u
-------
6. SAB members and consultants — Appendix B
7. SAB committee organization and leadership — Appendices C &
D
8. Abstracts of all SAB reports — Appendix F
Enjoy; we certainly did!
Attachment
Addressees:
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief-of-Staff
Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
Selected Office Directors
Congressional Research Service
EPA Lab Directors
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page /
FOREWORD
In keeping with what appears to be 1989 report on the inner workings of the
the Year of the Reinvention, launched by
Vice President Gore's National Perfor-
mance Review in FY93, much of the Sci-
ence Advisory Board's year involved
reinvention. First, the Executive Commit-
tee welcomed the Administrator's appoint-
ment of new Members and a new Chair:
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski of Johns
Hopkins University. Dr. Matanoski quickly
initiated a critical examination of the
purpose and performance of the Board,
which involved sending out hundreds of
questionnaires to SAB Members and
"customers," interviewing current and
past leadership of the Environmental
Protection
Office of the Science Advisory Board.
With these two documents in hand, a
reinvented SAB will be well-positioned to
respond to the challenges leading to the
next century and to the years beyond.
However, the SAB is not waiting for
the final reports to begin the reinvention
process. For example, in FY94 EPA's top
management asked the SAB to investi-
gate technical approaches for identifying
what the major environmental problems
might be 5 and 20 years into the future.
Dr. Raymond Loehr has led the effort as
Chair of the Environmental Futures Com-
mittee in a coordinated effort that has
included activ-
... a reinvented SAB will be well-
positioned to respond to the challenges
leading to the next century and beyond.
Agency (EPA),
ond-through
the efforts of
the Program
Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation-gathering input
from more than 50 Agency people, from
the Administrator's Office to scientists at
the bench. The results of this self-study,
subtitled "Reinventing the SAB" will be
released in early FY95. The report will be
a worthy successor to the similar effort in
FY89 ("Mission and Functioning of the
SAB"). That study has guided the Board's
operations for the past five years. In a
parallel effort, the Management and
Operations Division will be updating their
ity by several
of the Board's
standing com-
mittees. Other
notable reinventions have included devel-
oping the "Advisory," a mechanism for
providing formal reactions to and sugges-
tions for an Agency product before it has
been fully developed. The Advisory is
intended to promote further development
of sound scientific products, while reduc-
ing the possibility of unanticipated nega-
tive review at the end of the process.
Also, in FY94, the Board conducted in-
depth studies of the ORD's budget and
the Agency's laboratory operations, which
resulted in the Board's most holistic re-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
page ii
ANNUAL REPORT
examination of these topics since its
Future Bisk report in 1988. We are also
exploring innovative ways of disseminat-
ing news of our activities and our reports
to the interested public via the Internet
and the "Information Superhighway."
Most of our FY94 reports are now "online"
and freely available to anyone with
Internet access; calendars, Federal Regis-
ter notices, and meeting agendas will
soon follow.
This year's Annual Report docu-
ments many other reinventions designed
to provide more comprehensive, more
useful, and more timely advice on what
remains the fundamental focus of the
SAB; i.e., the technical (scientific, engi-
neering, and economic) underpinnings of
EPA positions. Our aim is that the Board,
the Agency, and the public will all be the
beneficiaries of these efforts.
This document reflects the valued
input of all of the Staff of the Office of the
Science Advisory Board. Without their
dedicated effort throughout the year, this
record could not have been written. Par-
ticular note should be made of the contri-
bution of Samuel Rondberg who served
as principal editor of this year's report,
introducing additional format and style
changes that have enhanced the medium
to better fit the message.
Donald G. Barnes, PhD
Staff Director
October, 1994
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page Hi
THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD: THE YEAR OF REINVENTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 Introduction to the Report 1
1.2 Introduction to the Board 1
1.3 Review of FY94 Activities 3
1.4 Projections and Conclusions 4
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT 5
2.1 Purpose of the Report 5
2.2 Content of the Report 6
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD 7
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function 7
3.2 SAB Organization and Membership 8
3.3 SAB Activities 14
3.3.1 Overview 14
3.3.2 Criteria for Activities 19
3.3.3 Impacts of Activities 22
3.3.4 Responses and Reactions to SAB Activities 24
4 REVIEW OF FY94 ACTIVITIES 25
4.1 Introduction 25
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities 25
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC) 26
4.2.2 Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC) 27
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 27
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC) 27
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) 28
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) 29
4.2.7 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) 29
4.2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC) 30
4.2.9 Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC) .. 31
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) 31
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page iv ANNUAL REPORT
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) 32
4.3 Examples of the SAB's Reinvention Activities 32
4.3.1 "Reinventing the Science Advisory Board" - a Self-Study 32
4.3.2 Reinventing the Future - The Environmental Futures Study .... 34
4.3.3 Reinventing ORD-The EPA Laboratory Study 35
4.3.4 Reinventing Advice: The Advisory 37
4.3.5 Reinvention in the SAB Staff Office 38
4.4 SAB Staff in Transition 39
5. PROJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 41
TABLES
I. SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades 10
II. FY94 SAB Committee Chairs 11
III. SAB Expenses for FY90-94 15
IV. SAB Activities and Resources: FY80-94 16
V. SAB Activities by Committee: FY89-94 17
VI. Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports 20
APPENDICES
A. Charters
A1. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
B. Membership
B1. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
B3. SAB Members for FY94
B4. SAB Consultants for FY94
C. Organizational Chart of the SAB in FY94
D. Staff Support and Committee Leadership in FY94
E. SAB Committee Meetings in FY94
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page v
APPENDICES (Continued)
F. SAB Reports and Abstracts in FY94
F1 List of SAB Reports, Letters, Commentaries, Advisories, and Consultations
for FY94
F2 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, and Commentaries for FY94
G. Detailed Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports
H. Biographical Sketches of SAB Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page-/
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction to the Report
This purpose of this Annual Report
is to: (a) provide a succinct introduction to
the Science Advisory Board (SAB); (b) pro-
vide a summary of the SAB activities for
Fiscal Year 1994; and (c) offer a near-term
projection of future SAB activities.
Section 2 is a brief introduction to
the Report. Section 3 provides back-
ground information on the SAB, its orga-
nization, history, membership, and re-
sources. Section 4 contains summaries of
the activities of each of the SAB Commit-
tees during FY94, as well as providing
details on the major reinvention activities,
and on changes in the SAB Staff Office.
Section 5 provides some projections for
FY95.
This Report also includes a number
of specialized appendices, presenting:
charters and leadership information for
our Committees; Membership informa-
tion; organizational charts; guidelines on
service on the SAB; lists of meetings; ab-
stracts of FY94 reports; and biographical
information about the SAB Staff.
1.2 Introduction to the Board
The purpose of the Board is to pro-
vide qualified, independent technical
advice to the Administrator of EPA on
scientific, engineering, and economic un-
derpinnings of Agency positions (see char-
ters in Appendix A). The SAB often func-
tions as a peer review panel, assessing the
technical rationales underlying current or
proposed Agency positions. In recent
years it has initiated a number of activities
on its own; e.g., a commentary on the
relative risks of radon in drinking water vs.
radon gas in homes, a commentary on
strategic planning the Office of Research
and Development's engineering program,
retrospective studies on the impacts of
past reports by the Engineering and Radia-
tion Committees, and the SAB's reinvention
self-study.
The SAB was formally chartered in
1978 by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authori-
zation Act, although its roots extend back
to the birth of EPA in 1970 and beyond. The
Board is a Federal Advisory Committee,
complying with the Federal Advisory Com-
mittee Act, and is composed of non-
governmental scientists, economists, and
engineers appointed by the EPA Admin-
istrator. The Guidelines for Service on the
SAB are included in Appendix B1. Appen-
dix B2 describes the various ways in which
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 2
ANNUAL REPORT
experts ore affiliated with the Board. The
100 Members of the Board (see Appendix
B3) are appointed by the Administrator
and operate through ten standing Corn-
Consultations (see Tables in and IV).
The SAB carries out projects at the
request of the Agency, at the request of
Congress, and on its own volition. In re-
mittees, coordinated through an Executive cent years, the number of requests for SAB
Committee (see the
organizational chart
in Appendix C and
Staff Support and
Committee Lead-
... the number of requests
for SAB action have been 3-
5 times the number that the
Board can address.
action have been 3-5
times the number that
the Board can ad-
dress. Therefore, the
Board has adopted
ership information in Appendix E). The criteria for use in establishing priorities
Members of the Board are some of the
most qualified technical experts in the
country, as evidenced by the credentials
of the FY94 Committee Chairs (see Table
II). The work of the Board is supported by
some 250 Consultants to the Board (see
Appendix B4), who are also non-govern-
mental scientists, engineers, and econo-
mists appointed by the SAB Staff Director.
Technical experts employed by the
Federal Government who have special
skill or knowledge in particular areas
participate as Liaisons to several Commit-
tees, as needed.
The SAB's operations are sup-
ported by a Staff Office of 18 employees
and an FY94 budget totaling some $2.2
million. These resources enabled the
Board to conduct 74 meetings (of which 15
were conference calls) and issue 15 full
reports and 15 short reports (generally
less than 10 pages, including 10 Letter
Reports and five Commentaries), one
Advisory (a new form of report discussed
in Section 4.3.4), and eight Notifications of
among the various requests, determining
the degree to which such requests:
a) Impact overall environmental protection
b) Address novel scientific problems or
principles
c) Integrate science into Agency actions in
new ways
d) Influence long-term technological de-
velopment
e) Respond to emergencies
f) Deal with problems that transcend Fed-
eral agency or other organizational
boundaries.
g) Strengthen the Agency's basic capabili-
ties
h) Serve Congressional and other leader-
ship interests
The reports produced by the SAB
have had a positive impact on many as-
pects of the Agency's operations and poli-
cies:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 3
The rigor of the Agency's technical
positions
The allocation of Agency resources
for scientific/technical activities
The directions taken by the
Agency in emerging science policy
The directions taken by the
Agency in planning
• The directions and form of public
debate of scientific, engineering,
and economic issues
With all of these activities, attention
and impacts, the Board has maintained a
broad base of support both within and out-
side the Agency.
1.3 Review of FY94 Activities
During FY94, the SAB's various
Standing- and ad hoc Committees con-
ducted 73 public meetings and 1 closed
meeting, all of which were announced in
the Federal Register. This number in-
cludes 15 public conference calls held for
planning, writing, and discussion purpos-
es. A wide variety of topics were covered:
from the indirect effects of emissions from
an incinerator to means of assessing the
risks to human reproduction posed by
various agents; from a wide-ranging re-
view of the Agency's capabilities and
organization to conduct research to as-
sessing the ecological functioning of
human-modified marsh systems. Appen-
dix F provides a full listing of FY94 SAB
meetings and reports (with abstracts).
In addition to its traditional activities
of holding meetings and producing re-
ports, the Board and Staff initiated action
to reinvent the Board as an institution, and
improve the ways in which it functioned.
Some examples of the SAB's reinvention
activities include:
The SAB's Reinvention Study
The SAB's participation in the
reinvention of the Agency's labora-
tories and research management.
The introduction of the SAB's "Advi-
sory" document
Launching the Environmental Fu-
tures project - a reinvention of ways
to anticipate the future
At the Staff Office level, reinvention
has included improved communications
and customer service by:
• Making SAB reports available via
the EPA "Gopher" to anyone with
Internet access
Setting up an SAB "List Server," to
allow Internet "self-subscribers" to
receive automatically email copies
of Federal Register notices for SAB
meetings, agendas, calendars, etc.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 4
ANNUAL REPORT
1.4 Projections and Conclusions
Fiscal Year 1995 will be another
busy time of production and change for the
Board. Early in the year, the Board will
deliver the Environmental Futures study to
the Administrator; concurrently, imple-
mentation of the more than 40 recommen-
dations in the Reinvention study will begin.
