisory committees,
professional societies, and boards led it to develop a commentary on overcoming barriers to waste
utilization. It chose to make the Agency aware of improving opportunities for large-scale waste
utilization to contribute to cost-effective management of a fraction of the 23 million tons of "hazardous"
wastes and hundreds of tons of non-hazardous wastes that are land-disposed annually in the United States.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-14 Annual Report
In an effort to improve on its own contributions, the EEC charged a Subcommittee including past
and current chairs to take a retrospective look at the Committee's achievements. That Subcommittee's
commentary made recommendations for improvements in the areas of topic selection and charge; going
beyond a narrow charge; developing a receptive clientele for self-initiated reviews; screening proposed
topics for importance; working closely with program offices; review process; report completion; and
communication and follow-up. Inprc^ig tk Ifficacy cfSam(E Adnscry Beard Reviews: A Study cfthe Attributes cf
Successfiil Technical Reviews was the first commentary transmitted in FY2000.
A Subcommittee addressed the Agency's program on natural attenuation research and is expected to
forward its report for approval in early FY2001.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
page B-15
FULL REPORTS
EPA-SAB-00-OOI
EPA-SAB-RSAC-00-002
EPA-SAB-EC-00-003
EPA-SAB-CASAC-00-004
EPA-SAB-EPEC-00-005
EPA-SAB-EPEC-00-006
EPA-SAB-RSAC-00-007
EPA-SAB-EC-00-008
EPA-SAB-EC-00-009
EPA-SAB-RAC-00-OIO
EPA-SAB-EC-00-OII
EPA-SAB-EEC-00-OI2
EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-OI 3
EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI4
EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI5
EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI6
Science Advisory Board FY 2000 Annual Staff Report:
New Wineskins for New Wine
Review of the Peer Review Program of the Environmental Protection
o
Agency
& /
EPA's Per Capita Water Ingestion in the United States
Review of the EPA's Draft Diesel Health Assessment Document for
Diesel Emissions
Review of an Integrated Approach to Metals Assessment in Surface
Waters and Sediments
Review of the Biotic Ligand of the Acute Toxicity of Metals
Review of the FY 2001 Presidential Science and Technology Budget
Request for the Environmental Protection Agency
An SAB/BOSC Report: Review of the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) Program of the Environmental Protection Agency
Review of the Draft Chloroform Risk Assessment
Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes
Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making
Review of EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program
An SAB Report on EPA's White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal
Cancer Risk Reduction
Recommendations for the 1999 Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards (STAA) Nominations
Review of Draft Air Toxics Monitoring Strategy Concept Paper
Review of the EPA's Draft Revised Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines
Pertaining to Children
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-16-
Annual Report
SAB FY 2000 PRODUCTS (continued)
FULL REPORTS (continued)
EPA-SAB-EC-00-OI7
EPA-SAB-IHEC-00-OI8
Comments on the Use of Data from the Testing of Human Subjects
Review of Draft Strategic Plan for the Analysis of National Human
Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Pilot Study
LETTER REPORTS
EPA^AB-EC-LTR-00-OOI
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-00-002
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-00-003
EPA^AB-EC-LTR-00-004
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-00-005
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-00-006
EPA-SAB-EHC-LTR-00-007
Review of the Draft Chloroform Risk Assessment and Related Issues
in the Proposed Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines
Closure by CASAC on the Document: Air Quality Criteria for
Carbon Monoxide
Review of the Draft Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate
Matter
Review of the SAB Report " Toward Integrated Environmental
Decision-Making"
Report on EPA's Draft Proposal for the Groundwater Rule
Review of the US EPA Response to Section 6I02(e) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Review of the Draft Report to the Congress "Characterization of
Data Uncertainty and Variability in IRIS Assessments, Pre-Pilot vs.
Pilot/Post-Pilot"
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
page B-l 7
SAB FY 2000 PRODUCTS (CONTINUED)
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-00-00 1
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-00-002
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-00-003
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-00-004
EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-00-005
EPA^AB-CASAC-ADV-00-006
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-00-007
The Clean Air Act Amendment (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 2
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 Prospective
Study of Costs and Benefits (1999): Advisory by the Advisory
Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis: Costs and Benefits of
the CAA
Final Advisory on the 1999 Prospective Study fo Costs and
Benefits (1999) of Implementation of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA)
Review of the "Total Risk Integrated Methodology" (TRIM)
Advisory on the USEPA's Draft Case Study Analysis of the
Residual Risk of Secondary Lead Smelters
Advisory on the PM 2.5 Monitoring Network
An SAB Advisory on EPA's Draft Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL) Research Plan
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-00-OOI
EPA^AB-EC-COM-00-002
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-00-003
Commentary on Improving the Efficacy of SAB Reviews: A Study
of the Attributes of Successful Technical Review by the
Environmental Engineering Committee
Commentary on the Role of Science in New Approaches to
Environmental Decision-making that Focus on Stakeholder
o
Involvement
Commentary on the Agency's Proposed Drinking Water Standard
for Radon
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-18.
Annual Report
SAB FY 2000 PRODUCTS (continued)
COMMENTARIES (continued)
EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-00-004
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-00-005
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-00-006
Commentary on EPA's Draft Proposed for a Long-Term I
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule
Executive Committee Commentary on Residual Risk Program
Commentary and Recommendations on Overcoming Barriers to
Waste Utilization
CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-00-OOI
EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-00-002
EPA-SAB-EC-CON-00-003
EPA^AB-CASAC-CON-00-004
EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-00-005
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-00-006
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-00-007
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-00-008
Notification of a Consultation on the Development of the Carbon
Monoxide Staff Paper
Notification of a Consultation on Induced Travel: Does
Additional Highway Capacity Influence Travel Demand
Notification of a Consultation on the Study of the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS)
Notification of a Consultation on the Development of the
Particulate Matter Staff Paper
Notification of a Consultation on the Ecological-Soil Screening
Levels
Notification of a Consultation on Thermal Carbon Analysis
Notification of a Consultation on Sampler Intercomp arisen Study
Notification of a Consultation on ISCORS Sewage Sludge Dose
Modeling Scenarios
o
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-19
OF AND COMMENTARIES
FULL REPORTS
Science Advisory Board FY 1999 Annual Staff Report:
New Wineskins for New Wine
EPA SAB 00 001
The Science Advisory Board Staffs annual report captures the SAB's activities for FY 1999.
An SAB Report: Review of the Peer Review Program
of the Environmental Protection Agency
EPA SAB RSAC 00 002
On September 23 and 24, 1999 the RSAC met to review the Agency's peer review program.
The Committee responded to five charge questions. The RSAC found that the Peer Review processes
appear to be well established at the EPA. The Science Policy Council Peer Review Handbook is an
excellent guidance document and provides definitive criteria for deciding what to peer review. Some
concerns still remain regarding the process leading to the decision to peer review or not because of the
funding available and/or because of pressure to complete the work product before peer review due to
timing constraints. Consistent with the intent of the policy, the practice of peer review should not be
limited to final products but should also be extended to the up-front review of significant scientific and
technical planning products such as strategic plans, analytic blueprints, research plans, and goals documents.
In general, the Handbook contains good guidance on issues related to conflict of interest for the peer
reviewers. However, there is concern with respect to conflict of interest of the Peer Review Leader. The
Handbook states that the Peer Review Leader could be the Decision-maker, but Decision-makers often
have a professional interest in the outcome of the review. The RSAC suggests that EPA include
interagency and international products that are used in support of environmental decision-making in the
US under the peer review policy. The evaluation of EPA's peer review process is expected to be
conducted over two to three years. Therefore, RSAC could not fully address the charge questions "Are
the reviews and resulting advice timely" and "Do the peer reviews make a difference?"during this first
review. Data need to be collected and case studies developed to help the RSAC address these questions.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-2Q Annual Report
A SAB Report on EPA's Per Capita Water Ingestion in the United States
EPA SAB EC-00 003
The Drinking Water Intake Subcommittee (DWIS") of the Executive Committee reviewed a
o \ /
report on the EsOmatedPo: Capta Witer Ccnsunpticn in tk United States. The document presents estimates of
drinking water ingestion for the total U.S. population and a number of subgroups of interest. Estimates
are given for many age, gender, and other descriptors. The Subcommittee was pleased with the report's
use of a substantial existing data base to improve upon the current EPA estimates for drinking water
ingestion. The current Report is largely descriptive and contains little, discussion of factors embedded
within the original survey and the Agency's analytical method for deriving estimates that inform the
reader of important factors that should guide use of the estimates. The Subcommittee noted its desire to
see a greater level of discussion on these elements so that unintended misuse of the data can be minimized.
CASAC Review of the EPA's Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions
EPA-SAB CASAC 00 004
On December I, 1999, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviewed EPA's
November 1999 draft document, H^th Assessment DocurrEntfa- Diesel Enssicns (EPA 600/8-90/057D).
The draft reviewed by the Committee was considerably improved over previous drafts. The Committee
approved the framework of the present document and the general approach taken to portraying key
information. However, the number of major and minor criticisms and recommendations raised by the
Committee during the review precluded closure on the document without further review of changes made
in response to CASAC comments.
No single issue precluded closure; rather, the combined weight of numerous major and minor
issues contributed to the need for revision and re-review. However, much of the discussion surrounded
two critical issues. First, there was substantial concern for the approach taken to deriving the uncertainty
factors used in calculating the RfC value for noncancer health effects. Second, there was also substantial
disagreement with the use of the descriptor "highly" to modify the category "likely" used to describe the
potential human carcinogenicity of environmental exposures to diesel emissions.
In summary, the Committee recognized the document as a considerable improvement over
previous drafts, and is encouraged that, after revisions responding suitably to the remaining concerns, the
document could be approved as an acceptable representation of current knowledge on the potential
health effects of diesel emissions.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-21
Review of an Integrated Approach to Metals Assessment in Surface Waters and
Sediments
EPA SAB EPEC 00 005
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) met on April 6-7, 1999 to review the
Office of Water's proposal for assessing the bioavailability and toxicity of metals in surface waters and
sediments. The integrated methodology included use of the Biotic Ligand Model to predict the acute
toxicity of metals to aquatic organisms and development of sediment quality guidelines based on the
Simultaneously Extracted Metal-Acid Volatile Sulfide (SEM-AVS) approach. The Committee's
comments on the BLM are included in a companion report (EPA-SAB-EPEC-00-006). The Committee
concluded that the body of evidence supporting the SEM-AVS methodology is strong with regard to
acute effects of sediment metals, and that the methodology is a powerful predictive tool suitable for
incorporation into sediment assessment guidelines. At the same time, the Committee noted limitations of
the methodology; first, it is still unclear whether adverse effects on biota are necessarily prevented when
AVS exceeds SEM; and second, environmental conditions in many locations will be unsuitable for
application of the methodology because underlying assumptions of the approach will be violated. For
these reasons, the Committee recommended that the SEM-AVS methodology be incorporated into
sediment guidelines in a way that makes clear the current limitations and ensures that the method will
continue to be used in conjunction with other assessment tools, rather than being used as a stand-along test
of whether sediments are "toxic" or "non-toxic" due to metals. The Committee concluded that,
although the results from acute toxicity tests are promising, further research is required to support the
addition of either chromium or silver to the Metals Mixtures Equilibrium Sediment Guidelines. In
addition, the Committee recommended that the Agency turn its focus to appropriate application of
SEM-AVS in the field, including the development and peer review of sampling protocols and a "sediment
guidelines user's guide." The Committee urged the Agency to develop a refined conceptual model that
incorporates all partitioning phases and routes of exposure in order to guide the Agency's long-term
efforts to integrate water column and sediment standards and to assist users to apply current standards and
guidelines appropriately.
Review of the Biotic Ligand Model of the Acute Toxicity of Metals
EPA SAB EPEC 00 006
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) met on April 6-7, 1999 to review the
Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) for predicting the acute toxicity of metals to aquatic organisms. The BLM
has been developed to improve the estimation of the bioavailable fraction of dissolved metals, such as
copper and silver, that may pose a risk to aquatic organisms in surface waters. The Agency proposes to
incorporate the BLM in its approach to establishing water quality criteria that will be protective of
aquatic organisms. In general, the Committee found that the BLM can significantly improve predictions
of the acute toxicity of certain metals across a range of water chemistry parameters and that the model
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-22. Annual Report
could be a practical aid in site-specific water quality regulation and assessment, complementing and in
some cases providing a ready alternative to current empirical (e.g., Water-Effect Ratio) approaches. At
the same time, the Committee observed that there has not yet been sufficient time to validate the model
in a number of areas, including: a broad range of aquatic organisms; longer term exposures; a wide variety
of metals; or a comprehensive range of water chemistry parameters and naturally occurring field
conditions. For this reason, the Committee concluded that it would be premature to use the BLM to
revise the protocol for deriving national ambient water quality criteria without further model validation,
but that application of the BLM for site-specific modification of criteria would be feasible in some cases
(e.g., for calculation of site-specific modifications to the acute toxicity criterion for copper). The
Committee recommended that the Agency continue to validate and verify the BLM because of its
potential to improve future water quality criteria for metals.