Use of the Internet for public access and
communication will increase. At the re-
quest of the SAB Staff Office Director, the
Agency's Management and Organization
Division will launch a study of the Office's
structure and functions.
The FY95 agenda-building exercise
is well underway, and has surfaced many
important issues, some of which will gen-
erate considerable public interest; e.g.,
reviews of cancer risk assessment guide-
lines, the Agency's reassessment of the
risks posed by "dioxin," soil cleanup stan-
dards for sites with radionuclide contami-
nation, a "second look" at possible health
effects of electromagnetic fields, a retro-
spective study of the cost/benefits of the
Clean Air Act, and a new methodology for
calculating cost/benefit ratios in Regula-
tory Impact Analyses. In addition, as in the
past, FY95 is likely to bring to the Board a
number of important topics that cannot be
anticipated at this time.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
pageS
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
2.1 Purpose of the Report
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) to issuing regulations; much like having to
is a legislatively mandated group of non-
governmental scientists, engineers, and
economists charged with providing inde-
pendent technical advice on environmen-
tal issues to the EPA's Administrator and
others; e.g., Congressional committees.
Generally, the SAB does not get involved
in or provide advice on regulatory policy
aspects of prob-
lems confront- Informed observers acknowledge the
defend one's thesis on the way to getting
an advanced degree. To others, the SAB
is seen as a court of last resort in which
competing scientific arguments are objec-
tively and dispassionately evaluated.
For some puzzled observers of the
SAB, the biggest problem is simply finding
out "What does the SAB do?" A somewhat
flippant, but ac-
curate, answer
ing the Agency, SAB'S remarkable history and its to that question
since such mat- continuing importance in the protection of is: "The SAB
ters are the public health and the environment. makes a differ-
province and
responsibility of the EPA Administrator.
Additional details of the objectives,
responsibilities, composition, and activities
of the SAB are included in the charter of
the organization (See Appendix A).
Informed observers acknowledge
the SAB's remarkable history and its con-
tinuing importance in the protection of
public health and the environment. How-
ever, some people both within and outside
of the Agency are hard-pressed to de-
scribe the extent of the Board's activities or
the detailed nature of its findings. This is
due, in part, to the complex structure of the
Board and the aperiodic issuing of its
reports. To some, the SAB is viewed as a
ence." For ex-
ample, the SAB makes a difference in the
type and conduct of scientific and
engineering research at EPA. The SAB
makes a difference in the way in which the
resulting data are interpreted and used to
support regulatory positions. The SAB
also makes a difference to SAB Members
and Consultants (M/Cs) and SAB staff by
giving them the satisfaction of seeing their
information and guidance used appropri-
ately by the Agency to address environ-
mental problems.
This Report is intended to reveal the
SAB to a wide audience: to those both
inside and outside the Agency, to those
who understand the Board, those who
hurdle which must be cleared on the way think they understand the Board, and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paged
ANNUAL REPORT
those who know enough to know that they
dont understand the Board. The intent is
that each reader gain a broader perspec-
tive of the SAB, its activities, and its im-
pact.
Specifically, the purpose of the
Annual Report of the Science Advisory
Board Staff is three-fold:
• To provide a succinct introduction
to the SAB.
• To provide a summary of the SAB's
activities for FY94.
• To offer a near-term projection of
future SAB activities.
The Report is designed to provide
"a group photo" of the SAB~its people, its
products, and its prospects-in sufficient
detail that the interested reader can distin-
guish the major features and identify paths
for investigating the finer details.
2.2 Content of the Report
The Report consists of five principle
sections, plus appendices supplementing
the discussion in the main sections.
Following the Executive Summary (Sec-
tion 1) and this Introduction (Section 2),
Section 3 provides basic background
information on the SAB. Here the reader
will find brief discussions on the history of
the Board, its organization and Member-
ship, and its principal activities and pro-
cedures. Specific examples are de-
scribed that illustrate the way in which the
SAB impacts positively on the functions
and operations of the Agency.
Section 4 focuses on SAB activities
during FY94. This portion of the Report
contains descriptions of the activities of
each of the Board's Committees during
the past year, as well as specific exam-
ples of the way in which FY94 was a
year of "Reinvention." In addition,
changes in the SAB Staff assignments
and operations of the Office are highlight-
ed. Section 5 provides a glimpse into
what FY95 holds in store for the Board.
The Appendices contain important
information, such as organizational
charts, Membership lists, abstracts of SAB
reports, and the like. These Appendices
provide a source of more detailed infor-
mation about specific aspects of the SAB.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 7
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function
The SAB was established by Con-
gress to provide independent scientific
and engineering advice to the EPA Ad-
ministrator on the technical basis for EPA
regulations. Expressed in terms of the
current parlance of the risk assess-
ment/risk management paradigm of deci-
sion making (National Research Council,
Managing Bisk in the Federal Govern-
ment, 1983), the SAB deals with risk
assessment issues (hazard identification,
dose-response assessment, exposure as-
sessment and risk characterization) and
only that portion of risk management that
deals strictly with the technical issues
associated with various control options.
Issues of Agency and Administration pol-
icy are generally beyond the scope of SAB
mandate and involvement.
The SAB, in its present form, was
established in 1978 by the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstra-
tion Authorization Act (ERDDAA) (42 U.S.C.
4365). Predecessor bodies date back to
the early 1970s. In carrying out the man-
date of ERDDAA, the SAB provides "such
scientific advice as may be requested by
the Administrator, the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works of the United
States Senate, or the Committees on
Science and Technology, Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, or Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Repre-
sentatives." Because the Science Advisory
Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, it
must comply with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. C)
and related regulations. Consequently,
the Board has an approved charter, which
must be renewed biennially, announces its
meetings in the Federal Register, and pro-
vides opportunities for public comment on
issues before the Board.
As a practical matter, the function
of providing credible technical advice to
EPA and Congress antedates ERDDAA
and its nascent SAB. The roots of the SAB
can be traced back through various pre-
decessor committees within EPA
and~prior to the creation of EPA~into
other agencies, such as the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. Since
1978, however, the SAB has operated as a
Staff Office, reporting directly to the
Administrator.
Members of and Consultants to the
Board constitute a distinguished body of
scientists, engineers, and economists who
are recognized, non-governmental experts
in their respective fields. These individuals
are drawn from academic, industry, and
environmental communities throughout
the United States and, in some limited
cases, other countries (see Appendices B3
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paged
ANNUAL REPORT
and B4 for a listing of Members and Con-
sultants, respectively).
Increasingly, the Agency has
placed a premium on basing its regula-
tions on a solid scientific foundation.
Consequently, over the past 16 years the
SAB has assumed growing importance
and stature. It is now formal practice that
many major scientific points associated
with environmental problems are reviewed
by the SAB. For example, the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requires that decisions related
to the National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS) be reviewed by the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC), which is administratively housed
within the SAB.
Generally, the Board functions as a
technical peer review panel. The SAB
conducts its business in public view and
benefits from public input during its delib-
erations. Through these proceedings
Agency positions are subjected to critical
examination by leading experts in the field
in order to test the currency and technical
merit of those positions. At the same time,
the SAB recognizes that EPA is sometimes
forced to take action to avert an emerging
environmental risk before all of the rigors
of scientific proof are met. To delay action
until the evidence amounts to incontrovert-
ible proof might court irreversible ecolog-
ical and health consequences. In such
cases, the Agency makes certain assump-
tions and extrapolations from what is
known in order to reach a rational science
policy position regarding the need (or lack
thereof) for regulatory action. Here, the
SAB serves as a council of peers to eval-
uate the soundness of the technical basis
of the science policy position adopted by
the Agency.
3.2 SAB Organization and Membership
The SAB Charter (Appendix Al)
states that "The objective of the Board is
to provide advice to EPA's Administrator
on the scientific and technical aspects of
environmental problems and issues," that
"The Board will consist of a body of inde-
pendent scientists and engineers (and
now economists) of sufficient size and
diversity to provide the range of expertise
required to assess the scientific and
technical aspects of environmental is-
sues," and that "No Member of the Board
shall be a full-time employee of the Fed-
eral Government." The Charter requires
formation of an Executive Committee and
inclusion of the Clean Air Scientific Advi-
sory Committee (see separate charter,
also in Appendix A). Otherwise the Board
may organize itself as needed to meet its
responsibilities.
The Board's Executive Committee
serves as the focal point for the coordi-
nation of scientific reviews by the Board's
standing committees. Appendix C con-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 9
tains a chart of the FY94 SAB or-
ganization. The Executive Committee
meets four times a year to act on Agency
requests for reviews, to hear briefings on
pertinent issues, to initiate actions/reviews
by the Board which it feels are appropri-
ate, and to approve final reports prior to
transmittal to the Administrator. (Reports
from CASAC and the newer separately
chartered CAACAC are submitted directly
to the Administrator, without need for
prior Executive Committee review or
approval.)
Rve Committees have historically
conducted most Science Advisory Board
reviews:
• Clean Air Scientific Advisory Com-
mittee (CASAC)
• Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (EPEC)
• Environmental Engineering Com-
mittee (EEC)
• Environmental Health Committee
(EHC)
• Radiation Advisory Committee
(RAO
In recent years, five additional
committees have been added:
• Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Ex-
posure Committee (IAQC): Man-
dated in the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act in
FY86
• Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC): Requested by
the Administrator in response to
SAB recommendations in FY88
Drinking Water Committee (DWC):
Evolved from the EHC in FY90
• Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis
Council (CAACAC): Mandated in
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendme-
nts
• Environmental Economics Advi-
sory Committee (EEAQ: Requested
by the Administrator in response to
the Board's Reducing .Risk report in
FY90
The activities of these committees
are supplemented by a variety of sub-
committees, as well as by ad hoc com-
mittees which are created as required.
The Board has been successful in
tapping a continuing vein of top technical
talent to fill its leadership positions.
Those scientists and engineers who have
led the SAB (and predecessor organiza-
tions) for the past 20 years are listed in
Table I. Table H testifies to the caliber of
individuals who have served as chairs of
SAB Committees in FY94.
Although the number of appointed
Members is flexible, the FY94 SAB con-
sisted of 100 Members appointed by the
Administrator, generally for two year
terms, renewable for two more terms in
some cases. Service as Committee Chair
can lead to an additional four years of
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 10
ANNUAL REPORT
continuous service. A formed guideline on
Membership service was adopted by the
Executive Committee in FY93 and em-
ployed since (see Appendix Bl).
Over 300 technical experts, invited by the
Staff Director, serve on an "as needed"
basis as Consultants to the Board on
various issues where their expertise is
relevant. The number of Consultants is
flexible, and their one-year terms can be
renewed. Consultants are required to
meet the same standards of technical
expertise as do the Members. The term
"Member or Consultants" (M/C) is used
throughout this report to refer to these ex-
perts. Appendices B3 and B4 contains a
list of the FY94 U/Cs on the Board.
Nearly all of them serve as "Special
Government Employees (SGEs)," subject
to all appropriate restrictions, including
conflict of interest statutes (18 U.S.C.
Sections 202-209). Appendix B2 contains
a description of the types of affiliation
with the Board.
The SAB Staff consists of 18 EPA
employees: a Staff Director, an Assistant
Staff Director, and the Director of the
Committee Evaluation Staff; six scien-
tist/engineers serving as Designated Fed-
eral Officers (DPOs), and nine support
staff.
The duties of the Staff include iden-
tifying potential issues for SAB attention,
focusing questions for review by the
Board, working with the Board to identify
and enlist appropriate Members and
Consultants, interfacing between the
Board and the Agency and the public,
coordinating logistics for reviews, and
producing minutes and reports for sub-
mission to the Administrator. Appendix D
details information on the Staff support
for each Committee.
TABLE I SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades
Executive Committee
Chairs
Dr. Emil Mrak
Dr. John Cantlon
Dr. Earnest Gloyna
Dr. Norton Nelson
Dr. Raymond Loehr
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Affiliation
University of California
Michigan State University
University of Texas
New York University
University of Texas
Johns Hopkins University
Dates
1974-1978
1979-1981
1981-1983
1983-1988
1988-1993
1993-Present
SAB Staff Directors
Dr. Thomas Bath
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Donald Barnes
Date
1975-1977
1978-1981
1981-1988
1988-present
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page 11
TABLE II FY 1994 SAB Committee Chairs
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski (MD, Dr. P.M.)
Professor of Epidemiology and Director of Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Program, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
Certified Specialist in General Preventive Medicine, American Board of Preven-
tive Medicine
Member, American Public Health Association
Member, American College of Epidemiology
Member, International Epidemiological Association
Member, Society of Epidemiological Research
Member, Bioelectromagnetics Society
Former Chair, SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)
Dr. Richard Schmalensee
Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy
Member, Board of Directors, Long Island Lighting Company
Associate Editor, Journal of Economic Perspectives
Fellow, Econometric Society
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Dr. George Wolff
Principal Scientist, General Motors Environmental and Energy Staff
Fellow, Air and Waste management Association
Member, American Meteorology Association
Vice Chairman, Editorial Review Board, Journal of the Air and Waste Manage-
ment Association
Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan, School of Public Health
Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Dr. Verne A. Ray
Assistant Director of Safety Evaluation Department, Pfizer, Inc.
Member, Society of Toxicology
Member, Environmental Mutagen Society
Member, Genetic Toxicology Association
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 12 ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE II FY 1994 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. A. My rick Freeman (Co-chair)
Professor of Economics, Bowdoin College
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, American Economics Association
Member, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
Member, Society for Risk Analysis
Dr. Paul Portney (Co-chair)
Vice President and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future
Member, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Task Force on Economics and
Modeling
Member, Board of Directors, Management Institute for Environment and Bus-
iness
Associate Editor, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Dr. IshwarP. Muraka
Business Development Manager, Environment and Vital Issues, Electric Power
Research Institute
Member, Soil Science Society of America
Member, Air and Waste Management Association
Member, Biometrics Society
Member, American Statistical Society
Member, American Society of Agronomy
Member, Council for Agricultural Sciences and Technology
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Kenneth L. Dickson
Director, Institute of Applied Science and Dept. of Biological Science.,
University of North Texas
Member, American Fisheries Society
Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Member, North American Benthological Society
Member, J. K. G. Silvey Society
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page 13
TABLE II FY1994 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Frederica Perera
Assistant Clinical Professor, Columbia University School of Public Health
Member, New York Academy of Science
Member, American Society of Preventive Oncology
Member, International Society for Preventive Oncology
Member, Environmental Mutagen Society
Member, American Association for Cancer Research
Member, American Public Health Association
Member, Society for Epidemiologic Research
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)
Or. Joan M. Da/sey
Head, Center for Atmospheric and Biospheric Effects Technology, Lawrence
Berkley 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
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Or. James £. Watson, Jr.
Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University
of North Carolina
Fellow, Health Physics Society (Past President)
Member, Radiological Health Section, American Public Health Association
Member, North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission
Member, National Academy of Sciences Radioactive Waste Disposal Panel
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Or. Roger O. McClellan
President of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Member, National Institute of Medicine
Member, American Veterinary Medical Association
Member, Radiation Research Society
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 14
ANNUAL REPORT
3.3 SAB Activities
3.3.1 Overview
The types of projects, as well as
the range of subject matter, reviewed by
the SAB continue to grow. The Board
takes on reviews at the request of Con-
gress, the Administrator, and EPA's vari-
ous program offices, as well as on its own
initiative. In general, the trend over time
has been for more SAB reviews, address-
ing more varied subjects, requested by a
wider range of individuals and organiza-
tions. Most of the outputs of the Board
are in the form of full reports. Such re-
ports are generally the result of the peer
review of some Agency document(s) and
go into considerable detail regarding the
findings and recommendations of the
Board, as well as answering specific
questions in the Charge to the Board.
Increasingly, the SAB has moved
toward using shorter, more timely com-
munications to the Administrator. These
communications are of two forms: letter
reports and commentaries. Letter re-
ports are similar in origin, content, and
purpose to full reports; simply shorter.
Commentaries are unsolicited SAB ad-
vice about technical issues that the Board
feels should be drawn to the Adminis-
trators attention.
In addition, in recent years the SAB
has introduced the "consultation" as a
means of conferring—in public session--
with the Agency on a technical matter
before the Agency has begun substantive
work on an issue. The goal of the consul-
tation is to leaven EPA's thinking on an
issue 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 con-
sensus or generate an SAB report. The
Board simply notifies the Administrator
that such a consultation has taken place.
In FY94, the Board introduced a
new vehicle for communicating with our
clients - the "Advisory," which provides
critical input on technical issues during
the development process (see Section
4.3.4).
Tables III - VI (following) provide
statistical information on the Board's
activities and resources as a whole, and
details on the various Committees' meet-
ings and reports.
Table HI displays the SAB's operat-
ing expenses for the past five fiscal years
(1990-1994). The increase in total costs
over the years reflects a 20% increase in
the number of Board Members, a modest
increase in the number of Staff, increases
in Federal pay and allowances, and gen-
eral increases in the cost of airline travel
and hotel/meeting accommodations.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 15
Table IV summarizes the Board's
meeting and report generation activities
over the past 15 years. A glance at the
most recent years (FY93 and FY94) shows
a relatively constant level of meeting activ-
ity (77 public meetings in FY 93 vs. 74 in '94),
but a decrease in the number of reports
completed - 37 in FY93, and 30 in FY94.
These changes result primarily from the
planned investment of staff resources in
the Environmental Futures project and the
activities associated with the SAB
Reinvention study. Both the Futures project
and the Reinvention study were de novo
activities of the Board, and required sub-
stantially greater resources to carry out
than does the typical SAB review of an
existing EPA document. In addition, the
Staff was actively involved in producing a
report on "streamlining" of the Agency -
including the SAB — at the request of the
Administrator. Table V displays overall
levels of activities by individual Commit-
tees; Section 4.2 (and following) present
details of topics reviewed and identifies
reports completed by each Committee.
Table VI provides the time-to-completion
data for all FY94 reports, displayed for both
full reports, letter reports, and Advisories
(see also Appendix G for additional detail).
The number of days given under the head-
ing "Committee Review" is the time period
between the last public meeting on the
issue and approval of the document by the
SAB Executive Committee. The number of
days under the heading "To Administrator"
is the time period between the Executive
Committee's approval and actual transmis-
sion of the document to the Administrator;
this latter period represents time re-
quired to make final revisions directed by
the Executive Committee.
The Board has an announced goal
of a total time-to-completion of less than
six months (180 days). On average, this
goal was essentially met for full reports
(189 days) and bettered for letter reports
(103 days). The average time-to-comple-
tion for all reports (154 days) also bettered
the goal. All of these data reflect improve-
ment compared with FY93. The distribu-
tion of completion times for the individual
TABLE 111 SAB Expenses ($K) for Fiscal Years 1990-1994
Fiscal
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
19941
Compensation
Staff M/C Total
750
778
894
1000
1050
390
459
413
450
550
1,140
1,237
1,307
1,450
1,600
Travel
210
329
298
398
450
Other TOTAL
Expenses
320
162
54
151
140
1,670
1,728
1,659
1,994
2,190
Estimated
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 16
ANNUAL REPORT
reports, however, is less encouraging: only
four of the 15 full reports meet our 180
day target. Performance on letter reports
was better, with nine often meeting the
target. We will continue to study the report
generation process to identify those areas
of delay which can be reduced or elimi-
nated.
TABLE IV SAB Activities and Resources, Fiscal Years 1980-1994
Committee Meetings
Open' Closed1 Other" FulF
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
42
12
20
38
29
60
61
57
58
67
60
47
47
54
58
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 26
7 16
2 26
22" 16
15' 15
Reports
Ltr" Totar Members
13
10
10
11
17
41
"" 28
36
43
38
7 33
6 22
35 61
21 37
15 30
81
72
37
44
48
60
59
74
74
61
55
62
80
95
100
Staff Operating
FTEs Costs'
15.8
13.2
10.5
9.1
14.1
14.0
14.1
14.1
13.2
14.9
16.0
16.6
16.5
18.0
17.5
900
750
600
650
1050
1200
1200
1350
1400
1550
1650
1750
1650
1994
2190
a JUburfmfia annm w«Ml in th* Ptariwal RwiietAr n*»r tho Forloral Arix/ienrv nnmmrrto* Ar»t
b Include* writing, planning, and administrative sessions do not normally require notice in the Federal Register, as well as public
conference calls. Data on such sessions prior to 1990 are not available.
c A full report on a topic is a more extensive discussion of the subject, e.g., greater than 10 pages. Separate data on full vs. letter
reports are not available prior to 1990.
d A letter report Is a more focused discussion of a topic. Included in this category are Letter Reports, and Commentaries to the
Administrator on issues of concern to the SAB.
e Appendix G contains a list of all FY94 reports and abstracts.
f Operating costs in thousands ($000), rounded to nearest $50tC
g Includes three separate volumes of appendices to the Reducing Risk report.
h Includes 12 conference call meetings that were open to the public
.i Includes 15 conference call meetings that were open to the public.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 17
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1989-1993
Committee
EC
EC/
ad hoc
CAACAC
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
Fiscal
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1992 .
1993
1994
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1992
1993
1994
Number of
F.R.
4
4
4
4
4
4
18
0
0
8
13
1
3
0
1
1
3
3
4
4
8
5
6
3
2
4
2
Meetings1
Other Total
0
1
1
1
1
6
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
4
5
5
5
5
20
24s
0
0
13
13
1
3
0
8
1
1
3
4
7
4
8
5
7
3
2
4
2
Full
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
3
2
4
45
2
0
0
1
Number of Reports2
Ltr/Com
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0/0
1
3
0/0
2
0
4
3
3/0
2
0
8
2
1/1
1
1
1/1
Total
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
7
0
1
2
1
1
3
0
6
3
2
4
3
3
5
2
12
6
4
1
1
3
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 18
ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1989-1994 (Continued)
Committee
EEC
EHC
.
EPEC
IAQC
RAC
Fiscal
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Number of
F.R.
8
7
7
8
5
3
4
2
2
2
6
10
9
7
10
0
2
3
1
3
12
8
7
7
10
Meetings1
Other Total
0
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
11
7
11
8
8
8
9
8
9
3
4
2
3
2
7
6
10
10
8
10
2
0
2
3
1
3
2
12
10
7
18
17
Full
4
2
3
4
1
5
3
2
3
1
3
.4
8
25
4
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
4
2
1
Number of Reports2
Ltr/Com
0
1
4
3
1/1
0
4
1
0
1/0
0
0
3
2
1/1
1
0
2
2
0/0
1
1
10
3
1/0
Total
3
4
3
7
7
3
13
5
7
3
3
2
3
3
4
11
4
6
1
1
1
4
3
2
3
1
1
14
5
2
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 19
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1989-1994 (Continued)
Fiscal
Committee Year
Number of Meetings1
F.R. Other Total
Number of Reports2
Full Ltr/Com
Total
RSAC
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
2
3
4
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
4
2
1
4
1
5
3
2
3
1
2
0
0
0
1
1/0
4
3
1
3
2
3
Where
EC Executive Committee
CAACAC Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
OWC Drinking Water Committee
EEAC Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee
EEC Environmental Engineering Committee
EHC Environmental Health Committee
EPEC Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
IAQC Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
1 For FY 90 and later indicates meetings requiring notice in
Federal Register and those not requiring notice.