Review of the FY2001 Presidential Science and Technology Budget Request
for the Environmental Protection Agency
EPA SAB RSAC 00 007
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) met February 23 and 24, 2000 to review
the Science and Technology portion of the FY200I Presidential Budget Request for the Environmental
Protection Agency. RSAC felt that EPA has continued to make marked improvements in the budget and
planning process. It found the request to be appropriately prioritized based on the Agency Strategic
Plan, but it had reservations about the adequacy of the overall funding level given the increasing
complexity and cost of environmental problems. Special concerns were the need for additional scientists
and engineers to maintain core competencies and the observation that programs for which EPA has no
statutory authority to regulate (e.g., indoor air and Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) receive
consistently low budget priorities despite their potentially high impacts on the environment and public
health. Progress has been made to heighten the level of interaction between the Office of Research and
Development and Program Offices. RSAC notes that many of the problems confronting the Agency are
not solvable by the "media-specific" driven research. Thus, it is critical that the Agency maintain its core
research program. The balance between long-term and short-term research needs and science and
technology issues seems appropriate (e.g., in recent years, the Agency has initiated numerous long-term
research efforts in the areas of children's health, global climate change, coastal ecosystem health, and dry
deposition monitoring), but there is still no overall explicit approach to incorporate the requirements of
longer-term research programs within the short-term budgetary process. Research on emerging issues
needs to have ongoing, stable support because EPA is the key Agency responsible for aggressively watching
for critical new environmental threats to human health and to ecosystems. The Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) goals structure provides an excellent framework for aligning research priorities
with the resources allocated to perform the work. However, RSAC is concerned that annual performance
goals are still focused on specific products (i.e., reports, data collected, etc) and recommends that the
program goals should focus instead on outcomes, and that the annual performance goals be related to
milestones aimed towards achieving the long-term objectives identified in the Strategic Plan.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page B-23
An SAB/BOSC Report: Review of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
Program of the Environmental Protection Agency
EPA SAB EC-00 008
On January 12-13, 2000 a joint subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) met to
review the Agency's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program. The STAR Program, which was
established in Fiscal Year 1995, has the mission to include this country's universities and non-profit centers
in EPA's research program and to ensure the best possible quality of science in areas of highest risk and
greatest importance to the Agency. The Subcommittee was charged to evaluate whether or not the
STAR Program is structured appropriately to achieve the stated purpose, to evaluate whether the
program is integrated effectively with Agency strategic plans and programs, and to examine the adequacy
of efforts to communicate with the external scientific and regulatory communities regarding STAR
research opportunities and outputs. Although the Agency and the Subcommittee agreed that the STAR
Program has not been in operation for long enough to allow evaluation of its impact on the Agency and
the broader research community, the Subcommittee was asked to recommend measures and systems that
should be used to monitor the STAR Program's impacts, costs, credibility, and effectiveness in later
program reviews.
The Subcommittee's overall assessment was that the STAR Program is structured and managed so
as to generate high-quality science, conducted by well-qualified scientists, on topics that are relevant to
the environmental problems identified in the EPA Strategic Plan. Research Coordination Teams are an
excellent mechanism for planning solicitations, and there has been significant and beneficial coordination
with other agencies. Outreach to potential STAR applicants is strong, and the peer review of proposals is
rigorous. The Subcommittee urged the Agency to continue exploring new management procedures such
as multi-year program planning, web site key word search capabilities, and state-of-the-science reports on
selected topics. The report describe a series of recommendations designed to make improvements to the
management of the STAR Program, recommends measures and systems that should be used to monitor
the STAR Program's impacts, costs, and effectiveness; and highlights the need for a comprehensive
approach to communication of STAR results and expresses concern over the level of staff resources
devoted to the program.
Review of the Draft Chloroform Risk Assessment
EPA SAB EC-00 009
Drinking water surveys performed in the United States found chloroform (an unwanted by-
product of the disinfection process) in a majority of water supply systems using surface water sources.
There were concerns about chloroform producing adverse health effects, including cancer. EPA studied
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-24 Annual Report
both the disinfection process and the toxicology and health effects of chloroform ingestion and
summarized and interpreted the data in a draft risk assessment document.
A Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board met to review this document at a public meeting
in Washington on October 27-28, 1999.
The Subcommittee agreed with EPA that sustained or repeated cytotoxicity with secondary
regenerative hyperplasia in the liver and/or kidney of rats and mice precedes, and is probably a causal
factor for hepatic and renal neoplasia, but expressed concern that a cytotoxicity/regenerative cell
proliferation mode of action may not be the exclusive mode, and that alternative modes of action have
not been rigorously studied.
The Subcommittee supported the Agency's attempt to address the complex scientific issues
involved in assessing the dose-response relationship, but found it somewhat difficult to track the scientific
bases for decisions in the document. The Subcommittee recommends revising the document to
incorporate critical data on dose response and allow the consistency of the data to be more readily
evaluated. Most Members agreed that the dose response for both liver and kidney neoplasia appears to
be determined by cytotoxicity, and that a margin of exposure approach (MOE) or non-linear approach is
most appropriate.
Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes
EPA SAB RAC 00 010
Since radon is the principal contributor to effective dose to members of the general public from
background radiation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has devoted substantial consideration
to quantifying the risks from radon in homes. EPA has commissioned several studies to develop models
and risk estimates based on epidemiologic data from underground miners.
The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) derived a risk model for residential exposures
based on the models developed by the National Academy of Sciences' Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation (BEIR) Committee. The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) reviewed the EPA model
and the methods of estimating lung cancer risk from exposure to radon indoors. The RAC agrees with
ORIA's methodology in general. However, ORIA did not adequately address the uncertainties in the risk
estimates, in particular, model uncertainty.
The RAC recommends that ORIA address, at least qualitatively, biologically-based models and
models which would result from application of alternate statistical methodology to the miner data. In
addition, since a wide variety of users will apply the ORIA point risk estimates to specific situations,
ORIA needs to make sure its methodology, assumptions, and the limitations of the model used are
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page B-25
transparent. Lack of understanding of the uncertainties in the assessment could result in misuse of the risk estimates.
Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making
EPA SAB EC-00 Oil
In Summer 2000, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) released its report, TcwardIntegrated
Envtrcnrrmtal Deascn-twlong. Marking the culmination of an extensive effort of interdisciplinary teams of
scientists, engineers, and economists, the report explores the scientific and technical analyses that can and
should inform environmental decisions, the strengths and limitations of current science and analytical
techniques, the import of other inputs, and areas for future development. Among the findings and
conclusions made by the Steering Committee were the following:
I. Scientists have important and unique contributions to make in protecting public health and the
environment.
2. While scientists can help to characterize environmental risks, they are not solely qualified to set
priorities among them and broader deliberation is essential.
3. Integrated environmental decision-making requires a process within which the decision-maker
can meld the results of science and the goals of the people served.
4. Deliberative processes play an important role in eliciting values of people and in obtaining
stakeholder participation in decision-making.
5. Integrated decision-making requires explicit consideration of the trade-offs involved in
pursuing multiple goals.
6. Integrated decision-making should combine risks into logical groupings—for example, those
with a common source or pathway—in order to identify risk reduction opportunities
across stressors.
7. "Environmental Report Cards" are needed to measure and document performance and
outcomes of risk reduction activities. An environmental results reporting system should
include a mix of processes, stressors, exposures, and outcome measures.
Based on these findings and conclusions, the Board's report proposes a Framework for Integrated
Environmental Decision-making that stresses integration—of information and techniques from multiple
disciplines and points of view, and of multiple stressors, exposure routes, and effects. The report calls for
an evolution in environmental decision-making that builds on, rather than replaces, existing regulatory
processes and requirements. This evolution is characterized by a decision-making process that is a)
transparent and well-documented; b) makes the best use of both analytical and deliberative processes; c)
draws on the interdisciplinary expertise of scientists, managers, and members of the public; and d) looks at
environmental problems in a whole and complete way in order to maximize the reduction of aggregate
risk to populations or ecological systems.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-26. Annual Report
The report also contains 10 recommendations intended to foster the evolution to Integrated
Environmental Decision-making:
I. EPA should continue development of integrated, outcomes-based environmental protection,
while maintaining the safeguards afforded by the current system.
2. Because science plays a critical role in protecting the environment, EPA should commit the
resources necessary to expand the scientific foundation for integrated decision-making and
outcomes-based environmental management.
3. EPA should apply and encourage the broader use of risk comparison methodologies that
clearly identify how scientific information and judgment are incorporated into risk
comparisons.
4. EPA should explore a broader range of risk reduction options in combination to manage
environmental risks.
5. When evaluating risk reduction options, EPA should strive to weigh the full range of
advantages and disadvantages, both those measured in dollars as costs and benefits and
those for which there may not be a comprehensive dollar measure, such as sustainability
and equity.
6. EPA should seek and develop methods to characterize public values and incorporate those
values into goal-setting and decision-making.
7. EPA, by itself and in concert with others, should identify, collect, and disseminate
scientifically-based environmental metrics organized in new ways to support a more
integrated approach to managing environmental risk.
8. EPA, by itself and in concert with others, should develop a system of "report cards" to
organize and disseminate information on the status of ecological and human health and
the quality of life in order to assess the effectiveness of its environmental decisions and to
guide future environmental management.
9. EPA should expand and develop new collaborative working relationships with other federal
and non-federal governmental agencies and others who also will be involved in integrated
environmental decision-making.
10. EPA should explore options for reducing risks from significant stressors that currently are
addressed inadequately by the nation's environmental institutions.
Review of EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program
EPA SAB EEC 00 012
The Technology Evaluation Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's Environmental
Engineering Committee reviewed the extent to which quality management is incorporated in the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program.
The Agency's Quality System and ANSI/ASQC E-4 provide an effective framework within
which the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program has established a multi-tiered quality
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page B-27
assurance oversight system. The ETV program has ensured that the appropriate technology verification
factors and level of quality management are consistent with marketplace demands by the extensive use of
stakeholder advisory groups.
The Subcommittee recommended that the generic test protocols and Test/QA plans be
improved by consistent employment of a systematic data quality planning process such as the DQO
process (EPA QA/G-4). Consistent use of a systematic data quality planning process will ensure that
future verification tests will be designed that reflect the inherent variability in technology performance.
To protect the credibility of the ETV program, verification partners and their subcontractors
must comply with the same quality assurance requirements adopted by the Agency.
Report on EPA's White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk
Reduction
EPA SAB EEAC 00 013
The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) reviewed the Agency's white paper
ValumgFatal Cancer PiskP&hcticns during a meeting on February 25, 2000 in response to a request received
from EPA. The EEAC's general conclusion is that estimates of the value of statistical life (VSL) derived
from wage-risk tradeoff studies should not be taken as precise estimates of the value of reducing the risk of
fatal cancers, because of differences in the nature of the risks being valued and in the socio-economic
characteristics of the affected populations, and because of various sources of uncertainty. In the
Committee's judgment, there is not, at present, a sufficient theoretical and empirical basis for making most
of the quantitative adjustments to the wage-risk-based VSL suggested by the Agency to account for these
differences. Despite limitations of the VSL estimates, these seem to offer the best available basis at present
for considering the value of fatal cancer risk reduction. We therefore recommend that the Agency
continue to use a wage-risk-based VSL as its primary estimate, including appropriate sensitivity analyses to
reflect the uncertainty of these estimates.
ADVISORIES
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 2
EPA SAB COUNCIL ADV 00 001
This report, from the Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES) of the Advisory
Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council), provides advice to improve the characterization of
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-28, Annual Report
the health and ecological effects in the June 1999 draft of an Agency document, "The Benefits and Costs
of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010, EPA Report to Congress." The HEES finds that the Project team
responded well to the HEES' previous recommendations to include discussions of indirect effects of air
pollutants on ecosystems and the need to eventually adopt a systems approach for the ecological analyses.
The HEES notes that the draft does not provide a quantitative assessment of Health and Ecological
Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and recommends a workshop to develop an improved
approach for future studies. The HEES notes uncertainties concerning the health effects of Criteria Air
Pollutants, expresses comfort with Agency efforts to caveat those uncertainties, and identifies research
gaps to be filled to strengthen futures studies. The report suggests research needed to address current
deficiencies in data and models to define exposure and health endpoints for human and ecological systems.
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 Prospective Study of Costs
and Benefits (1999): Advisory by the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis: Costs and Benefits of the CAAA
EPA SAB-COUNCIL ADV 002
This report from the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council) provides
advice to improve the assessment of costs and benefits in the June 1999 draft of an Agency document,
"The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010, EPA Report to Congress." Subject to
certain caveats, the Council expressed a belief that the Agency has produced credible estimates of the
benefits and costs of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, given the state of current knowledge. While
the draft contains a reasonable representation of the standard literature on estimating costs and benefits, it
is hampered by scientific uncertainties. These gaps in our knowledge — in air quality modeling,
measurement of health and ecological endpoints, and valuation of reduced mortality and chronic lung
disease — limit the usefulness of the study as a guide to policy and will hamper future studies unless research
is undertaken to reduce these uncertainties. To prioritize research needs we recommend that a value of
information analysis be conducted to identify where the benefits from additional research are greatest.
77 o
Final Advisory by the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis on
the 1999 Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits (1999) of Implementation
of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
EPA SAB COUNCIL ADV 00 003
This report, from the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council), provides
peer review of the assessment of costs and benefits in the September and October 1999 drafts of an
Agency document, "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010, EPA Report to
Congress" and advice for the development of future prospective studies. The Council believes that
Agency document is a serious, careful study that, in general, employs sound methods and data. The
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page B-29
document addresses two major issues pertaining to the study's measurement of costs and representation of
uncertainty regarding costs. The document also highlights six issues associated with the development of
future studies:
I. Disaggregation of benefits and costs by individual provision of the Clean Air Act.
2. Characterization of uncertainties about regulatory costs, as well as uncertainties about the benefits
of regulations.
3. Inclusion of tax interaction effects in discussion of costs.
4. Revision of estimates of the Value of a Statistical Life.
5. Statement of the impact of air quality regulations in terms of a Net Cost per Life Saved and a
Net Cost per Life Year Saved to facilitate comparisons with other health and safety regulations.
6. Increases in the set of ecosystem benefits valued and improvements in estimates of the exposure
and effects of air toxics.
An SAB Advisory on the Agency's "Total Risk Integrated Methodology" (TRIM)
EPA SAB EC ADV 00 004
The Environmental Models Subcommittee of the Executive Committee reviewed the Agency's
development of the Total Risk Integrated Methodology (TRIM) for predicting multimedia exposures
and risks posed by hazardous air pollutants. The Subcommittee found the EPA TRIM model to be an
innovative, flexible, state-of-the-art system for evaluating multimedia chemical fate, transport, exposure
and risk. Specific recommendations are provided on efforts to improve the TRIM.FaTE module,
planned field comparison studies of the TRIM system, and the design and implementation of the
exposure and risk modules.