1 In 1990 and later, reports are entered as Fun reports, or
Letter reports (which include commentaries).
1 Includes 22 meetings of the Relative Risk Reduction
Strategies Committee (RRRSC)
4 Includes four planning sessions not listed in the Federal
Register
6 Counts the same report (EPA-SAB-EPEC/DWC-93-005)
twice.
3.3.2 Criteria for Activities
In the face of more requests than
current resources can support, the Board
has had to decide how to set its priorities.
As a part of the "self-study" initiated in
FY89, the Board's Mission and Functioning
Committee developed a list of criteria
which characterizes the more significant
projects of the past and which can guide
in the selection of projects in the future.
The criteria are listed below, together with
examples of current reports reflecting
those criteria:
a) Impact overall environmental protec-
tion:
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-003 Review of
the Draft Technical Guide-
lines for Biological Criteria
for Streams and Small Riv-
ers
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 20
ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE VI Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports
Document Title and
Document Number
FULL REPORTS
ORD Lab Study
EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-015
STAA
EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-011
RCRA RIA CV 1
EPA-SAB-EEAC-94-001
IAQ Research Program
EPA-SAB-lAQC-94-008
Biocriteria of Streams
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-003
MASTER
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-012
NORM
EPA-SAB-RAC-94-013
Inland Testing Manual
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-007
RCRA RIA MMSoils
EPA-SAB-EEC-94-002
2,4-D Carcinogenicity
EPA-SAB-EHC-94-005
Arsenic Criteria Document
EPA-SAB-DWC-94-004
Indirect Combustion Exp.
EPA-SAB-IAQC-94-009a/b
Global Climate Research
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-014
Industrial Excess Landfill
EPA-SAB-EC-94-010
Disinfectant Byproducts
EPA-SAB-DWC-94-006
AVERAGE COMPLETION TIME
Cmte
RSAC
RSAC
EEAC
IAQC
EPEC
EPEC
RAC
EPEC
EEC
EHC
DWC
IAQC
EPEC
EC/ad
hoc
DWC
FOR FULL
Date of Last Processing Time (days)
Meeting Committee To Total
Review Administrator (days/months)
May 1994
Marl 994
Sap 1993
Sep1993
May 1993
Oct 1993
Oct1993
Jul1993
Apr 1993
Apr 1993
Apr 1993
Dec 1993
Sep1993
Dec 1993
Dec 1992
REPORTS =
18
52
35
141
166
175
174
202
187
208
190
223
218
43
324
189 DAYS/6.3
2
3
24
19
12
14
26
6
23
14
36
12
26
246
6
MONTHS
20/0.67
55/1.8
59/2.0
160/5.3
178/5.9
189/6.0
200/6.7
208/6.9
210/7.0
222/7.4
226/7.5
234/7.7
254/8.5
289/9.6
330/11.0
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 21
TABLE VI Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports (Contin-
ued)
Document Title and
Document Number
LETTER REPORTS
ORD Budget Review
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-94-008
SO2 Closure
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-007
RCRA RIA Health Effects
EPA-SAB-EHC-LTR-94-003
RCRA RIA CV 2
EPA-SAB-EEAC-LTR-94-001
Information Collection Rule
EPA-SAB-94-DWC-LTR-94-010
Radon Meas. Protocol
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-94-006
RCRA RIA Overview
EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-94-002
EMAP Assessment
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-94-004
WQ Monitoring Network
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-94-005
Air Quality Models
Cmte Date of Processing Time (days)
Last Committee To Total
Meeting Review Administrator (days/months)
RSAC
CASAC
EHC
EEAC
DWC
RAC
EC
EPEC
EEC
Apr 1994
Apr 1994
Sep1993
Sep1993
Apr 1994
Oct1993
Aug 1993
Jun 1993
Jul 1993
13
50
33
34
79
91
103
126
89
CASAC Jun 1994 272
13
50
33
34
79
91
03
26
89
!72
8
1
24
23
12
3
1
12
55
1
21/0.7
51/1.7
56/1.9
57/1.9
91/3.0
94/3.1
104/3.5
138/4.6
144/4.8
273/9.1
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-009
AVERAGE COMPLETION TIME FOR LETTER REPORTS =103 DAYS/3.4 MONTHS
AVERAGE TIME FOR ALL ADVISORY DOCUMENTS = 154 DAYS/5.0 MONTHS
NB Reports listed in descending order of time to completion within category; "Review" • time between last meeting and
Executive Committee Approval; "Approval" - time between Executive Committee approval and transmission to the
Administrator; "Month" defined as 30 days.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 22
ANNUAL REPORT
b) Address novel scientific problems or
principles;
EPA-SAB-EEAC-94-001 (CV-1) and
EPA-SAB-EEAC-94-LTR-OO1
(CV-2) Review of the Con-
tingent Valuation Methodol-
ogy used in the Draft RCRA
Regulatory Impact Analysis
c) Integrate science into Agency actions
in new ways;
EPA-SAB-lAQC-94-009a and 009b
Review of the Addendum to
the Methodology for As-
sessing Health Risk Associ-
ated with Indirect Exposure
to Combustion Emissions
d) Influence long-term technological de-
velopment;
EPA-SAB-DWC-94-006 Review of
the Research Program on
Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-
Products in Risk Reduction Labo-
ratories
e) Respond to emergencies; (None in
FY94)
f) Deal with problems that transcend
federal agency or other organiza-
tional boundaries;
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-007 Review of
the Draft Testing Manual
for Dredged Material Pro-
posed for Discharge in In-
land and Coastal Waters
g) Strengthen the Agency's basic capa-
bilities;
EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-015 Review of
the EPA Laboratory Study
h) Serve Congressional and other lead-
ership interests;
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-94-008 Re-
view of the ORD Budget
3.3.3 Impacts of Activities
Each SAB activity has a unique set
of consequences which can affect subse-
quent activity by the Agency, and, by ex-
tension, the rest of society. The listing
below provides examples of the impacts
of some of these activities during FY94.
a) Impacts on the rigor of the Agency's
technical positions
CASAC reviewed methodology
proposed by the Agency (per the require-
ments of Section 811 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990) to estimate historical
pollutant concentrations would have ex-
isted in the presence and absence of the
Clean Air Act and subsequent Amend-
ments (EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-009). The
comments of the Committee focused on
ways to reduce the uncertainties in the
estimates.
b) Impacts on expenditures of funds
Four SAB Committees and a spe-
cial Steering Committee produced a total
of six reports on the proposed RCRA Regu-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 23
lotory Impact Analysis (RIA). The RCRA
RIA was developed to estimate the
costs/benefits of the pending RCRA Cor-
rective Action Rule, affecting thousands of
waste sites across the country. The Board
identified concerns with the Agency's use
of contingent valuation (the study design
and its probity as used), the degree to
which the selected samples were repre-
sentative, the lack of validation for the
assumptions of the MMSOILS model, and
a general failure to characterize the uncer-
tainties associated with non-cancer risks.
The individual reports were: EPA-SAB-
EEAC-94-001; EPA-SAB-EEC-94-002; EPA-
SAB-EEAC-LTR-94-001; EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-
94-002; EPA-SAB-EHC-LTR-94-003; and
EPA-SAB-EPEC-COM-94-001.
c) Impacts on emerging science policy
The Indoor Air Quality/Total Human
Exposure Committee reviewed the draft
document "Addendum to the Methodology
far Assessing Health Risks Associated with
Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emis-
sions." The Committee's report (EPA-SAB-
IAQC-94-009a (Interim Report) and 009b
(Final Report)) found merit in the model
and recommended its use as an analytical
tool to identify the chemicals most likely to
accumulate in the environment, the envi-
ronmental compartments most at risk of
unacceptable accumulations, and the
exposure pathways and chemicals most
likely to result in aggregate health risks
that reach levels of concern. The Commit-
tee stressed the need to establish a frame-
work to ensure that the entire range of
potential risks from stationary combustors
are addressed holistically, including both
direct and indirect risks, as well as local,
regional, national and international con-
cerns.
d) Impacts on Agency planning
Two examples of SAB impacting
Agency planning are a) the lAQCs review
of the Indoor Air Quality Research pro-
gram (EPA-SAB-IAQC-94-008); and b)
EPECs review of the Global Climate
Change Research program's terrestrial
elements (EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-014).
The IAQC found that the research pro-
gram was clearly-focused, as were its
inter-relationships with related activity
elsewhere in ORD and the rest of the
Agency, other federal agencies and the
private sector. The Committee was con-
cerned, however, that these evident
strengths of the planning process and the
research program were not adequately
captured by the Agency's description of its
research plans. The Committee also
recommended a more explicit linkage of
the research to health effects of potential
concern.
The EPEC found the specific re-
search projects appeared to be of high
quality and adequately reviewed. How-
ever, they expressed concern about as-
pects of program management, including
absence of a clear vision of ORD's role in
the National Program, lack of a strategic
plan for implementing research, and inad-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 24
ANNUAL REPORT
equate linkage with other Agency and
Federal programs. Specifically, the Sub-
committee recommended that EPA take
an active role in: defining the ecological
effects and risk assessment needs for the
National Program; specifying the method-
ological development, data acquisition,
and assessment research tasks to meet
those needs; and implementing a national
integrated research program focused on a
clearly defined EPA role and national
needs.
e) Impacts on the public debate of sci-
entific and engineering issues
The ad hoc Industrial Excess Land-
fill Panel (EPA-SAB-EC-94-010) examined
the issue of possible radioactive contami-
nation in the Industrial Excess Landfill in
Uniontawn, Ohio. There had been consid-
erable debate between the Agency, Ohio
EPA, and local citizens concerning what
had been dumped in the landfill. When the
SAB began its investigation in 1993, the
controversy was several years old. Al-
though the Panel found no evidence of
radioactive contamination, it recom-
mended a number of ways to improve
interactions between the Agency and the
public with regard to communicating risk.
3.3.4 Responses and Reactions to SAB Activities
Since 1984, the Board has formally The Administrator and the Deputy
requested written Agency responses to
SAB reviews. The majority of the respons-
es indicate that the Agency has acted
positively on the advice given by the
Board. In many in-
Administrator have made it a practice to
attend Executive Committee meetings to
discuss topics of mutual interest. Several
Assistant Administrators also made pre-
sentations and re-
stances, the Agency The majority Of the responses quests at meetings of
has initiated action on indicate that the Agency has the Executive Com-
the basis of the advice acted positively on the advice mittee in FY94. The
rendered at the public given by the Board. large number of EPA
SAB
meetings, prior to their
actual receipt (via the Administrator) of
the formal report from the Board. In some
other cases the Agency and the Board
"agree to disagree."
Support for the SAB both inside
and outside the Agency remains strong.
requests for
assistance speaks to the Agency's
commitment to the SAB. However, re-
source constraints continue to limit the ex-
tent to which the Board can respond fully
to the needs of the Agency.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 25
4 REVIEW OF FY94 ACTIVITIES
4.1 Introduction
Fiscal Year 1994 proved to be even
more busy and varied for the Science
Advisory Board then anticipated a year
ago. The number of meetings held and
the number of issues addressed during
the year continued at a high level, against
a backdrop of intense involvement in the
Futures, Reinvention, and Streamlining
efforts. Perhaps more than any other time
in the Board's history, the Staff and our
Members/Consultants focused their atten-
tion and energies outward to service our
clients within the Agency; inward to exam-
ine how we carried out our work and
related to all our clients; to the past to
examine the impacts of reviews carried
out over the past few years; and to the
future to try and advise the Agency on
problems and issues lying over the hori-
zon.
This section of the FY94 Annual
Report consists of a brief overview of the
activities of each SAB Committee, specific
examples of SAB reinvention at work, and
changes in the Science Advisory Board
Office. The activities of the individual
Committees are summarized in the sec-
tions below. More details are available in
the Appendices; specifically, Appendix F
contains a list of all SAB meetings and
Appendix F contains a list of all FY94 SAB
reports, together with their abstracts.
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities
In FY94, the various Committees
and Subcommittees of the SAB conducted
58 public meetings, one closed meeting,
and 15 public conference calls and issued
15 full reports and 15 letter-size reports
(generally under 10 pages), eight notifica-
tions of consultations, and one advisory
document. Some of these reports re-
flected the culmination of work initiated in
the previous fiscal year, just as some
of the FY94 meetings will result in FY95 re-
ports.
The SAB was involved in some way
with nearly every program office of the
Agency. The SAB both responded to re-
quests for reviews from the Agency and
took the initiative to delve into new areas
and new approaches, providing the kind
of technical advice that makes a differ-
ence in the Agency's operations.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 26
ANNUAL REPORT
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC)
FY94 sow a number of changes and
innovations in the Executive Committee.
Chief among them was the transition of the
Chairmanship from Dr. Raymond Loehr to
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski. The EC held four
quarterly meetings, in addition to conduct-
ing an Annual Membership meeting which
featured the "rollout" of the Environmental
Futures Project which included presenta-
tions by Robert Sussman (Deputy Adminis-
trator), Dr. Terry Davies (Resources for the
Future), Dr. Lester Brown (World Watch
Institute), and Dr. William Leffler (Shell Oil
Co.).
In addition to overseeing and coor-
dinating the work of the individual Commit-
tees, the Committee had projects of its own
that were conducted through specialized
subcommittees. These included:
a) The self-study of the Board (the
Reinvention Study) (Chair: Dr.
Matanoski). (see Section 4.3.3).
b) EPA-SAB-EC-94-010 The Industrial
Excess Landfill (IEL) Committee
(Chair: Dr. Robert Huggett, suc-
ceeded by Dr. Jan Stolwijk) exam-
ined technical issues raised by
possible radioactivity at
Superfund sites, using an Ohio site
as an example.
c) The Environmental Futures Committee
(Chair: Dr. Loehr). (see Section
4.3.2).
d) SAB/EFAB "Principles" Committee (SAB
Chair: Dr. Loehr). This joint effort
with the Environmental Financial
Advisory Board explored the poten-
tial benefits of providing the Admin-
istrator with advice that integrated
scientific and financial advice. The
group determined that their inter-
ests and expertise were not suffi-
ciently aligned at this time to make
this a priority activity.
e) EPA-SAB-EC-94-LTR-002 The RCRA
Corrective Action RIA Steering
Committee (Chair: Dr. Paul Deisler)
coordinated the efforts of four
standing Committees (EEAC, EEC,
EHC, and EPEC) in a multi-faceted
review of major regulatory pack-
age.
Among those who appeared before
the Executive Committee in FY94 were
Robert Sussman (Deputy Administrator),
David Gardiner (AA/OPPE), Dr. Lynn
Goldman (AA/OPPTS), Mary Nichols
(AA/OAR), Sally Katzen (OMB), and Dr.
Ken Olden (Director of NIEHS)
EC Members who testified before
Congress on various topics included Dr.
Matanoski (ERDDAA Reauthorization), Dr.
Loehr (EPA science), Dr. McClellan (the
ORD budget and science at EPA), and Dr.
Watson (radiation and radon).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 27
4.2.2 Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)
The Council did not meet during for early in FY95 to address physical
FY94. A meeting is now being planned health effects issues.
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
During FY 1994. the Clean Air Sci-
entific Advisory Committee (CASAC) held
three conference calls and four meetings.
The conference calls were conducted to
provide comments for the Retrospective
Analysis of Air Quality Models required of
the CAACAC by the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1990. The four CASAC meetings
all addressed National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standards issues. The first of these
sessions was a final review/closure on the
re-proposal of the criteria document sup-
plement and staff paper for SO2. The
three additional meetings focused on the
portions of the documents under develop-
ment for the ozone standard.
Three reports were issued by
CASAC in FY94:
a) EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-007 Closure
on the Supplements to the Criteria
Document and Staff Position pa-
pers for SO2 The Committee felt
that the documents were consistent
with available scientific evidence
for sulfur oxides and should pro-
vide an adequate basis for a regu-
latory decision,
b) EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-009 Air
Quality Modeling for the Section
811 Retrospective Study. The com-
ments of the panel focused on
ways to reduce the uncertainties in
estimating what historical pollutant
concentrations would have been in
the presence and absence of the
Clean Air Act and subsequent
Amendments.
c) EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-94-005 Data
Sets for PMm The Committee re-
quested that the Agency take steps
to assure that crucial data sets
linking exposure to particulate
matter and health responses are
available for analysis by multiple
analytical teams.
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
The Drinking Water Committee nants in drinking water. The primary
includes experts in the effects and control client for the Committee is the Office of
of chemical and microbiological contami- Water. This year the Committee met three
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 28
ANNUAL REPORT
times and issued two full reports, one
letter report and one commentary. One of
the meetings included a joint review of
bioaccumulation issues with the EPEC,
with a report scheduled for completion in
FY95. The Committee also took active
part in the Futures Project and is complet-
ing its report for that effort. Completed
FY94 documents are:
a) EPA-SAB-DWC-94-004. SAB Review of
Draft Drinking Water Criteria Docu-
ment on Inorganic Arsenic.
b) EPA-SAB-DWC-94-006 SAB Review of
the Research Program on Disinfec-
tants and Disinfection By-Products
in the Risk Reduction Research
Laboratory
c) EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-94-010 SAB Re-
view of Information Collection Rule
(Monitoring Requirements for Pub-
lic Drinking Water Supplies)
d) EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-94-002 Drinking
Water Committee commentary on
negotiated regulation for disinfec-
tants and by-products.
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
In FY94, EPEC held 10 full Commit-
tee and Subcommittee meetings. The
Committee continued to place priority on
five areas: ecological risk assessment,
EMAP, environmental quality criteria, the
impacts of global climate change, and
habitat biodiversity. In addition, the EPEC
devoted three meetings to development of
a report on analysis of future ecological
issues as part of the SAB Environmental
Futures Project (see Section 4.3.2).
The Committee completed a total of
seven reports in FY94:
a) EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-003 Review of the
Draft Technical Guidance for Bio-
logical Criteria for Streams
b) EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-007 Review of the
Draft Testing Manual for
Dredged Material Proposed
for Disposal in Inland and
near Coastal Waters
c) EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-012 Review of the
Midwest Agrichemical Sur-
face/Subsurface Transport and
Effects Research (MASTER) Pro-
gram
d) EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-014 Review of the
Research Program on the Effects
of Global Climate Change on Ter-
restrial Ecosystems.
e) EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-94-004 Review of
the Draft EMAP Assessment Frame-
work
f) EPA-SAB-EPEC-COM-94-001 Review of
the Ecological Risk Assessment
Portion of the Draft Regulatory Im-
pact Assessment for the RCRA Cor-
rective Action Rule
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 29
g) EPA-SAB-EPEC-ADV-94-001 Advisory
Evaluation on A National Methodol-
ogy for Wildlife Criteria.
The Committee also completed
three consultations:
a)
A-SAB-EPEC-CON-94-004 Notifica-
tion of Consultation on National
Saltwater Dissolved Oxygen Crite-
ria
b) EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-94-005 Notifica-
tion of Consultation on
Bioaccumulation Issues
c) EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-94-006 Notifica-
tion of Consultation on the Concep-
tual Plan for an Integrated Ecosys-
tem Protection Research Program
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
The Committee was created during
FY 91 at the request from the Administra-
tor who was responding to a recommen-
dation in the Board's .Reducing Risk report.
The EEAC is constituted to assist and
advise the Administrator and the Agency
in analyzing the economic aspects of
environmental decision-making, and in
analyzing the long-term environmental
aspects of various approaches to valuing
and/or discounting ecological resources
and systems.
During FY 94, the Committee con-
ducted two public meetings and re-
leased two reports, one Commentary,
and one Notification of Consultation:
a) EPA-SAB-EEAC-94-001 Review of the
RCRA Regulatory Impact Analysis
Contingent Valuation Methodology
(CV1)
b) EPA-SAB-EEAC-LTR-94-001 Review of
the RCRA Regulatory Impact Anal-
ysis Contingent Valuation Method-
ology Application (CV 2)
c) EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-94-003 Com-
mentary on the Peer Review of
Research
d) EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-94-003 Notifica-
tion of a Consultation on the Com-
prehensive Environmental Eco-
nomic Policy Evaluation System
(CEEPES)
4.2.7 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
The Environmental Engineering
Committee (EEC), by virtue of its agenda,
its Membership, its clients, and its collabo-
rations with other organizations and SAB
Committees, remains one of the most
active and diversified Committees of the
Board.
The EEC conducted eight meetings:
three full Committee meetings, three con-
ference calls, and two Subcommittee
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 30
ANNUAL REPORT
meetings addressing six topics::
a) Soil Screening Levels
b) Waste Minimization and Combustion
c) Strategic Research and Development
Planning
d) Ground-Water Monitoring Network
Research
e) EPA's Draft Technology Innovation
Strategy
f) Environmental Futures
The Committee completed one
report one letter report, one Commentary,
and two Notifications of Consultation:
a) EPA-SAB-EEC-94-002 Review of the
RCRA RIA MMSoils Model
b) EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-94-005 Review of
the Water Quality Monitoring Net-
work
c) EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-94-004 Commen-
tary on Strategic Research Plan-
ning
d) EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-94-002 Notifica-
tion of Consultation on Soil
Screening Levels
e) EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-94-008 Notifica-
tion of Consultation on Waste
Minimization and Combustion
4.2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
The Environmental Health Commit-
tee (EHC) shares responsibilities for
health effects reviews with several com-
mittees of the Board (DWC, IAQC, RAC,
and CASAC). The principal focus for EHC
has been issues related to development
and use of guidelines for health risk as-
sessments. The EHC has continued to
maintain a close relationship with the
other SAB health-related Committees, and
with the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) of
the Office of Pesticides, "sharing" Mem-
bers for several reviews.
The EHC met twice during the year
(one meeting including participation by an
SAP Member). The Committee released
one report and one letter report during
the past year:
a) EPA-SAB-EHC-94-005 Review of the
Potential Carcinogenicity of 2,4-D
b) SAB-EHC-LTR-94-003 Review of the
RCRA Regulatory Impact Analysis
Health Benefits Estimates
The Committee's report on its re-
view of the draft Guidelines for Reproduc-
tive Toxicity Risk Assessment should be
released early in FY 95.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 31
4.2.9 Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)
The IAQC addresses many of the
exposure assessment issues that come
before the Board, particularly those re-
lated to the indoor air environment.
The Committee met three times
during FY94, and issued two full reports.
One of these, dealing with indirect expo-
sure to combustor emissions, was pre-
ceded by an interim letter to the Adminis-
trator. In addition to these reports, the
Committee has taken an active role in the
Futures Project and is completing its
report as the year ends. Completed re-
ports are:
a)
b)
V-SAB-IAOC-94-008. Review of
Indoor Air Issue Plan
V-SAB-IAQC-94-009a and EPA-
SAB-IAQC-94-009b (Interim"
letter to the Administrator
and final report) Review of
the Agency's draft Adden-
dum to the Methodology for
Assessing Health Risks As-
sociated with Indirect Expo-
sure to Combustor Emissions.