The Subcommittee determined that there is a need for OAQPS to better specify its plans and
timeline for use of the TRIM system within the Agency and subsequent release to a broader user
community. Early workshops and beta testing of the integrated TRIM system by the affected user
community are recommended to help in the development of user guidance and support. The application
protocol for TRIM should provide incentives for the development of improved data collection methods
and improved databases for model input. For all current risk assessment models, including the TRIM
system, new methods are needed to address emerging issues including: the effects of mixtures; population
susceptibility and cumulative risk; and metrics for environmental equity and ecological impacts at the
population level.
Advisory on the Draft Case Study Analysis of the Residual Risk of Secondary
Lead Smelters
EPA SAB EC ADV 00 005
The Residual Risk Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Executive Committee
met on March 1-2, 2000 to review the EPA's interim draft Residual Risk Analysis on Secondary Lead
Smelters.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-30. Annual Report
The Subcommittee concludes that the Agency has developed a useful, self-described "work-in
progress." The methodology used in this interim workproduct, as far as it currently goes, is consistent
with the methodology described in the Report to Congress. Further, the assumptions used are consistent
with current methods and practice. The case study provides a valuable example of how the approach
presented in the Report is going to be implemented.
However, because the Subcommittee has not yet seen a full residual risk analysis and, thus, is
unable to comment on the complete process, a number of important concerns were identified that should
be addressed. Specifically, this interim analysis does not include the following important elements: an
ecosystem risk assessment; a health risk assessment that includes populations risks; a full
uncertainty/variability analysis; and a computer model for assessing multimedia transport and fate that has
been adequately evaluated.
The Advisory addresses specific charge questions dealing with the following: models and model
inputs, choice of receptors, ecological and human health risk assessment, uncertainty and variability
assessment and presentation of results.
Advisory on the PM2.5 Monitoring Network
EPA-SAB CASAC ADV 00 006
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) provided advice and recommendations
to EPA on the deployment and future plans for the PM2 5 monitoring network, the approach to be used
for the analysis of carbon species in samples collected in the chemical speciation monitoring network; and
the sampling strategy for coarse particles should a coarse particle NAAQS be developed in the 2002
standard setting process. The Committee expressed its strong support for a change in the basic approach
to monitoring particles in both the coarse or fine size fractions in that the emphasis should be on
development of continuous monitoring methods over integrated filter methods. It is clear that there have
been substantial technological developments in continuous mass monitoring approaches, and the Agency
needs to move as rapidly as practical toward implementation of continuous monitoring methods of
particulate matter as is now used for most of the other criteria pollutants.
LETTER REPORTS
Review of the Draft Chloroform Risk Assessment and Related Issues in the
Proposed Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines
EPA-SAB EC-LTR 00-001
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-31
The Chloroform Risk Assessment Review Subcommittee (CRARS) of the Executive Committee
met on October 27-28, 1999 to determine if significant changes need to be made to the chloroform risk
assessment before it is finalized, or to the proposed Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines' (GL) section on
Mode of Action. This report addresses only suggested revisions to the Guidelines.
The Subcommittee expressed overall support for the GL's (July 1999 draft) framework for
determining the importance of different modes of action and encouraged the Agency to publish the
guidelines expeditiously. It was suggested that the Guidelines: a) include a step that identifies gaps in
knowledge in the human relevance section;
b) amplify on what the term 'sufficient' information means when making a mode of action determination;
c) clarify the specific terms are used in describing a mode of action; d) point out that the carcinogenic
activity of some chemicals appears to involve both modifications of cell division and cell death processes;
e) consider establishing a checklist addressing populations of concern (such as pregnant women and
children), similar to that developed by FDA, to be considered in each mode of action analysis; f) state
that "Consistency between endpoints related to mode of action and carcinogenic responses should be
sought in experiments that give both positive and negative results. Findings that show that other
chemicals having parallel toxicological properties also result in a carcinogenic response strengthen the
conclusion that a particular mode of action is causal" should be added to the draft Guidelines"; and
g) define more clearly the terms "linear" and "non-linear" dose-response curves.
Closure by CASAC on the Document, Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide
EPA SAB CASAC LTR 00 002
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) met on November 18, 1999 to review
the October 1999 draft document, Air Quality Criteria fa Carbcn Mnori£(EPA 600/P-99/OOIB). This
was the second draft of the new carbon monoxide (CO) Criteria Document, which is being prepared as
part of the review of the national Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. The first draft of
the document had been reviewed by the Panel on June 9, 1999.
The Committee reached closure on the October 1999 draft document, noting that it was the
unanimous view of CASAC that, after incorporation of various final changes discussed with EPA staff, the
document will constitute an accurate representation of current scientific knowledge concerning the health
effects of CO, and does not need to be reviewed by the Committee again. The scientific criteria
contained in the final document will serve as an adequate foundation for completing the review of the
appropriateness of the NAAQS for CO.
Review of the Draft Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter
EPA SAB CASAC LTR 003
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-32. Annual Report
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC") reviewed the October 1999 draft
j \ /
document, Air Quality Criteria fa ParticulateMitter (EPA 600/P-99/002a). This was the first review of the
new draft Criteria Document (CD) for particulate matter (PM) of the new cycle for reviewing the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM. This review focused primarily on the
organization, structure, and presentation of material in the document. This approach acknowledged that
additional information published before the document is finalized will be incorporated in subsequent
drafts, and that there was no intent that the Panel might close on the document at this stage of its
development.
The greatest overall need is to develop a more explicit strategy for selecting the information to be
included, distilling key new and pre-existing information into an updated statement of current knowledge,
and integrating that knowledge within a recognizable risk assessment framework that flows through the
entire document. It is important that the CD focus on information that will best inform decisions on the
key elements of the PM NAAQS: the indicator(s) for PM; the concentration, or level(s); the averaging
time(s); and the statistical form(s). EPA faces a considerable challenge in striking a balance between
inclusiveness and selectivity in portraying the burgeoning information in this field. To successfully meet
that challenge, it is critical that a strategy be developed and followed consistently to maintain a focus on
the information that is most key to the assessment of risk to human health and ecosystems. Rigorous
adherence to a well-focused strategy will also be very critical to the timely completion of both the PM
CD and Staff Paper.
Review of the SAB Report "Towards Integrated Environmental Decision-
Making"
EPA-SAB EC-LTR 00-004
The Integrated Risk Project Subcommittee of the SAB reviewed the Board's "Toward Integrated
Environmental Decision-Making" report and found that it successfully addressed most concerns identified
during the earlier peer review. The ten Recommendations to the Agency contained are reasonable,
appropriate, and worthy of sustained Agency consideration and action. The Agency will need to
undertake a significantly expanded effort in developing improved tools and guidance that have been
vetted with real problems in environmental decision-making. Focused research is needed on problems that
range from improving methods for the informed synthesis and elicitation of public environmental values,
to tools and procedures that support: improved characterization and treatment of uncertainty; reasoned
science-based deliberative processes; and, the development of ordinal and cardinal evaluations of multi-
dimensional risks. The challenges of improving and better integrating environmental decision-making are
considerable, but the end result should be worth the effort. The Subcommittee congratulates the
Integrated Risk Project Steering Committee and the SAB staff on a dramatically improved report. It is
well-organized and clearly written. The "what we have"/"what we need" structure is a very useful
o / ' J
organizing device.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-33
Report on EPA's Draft Proposal for the Groimdwater Rule
EPA SAB DWC LTR 00 005
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) met on March 13-14, 2000 to review the Agency's
draft proposal for its Ground Water Rule. This rule addresses the use of disinfection in ground water and
other components of ground water systems to assure public health protection. This review was conducted
in a public meeting in Washington, DC. EPA's draft proposal was reviewed by the Committee while it
was still under review by the Office of Management and Budget and prior to being released for
publication in the Federal Register as a proposed rule. As such, the DWC members recognized that
specific elements were subject to change during the OMB review.
The Committee reached closure on its conclusions during the March meeting. It was the view of
the Committee that: I) both bacterial and viral indicators should be employed in ground water source
monitoring plans; 2) either E cdi or enterococci will serve as the bacterial indicator and coliphage should
be used as the viral indicator; 3) to save on costs of monitoring, the Agency should develop and validate
the use of a common host to simultaneously detect both male-specific and somatic coliphage; 4) the
Agency should depend upon monitoring and wellhead protection programs to ensure ground water
sources are not subject to microbial contamination; and
5) source monitoring should include all ground water systems and some less frequent repeat monitoring
that goes beyond the intensive monitoring proposed for the first year. These points are discussed in detail
later in the letter report.
Review of the US EPA Response to Section 6102(e) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
EPA SAB CASAC LTR 006
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviewed EPA's response to Section
6I02(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which requires the U.S. EPA to verify
the performance of the sampler that was designated by 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L (July 1997) to be
the Federal Reference Method (FRM) sampler for PM2.5. The Committee responded to the following
questions: a) Has the proper methodology been used to address the requirement in the Transportation
Equity Act? b) Was the methodology applied correctly? c) Is the Report's interpretation correct? and d)
Has the submitted Report responded to the Congressional mandate/request as stated in the Act? In
summary, the Committee concludes that, in general, the Report meets the requirements set by the Act
however, it could be further strengthened by additions and changes suggested in the Committee's report.
In addition, the Report should not represent a termination of testing and evaluation of monitoring
methods for airborne particulate matter. A long term study of the performance of the FRM is needed to
assess the quality of the data coming from the mass monitoring network.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-34 Annual Report
COMMENTARIES
"Improving the Efficacy of Science Advisory Board Reviews: A Study of the
Attributes of Successful Technical Reviews by the Environmental Engineering
Committee"
EPA SAB EEC COM 00 001
In response to the suggestion of the SAB Executive Committee, the Environmental Engineering
Committee study of representative products over the past few years. The aim of the study was to develop
persuasive, data-based arguments for enhancing technical reviews within the EEC and within the SAB in
general.
Information was gathered by examining the impacts of eight reports of various types and
discerning why some were effective and others were not. The findings were strengthened by interviewing
13 people having extensive knowledge of the SAB program and products; an additional 22 personal
contacts were made concerning specific reports.
Findings and recommendations were developed in four aspects of the review process, including:
a) Topic Selection and Charge
tO Review Process
s
c) Report Preparation
d) Impact and Communication
Commentary on the Role of Science in New Approaches
EPA SAB EC COM 00-002
This report represents self-initiated advice of the SAB regarding the role of science in "new
approaches" to environmental decision-making that focus on stakeholder involvement. The Board is
asking for the Administrator's support for a series of SAB workshops to discuss the role of science in
approaches that rely on a high level of stakeholder involvement to address environmental issues associated
with problems of specific places, specific economic sectors, or especially vulnerable populations such as
children or the disadvantaged.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-35
Commentary on the Agency's Proposed Drinking Water Standard for Radon
EPA SAB EC COM 00-003
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Agency is charged with consulting with the SAB
prior to proposal of a drinking water standard, and the SAB is charged with responding as it deems
appropriate. In the case of the proposed drinking water standard for radon, the SAB determined that a
formal review by the Board is not necessary at this point, since over the past decade, Committees of the
SAB have generated more than two dozen reports on radon, its risks, and its mitigation. After hearing an
Agency briefing to the Radiation Advisory Committee earlier this month, Dr. Richard Bull (Drinking
Water Committee Chair) and Dr. Janet Johnson (Radiation Advisory Committee Chair) were satisfied
that the science underlying the proposed radon rule has been adequately reviewed through these numerous
earlier SAB reports.
Comments on EPA's Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
and Filter Backwash Rule
EPA SAB DWC COM 00 004
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) met in Washington, D.C. on March 13, 2000 to review
the Agency's Draft Proposal for the Long-Term I Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and Filter
Backwash Rule (LTIFBR). The rule is intended to increase protection against microbial contamination
(especially Cryptcspcndum) in finished drinking water supplies from systems using surface water or ground
water under the direct influence of surface water. The Committee conducted this review in fulfillment of
its responsibilities under Section I4I2(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA as amended in August
1996). Key points raised by the Committee include:
a. Long Term I Rule:
Turbidity Requirements - Combined Filter Effluent in Small Plants: EPA should outline further measures
that it will take to ensure that the desired level of performance can be successfully achieved.
Turbidity Requirements - Collection of Data by Small Systems: The SAB sees no technical problem with
small utilities maintaining continuous monitoring equipment that stores and reports on turbidity data at
15 minute intervals.
b. Filter Backwash Proposal
Issues of where to return the backwash flow in conventional plants: EPA should conduct studies to
determine if gravity settling of washwater return flows is sufficient or if additional treatment is required.
If studies reveal problems, then more specific requirements for treatment of backwash water should be
considered. Based on the evidence now available, the SAB recommends against requiring that washwaters
be recycled ahead of the point of coagulant addition. Based on the information currently available, the
SAB recommends against requirements which would alter the design of these direct recycle processes.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-36. Annual Report
Determining if a Water Treatment Plant is Exceeding Its Capacity: EPA should require monitoring of
performance parameters, like settled water turbidity and filtered water turbidity instead of trying to
determine capacity.
When is it Most Appropriate to Monitor? EPA should require monitoring during periods of the year
when unit processes are known to perform poorly instead of focusing on high periods of demand alone.
Is Limiting the Self-assessment to Plants with Less Than 20 Filters Appropriate? EPA should require all
plants to do a self-assessment, no matter how many filters they have.
Requirements for Direct Filtration Plants: EPA should study the treatment of recycled flows in direct
filtration plants in order to determine the level of treatment that is appropriate in light of requirements
for Cryptosporidium removal.
c. Economic Assessment
Estimating Illness Avoided: EPA should give special attention to the control of outbreaks as well as
endemic disease.