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
The Radiation Advisory Committee
is most closely aligned with the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), although
the Office of Water, and the Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA) are also clients. In FY 94, the
RACs activities focused on completing a
review of ORIA's Diffuse Naturally-Occur-
ring Radioactive Material (NORM) Waste
Characterization and Preliminary Risk
Assessment Draft Scoping Document and
the Radon Measurement Protocol Evalua-
tion Study. The RAC also conducted con-
sultations and briefings on a number of
topics. A considerable time was also
spent on two self-initiated activities - the
RAC Retrospective, the Radon Science
Initiative, and the RAC report on future
issues and challenges in environmental
radiation, which will be completed in FY95.
The RAC and its subcommittees
conducted ten public meetings and seven
public teleconferences. The completed
reports were:
a) EPA-SAB-RAC-94-013 Review of the
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Draft Document on Diffuse
Naturally-Occurring Radioactive
material (NORM)
b) EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-94-006 Radon
Measurement Protocol Evaluation
Study
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 32
ANNUAL REPORT
c) EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-94-001 Consulta-
tion on Cleanup Standards
d) EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-94-007 Notifica-
tion of Consultation on Low Level
Waste Standards
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
During FY 94, the RSAC held four
Committee and Subcommittee meetings,
and one conference call. These meetings
addressed the ORD budget (requested by
the Congress); the review of ORD's Scien-
tific and Technical Achievement Awards
(STAA); and the Review of the EPA Labo-
ratory Study (highlighted in section 4.3.3 of
this report). As a result of the interest in
the SAB report, Dr. McClellan, Chair of
RSAC testified before Congress and
briefed the Deputy Administrator and
Senior Agency managers on the recom-
mendations of the Committee. The Com-
mittee released the following reports:
a) EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-015 Review of
Mitre Corp. Draft Report on the
EPA Laboratory Study
b) EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-019 Recommen-
dations for Scientific and Tech-
nical Achievement Awards (STAA)
c) EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-94-008 Review
of the President's FY95 Budget
Request for the EPA Office of Re-
search and Development
4.3 Examples of the SAB's Reinvention Activities
4.3.1 "Reinventing the Science Advisory Board" - a Self-Study
In 1989 the SAB conducted a "self-
study" (the "Mission and Functioning
Report" or MAP) to assess its activities,
management, and performance and to
recommend changes for improving the
institution. The SAB began FY94 with a
new Chair, a relatively new Administrator,
and a continuing evolving Board: all of
which argued for another self-study.
Therefore, in the spirit of the Vice Presi-
dent's emphasis on reinventing govern-
ment, Dr. Matanoski headed a subgroup
of the Executive Committee to "reinvent
the SAB."
As background for this study, the
Board solicited and received input from
more than 100 people, including Agency
political appointees (both past and pres-
ent), Agency personnel (ranging from
managers to bench scientists), Board
Members, representatives of other agen-
cies, and members of the public.
The main substance of the report is
captured in its Findings and Recornmen-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 33
dotions and relates to eight major top-
ics:
SAB Mission
SAB Function
SAB Structure
Selection of SAB Projects
Timeliness
SAB Membership
Inter-Ctommittee and inter-advisory
group interactions
Communications
The self-study has been an impor-
tant exercise for the Board. Like the 1989
MAP report, this study demonstrates the
benefit of openly seek-
ing constructive criti-
cism from its various
customers inside the
Board, the Agency,
and the public.
The major con-,
...these data will provide the
reinvention fuel to power the
SAB to the brink of the next
century.
dence from the Agency.
d) The SAB con serve the Agency in a
number of different ways:
1) Advising role; cf., consultations
and advisories
2) Rigorous peer review role; cf.,
reports
3) Self-initiated activities; cf., com-
mentaries
e) There is room for continual improve-
ment, especially in the area of
timeliness, Membership, and com-
munications.
This report will be complemented
by a study of the SAB Staff Office to be
conducted by the Man-
agement and Organi-
zation (M&O) Division
of the Agency's Office
of Administration and
Resource Manage-
ment. It will constitute
elusions have much in common with the
earlier report:
a) The SAB works and makes a differ-
ence.
b) The SAB continually responds to
changing conditions in an evolu-
tionary, not revolutionary way.
c) The SAB's effectiveness is directly tied
to its real and perceived indepen-
an updating of the 1989 M&O study of the
SAB Staff Office.
The more than 40 recommenda-
tions from this study should be imple-
mented during FY95. Coupled with the
recommendations from the upcoming
M&O study, these data will provide the
reinvention fuel to power the SAB to the
brink of the next century.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 34
ANNUAL REPORT
4.3.2 Reinventing the Future - The Environmental Futures Study
In July, 1993, Administrator Carol
Browner and Assistant Administrator for
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation David
Gardiner asked the SAB to initiate an
Environmental Futures Project to investi-
gate methods and issues which the
Agency might use to anticipate and ad-
dress the potential risks of emerging
environmental problems. In October,
1993, the Board sponsored a kick-off
session at its Annual Meeting to familiar-
ize Members with the use of various tech-
Committee will have met a total of four-
teen times to collect information and
refine its ultimate recommendations to the
Agency be the time it delivers its report in
the Winter of 1994.
In the course of this project, the
SAB has gleaned some valuable insights
from experts in various fields of technol-
ogy, energy, transportation, social sys-
tems, demographics, agriculture, and
communication sciences about develop-
ments which lie over the horizon, the
niques to anticipate future problems. At drivers of change (e.g., energy consump-
this meeting, expert ...pOpU|ation pressures for tion' Population
futunsts discussed natural resources, a rising
standard of living, and
international trade will be the
the use of scenarios
and foresight tech-
niques which had
been employed by
other organizations
for long-range plan-
ning.
Throughout this year, the Environ-
mental Futures Committee, an ad-hoc
Committee of the Executive Committee,
chaired by Dr. Raymond Loehr (University
of Texas-Austin) has interviewed addi-
tional professional futurists from industry,
research foundations, and environmental
groups during its monthly meetings and
at special fact-finding sessions. The
Committee also received extensive back-
ground materials and staff support for
primary driving factors for
profound and rapid changes in
the future.
consequences of
those changes. The
Committee's overall
impression is that pop-
ulation pressures for
natural resources, a
rising standard of living, and international
trade will be the primary driving factors
for profound and rapid changes in the
future.
The complex interaction of these
factors makes it essential that decision
makers consider the broad implications of
their policies so that they are preventive,
focused, and effective.
As a result of this activity, the Envi-
ronmental Futures Committee has identi-
fied five major areas which they believe
these meetings from the OPPE staff. The have a predicted high potential for future
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 35
environmental concerns, and which merit
targeted scientific investigation:
a) Future interregional pollutant load-
ings as a result of energy choices
worldwide
b) Future health risk endpoints be-
yond cancer
c) The oceans beyond the estuaries
d) The disposition of natural re-
sources beyond near-term develop-
ment
e) Future environmental stressors.
The EFC are likely to recommend
that the Agency use "Look-out" panels to
scan for weak signals of environmental
changes as part of a bottom-up approach
for monitoring. They will also likely rec-
ommend that the Agency review scenar-
ios developed by other Federal Agencies
such as Census Bureau, Department of
Energy, and the Department of Defense to
identify environmental impacts from
changes anticipated in their scenarios.
Although the EFC has identified
these five issues and recommended
general means to address them, they also
believe that understanding the process of
applying foresight techniques may be as
important to the Agency as responses to
the specific issues. Three salient findings
support this contention. First, most pre-
dictions are likely to be wrong, and they
must be continually revised based on
changes in the underlying assumptions or
on new data obtained by monitoring.
Second, foresight requires one to con-
sider how future events are likely to occur.
By developing an understanding of the
mechanisms of change, one can identify
better measurements and monitoring
systems and target the drivers of change
and critical stakeholders to develop solu-
tions. Third, a foresight process is a
logical complement to the annual strate-
gic planning and budget processes. The
EFC report will consist of an overview
report, describing its major findings and
recommendations, and a detailed appen-
dix describing the Committee's activities,
process for developing recommendations,
contacts, and a list of issues considered.
In addition, five Standing Committees are
expected to transmit separate reports to
the Administrator providing their
Committee-level perspective on what may
be tomorrow's problems.
4.3.3 Reinventing ORD-The EPA Laboratory Study
In FY 94, EPA conducted a major
review of all of its research and technical
support laboratories (Office of Research
and Development (ORD), Program Office
Support, and Regional Environmental
Services Divisions laboratories). The goal
of this study was to evaluate the sound-
ness of the overall laboratory infrastruc-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 36
ANNUAL REPORT
ture, its management, and the quality of
its scientific support for Agency policies
and regulations. The Research Strategies
Advisory Committee (RSAC) was asked to
review a report produced for the Agency
which described the capabilities and
direction of the ORD laboratories. RSAC
provided oral comments on the scope of
the study in February and reviewed the
draft report of the Mitre Corporation, the
Agency's contractor for the study, in May.
The Committee Chair briefed the Deputy
Administrator following the RSAC meeting
and later provided a telephone briefing for
the Agency's senior managers. RSAC
emphasized five major recommendations
for improving the management and orga-
nization of ORD and its laboratories. They
urged that the Administrator act as the
advocate for a well funded program of
strategic research; that the Agency take
corrective action to create a more effec-
tive, efficient, mission-oriented research
management system; that ORD head-
quarters be part of the organizational
change; and that the study also add data
about human resources before any reor-
ganization plan is developed. Finally, The
Committee noted, with reluctance, that if
reorganization at this time is chosen,
RSAC favors the concepts of the Carnegie
Commission so called "Mega Laborato-
ries" organized along risk assessment
themes. As a result of the study, the
RSAC's comments, and those of a Na-
tional Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) panel, the EPA has determined
that the research grants program will be
expanded nearly five-fold; half of the
research budget (including grants) will be
devoted to long-term strategic research;
and ORD Headquarters staff will be re-
duced by fifty percent. The Agency is
developing and implementing a plan to
create the four mega laboratories noted
above.
The recommendations of the RSAC
were submitted to the Administrator and
forwarded concurrently to the Lab Study
Steering Committee (composed of senior
Agency managers and laboratory direc-
tors, and led by the Acting AA/ORD and
the AA/OARM). The SAB's recommenda-
tions were subsequently adopted by the
Administrator. The principles expressed
in the SAB report reflected the long expe-
rience that several of the Members have
had with the Agency's research program
and the many reviews of the Agency's
R&D budget over the years. These recom-
mendations lay an excellent foundation for
a positive reinvention of research and
development at the Agency.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 37
4.3.4 Reinventing Advice: The Advisory
In recent years the Board has
worked with the Agency to provide advice
early in the process of developing a posi-
tion on scientific and technical matters.
The Consultation, introduced just a few
years ago, addresses an issue of concern
to the Agency through a public discussion
that occurs at a time when the Agency's
approach to the problem is still being
formulated. No SAB consensus is sought.
No formal report is written; just a notifica-
tion that the Consultation has taken place.
The intent is to leaven the Agency's think-
ing as it generates and builds a position
on a technical matter. Some time later
(e.g., many months or even a few years),
the Agency returns with a well-articulated
position that is submitted to the SAB for
rigorous peer review on the technical
merits of that position.
However, in some cases the Agency
has a need for advice in the midst of its
development process in order to deter-
mine whether they are on the right track
or whether there are alternatives that they
should be considering. This is particularly
true of cases that may be years in the
development stage. The Agency would
receive more benefit from corrective ad-
vice during the process than from a criti-
cal, negative review at the end of the
process.
The Board is sympathetic to that need.
At the same time, the Board is also con-
cerned that the Agency's final position
receive a rigorous, objective, and inde-
pendent peer review. Playing the "thesis
advisor" role during the development of
the Agency's position would compromise
the SAB's credibility as an independent
peer reviewer at the end of the process.