Executive Committee Commentary on Residual Risk Program
EPA SAB EC COM 00-005
Following its evaluation of two recent Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviews on residual risk, the
SAB's Executive Committee advised EPA of potentially significant issues arising from with the Agency's
efforts to implement the residual risk requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.
Although the Board endorsed the Agency's plan, it raised concerns when an actual interim application of
the plan was reviewed. The Board noted that, in their view, it is not clear that scientific analysis will be
able to generate the type of information envisioned in the CAAA. While decisions can be made in the
absence of such scientific information, they will not be sufficiently precise for the intended purpose. The
Board also noted that while their concerns may turn out to be ill-founded, they recommend that the
Agency and Congress seriously re-consider the current Clean Air Act Amendments mandates and their
implementation strategy that depends on scientific analyses that will be resource-demanding, at a
minimum, and, quite possibly, impossible to carry out in a credible manner. The Board closes by
endorsing the concept of science-based decision making at the Agency, while also recognizing that no one
is well served by asking science to take on an impossible task.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page B-37
TIME-TO-COMPLETION
The SAB intends that its advice should be of the highest technical quality. In addition, the
Board seeks to make its advice timely, acknowledging that "advice delayed is advice derived "and" late
advice is bad advice."
Clearly, some topics on the Board's agenda are more quickly addressed and expressed than are
others. But on average, the Board strives to ensure that than 4 months elapses between the last substantive
meeting on a issue and transmittal of the written document to the Administrator. This time includes
report preparation in the EC review and final editing.
In FY 2000, the average elapsed time to completion was 5.4 months.
Please Note: The reports not included in the diagram below were internal reviews.
THESE CHARTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-38. Annual Report
ACCESSING SAB REPORTS AND NOTIFICATION OF MEETINGS
Single copies of any SAB report, including, 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, DC 20460
FAX: 202-501-0256
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 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 _
-------
Annual Report page B-39
Abstracts of the SAB Lecture Series -
"Science & the Human Side of Environmental Protection"
Dr. Gary Machlis, University of Idaho
"7% Solution", September 21, 1999
The SAB hosted the first lecture in a new series, "Science and the Human Side of Environmental
Protection," on September 21, 1999. Dr. Gary Machlis, Visiting Chief Social Scientist at the National
Park Service and Professor of Sociology at the University of Idaho, made a case for a "7% Solution."
To an EPA audience of approximately 40 staff from Headquarters, EPA laboratories and the Regions, he
talked about the critical role social science research plays in ecosystem management. He argued for a
minimum floor of 7% of research dollars to be reserved for social science research. In his view, social
science research is needed to reap the benefits of investments in the areas of biology, chemistry, and
physical sciences. Indeed without it, Agencies are likely to face "train wrecks" or to spin in the wind of
politics if they do not plan research to understand and document the human role. He urged Agency
proponents to use a classic "introduction and diffusion" model to develop successful strategies that would
support rigorous, peer-reviewed social science research as a robust feature of research plans in the Agency.
Following Dr. Machlis's presentation, Dr. Peter Preuss, Director of the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance, began the
discussion by identifying the major elements of ORD's current research that incorporate social sciences:
Land Use Change Models for Community Planning, Decision-Making and Valuation under the STAR
Program, Water and Watersheds under the STAR Program, and Consequences of Global Climate
Change. ORD is exploring possible new areas for social science emphasis, including issues associated with
valuation of children's health, enforcement and deterrence, and incentives and market mechanisms. It also
is developing new ways to communicate the results of social science research, e.g., workshops between
Agency staff and social science grantees, a research update publication called the "STAR Report," and a
new website. In response to Dr. Machlis's call for a "7% Solution," Peter estimated that ORD currently
invests 3-5% of its research budget in social sciences. He asked the group to consider: (I) why EPA staff
and managers endorse social science, but don't see it as a priority; (2) how ORD could better address the
needs of EPA's new offices in the research planning process; and (3) what kind of mechanism would work
at EPA to get agreement on the "7% Solution."
The SAB plans to host lectures on the social sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the
social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. For more information on this series or for
copies of the materials distributed by the speakers, please contact Angela Nugent (202-564-4562 or
nugent.angela@epa.gov).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-40. Annual Report
Dr. Eugene Rosa , Washington State University
"Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection0, December I,
1999
On Wednesday, December I, 1999, the SAB held the second lecture in its series, "Science and the
Human Side of Environmental Protection." Dr. Eugene Rosa, Edward R. Meyer Distinguished Professor
of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy, at Washington State University gave a presentation
entitled "Programming Your VCR and Other Technology Choices." He sketched the increasing
complexity of technologies for Americans, summarized the literature on risk perceptions, and then focused
on the critical role that trust plays in shaping perceptions of risks and controversies surrounding them.
Thirty-four people from seven Headquarters Offices and four regions participated in the session.
Controversies can be prevented, Dr. Rosa argued, when trust fills the gap between individual
knowledge and system complexity. As long as citizens trust institutions responsible for managing risks,
social and democratic processes operate smoothly. He argued that trust depends on the perceived
competency, fiduciary responsibility, and role of the institutions in the natural and moral order. Trust,
however, is "asymmetrical;" it is easily lost, and once lost, difficult to regain.
Dr. Rosa's argument then turned to policy options for managing risky technologies. Top- down,
expert-driven strategies, like those employed by the National Safety Transportation Board, work as long
as trust is maintained. Education-based strategies involving risk communication can work, but are
frustrated when the risk message does not match people's interests and concerns or where there is
significant uncertainties. He argued that public participation strategies that view citizens as partners have
the potential to be most effective to build trust in institutions.
Dr. Rosa then summarized recent significant work to advance public participation: (I) National
Academy of Science Report, Understanding Risk Infirming Decisions in a Democratic Society 1996; and (2) Ortwin
Renn et al., Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation - Evaluating MxMs fee Environmental Discourse(1995).
This last edited volume provides a sample of techniques used in Europe for engaging the public, including
citizen advisory panels and consensus groups.
Ms. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Deputy Director of the Office of Information Collection, began
the discussion with an appreciation for the synthesis presented of the risk communication literature and
the literature on trust. She raised several questions about the application of social science to the Agency's
public involvement strategies: (I) Where should the Agency focus on building the public's knowledge on
an issue? Building trust in government? or Building knowledge of trusted intermediaries?; (2) Are there
different strategies to employ at the national and local levels?; and (3) Does the social science literature
suggest whether EPA should present information and let people interpret it for themselves? Or should
EPA also present the Agency's interpretation?
Dr. Rosa reported that social science literature suggests that building trust in the process was key.
Groups become educated once they trust a process that exists. Responding to the second question, he
suggested that EPA might consider different goals or strategies, depending on the question. In any case,
he argued that the Agency would benefit from designing mechanisms to strengthen public involvement.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page B-41
Finally, he responded to Ms. Hamnett's third question with the view that the Agency needed to take a
proactive role in interpreting environmental information; providing "facts" alone would not be sufficient.
The group then began a general discussion of stakeholder involvement that emphasized the need
for applied social science research. The group discussed the following needs: (I) tools and strategies to
regain trust, once lost; (2) tools and knowledge about how to sustain stakeholder involvement based on
progress and accomplishment, rather than crisis and conflict that tend to reduce trust; and (3) an "alert
system" to identify environmental problems needing different kinds of stakeholder involvement. The
group generally concluded that the need for effectively engaging the public in the Agency's work has
outstripped the tools available and there was a need for more investment in effective methods and
evaluation of successful efforts at stakeholder involvement.
The SAB plans to host lectures on the social sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the
social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. For more information on this series or for
copies of the materials provided by the speaker, please contact Angela Nugent (202- 564-4562 or
nugent.angela@epa.gov
Dr. Baroch Fischoff, Carnegie Mellon University
"Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection0, March I, 2000
On Wednesday, March I, 2000, the SAB held the third lecture in its series, "Science and the
Human Side of Environmental Protection." Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, University Professor, Engineering and
Public Policy and Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, gave a presentation entitled
"Scientific Standards for Public Involvement in Environmental Decisions." He described how research in
the growing field of integrated assessment can help EPA improve the quality of information provided to
individuals and the public. The information provided can encourage effective private choices related to
environmental issues and public participation in environmental decision making. Thirty-eight people from
eight Headquarters Offices and four regions participated in the session.
Dr. Fischhoff began the talk by describing the tension between, on the one hand, increasing calls
for public participation in risk-related decision making by EPA, the National Institutes of Health, the
Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council and other major organizations and, on the other
hand, continuing skepticism among policy practitioners about public competence to participate
meaningfully. He argued that psychological research suggested an approach for engaging the public
appropriately. Research shows that users of information want integrated information that matches their
information needs before they are asked to respond to a question or make a decision.
He described research, case studies, and tools in the area of integrated assessment to suggest an
approach for matching information with those needs. One tool is the "influence diagram," which
represents experts' views of what information is needed to understand an environmental problem and how
those factors interrelate. The experts' views are compared to what individuals know already at both the
experiential and cognitive levels. He explained how such an analysis was used to provide advice to the
American Water Works Association Research Foundation regarding communication strategies during a
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-42. Annual Report
cryptosporidium outbreak. A multidisciplinary team built an influence diagram to identify the variety of
factors that needed to be understood in order to predict and control exposures. They discovered that the
real-time needs of the initial intended user of the risk communication made much of the information
about consumers' behavior irrelevant. By the time a significant exposure to cryptosporidium was
identified, the outbreak would have peaked and consumer controls such as boiling water would be of
relatively little use. The "influence diagram" instead could be used to show the value of investing in
improved detection methodologies or could be used as a basis for public discussions for managing
upstream contamination or disinfection. It allows the calculation of the value of effective risk
communications, once better surveillance systems were in place.
Dr. Fischhoff then turned to methods for identifying individuals' information needs. He argued
that research in psychology indicated that many public health and environmental choices presented to
individuals posed questions about preferences that had not been formed yet or asked respondents to relate
to unfamiliar tasks, to unfamiliar worlds, or to a vision of themselves in the future that they had not yet
fully imagined. He described research in a variety of contexts (e.g., public health preventive programs
addressing sexually transmitted diseases among adolescent women, analysis of the experience of
communities conducting comparative risk processes) that is taking a systematic approach to identifying
what people know already and relating that information to experts' views on what information matters.
He closed the presentation by suggesting that Agencies' conscious efforts to "get the information
right" to users was a way of building trust in risk management.
Mr. David Davis, Deputy Director of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW), had been previously invited to open the discussion with observations and questions Mr. Davis
began the discussion with comments addressing how the approaches Dr. Fischhoff presented might be
applied to the work of EPA programs, using aspects of his own office as examples, where applicable. He
pointed to "confounding factors" that made it difficult to apply the integrated assessment tools and
communication tools described and made four major points: (I) he suggested that the methods might be
more difficult to apply to risks to ecosystems, rather than human health risks to individuals, because the
risks were more distant and more diffuse; (2) he indicated that many environmental protection issues tap
individuals' deeply held philosophical beliefs regarding such issues as property rights and the proper role
of government. EPA's communication efforts occur in a context where there are complex filters
interjected because of individuals' fundamental beliefs that have little relevance to the science issues per se,
(3) he suggested that EPA's own efforts to communicate are confused by a lack of clarity concerning the
intended audience and a reluctance to choose priorities among audiences; and (4) he asked how the
"integrated assessment" approach applied to EPA communications, where often the information provided
is not solely science, but a mixture of science, policy, and often politics.
Dr. Fischhoff responded that the integrated assessment approach can incorporate information
about politics, policy and other institutional factors. He argued that it would be appropriate to include
those factors in analysis because users of information need to understand the institutional context for
decisions. He suggested that research in new areas, such as environmental psychology, was making progress
in understanding how people value ecosystems and how those preferences are formed and can be shaped by
additional information. He acknowledged that some situations involving matters of faith and ideology
cannot be influenced by providing information and are amenable only to a political solution. He
cautioned, though, that it would be appropriate to use a scientific approach to alternative framing of
issues to see if participants might be willing to envision the implications of alternative choices that would
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page B-43
make them more amenable "to deal." He closed with some comments on the issue of communicating
with multiple audiences. Research has shown that users of information value the ability control of the
level of detail provided. Tools such as brochures with tiered information or DVDs and Internet sites
offering different kinds of information for different users can allow multiple communication strategies
with a single product. The key, he emphasized, was designing information to appeal to individuals, not
groups; to identify the kinds of individuals who need information and the heterogeneity of those groups;
and to identify the specifics of what those kinds of individuals need to know but currently don't.
Questions then came from the general audience regarding the implications of industrial ecology
for framing the kinds of questions asked and information provided to users; whether the integrated
assessment model assumed that experts had the authority to frame issues and define information needed;
and whether the dynamics of social decision-making processes changed the information to be provided to
a group or how that information should be provided.
The SAB plans to host lectures on the social sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the
social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. For more information on this series or for
bibliographic references provided by the speaker, including his paper "Communicate unto others...,"
Reliability Engneenng and System Safety, 59 (1998), pp. 63-72. please contact Angela Nugent (202-564-4562
or nugent.angela@epa.gov).
Dr. Everett Rogers, University of New Mexico
"Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection0, May 31, 2000
On Wednesday, May 31, 2000, the SAB held the fourth lecture in its series, "Science and the
Human Side of Environmental Protection." Dr. Everett Rogers, Regents' Professor, Department of
Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico, and Visiting Professor in the Center for
Communications Programs, School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University (1999-2000), gave a
presentation entitled "The Diffusion of Environmental Innovations." Thirty-four people from six
Headquarters Offices and two regions and an Office of Research and Development laboratory
participated in the session.