In FY94 the SAB has addressed these
competing needs by introducing the "Advi-
sory," together with explicit guidance on
how it is to be used. In form, the Advisory
is similar to a report: i.e., a formal report
to the Administrator, following a public
meeting, at which an Agency document
was considered along with an explicit
charge to focus the activity. However, the
Agency document was not a final-or even
a draft final-report. Rather it was "a work
in progress," describing the state of the
Agency's thinking, the progress to-date,
and the proposed direction and schedule
for completing the activity. In the manner
of a thesis advisor the Board (EPEC, in this
case: EPA-SAB-EPEC-ADV-94-001) pro-
vided comments and suggestions that
should help the Agency move forward.
The Executive Committee approved
the Advisory but remained conscious of
the need to provide an objective, indepen-
dent peer review of the final product.
Therefore, they stipulated that the SAB
panel that reviews the final Agency prod-
uct must be "substantially different" from
the panel that generated the Advisory.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 38
ANNUAL REPORT
They noted the benefit of having at least
some Members who participated in the
Advisory as a part of the final peer review
group. They also noted that there would
have to be a substantial presence of new
faces in order to provide a credible inde-
pendent review of the final document.
These new faces could be a combination
of new Members who appear on the
Committee between now and the final
review, liaison Members from other com-
mittees who did not participate in the
Advisory, and/or ad hoc Consultants
added for this specific purpose.
Initial reactions to the Advisory
concept have been generally positive,
although there is some concern about
how the final review will be conducted. All
parties agree that it is useful for the SAB
to continue to explore "reinventions" that
enable the Board to better meet the needs
of the Agency.
4.3.5 Reinvention in the SAB Staff Office
During FY94 Staff Members have
been aggressively searching for, and
adopting, new and better ways of doing
their work - while at the same time work-
ing with designated Board Members on
the formal Reinvention Study (see Section
4.3.1).
In FY93, committee administration
and tracking required by FACA were con-
solidated under the Committee Evaluation
and Support Staff (CES). In FY94, addi-
tional steps towards rationalizing the
administrative functions of the Staff Office
were taken, e.g., centralizing processing
of personnel actions for the 350 Mem-
bers/Consultants; consolidation of payroll
functions for Members/Consultants; pro-
cessing of procurement requests and
Federal Register Notices; processing and
distribution of SAB reports; production of
the SAB newsletter (Happenings); and
reporting on budget/administrative issues.
The Staff is encouraging as many
Members as possible to conduct corre-
spondence, transmit drafts/comments on
reports, and conduct their Committee
business via electronic mail. All SAB Staff
has been trained to exploit features built
into the Agency email system - the use of
electronic distribution lists which allow the
dispatch of information to an entire Com-
mittee with one action; and the associated
capability to fax materials directly from a
computer file to one or a hundred loca-
tions with a single command. These steps
are in harmony with the Administrator's
announced goal of "a paperless office."
Completed SAB reports are now
accessible through the EPA Gopher (email
address: gopher.epa.gov), and are readily
available to any one in the world with
Internet access. Early in FY95, Federal
Register notices, calendars, and other
information will be automatically emailed
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 39
as soon as they ore posted to persons who
hove self-subscribed to the SAB "List
Server." These innovations not only make
SAB reports and other information more
widely available in a more timely fashion,
they also reduce the administrative burden
of taking telephone calls or processing
mail from persons wishing these materi-
als.
Other FY94 innovations include the
following:
a) Examination of the Flexiplace concept,
highlighted in the Vice President's
National Performance Review
b) Adoption of a computer-based method
of generating required travel or-
ders and vouchers
c) Sending more than two dozen boxes of
old files to the archives
d) Systematically ranking projects to
prioritize reviews requested by the
Agency
e) Continued increase in the representa-
tion of women and minorities on
the Board
f) Increased interest from other Federal
agencies (e.g., DOE and OSHA) in
SAB activities and how the SAB
"concept" could be transferred to
their organizations
4.4 SAB Staff in Transition
Ms. Joanna Foellmer, who has
served on the SAB Staff in various capaci-
ties since 1980, followed up her recent
training and rotational assignments pro-
vided by the Greater Leadership
Opportunities (GLO) program by accept-
ing a position with the Staff of the Presi-
dent's Commission Risk Assessment and
Risk management, where she is putting
her "SAB-honed" skills to good use.
Ms. Patricia Thomas recently joined
the Committee Evaluation Staff from the
ORD, serving as a Management Analyst.
She has rapidly made herself indispens-
able to the smooth administration of the
Staff Office, as has Ms, Vickie Richardson,
who comes to the SAB's CES from the
Department of Defense, and is working
efficiently as an Administrative Technician.
Mr. Rasheed Tahir, our Stay in
School (SIS) assistant for over two years,
received his Bachelor of Arts degree and
became a full-time Federal Bureaucrat
with the Department of the Treasury's
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Ms. Monique Ford is a welcome addition
as a new SIS working in the Staff Director's
Office.
For six months during the year, Mr.
Jason Holstine (from Ohio State University)
served as an Intern working with CES on
organizing computer databases for our
M/C listings, and other data-related tasks.
Mr. Robert Flaak, Assistant Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 40
ANNUAL REPORT
Director, undertook a four-month detcril to
the Agency's Science Policy Council
where he was instrumented in helping the
Program and Regional Offices develop
standard operating procedures to imple-
ment the Administrator's new Peer Review
Policy. As a result of this policy, peer
review will play an increasingly important
and visible role in support of decision-
making at the Agency. Bob returned to
his role on the SAB staff at the end of
September.
Biographical sketches of the SAB
senior staff are located in Appendix H.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 41
5. PROJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
FY95 is likely to be another exciting
and busy time for the Board. Early in the
year, the Board will deliver the Environ-
mental Futures study to the Administrator.
Release of this report should spark con-
siderable dialogue within the Agency and
between the public and the Agency as to
broad perspectives and strategies for
environmental protection. In December,
SAB Members and Staff will present five
separate reports on aspects of the Envi-
ronmental Futures project to the national
meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis.
Concurrently, the Board will com-
plete and start implementing the
Reinvention study. Although there is still
further work to be done, the broad out-
lines of the study and its messages are
clear, and initial responses are already
in preparation. These include increased
emphasis an communications (e.g., use of
the Internet), and imaginative staffing
arrangements (e.g., creating a rotational
position on the SAB Staff to bring junior
Agency scientists and analysts into the
Staff Office for assignments up to one
year in length). Another focus for FY95
will be integration of the SAB's review
activities with the workings of the newly
implemented peer review policy.
FY95 will also see a follow-up to
the 1989 study of the SAB Staff Office's
management processes by the Agency's
Management and Organization Division.
The earlier study led to .many improve-
ments and innovations, particularly as
regards building our computer capability
and centralizing administration. The new
effort will examine the results of the ear-
lier advice and provide additional sugges-
tions for "doing the right thing right."
The FY95 agenda-building exercise
is already well underway, and has sur-
faced many important issues. Several
topics are obviously of great significance
to the Agency, and can be expected to
generate considerable public interest.
These topics include reviews of health risk
assessment guidelines for cancer, the
long-awaited review of the EPA's
reassessment of the health risks posed by
'exposure to "dioxin," soil cleanup stan-
dards for sites with radionuclide contami-
nation, a "second look" at possible health
effects of electromagnetic fields, and a
review of the methodology for calculating
cost/benefit ratios underlying Regulatory
Impact Analyses. In addition, FY95 is
likely to bring to the Board a considerable
number of important topics that cannot be
anticipated at this time. As in the past,
the SAB anticipates being faced with
many more requests for reviews than can
possibly be supported. Judicious selec-
tion should result in maximum output for
the available resources.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-1
APPENDIX A
CHARTERS
A1. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-2 ANNUAL REPORT
Appendix A1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This Charter is reissued to renew the Science
Advisory Board in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 11 SS 9(c). The former Science Advisory Board, administratively
established by the Administrator of EPA on January 11, 1974, was terminated in 1978
when the Congress created the statutorily mandated Science Advisory Board by the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA)
of 1978,42 U.S.C. 4365. The Science Advisory Board charter was renewed October 31,
1979; November 19,1981; Novembers, 1983; October25, 1985; Novembers, 1987; and
Novembers, 1989.
2. SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The activities of the Board will include analyzing problems,
conducting meetings, presenting findings, making recommendations, and other activities
necessary for the attainment of the Board's objectives. Ad hoc panels may be established
to carry put these special activities in which consultants of special expertise may be used
who are not members of the Board.
3. OBJECTIVES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The objective of the Board is to provide
independent advice 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 the U. S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works or the U. S. House Committees on Science and Technology, Energy and
Commerce, or Public Works and Transportation. 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 and the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977. Responsibilities include the following:
Reviewing and advising on the adequacy and scientific basis of any proposed criteria
document, standard, limitation, or regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Noise Control 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;
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-3
Reviewing and advising on the scientific and technical adequacy of Agency
programs, guidelines, methodologies, protocols, and tests;
Recommending, as appropriate, new or revised scientific criteria or standards for
protection of human health and the environment;
Through the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, providing the technical
review and advice required under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990;
Reviewing and advising on new information needs and the quality of Agency
plans and programs for research, development and demonstration;
Advising on the relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic
pollution sources;
As appropriate, consulting and coordinating with the Scientific Advisory Panel
established by the Administrator pursuant to section 21 (b) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended; and
Consulting and coordinating with other Agency advisory groups, as requested by the
Administrator.
4. COMPOSITION. The Board will consist of a body of independent scientists and
engineers of sufficient size and diversity to provide the range of expertise required to
assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues. The Board will be
organized into an executive committee and several specialized committees, all members
of which shall be drawn from the Board.
The Board is authorized to constitute such specialized committees and ad hoc
investigative panels and subcommittees as the Administrator and the Board find necessary
to carry out its responsibilities. The Administrator will review the need for such specialized
committees and investigative panels at least once a year to decide which should be
continued. These committees and panels will report through the Executive Committee.
The Administrator also shall appoint a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the
Board to provide the scientific review and advice required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. This group, established by separate charter, will be an integral part
of the Board, and its members will also be members of the Science Advisory Board.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-4 ANNUAL REPORT
5. MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS. The Administrator appoints individuals to serve
on the Science Advisory Board for two year terms and appoints from the membership a
Chair of the Board. The Chair of the Board serves as Chair of the Executive Committee.
Chairs of standing committees or ad hoc specialized subcommittees serve as members of
the Executive Committee during the life of the specialized subcommittee. Each member
of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific
and technical information on matters referred to the Board. No member of the Board shall
be a full-time employee of the Federal Government. Most members will serve as special
Government employees.
There will be approximately 50-60 meetings of the specialized committees per year. A
full-time salaried officer or employee of the Agency will be present at all meetings and is
authorized to adjourn any such meeting whenever this official determines it to be in the
public interest.
Support for the Board's activities will be provided by the Office of the Administrator,
EPA The estimated total annual operating cost will be approximately $1,689,000 and the
estimated Federal permanent staff support will be 14.6 work years.
6. DURATION. The Board shall be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be
effective until November 8, 1993, at which time the Board charter may be renewed for
another two-year period.
7. SUPERSESSION. The former charter for the Science Advisory Board, signed by
the Deputy Administrator on November 8, 1989 is hereby superseded.
October 27. 1993 F. Henry Habicht II
Agency Approval Date Deputy Administrator
Novembers. 1993
Date Filed with Congress
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-5
Appendix A2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
of the Science Advisory Board
1. PURPOSE. This charter is reissued to renew the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee of the Science Advisory Board in accordance with the requirements of section
9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 11 SS 9(c).