Dr. Rogers presented a framework for understanding innovations that he describes in his book,
"The Diffusion of Innovations." He defined diffusion as a process by which an innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system. He described his
framework as having three main components that are standard across thousands of different kinds of
innovations introduced at different times and different cultures: (I) a decision process that involves the
following steps: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation; (2) characteristics that
are common to successful innovations: relative advantage, compatibility, acceptable levels of complexity,
trialability, observability, and potential for reinvention; and (3) a social system where individuals break out
into the following groups, each with distinctive characteristics: innovators, early adopters, early majority,
late majority and laggards. He argued that research in a variety of academic fields has identified an "s-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-44 Annual Report
shaped curve" that describes the rate of innovation. In every successful innovation there is a key point
where there are sufficient adopters that further diffusion is self sustaining. He described case examples as
different as the adoption of different typewriter interfaces, hybrid seed corn, and testing to prevent
exposure to cryptosporidium during a drinking water emergency to illustrate his framework.
Mr. Robert Brenner, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Air and
Radiation, had been previously invited to open the discussion with observations and questions. He
suggested that Dr. Roger's model provided a focused, organized opportunity to think through how the
Agency might implement innovative. He suggested that Project XL provided an example of the Agency
working with innovators to demonstrate new approaches that could be adopted more broadly. He
wondered how the characteristics of one innovative approach, such as recycling, helped it diffuse relatively
successfully, while others like inspection and maintenance programs and the use of catalysts did not, and
how the Agency could learn lessons from those cases and others. He also challenged the Agency to
consider how to reach out to environmental justice communities to accelerate the process of innovation
and how to ensure that beneficial innovations are perceived as having a "relative advantage" in the view of
potential adopters.
Questions then came from the general audience about the particular characteristics of different
social groups in the adoption process, and strategies for how the Agency might accelerate the "s-curve"
standard to the adoption process. The group discussed working with opinion leaders and changing
perceptions over time through conscious use of communication networks. A question from the regional
audience addressed the special problem of innovation in EPA regions. Dr. Rogers responded that,
depending on the freedom possessed by the Regions, there may be patterns influenced by internal social
processes, EPA Headquarters, or dynamics where some EPA regions may assume innovator roles within
EPA's 10-region structure. One question challenged Dr. Rogers to address the unspoken role of
accidents, random and chance events in the Framework and Dr. Rogers acknowledged the need to do so in
the next edition of his book. The final question addressed innovations within organizations. Dr. Rogers
suggested that the most likely dynamic would be an "s-shaped" curve identifying the critical zone where
each individual would know enough people similar to themselves who have adopted the innovation.
The SAB plans to host lectures on the social sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the
social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. If you have suggestions for future speakers or
topics, please contact Angela Nugent (202-564-4562 or nugent.angela@epa.gov).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page C-l
C1. Staff Organization Chart
C2. Staff Committee Alignment
C3. SAB Committee Chairs
C4. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
C 5. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
C6. SAB Members for FY 2000
C7. SAB Consultations for FY 2000
C8. Staff Biographical Sketches & Staff Transitions
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-2-
Annual Report
€1
STAFF ORGANIZATION CHART
iirati .Tim w «:-t £11 -dl by twi^ *> tr-Jil
ts ^?ft^-jttirV- VITl*'*r-~^1^pri^ilr
^T: 1 aclL-tf. TI jmA is tt A sraci^nj»^it jc. tK ^
-l.l Q ~*_»en-£
^v. lal=n K- ^invli III
iA! • s t
tce IP*- tyjlnai jj.n A" ^j
^ ***w._ . Tl^^ktx m.
Me. W^.
ME
Me
In. K
M:
V!
Intun
Mi
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
, page C-3
Committee
Executive Committee
Integrated Risk
Steering
Subcommittee of the
Executive Committee
Advisory Council
on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis
Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee
Drinking Water
&
Committee
Ecological Processes
and Effects
Committee
Environmental
Economics
Advisory Committee
Environmental
Engineering
Committee
Environmental
Health Committee
Integrated Human
Exposure Committee
Radiation
Advisory Committee
Research Strategies
Advisory Committee
Chair
Dr. Joan Daisey
Dr. Morton Lippmann
Dr. Joan Daisey
Dr. Morton Lippmann
Dr. Maureen Cropper
Dr. Joe Mauderly
Dr. Richard Bull
Dr. Terry Young
Dr. Robert Stavins
Dr. Hilary Inyang
Dr.MarkUtell
Dr. Henry Anderson
Dr. Janet Johnson
Dr. W.Randall Seeker
Designated
Federal Officer
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Dr. Angela Nugent
Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Mr. Thomas Miller
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Mr. Thomas Miller
Ms. Kathleen White
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
o
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
o
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Ms. Melanie Medina-Metzger
Dr.JohnR.Fowlelll
Management Assistant
(unless otherwise notedl)
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-
Gadson
Ms. Diana Pozun
(Program Specialist)
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-4 Annual Report
COMMITTEE
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. Jean Daisey *
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
"deceased February, 2000
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. Mrton Uppman, Interim Chair
Professor of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
Director, Human Exposure and Health Effects Research Program
Director, EPA Center for Research on Health Effects of Particulate Matter
Member, American Academy of Industrial Hygiene
Member, American Industrial Hygiene Association
Member, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
Member, American Association for Aerosol Research
Member, International Society for Environmental Epidemiology
Member, International Society of Exposure Analysis
Member, Editorial Board, Archives of Environmental Health
Member, Editorial Advisory Board, Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene
Member, Committee on Toxicology, Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National
Research Council
Member, Environmental Health Sciences Center, External Advisory Committee UMDNJ-
Rutgers, NJ
Member, Advisory Committee - Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation,
UMDNJ, NJ
Member, Board of Directors, Northeast States Clean Air Foundation, Boston, MA
Member, Owens Corning Science Advisory Board, OH
Member, Laborers-AGC Hazardous Waste Workers Training Center, External Advisory
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-5
Committee, CT
Member, NJ-NY Waste Workers Training Center, External Advisory Committee, NJ
Chair, USC-Chronic Effects of Ambient Air Pollutants in Southern California, External Advisory
Committee
Chair, National Environmental Respiratory Center, External Scientific Advisory Committee, NM
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
Dr. tvfoureen Crcpper
Professor of Economics, University of Maryland
Lead Economist, Research Development, The World Bank
Editorial Board, Journal of Economic Perspectives
Editorial Board, Resource and Energy Economics
Advisory Committee, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University
Advisory Committee, Donald Bren School of the Environment, University of California, Santa
Barbara
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Dr. Joe -Miucfer/f
Vice President and Senior Scientist, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Director, National Environmental Respiratory Center
Research Professor of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of New Mexico
] ]
Member, American Thoracic Society
Member, Society of Toxicology
Member, American Physiological Society
Member Air and Waste Management Association
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. RidordBtJl
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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-6 Annual Report
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
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Terry Young
Senior Consulting Scientist, Environmental Defense, Oakland, CA
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. Robert Stzvins
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, EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Member, Board of Directors, Robert and Renee Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs
Member, Executive Committee, Harvard University Committee on Environment
Member, Board of Academic Advisors, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
Member Editorial Council, The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Member, Board of Editors, Resource and Energy Economics
Member, Advisory Board, Environmental Economics Abstracts
Member, Editorial Board, Economic Issues
Contributing Editor, Environment
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Dr. Hilary Inyang
Duke Energy Endowed Distinguished Professor, Professor of Earth Sciences and Director,
Geoenvironmental and Energy Systems Research Laboratory (GESRL), University of North
Carolina, Charlotte.
Member, Effluent Guidelines Committee, National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy
and Technology
Fellow, Geological Society of London
Honorary Theme Editor, United Nations Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Section of
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-7
Environmental Monitoring
Associate Editor, Journal of Environmental Engineering (American Society of Civil Engineers),
Waste Management Journal (Elsevier Science Publishers), International Journal of Surface
Mining, Reclamation and the Environment (A.A. Balkema Publishers)
Editorial Board Member, Waste Management and Research (Academic Press); Journal of
Infrastructure Systems (ASCE); Journal of Environmental Systems (Baywood Publishers);
Journal of Soil Contamination; Transactions of the Nigerian Society for Biological
Conservation; Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (Kluwer Academic Publishers); and
Resources Conservation and Recycling (Elsevier Science Publishers)
1996-99 DuPont Young Professor
1996 Young Investigator, National Research Council
1992/93 Eisenhower-Jennings Randolph Awardee of the World Affairs Council/International
Public Works Federation
1991 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)/USEPA Environmental
Science and Engineering Fellow
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Mirk Utdl
Professor of Medicine and Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of
Medicine, Rochester, N.Y.
Director, Pulmonary/Critical Care and Occupational Medicine Divisions, University of
Rochester Medical Center
Associate Chair, Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center
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
Editorial Board: Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of Aerosol Medicine Inhalation
Toxicology, Environmental Health Perspectives and Journal of Environmental Medicine
Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
Dr. Henry Anderson
Chief Medical Officer and State Environmental and Occupational Health Epidemiologist,
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Adjunct Professor, Dept of Preveintive Medicine, Univ Wisconsin Medical School
Certified in Preventive Medicine, American Board of Preventative Medicine
Certified Specialist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American Board of
Preventative Medicine
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-8 Annual Report
Fellow, American College of Epidemiology
Fellow, American Association for Advancement of Science
Member, American Public Health Association
Member, American College of Epidemiology
Member, American Medical Association
Member, American Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association
Member, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Member, International Society of Environmental Epidemiology
Menber, Collegium Ramazzini
Member, Editorial Board, Cancer Prevention International
Associate Editor, American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Co-Editor, Wisconsin Medical Journal Public Health Column
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Dr. Janet Jdxiscn
Senior Technical Advisor, Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Affiliate Faculty, Department of Environmental Health, Colorado State University
Board of Directors, Health Physics Society
President, Radon Section, Health Physics Society
Member, Colorado Radiation Advisory Committee
Member, American Academy of Health Physics
Member, American Industrial Hygiene Association
Member, American Academy of Industrial Hygiene
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Dr. W. Randall Sedsx
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 _
-------
Annual Report page C-9
GUIDELINES ON THE
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 rules 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",
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-1Q. Annual Report
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 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 as member Followed by years as Chair Followed by year as member Total years
20 02
2 2 or 4 Oor2 4-6
4 2 or 4 0 6-8
6 2 or 4 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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-ll
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 aJ/rrMembership 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.
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
] j
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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-12 Annual Report
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 informationon 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 FACAisto construct apanel 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 Yparticular 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 additional research studies. In most such
cases, the DFO's work with the Committee members to apply for waivers from the conflict-of-interest
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-13
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 ibroad 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 move 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: Nov 26, 1991
Revised: Oct. 12, 1994
Revised: Nov 12, 1996
ATTACHMENT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-ld Annual Report
ATTACHMENT TO APPENDIX C4
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 rules 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
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 page C-15
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 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 such disclosures were made and,
if possible, the nature of the disclosures. In addition, the minutes should describe any situations in which, in
the opinion of the DFO, an actual or perceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-16. Annual Report
TKS OF AFFILIAT:
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 collegia!, 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 their 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.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-17
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 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 C-IB-
Annual Report
indicates Members used as Consultants to other committees^)
Miguel Acevedo (EPEC)
University of North Texas
Dent on, TX
William J. Adams
(EPEC/RSAC)
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation
Magna, UT
Lisa Alvarez-Cohen (EPEC)
University of California-Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Henry A. Anderson (EC/IHEC)
V/isconsm Department of Health &
Family Services
Madison, WI
Lynn Anspaugh (RAC)
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
David Baker (DWC)
Heidelberg College
Tiffin, OH
Steven Bartell (EPEC)
Cadmus Group, Inc.
Oak Ridge,TN
Cynthia Bearer (EHC)
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
Edgar Berkey (EEC)
Concurrent Technologies
Corporation
Pittsburgh, PA
Vicki Bier (RAC)
University of V/isconsin
Madison, WI
Bruce Boecker (RAC)
Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Gardner M. Brown (COUNCIL)
University of V/ashington
Seattle, WA
Stephen L. Brown (RAC)
Risks of Radiation Chemical
Compounds (R2C2)
Oakland, CA
Richard Bull (DWC/EC/RSAC
MoBull Consulting
Kennewick, WA
Dennis Burtraw (EEAC)
Resources for the Future
V/ashington, DC
Gilles Bussod (RAC)
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, MN
Trudy Cameron (COUNCIL/
EEAC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Calvin Chien (EEC)
DuPont Company
V/ilmington, DE
Theodora Colbooi (RSAC)
World Wildlife Fund
V/ashington, DC
Maureen L. Cropper
(COUNCIL / EEAC)
The World Bank
Washington, DC
Kenneth Cmmmins (EPEC/EC)
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA
Herman Daly (EEAC)
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Mary Davis (DWC)
West Virginia University
Morgantown, V/V
Richardo DeLeon (DWC)
Metropolitan Water District
La Verne, CA
H. Barry DeUinger (EEC)
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
John Doull (EHC)
University of Kansas
Kansas City, KS
Yvonne Dragan (DWC)
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
John Elston (CASAC)
New Jersey Depart of Environmental
Protection
Trenton, NJ
John Evans (DWC)
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, MA
Terry Foecke (EEC)
V/aste Reduction Institute
St. Paul, MN
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
, page C-19
*A. Myrick Freeman
(COUNCIL)
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME
Nina Bergen French (EEC)
SKY+ Ltd.
Napa, CA
Don Fullerton (COUNCIL)
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Thomas F. Gesell (RAC)
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID
Cynthia Gilmour (EPEC)
The Academy of Natural Sciences/
Estuanne Research Ctr
St. Leonard, MD
Lawrence Goulder (COUNCIL/
EEAC)
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Domemico Grasso (EEC)
Smith College
Northampton, MA
Linda Greer (EC)
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC
Annette Guiseppi-Elie (IHEC)
Dupont Spruance Plant
Richmond, VA
Jane Hall (COUNCIL)
California State University
Fullerton, CA
Robert A. Harley (IHEC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Barbara Harper (DWC)
Yakama Indian Nation
West Richland, WA
David Hoel (EHC)
Medical University of South
Carolina
Charleston, SC
Philip Hopke(CASAC/RSAC)
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
Hilary Imyang (EEC/EC)
University of Massachusetts
Lowell, MA
Michael Jayjock (IHEC)
Rohm and Haas Co.
Spring House, PA
Janet A. Johnson (EC/RAC)
Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Fort Collins, CO
Carol A. Johnston (EPEC)
University of Minnesota
Duluth, MN
Lovell Jones (IHEC)
University of Texas M.D.
Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX
Dale Jorgenson (EEAC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Paul Joskow (EEAC)
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA
Roger E. Kasperson (EC)
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Byung Kim (EEC)
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, MI
Catherine Kling (EEAC)
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
Charles Kolstad (COUNCIL)
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA
*George Lambert (EHC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Pisacataway, NJ
Lester B. Lave (COUNCIL)
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Michael Lebowitz (IHEC)
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Grace Lemmasters (EHC)
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Abby Li (EHC)
Monsanto
St. Louis, MO
*Paul J. Lioy (COUNCIL)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Jill Lipoti (RAC)
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ
*Morton Lippmann (EC)
New York University Medical
Center
Tuxedo, NY
Kai-Shen Liu (IHEC)
California Department of Health
Services
Berkeley, CA
Alan Maki (RSAC)
Exxon Company, USA
Houston, TX
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-2Q-
Annual Report
John P. Maney (EEC)
Environmental Measurements
Assessment
S. Hamilton, MA
Ellen Mangione (RAC)
Colorado Department of Public
Health
Denver, CO
Gcncvicvc Matanoski (RSAC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Joe Mauderly (CASAC/EC)
Lovelace Respiratory Research Inst.
Albuquerque, NM
Michael J. McFarland (EEC)
Utah State University
River Heights, UT
Thomas McKone (IHEC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Lee D. McMullen (DWC)
Des Momes Water Works
Des Momes, IA
Michele Medinsky (EHC)
Toxicology Consultant
Durham, NC
•Paulette Middleton
(COUNCIL/ RSAC)
RAND Ctr for Env Sciences &
Policy
Boulder, CO
Christine Moe (DWC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Paul Montagna (EPEC)
University of Texas @ Austin
Port Aransas, TX
*Maria Morandi (RSAC)
University of Texas
Houston, TX
M. Granger Morgan (EC)
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Ishwar Murarka (RSAC)
ISH, Inc.
Sunnyvale, CA
Jerome Nriagu (IHEC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Charles O'Melia (DWC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Eva Pell (CASAC)
Penn State University
University Park, PA
Barbara J. Petersen (IHEC)
Novigen Sciences, Inc.
Washington, DC
Charles Pittinger (EPEC)
Procter & Gamble
Cincinnati, OH
John Poston (RAC)
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Leslie A. Real (EPEC)
Emory University
Atlanta, GA
Richard Revesz (EEAC)
New York University
New York, NY
Genevieve Roessler (RAC)
University of Flordia
Elysian, MN
W. Randall Seeker (EC/RSAC)
General Electric Energy &
Environmental Research Corp.
Irvine, CA
Jason Shogren (EEAC)
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
Roy Shore (EHC)
New York University School of
Medicine
New York, NY
Hilary Sigman (EEAC)
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
William H. Smith (EC/RSAC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Robert Stavins (EEAC/EC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
FrieJa B. Taub (EPEC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Gary Toranzos (DWC)
University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Rico
R. Rhodes Tnissell (DWC)
Montgomery V/atson Consulting
Engineers
Pasadena, CA
Arthur C. Upton (CASAC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Mark Utell (EHC/EC)
University of Rochester Medical
Center
Rochester, NY
Sverre Vedal (CASAC)
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC Canada
David Wallinga (IHEC)
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC
Charles Weschler (IHEC)
Telcordia Technologies
Red Bank, NJ
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
Warren H. White (CASAC)
V/ashington University
St. Louis, MO
Terry F. Young (EPEC/EC)
Environmental Defense
Oakland, CA
Lauren Zeise (EHC)
California Environmental Protection
Agency
Oakland, CA
, page C-21
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-22.
Annual Report
C7
SAB CONSULTANTS FOR FY 2000
(* indicates Consultants used in FY 2000^1
E. Eric Adams (EC)
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA
Richard Albertini (EHC)
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
George Alexeeff(CASAC)
California Environmental Protection
Agency
Sacramento, CA
Herbert Allen (RSAC)
University of Delaware
Newark, DE
Mary P. Anderson (EEC)
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Madison, WI
Yolamda Anderson (IHEC)
North Carolina Central University
Durham, NC
•Stephen M. Ayres (CASAC)
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, VA
John C. Bailar (EHC)
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Paul Bailey (IHEC)
Mobil Business Resource Corp.
Paulsboro, NJ
William Bair (RAC)
Battelle Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Richland, WA
*Judy Bean (DWC)
Children's Hospital Medical Center
Cincinnati, OH
*M. Brace Beck (EHC)
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
Barbara Bedford (EPEC)
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
David Bellinger (EHC)
Children's Hospital
Boston, MA
•Frances Berry (EEC)
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL
*Gregory Biddinger (EC)
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Fairfax, VA
William E. Bishop (EPEC)
Procter & Gamble
Cincinnati, OH
Nicolas Bloom (EHC)
Frontier Geosciences, Inc.
Seattle, WA
Nancy E. Bockstael (EEAC)
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Donald Boesch (EPEC)
University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD
James A. Bond (EHC)
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
RTP, NC
Harry L. Boston (EPEC)
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
Oak Ridge, TN
Anne Bostrom (RAC)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Dorothy Bowers (EEC)
Merck & Company, Inc.
Whitehouse Station, NJ
Corale Brierley (EPEC)
VistaTech Partnership, Ltd.
Highlands Ranch, CO
Halina S. Brown (EHC)
Clark University
Worcester, MA
*Linfield Brown (EC)
Tufts University
Medford, MA
Robert Buchsbaum (EPEC)
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Wenham, MA
Thomas Burbacher (EHC)
University of V/ashington
Seattle, WA
Thomas Bmrke(EC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
. page C-23
Craig Byms (RAC)
University of California
Riverside, CA
Gary P. Carlson (EHC)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Keith E. Carns (DWC)
V/ashington University
St. Louis, MO
Peter Chapman (EPEC)
EVS Environment Consultants
N. Vancouver, BC, Canada
Randall J. Charbeneau (EEC)
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Cauron Chess (EC)
Cook College/Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
Russell Christman (DWC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Richard Clapp (EHC)
Boston University
Boston, MA
Lenore Qesceri (DWC)
Clesceri Associates, Ltd.
Bolton Landing, NY
*Roger Cochran (RSAC)
California Environmental Protection
Agency
Sacramento, CA
Steven Colome (CASAC)
Integrated Environmental Services
Irvine, CA
*Richard A. Conway (EEC)
Union Carbide Corporation
Charleston, WV
Edwin Cooper (RSAC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
William E. Cooper (EPEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Robert Coppock (EEC)
National Academy of Sciences
V/ashington, DC
*Deborah Cory-Slechta (EHC)
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Robert Costanza (EPEC)
University of Maryland
Solomons Island, MD
Kenny Crump (EHC)
ICE Kaiser
Ruston, LA
RonaU G. Cummings
(COUNCIL)
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA
Walter Dabberdt (EPEC)
National Center for Atmospheric
Research
Boulder, CO
*Thomas Dahms (CASAC)
St. Louis University
St. Louis MO
•Virginia Dale (EPEC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
George P. Daston (EHC)
Procter & Gamble
Cincinnati, OH
J. Clarence Davies (EC)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
•James Dearing (EEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
•Michael DeBaun (EHC)
Washington University
St. Louis, MO
Christopher D'Elia (EPEC)
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
*John A. Dellinger (EHC)
Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare
Council
Chicago, IL
Richard Denison (EEC)
Environmental Defense
V/ashington, DC
*David Diaz-Sanchez (CASAC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Kenneth L. Dickson (EPEC)
University of North Texas
Denton, TX
Kim Dietrich (EHC)
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Thomas Dietz (EC)
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
John DiGiovanni (RAC)
University of Texas
Smithville, TX
*Richard DiGiulio (EPEC)
Duke University
Durham, NC
Douglas W. Dockery (CASAC)
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, MA
Philip B. Dorn (EPEC)
Shell Development Company
Houston, TX
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-21
Patricia Durbin-Heavey (RAG)
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
Berkeley, CA
*Mary Dmrfee (EEC)
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI
Richard Ediger (EEC)
The Perkm-Elmer Corporation
Norwalk, CT
^Rebecca A. Efroymson (EEC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Lois Epstein (EEC)
Environmental Defense
V/ashington, DC
Ronald W. Estaforook (EHC)
University of Texas
Dallas, TX
June Fabryka Martin (RAC)
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM
Brendlyn Faison (EEC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Anna Fan-Cheuk (DWC)
California Environmental Protection
Agency
Oakland, CA
Elaine Faustman (EHC)
University of V/ashington
Seattle, WA
William Feero (RAC)
Electric Research and
Management, Inc.
State College, PA
*Ivan Fernandez (EPEC)
University of Maine
Orono, ME
*Namcy Fiedler (EC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Lawrence Fischer (EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Baruch Fischhoff (CASAC)
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Bruce Fowler (EHC)
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Robert W. Frantz (EEC)
General Electric Company
Cincinnati, OH
A. Myrick Freeman
(COUNCIL)
Bowdom College
Brunswick, ME
H. Christopher Frey (EC)
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
John Gallagher (EPEC)
University of Delaware
Lewes, DE
Michael Gallo (EHC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
A. Jay Gandolfi (DWC)
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Steven Gaifaer (COUNCIL)
RAND
Santa Monica, CA
*Eric Garshick (CASAC)
VA Boston Health Care System
West Roxbury, MA
Annual Report
Thomas A. Gasiewicz (EHC)
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
*Kenneth Geiser (EEC)
University of Massachusetts
Lowell, MA
•Thomas J. Gentile (EC)
NY State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, NY
Bradford S. Gentry (EEC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Charles P. Gerba (DWC)
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
John P. Giesy (EPEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
*Riclhardl O. Gilbert (EHC)
Battelle Memorial Institute
Washington, DC
Steven Gilbert (EHC)
Biosupport, Inc
Redmond, WA
Michael Ginevan (RAC)
M.E. Ginevan & Associates
Sliver Spring, MD
William Glaze (EC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
* Arthur Gold (EC)
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI
Bernard! Goldstein (EHC)
EOHSI
Piscataway, NJ
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
, page C-25
Robert A. Goldstein (CASAC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Manuel Gomez (EC)
American Industrial Hygiene
Associate
Fairfax, VA
*Josc Gomez-Ibanez
(COUNCIL/
EEAC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Ricardo Gonzalez Mendez
(RAC)
University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, PR
Theodore Gordon (EEC)
Consultant
Vero Beach, FL
•Samuel Gorovitz (EC)
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY
James G. Gosselink (EPEC)
Consultant
Baton Rouge, LA
Robert Goyer (EHC)
Consultant
Chapel Hill, NC
John D. Graham (EHC)
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Philippe A. GranJjean (EC)
Odense University
Odense, Denmark
Michael Greenberg (EEC)
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
William Greenlee (EHC)
University of Massachusetts
Worcester, MA
Daorell Grimes (DWC)
University of Southern Mississippi
Ocean Springs, MS
Peter Groer (RAC)
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
*Helen Ann Grogan (EC)
Cascade Scientific, Inc.
Bend, OR
Raymond Guilmette (RAC)
Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Philip Guzelian (EHC)
University of Colorado
Denver, CO
George Hallberg (EEC)
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Waltham, MA
Martin Hamilton (DWC)
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT
Winston Harrington (DWC)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Stuart Harris (EC)
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation
Pendleton, OR
Keith Harrison (EPEC)
Michigan Environmental Science
Board
Lansing, MI
Rolf Hartung (EPEC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
*Mark A. Harwell (EPEC)
University of Miami
Miami, FL
Dale Hattis (CASAC)
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Charles Hawkins (EPEC)
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Robert Hazem (IHEC)
NJ Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
Trenton, NJ
Clark Heath (RAC)
American Cancer Society
Atlanta, GA
Gloria Helfand (EEAC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Rogene Henderson (EHC)
Lovelace Biomedical & Env.
Research Institute
Albuquerque, NM
*Janet Hering (DWC)
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA
Ronald A. Hites (IHEC)
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN
F. Owen Hoffman (RAC)
SENES Oak Ridge, Inc.
Oak Ridge, TN
*Richard Hornung (RAC)
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Robert Hueter (EHC)
Mote Marine Laboratory
Sarasota, FL
•Joseph B. Hughes (EEC)
Rice University
Houston, TX
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-2B-
Annual Report
Harold Humphrey (EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
James Hurley (EHC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
*Jay S. Jacobson (CASAC)
Boyce Thompson Institute at
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
Joseph L. Jacobson (EHC)
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI
James Jahnke (EEC)
Source Technology Associates
RTF, NC
Sheila Jasanoff (EC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Harvey E. Jeffries (CASAC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
James H. Johnson (EEC)
Howard University
Washington, DC
Wayne M. Kachel (EEC)
Mele Associates
Brooks AFB, TX
*Bernd Kahn (RAC)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Jeffrey Kahn (EC)
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
G. Graham Kalton (RAC)
Westat
Rockville, MD
Norbert Kaminski (EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Peter Kareiva (EPEC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
David G. Kaufman (DWC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Karl Kelsey (EHC)
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, MA
Nancy K. Kim (EHC)
New York State Department of
Health
Albany, NY
Richard A. Kimerle (EPEC)
Monsanto Company
Eureka, MO
'Gordon Kingsley (EEC)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Curtis Klaassen (DWC)
University of Kansas
Kansas City, KS
James E. Klaunig (EHC)
Indiana University
Indianapolis, IN
•Michael Kleinman (COUNCIL)
University of California
Irvine, CA
Lynda Knobeloch (EHC)
Wisconsin Department of
Health & Family Services
Madison, WI
Debra Knopman (EC)
Progressive Policy Institute
Washington, DC
Maurice Knuckles (IHEC)
Meharry Medical College
Nashville, TN
*Jane Q, Koenig (CASAC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
*Petros Koutrakis (CASAC)
Harvard University
Boston, MA
David K. Kreamer (RAC)
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV
Margaret Kripke(RSAC)
University of Texas
Houston, TX
Alan J. Krupnick (COUNCIL)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Thomas W. La Point (EPEC)
University of North Texas
Denton, TX
Nan M. Laird (RAC)
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, MA
James C. Lamb (RSAC)
Jellmek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc.
Arlington, VA
*Guy Lanza (EEC)
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
Kinley Laoitz (CASAC)
University of Minnesota
Shoreview, MN
*Timothy V. Larson (IHEC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
*Debra L. Laskin (CASAC)
Rutgers University
Piscataway, NJ
*Victor Laties (CASAC)
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
, page C-27
*Brian P. Leaderer (IHEC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Peter Lederman (EEC)
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, NJ
Kun-Chieh Lee (EC)
Union Carbide Corporation
S. Charleston, WV
* Allan Legge (CASAC)
Biosphere Solutions
Calgary, Alberta, CA
Robert J. Lewis (EC)
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Annandale, NJ
Steven C. Lewis (EHC)
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Annandale, NJ
*JoAnn S. Lighty (EEC)
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
Steve Lindbcrg (EHC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
John C. Little (IHEC)
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
Raymond C. Loehr (EC)
University of Texas
Austin, TX
*Lawrence D. Longo (CASAC)
Loma Linda University
Loma Linda, CA
John B. Loomis (EEAC)
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
*Karl Loos (EEC)
Equilon Enterprises LLC
Houston, TX
Cecil Lue-Hing (DWC)
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District
Chicago, IL
*Wu-Seng Lung (EPEC)
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
Frederick Lurmann (IHEC)
Sonoma Technology, Inc.
Petaluma, CA
Richard! G. Luthy (EEC)
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
JeJy MacGregor (EHC)
Toxicology Consulting Services
Rockville, MD
Thomas M. Mack (EHC)
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Donald MacKay (EPEC)
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
Douglas E. MacLean (EC)
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Kumar Mahadevan (EPEC)
Mote Marine Laboratory
Sarasota, FL
*David Major (EEC)
GeoSyntech
Guelph, Ontario
Thomas Malone (EPEC)
Horn Point Environmental
Laboratory
Cambridge, MA
William Manning (CASAC)
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
James Martin (RAC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Melanie Marty (CASAC)
California EPA
Oakland, CA
*Lawrence Masters (EPEC)
Association for Biodiversity
Information
Boston, MA
Karen McBee (EPEC)
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK
*Roger O. McClellan (CASAC/
RSAC)
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
Albuquerque, NM
*Ernest McConneU (EC)
ToxPath, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
David E. McCurdy (RAC)
Yankee Atomic Electric Company
Marlborough, MA
•Lejla McCurdy (IHEC)
American Lung Association
Washington, DC
Anne McElroy (EPEC)
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY
Gordon McFeters (DWC)
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT
John A. McLachlan (EHC)
Tulane/Xavier Center for
Bioenvironmental Research
New Orleans, LA
Terrence McManus (EEC)
Intel Corporation
Chandler, AZ
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-28-
Annual Report
*Peter McMurry (CASAC)
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
Arcnd Mcijcr (RAG)
GCX Inc.
Albuquerque, NM
Paul J. Merges (RAG)
New York State Depart of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, NY
Joseph S. Meyer (COUNCIL)
University of Wyoming
Laramie, V/Y
Michael Meyer (EPEC)
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Rhinelander, WI
H. Robert Meyer (RAC)
Keystone Science
Fort Collins, CO
*Jana Milford (EC)
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO
•Frederick J. Miller (EHC)
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
RTF, NC
J. Walter Milon (EPEC)
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Nicholas Molina (EEC)
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Harrisburg, PA
Peter K. Mueller (CASAC)
Electric Power Research Institute
Palo Alto, CA
*Issam Najm (DWC)
Montgomery-V/atson, Inc.
Pasadena, CA
Bruce A. Napier (RAC)
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Richland, WA
*Thomas Natan (EEC)
Environmental Information Center
Washington, DC
John S. Neuberger (EHC)
University of Kansas School of
Medicine
Kansas City, KS
M. Christopher NewLand
(EHC)
Auburn University
Auburn, AL
*Nikolaos P. Nikolaidis (EEC)
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT
Scott Nixon (EPEC)
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI
D. Warner North (CASAC)
North Works
Belmont, CA
Bryan Norton (EEAC)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Charles Noss (EEC)
V/ater Environment Research
Foundation
Alexandria, VA
OJdvar NygaarJ (RAC)
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
*Gunter OfoarJoerstar (CASAC)
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Mary Ellen O'Connor (RAC)
University of Tulsa
Tulsa, OK
Richard T. Okita (EHC)
Washington State University
Pullman, WA
Adam Olivieri (DWC)
EGA, Inc.
Oakland, CA
Gilbert Omenn (CASAC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Steve Otwell (EHC)
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
David M. Ozonoff (EHC)
Boston University
Boston, MA
Frank L. Parker (RAC)
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN
Rebecca Parkin (EEC)
American Public Health Association
V/ashington, DC
David K. Parkinson (EHC)
Long Island Occupational &
Environmental Health Center
Port Jefferson, NY
Dennis J. Paustenbach (EC)
Exponent
Menlo Park, CA
John W.Payne (EC)
Duke University
Durham, NC
•Marinelle Payton (IHEC)
Harvard Medical School and Public
Health
Boston, MA
William S. Pease (IHEC)
Environmental Defense
Oakland, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
, page C-29
James Peeler (EEC)
Emission Monitoring Inc.
Raleigh, NC
*Edo D. Pellizzari (DWC)
Research Triangle Institute
RTF, NC
Frederic* Parara (EHC)
Columbia University
New York, NY
Leif Peterson (RAC)
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX
Richard Peterson (EPEC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Frederic K. Pfaender (EPEC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Donald Pierce (RAC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Henry C. Pitot (EHC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Charles A. Pittinger (EPEC)
The Procter & Gamble Co.
Cincinnati, OH
Daniel Podkulski (EEC)
Exxon Chemical Company
Baytown, TX
•Frederick Pohland (EEC)
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Robert B. Pojasek (EEC)
Poiasek & Associates
East Arlington, MA
Joel B. Pounds (DWC)
V/ayne State University
Detroit, MI
Alison G. Power (EPEC)
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
*Kimberly Prather (CASAC)
University of California
Riverside, CA
Lynne Preslo (EEC)
Earth Technology
Long Beach, CA
James Price (CASAC)
Technical Analysis Division,
Austin, TX
Verne A. Ray (EC)
Pfizer, Inc.
Groton, CT
Donald ReeJ (EHC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Robert Repctto (EEAC)
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO
Kenneth R. ReuH (EHC)
Rutgers University
Piscataway, NJ
*Hanadi S. Rifai (EEC)
University of Houston
Houston, TX
Knut Ringen (EHC)
Center to Protect V/orkers1 Rights
Des Moines, WA
Paul G . Risser (EPEC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
*Bnice E. Rittmann (EEC)
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL
*Karlene Roberts (EC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
James R. Rocco (EEC)
Sage Risk Solutions LLC
Aurora, OH
Howard Rockette (IHEC)
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Joan B. Rose (DWC)
University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, FL
*Jolm Rosen (DWC)
Children's Hospital at Montefiore
Bronx, NY
'Benjamin Ross (EEC)
Disposal Safety Inc.
Washington, DC
•Robert D. Rowe (COUNCIL)
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO
Karl K. Rozmae (EHC)
University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, KS
Clifford S. Russell (EPEC)
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN
*Milton Russell (EC)
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
*John Jake Ryan (EHC/IHEC)
Health Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Louise Ryan (DWC)
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, MA
Stephen H. Safe (EHC)
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
•Jonathan M. Samet (IHEC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-3Q-
Annual Report
David A. Savitz (EHC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Robert Sawyer (CASAC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Rita C. Schenck (EEC)
Institute for Environmental Research
& Education
Vashon, WA
Richard Schlesinger (EHC)
New York University Medical
Center
Tuxedo, NY
Richard Schmalensee (EEAC)
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA
Jerald Schnoor (EPEC)
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
Jerry Schubel (EC)
The New England Aquarium
Boston, MA
William Schull (RAC)
University of Texas
Houston, TX
Anthony Scialli (EHC)
Georgetown University
V/ashington, DC
*Bobby R. Scott (RAC)
Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Kathleen Segerson (CASAC)
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT
Christian Seigneur (CASAC)
Atmospheric & Environmental
Research, Inc.
San Ramon, CA
Richard Seztro (RAC)
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Berkeley, CA
Margaret Shannon (EC)
State University of New York
Buffalo, NY
*Carl M. Shy (CASAC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Ellen Silbergeld (EC)
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Allen E. Silverstone (EHC)
State University of New York
Syracuse, NY
Howard! Simonin (EHC)
New York State Dept of Env.
Conservation
Rome, NY
Warren Sinclair (RAC)
National Council on Radiation
Protection
Bethesda, MD
*Sim Sitkim (EEC)
Duke University
Durham, NC
*Mitchell Small (EEC)
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Anne Spacic (EPEC)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Frank Speizer (CASAC)
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA
John D. Spengler (CASAC)
Harvard University
Boston, MA
*Douglas Splitstone(EEC)
Spiltstone and Associates
Murrysville, PA
Michael Stein (EC)
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Laura J. Steinberg (EEC)
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA
Sidney Stohs (EHC)
Creighton University
Omaha, NE
Jan Stolwijk (IHEC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Keith Stolzenbach (EC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
JuJy Stout (EPEC)
Marine Environmental Sciences
Consortium
Dauphin Island, AL
David Strimaitis (EHC)
Earth Tech
Concord, MA
James A. Swenberg (EHC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
*George E. Taylor (CASAC)
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
Paul H. Templet (EC)
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
*Mary Jane Teta (EHC/EC)
Union Carbide Corp.
Danbury, CT
Myint Thein (EC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report
, page C-31
*Thomas Theis (EC)
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
*Valerie Thomas (IHEC)
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ
James M. Tiedje(EPEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Thomas Tietenberg
(COUNCIL)
Colby College
Waterville, ME
Peter Tikuisis (CASAC)
Defense Civil Inst of Env. Medicine
North York, Ontario Canada
Michael Toman (EEC)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Brmce Tonn (EC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Nga L. Tran (EEC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
*Miclhael Trehy (RSAC)
Monsanto Corporation
St. Louis, MO
Michael G. Tralear (EEC)
ChemTreat, Inc.
Richmond, VA
Jane Valentine (EHC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
*W. Kip Viscusi (EEAC)
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA
Paul Voilleque(RAC)
MJP Risk Assessment, Inc.
Idaho Falls, ID
Ian von Linderm (CASAC)
TerraGraphics Environmental
Engineering
Moscow, ID
*C. Herb Ward (EEC)
Rice University
Houston, TX
*James E. Watson (RAC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
"Judith S. Weis (EPEC)
Rutgers University
Newark, NJ
•Bernard Weiss (EHC)
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Christopher Whipple (RAC )
ICF Kaiser
Oakland, CA
•Ronald White (IHEC)
American Lung Association
Washington, DC
Mark Wiesner (EEC)
Rice University
Houston, TX
Marcia Williams (RSAC)
PHB Haglar Bailly, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Philip B. Williams (EPEC)
Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.
San Francisco, CA
Richard Wilson (RAC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Herbert L. Windom (EPEC)
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Savannah, GA
William Winner (EPEC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
*George T. Wolff(CASAC)
General Motors Corporation
Detroit, MI
Ronald W. Wood (CASAC)
New York University
Medical Center
New York, NY
James E. Woods (IHEC)
HP-Woods Research Institute
Herndon, VA
Steven Wright (EC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
•Ronald Wyzga (EHC)
Electric Power Research Institute
Palo Alto, CA
Marylynn Yates (DWC)
University of California
Riverside, CA
Terry F. Yosie (EC)
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Arlington, VA
Timothy R. Zacharcwski
(EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
*Mel Zeldin (CASAC)
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Diamond Bar, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-32 Annual Report
C8
STAFF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES & TRANSITIONS
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page C-33
DR. DONALD G. BARNES
STAFF DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DR. DONALD G. BARNES assumed hisposition 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 Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-making (2000)]
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.
c
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 guidelines; 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 in North Carolina. His formal education includes a BA (chemistry) from the College
of Wooster, a PhD (physical chemistry) 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
-------
page C-3d Annual Report
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, co-chairing 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 I02nd and I03rd 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."
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page C-35
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
TEAM LEADER, COMMITTEE OPERATIONS STAFF; DESIGNATED FEDERAL
OFFICER FOR THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK serves as the Team Leader of the Committee Operations Staff of
the Board and as Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
Mr. Flaak was first associated with the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1978-79 when he became the
DFO for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and helped to formally charter
CASAC. From 1979-1984 he was an environmental scientist with the Office of Marine Environment and
Systems with the US Coast Guard, responsible for environmental compliance. He returned to the Board
staff in 1984. 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 (I99I-I993; 1995); ad hoc
Industrial Excess Landfill (ILL) Panel (1992-95); Environmental Futures Committee (1993-1995);
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (1995-1998), Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards Subcommittee (1997-2000), 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 (since
1994) to the Agency's Science Policy Council as co-chair 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 is preparing to publish the 2n Edition of EPA's Peer Review Handbook
which was coauthored by Mr. Flaak. Since 1988, Mr. Flaak has assisted the General Services
Administration (GSA) Office of Government-wide Policy in the development and presentation of its
national training course on Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Management. During his tenure as a
Trainer with the FACA course, he has taught advisory committee management to nearly 2000 Federal
employees. During the past year he has served on the GSA Interagency task group that revised the
regulations that implement the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Mr. Flaak's academic training is in biological oceanography. He graduated from the City College
of New York (BS, Zoology, 1972); the University of Delaware's Graduate College of Marine Studies
(MS, Marine Studies, 1976); and Central Michigan University (MA, Public Administration, 1979).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-36. Annual Report
DR. K.JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER THE RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL MODELS SUBCOMMITTEE
DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN joined the SAB m 1988 as Designated Federal Official (DFO)
of Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC). He has served as DFO of the Radiation Advisory
Committee (RAC) (1993 - Feb, 2000), the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
(Council) (January 1994 - March of 1999), as well as other committee assignments, including the
Drinking Water Committee (DWC), the Environmental Models Subcommittee (EMS) of the SAB
Executive Committee and others. He has over 30 years of engineering and professional experience with
environmental issues, including over 26 years of diverse experience within EPA Headquarters. Recently
(Feb - Oct, 2000) he completed an 8-month detail from the SAB staff to the Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management (OCEM), where he assisted in strategic re-focusing of the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) and assisted the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board (GNEB) with cross-border issues between the U. S. and Mexico, and a variety of
other assignments. He is back at the SAB focusing on assignments with the EEAC, STAA and CASAC.
He began his service with the Agency in 1974 in the Office of Solid Waste (OSW), in the
Hazardous Waste Management Division. In 1976 he joined the Office of Water developing guidelines
and regulations for industrial wastewater sources. In 1979 he joined the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) developing the Superfund multi-media hazardous substance reportable
quantity regulations, revising the oil and hazardous substance pollution prevention and oil spill reporting
regulations, and managing the oil and dispersant testing/registration under the National Contingency
Plan.
Dr. Kooyoomjian received a BS (Mechanical Engrg) from the University of Massachusetts, and a
MS (Mgmt. Sci.) and a Ph.D. (Environmental Engrg., with a minor in Economics) from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute. His academic career includes induction into various honorary societies: e.g., Sigma
Xi (research), Chi-Epsilon (civil engrg.), Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics). He has served as a member
of the Board of Control of the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and is active in the Federal Water
Quality Association (FWQA), the local member association of WEF, having served in numerous
capacities, including President. He is currently Chairman of the Gov=t. Affairs Cmtee. of the FWQA. He
is listed in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering," and "Who's Who in the Eastern U. S.@
In 1992, he received an honorary professorship for work to develop an environmental engineering
bachelors program for the State Engineering University of Armenia (SEUA), and in his assistance 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
o J \ J
Yerevan, Armenia. Since 1997, he was selected as Chairman to head the Greater Metropolitan
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-37
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 (26),
Melissa (21) and Jessica (19), Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in civic activities focusing on development,
land-use and environmental issues in his community. He was nominated for the Governor's Award for
volunteerism for the state of Virginia in 1991, has received the EPA Public Service Recognition Award
in 1988 and 1992, as well as several County Recognition Awards. In 1995 he received 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
-------
page C-32. Annual Report
MS. KAREN L. MARTIN
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER
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 _
-------
Annual Report page C-39
MS. MELANIE MEDINA-METZGER
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER FOR THE
RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELS SUBCOMMITTEE
Ms. MELANIE MEDINA-METZGER has been detailed to the EPA Science Advisory Board since
February 2000. Also housed in the Office of Administrator (OA) is Melanie's home office, the Office
of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM). There she worked as the Designated Federal
Officer (DFO) for the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, a committee created by the Enterprise for
the Americas Initiative Act of 1992 to provide advice to the President and Congress on environmental
issues affecting the U.S.—Mexico border area. At OCEM Melanie also completed service as the DFO for
EPA's Tide VI Implementation Advisory Committee, which reviewed one aspect of "environmental
justice"— the application of Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to environmental protection
activities linked to federal funding.
Prior to her service at OA Melanie worked for seven years at the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE). Activities have included managing extramural alternative compliance activities in the
Photoimaging industrial sector and performing regulatory review of EPA's farmworker worker protection
standards, the Clean Water Act with special emphasis on ocean/coastal protection and conservation. On a
special assignment, Melanie joined an EPA group which provided technical assistance to the Chilean
Environmental Agency, Consejo National del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA) on the development of
cleaner production strategies and policies in the area of pollution prevention.
Melanie joined the Agency in 1991 as an EPA Management Intern and has experience in the full
range of EPA's technical and programmatic functions. Her experience includes postings to the Office of
International Activities, the Water Management Division (Region IV — Atlanta), the Office of Strategic
Planning and Environmental Data in OPPE, and the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
Ms. Medina- Metzger earned her Masters in Science in Environmental Science (MSES) from
Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) and her Bachelors of Science,
from the University of Puerto Rico.
Melanie is married and lives in Falls Church, Virginia. She enjoys cross stitching, embroidery,
sewing, reading and ikebana (Japanese flower arranging).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-4Q. Annual Report
MR. TOM MILLER
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER 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 CASAC) and the Drinking Water Committee at that time.
/ / o
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.
Tom is married and is the father of one daughter, Stephanie, and one son, Christopher, (who is University
Sophomore). 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 page C-41
DR. ANGELA NUGENT
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER 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 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 has managed several SAB Workshops (SAB/EPA Workshop on the
Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing Best Estimates of
Dose-Response Functions; Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection; and
Workshops on Science and Stakeholder Involvement). She serves as Special Assistant to the Staff
Director.
Prior to joining the SAB, Angela was 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 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 was employed by
Arthur Andersen & Associates as a Management Information Consultant. 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
-------
page C-42 Annual Report
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE & THE INTEGRATED HUMAN
EXPOSURE COMMITTEE
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
positions 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 Congressionally 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 36 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 page C-43
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER FOR THE
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS COMMITTEE
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE has been a Designated Federal Official at the EPA Science
Advisory Board for 7 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
-------
page C-4d Annual Report
MS. KATHLEEN WHITE
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE
MS. KATHLEEN WHITE 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 ProtectionAgency'sRegionI — 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. White left field work in New England forpaper work at 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 two younger
sons, elderly rabbit and temperamental chow. Her eldest son is a student at Hampshire College in western
Massachusetts.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page C-45
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
-------
page C-46. Annual Report
MS. WANDA R. FIELDS
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MS. AVANDA R. FIELDS is the Management Assistant who assists Samuel Rondberg with the
Environmental Health Committee (EHC) and the Integrated Human Exposure (IHEC) and John R. Fowle
with the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC). 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) where she assisted Stephanie Sanzone. In 1998,
her tide changed to management assistant. Prior to joining us she was a secretary with the Office of Water
for nine years here at die Environmental Protection Agency. During her tour widi Water, she took a
tremendous amount of computer and administrative training. She graduated with honors from a career
enhancement program diat 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 die Office of Personnel Management where
her government career began.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page C-47
MS. DIANA L. POZUN
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
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
(RAG). In May 1998 her tide was changed to Management Assistant. She is now responsible for die
Radiation Advisory Committee, Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Committee
(COUNCIL) and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Diana was promo ted to Program
Specialist in September 2000 to work for Donald Barnes who is die Director of SAB, Jack Fowle Deputy
Director and Angela Nugent Special Assistant. She comes to us from die 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 diat position, she was involved in all aspects of die proposal
process and maintained State and Local tracking systems, mailing lists, travel arrangements and word
processing support. Prior to that, she worked for die National League of Cities in Washington, D.C. for
four years, where she maintained client files, worked on guidebooks and various case studies and helped
coordinate several national conferences among odier duties. Diana has a broad range of experience with
various D.C. area firms. She lives in Mt. Airy, Maryland widi her sixteen year old daughter, Megan.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-42. Annual Report
MS. MARY L. WINSTON
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MS. MARY L. 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 tide changed from secretary to Management Assistant.
Before the reorganization she worked widi Samuel Rondberg on the Environmental Healdi Committee and
widi Thomas Miller on the Drinking Water Committee. Mary now assists Kadileen White widi die
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC), also Stephanie Sanzone widi the Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee (EPEC), and A. Robert Flaak widi die 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 page C-49
MS. BETTY B. FORTUNE
OFFICE ASSISTANT
MS. BETTY B. FORTUNE joined the Science Advisory Board in September 1993. Her job
tide is Office Assistant in the Director's Office. She works closely widi die Director, Program Specialist and
die Executive Committee. During her years widi SAB, and several administrative changes, she has worked
for die entire staff and widi other SAB committees. Betty came to SAB after completing a long tenure widi
die District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). She was the administrative assistant at Hardy Middle
School during die final years of her employment in DCPS. She had always worked in die field of
Education and has many pleasant memories of her work years widi staff, parents, and students. She has
received many plaques, awards, and certificates. She is a member of die Senior Choir at her church which
performs excerpts from die Messiah during die Christmas season. She lives in DC and her family consists of
two children and four grand-children which she gready enjoys.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-5Q. Annual Report
MS. PATRICIA L. THOMAS
TEAM LEADER, COMMITTEE EVALUATIONS SUPPORT STAFF
Ms. PATRICIA THOMAS joined the Science Advisory Board in May 1994 as a Management
Analyst. Pat came to SAB from the Office of Research and Development where she held several
positions. Her EPA career started with the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in 1972, where
she started as the secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, and ended as a
Management Analyst in ORD's Office of Health Research (OHR). While with the OHR, Pat assisted
the OHR Director, who was the EPA Chairman for the Protection of Human Subjects, with the review
of Human Subject packages before they went sent to the EPA contracts and grants office. In addition,
she was the International Travel Coordinator, Freedom of Information Officer, and ADP and PC Site
Coordinator. Prior to coming to EPA, Pat worked 4 years with the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. Pat has 32 years of government service and has received numerous outstanding awards while
at EPA, including a Bronze Medal.
Pat has been the Team Leader of the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (CESS) since
1996. The CESS is the administrative arm of the SAB, responsible for budget, personnel, payroll, web
development, and reports management, including the monthly Happenings newsletter, and the SAB
Annual Report. While with the SAB she devised several systems to assist the SAB staff in tracking
information on SAB Members and Consultants. In addition, she created a system that tracks the budget
for the ten SAB FACA committees. She is referred to in SAB as the "keeper of the truth."
She spends most of her leisure time traveling.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page C-51
MS. CAROLYN L. OSBORNE
PROJECT COORDINATOR
Ms. CAROLYN OSBORNE joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1973 as a Clerk typist
and has held several positions since then. She was assigned to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee and various subcommittees working closely with the Executive Secretary as a Staff Secretary.
Her government career started at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and also with the
Food and Drug Administration in 1969. Ms. Osborne is currently the Project Coordinator at the SAB's
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff where she is responsible for the budgeting, personnel and
administrative matters for more than 450 members and consultants. During Carolyn's tenure at the EPA,
she has enjoyed working with the SAB staff, members and consultants and is often referred to as the
"SAB Historian."
In Carolyn's past time she enjoys singing in the church choir, reading, traveling and spending time
with her family.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-52 Annual Report
MS. VICKIE J.RICHARDSON
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
Ms. VICKIE J. RICHARDSON joined the Science Advisory Board in May 1994 as an
Administrative Clerk to the Committee Evaluation Support Staff (CESS). She has since been promoted
to Management Analyst where she performs multifaceted administrative and technical tasks for the Board.
She is best known to the staff as the "Queen of Excel", a spreadsheet computer program, but you may be
more familiar with the work she does with the Happenings newsletter and the SAB Annual Staff Report.
She is also the Black Employment Program Manager for the Administrator's Office. In this position, she
aids the Agency in carrying out their Affirmative Employment Program. She began her federal career in
1993 with the Department of Defense working for the Air Force Base Conversion Agency, a department
that was responsible for closing sparsely populated military facilities throughout the United States.
Outside the workplace Vickie believes in giving back to the community. She volunteers in Everybody
Wins and For Love Of Children, two organizations that provide mentoring and tutoring opportunities
for underpriviledged children in depressed areas in the District of Columbia.
Ms. Richardson received a B.A. in Speech Communications with a minor in Political Science
from Old Dominion University, and a M.A. in Public Administration from the George Washington
University.
She resides in Maryland where she enjoys reading fictional materials to escape the realities of life.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
-------
Annual Report page C-53
MS. PRISCILLA Y. TILLERY-GADSON
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
PRISCILLA Y. TILLERY-GADSON joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) as the
Staff Secretary to the Director in March 1993. She participated in and completed the EPA's
Goalsetters Reaching for Opportunities (GRO) Program in 1996. In August 1998, she was reassigned
and promoted as a Program Specialist, and in May 2000, she has since been reassigned as an Information
Management Specialist on the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (CESS) providing
administrative and technical support to the Director, Deputy Director, and the Team Leader for CESS.
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 I5V2years. 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 I-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 29 years of
government services, and resides in the Maryland suburbs with her husband and her 27-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
-------
page C-5d Annual Report
FY 2000 SAB STAFF TRANSITIONS
Dr. Jack Fowle. Deputy Staff Director, spent 4 weeks in a development program at the Federal
Executive Institute.
Mr. Jason Hotten completed his third tour of duty as a summer intern from the University of
Maryland Eastern Shore campus.
Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian took part in the first "DFO swap:" between OSAB and our sister office,
the Office of Comparative Environmental Management (OCEM). Ms. Melanie Medina-Metzger came
to OSAB for the 8-month exchange period. The goal of the exchange is to cross-pollinate two
organization who have similar structures and function in the hope/expectation of inducing "hybrid
vigor".
Ms. Karen Martin, an EPA Intern for the past two years, successfully completed rotational
assignments to Region 4 (Atlanta) and to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER).
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson left the secretarial ranks to accept a position as an Information
Management Specialist on the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (CESS) here in the Office of
the Science Advisory Board (OSAB). [In early FYOI, her responsibilities for the care and feeding of the
Staff Director were taken over by Ms. Diana Pozun. who continues to be ably assisted in this arduous
task by Ms. Betty Fortune.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff _
------- |