2. AUTHORITY The Committee was specifically directed by law on August 7,1977,
under section 109 of the Clean Air Act, as amended [ACT], (42 U.S.C. 7409), and the
charter was renewed on August 6,1979; July 22, 1981; August 1, 1983; July 23,1985;
August 5, 1987; August 7, 1989; and August 7, 1991.
3. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The Committee shall provide independent
advice 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
Committee shall hold meetings, perform studies, make necessary site visits, and undertake
other activities necessary to meet its responsibilities. The Committee will coordinate its
activities with other Committees of the Science Advisory Board and may, as it deems
appropriate, utilize the expertise of other committees and members of the Science Advisory
Board. Establishment of subcommittees is authorized for any purpose consistent with this
charter. The Committee will report to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
4. FUNCTIONS. The Committee will review criteria documents for air quality standards
and will provide independent scientific advice in response to the Agency's request and, as
required by section 109 of the Act shall:
Not later than January 1, 1980, and at five year intervals thereafter, complete a
review of the criteria published under section 108 of the Clean Air Act and the national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and recommend to the Administrator
any new national ambient air quality standards or revision of existing criteria and standards
as may be appropriate,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-6 ANNUAL REPORT
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, and
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.
5. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS. 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 for terms up to
four years. 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. Members of the Committee become members of the Science Advisory
Board, and the Chairperson of the Committee, or his designee, shall serve as a member
of the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board. Most members will serve as
Special Government Employees. The Committee will meet three to six times per year. A
full time salaried officer or employee of the Agency will be present at all meetings and is
authorized to adjourn any such meeting whenever this official determines it to be in the
public interest. Support shall be provided by EPA through the Offices of the Science
Advisory Board. The estimated annual operating cost totals approximately $185,000 and
two work years of staff support.
6. DURATION. The Committee will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will
be effective until August 7,1995, at which time the Committee charter may be renewed for
another two-year period.
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
November 8.1993
Date Filed with Congress
October 27.1993
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageA-7
Appendix A3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
1. PURPOSE. This Charter establishes the Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.11
SS 9(c).
2. AUTHORITY. The Council was specifically directed under section 812 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended on November 15, 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
3. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The Council shall provide independent
advice on technical and economic aspects of analyses and reports which the Agency
prepares concerning the impacts of the Clean Air Act on the public health, economy, and
the environment of the United States. The Council shall hold meetings, make necessary
site visits and undertake other activities, necessary to meet its responsibilities. The Council
will coordinate its activities with other committees of the Science Advisory Board and may,
as it deems appropriate, utilize the expertise of other committees and members of the
Science Advisory Board. Use of consultants and establishment of subcommittees is
authorized for any purpose consistent with this charter providing subcommittees report
back to the full Council. The Council will report to the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
4. FUNCTIONS. As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Council
shall:
review the data to be used or any analysis required under section 812 and make
recommendations on the use of such data,
review the methodology used to analyze such data and make recommendations on
the use of such methodology, and prior to the issuance of a report to Congress
required under section 812, review the findings of such report, and make
recommendations concerning the validity and utility of such findings.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-8 ANNUAL REPORT
At the Agency's request, the Council will:
review other reports and studies prepared by the Agency relating to the benefits and
costs of the Clean Air Act, and
provide advice on areas where additional knowledge is necessary to fully evaluate
the impacts of the Clean Air Act and the research efforts necessary to provide such
information.
5. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS. The Council shall consist of at least 9 members,
appointed by the Administrator for terms of two years, after consultation with the Secretary
of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor. Most members will be appointed as Special
Government Employees subject to the conflict-of-interest restrictions. The Administrator
shall appoint a chairperson. Members of the Council shall be recognized experts in the
fields of economics analysis, the health and environmental effects of air pollution,
environmental sciences, or such other fields that the Administrator determines to be
appropriate. The chairperson of the Council shall serve as a member of the Executive
Committee of the Science Advisory Board. Other members of the Council may be
members of the Science Advisory Board and may also serve on its various other
committees or study groups. It is expected that the Council will meet two to four times per
year. A full time employee of the Agency, who will serve as the Designated Federal Officer,
will be present at all meetings and is authorized to adjourn any meeting whenever it is
determined to be in the public interest. Support shall be provided by EPA through the
offices of the Science Advisory Board. The estimated annual operating cost totals
approximately $150,000. and 1.5 work-years of staff support.
6. DURATION. The Council will be needed on a continuing basis, and may be renewed
beyond its initial two-year period following the date of enactment of the Act establishing this
Council, as authorized in accordance with section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
F. Henry Habicht II
Deputy Administrator
March 31. 1992
Date Filed with Congress
March 13. 1992
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-1
APPENDIX B
MEMBERSHIP
B1. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
B3. SAB Members for FY94
B4. SAB Consultants for FY94
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 5-2 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B1
GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE ON THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Background
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the Administrator.
In 1978 the SAB received a Congressional mandate to serve as an independent source
of scientific and engineering advice to the EPA Administrator.
The SAB consists of approximately 100 Members, who are appointed by the
Administrator. These members serve on specific standing committees. The Chairs of
the Committees also serve as members of the Executive Committee, which oversees all
of the activities of the Board.
In many of its activities, the members of the Board are supplemented by
Consultants, who are appointed by the SAB Staff Director after conferring with the Chair
of the Committee on which the consultant is to serve. Also, on occasion, Panels will be
supplemented by "liaison members" from other governmental agencies. These people
are invited by the Staff Director to participate in an ad hoc manner in order to bring their
particular expertise to bear on a matter before the Board.
Both the Executive Committee and the permanent Committees may choose to
conduct issue-specific business through Subcommittees that are chaired by SAB
members. Reports from Subcommittees are reviewed by the respective permanent
Committees. The Executive Committee reviews all reports, independent of their origin,
prior to formal transmission to the Administrator. The sole exceptions are reports from
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis
Council, which are a separately chartered FACA 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:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-3
a) Members must be qualified by education, training and experience to
evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the
Board.
b) The composition of Board committees, subcommittees and panels must
be "balanced", representing a range of legitimate technical opinion on the
matter.
c) No member of the Board may be a full-time government employee.
d) Members are subject to conflict-of-interest regulations.
The scientific and technical quality and the credibility of those selected is a
paramount consideration. Secondary factors considered include the geographic, ethnic,
gender, and academic/private sector balance of committees. Other factors that
contribute to, but do not determine, the selection include demonstrated ability to work
well in a committee process, write well, and complete assignments punctually.
Nominations for membership/consultantship on the Board are accepted at any
time. On a biannual basis, the 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,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-4 ANNUAL REPORT
Years
as member
2
2
4
6
Followed by years
as Chair
0
2 or 4
2or4
2 or 4
Followed by years
as member
0
Oor2
0
0
Total
years
2
4-6
6-8
8-10
Reappointment as a member is possible after a two-year hiatus from the SAB, during
which time the individual may be called upon to serve as a consultant for a specific
issue.
Consultants are appointed to provide the necessary expertise for specific issues.
Their terms of appointment are for one year, beginning at any time, and are renewable
annually. Their formal appointments may be continued beyond completion of a given
project so that their expertise can be quickly assessed in future with a minimum of
paperwork.
In general, interagency liaisons participate for the term of issue resolution only.
Member and Consultant Selection Process
Members are appointed by the Administrator based on nominations forwarded by
the SAB Staff Director and the Chair of the Executive Committee. These nominations,
in turn, are based on recommendations made by the Designated Federal Official (DFO-
the member of the SAB Staff with principal responsibility for servicing standing
Committees) and the Chairs of the standing Committees. The DFO has the
responsibility for developing a list of candidates, utilizing all credible sources, including
members of the SAB, other DFOs, EPA staff, staff at the National Academy of
Sciences\National Research Council, trade groups, environmental groups, professional
organizations, scientific societies, regulated industries, and the informed public.
On occasion, an ad hoc Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee
has been established to assist in the selection process. This group is consulted about
possible names and used as a "sounding board" when decisions are being made about
appointments. The Membership Subcommittee's principal role is to maintain the
integrity of the process and to probe the extent to which objective selection criteria and
procedures are being followed. They also raise questions about adherence to the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-5
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 in order to obtain specialized expertise on the particular issue under discussion.
A key aspect in the Panel selection process is the "charge", the mutually agreed
upon description of what the Agency would like the review to accomplish and/or what
the SAB expects to focus upon. The most helpful charge is one that prescribes specific
areas/questions that need attention and/or answers. At a minimum, the elements of the
charge should be sufficiently precise that the SAB can determine what additional
consultant expertise is needed to conduct the most helpful review.
Often the DFO begins by soliciting ideas about potential members from the
Agency staff who are intimately acquainted with the issue and will therefore are often
aware of the most informed people. A conscious effort is made to avoid selecting
individuals who have had a substantive hand in the development of the document to be
reviewed. At the same time, experience has shown the utility of having some
representation from individuals/groups who may have been involved in prior reviews of
the issue or the document. The goal is to minimize the appearance or practice of an
individual's reviewing his/her own work, while at the same time, maintaining an historical
link to earlier deliberations surrounding the document/issue. Once the Agency staff has
suggested nominees and provided background information on the individuals, their
direct role in the panel selection process is complete. Agency staff, the requesting
office, and others may be consulted at a later stage for information about nominees
received from other sources.
The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an
independent assessment of the technical matters before the Board. Discrete inquiries
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 8-6 ANNUAL REPORT
about the nominees are made with a number of different sources. This might include,
for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters, professional colleagues, and
experts who are on "the other side" of the issue. As time and resources permit and
controversy demands, names of nominees will be investigated via computer search of
their publications and pronouncements in public meetings.
Frequently, a determining factor for selection is the availability of the individual to
participate in the public review. In the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the SAB may
enlist the assistance of a particularly skilled consultant who cannot attend all meetings,
but who is willing to do additional homework and/or participate via conference call.
In some cases, the Panel Chair consults with key members of the Panel for their
advice before completing the empaneling process. The final selections for consultants
are compiled by the DFO in conjunction with the Chair of the Panel and are submitted to
the SAB Staff Director for discussion and appointment.
Conflict-of-interest and Public Disclosure
The intent of FACA is to construct a panel of knowledgeable individuals who are
free of conflicts-of-interest. In this regard, each Panel member must complete a
confidential financial information form that is reviewed by the Deputy Ethics Officer to
determine whether there are any obvious conflicts-of-interest.
Legal conflict-of-interests generally arise in connection with "particular party
matters." In general, the SAB (in contrast with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP)) does not get involved in "particular party matters," hence, legal conflicts-of-
interest are rare on the SAB. However, technical conflicts-of-interest can arise,
particularly for participants from academic institutions, in connection with Panel
recommendations for additional research studies. In most such cases, the DFO's work
with the Panel members to apply for waivers from the conflict-of-interest concerns on
this matter. The requests for waivers are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by EPA's
Office of the General Council. (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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-7
"broad middle" spectrum of opinion on the technical issue under discussion. Experience
has shown that achieving balance through equal representation of extreme views
reduces the chance of achieving a workable consensus-pro or con-that the Agency
needs to more forward.
The "public disclosure" (see Attached) process (a standard part of all SAB Panel
meetings) is a mechanism aimed resolving the apparent conflicts-of-interest issues.
This procedure involves an oral statement (sometimes Panel 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 in assessing 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,1 independent, balanced
advice to the Agency. At the same time, they provide assurance that there will be
adequate participation by and renewal with well-qualified experts from the various
communities served by the Board.
Prepared: Oct 14,1991
Revised: Nov26,1991
Revised: Oct. 12.1994
ATTACHMENT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-8 ANNUAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT
Guidelines for Public Disclosure at Sab Meetings
Background
Conflict-of-interest (COI) statutes and regulations are aimed at preventing
individuals from (knowingly or unknowingly) bringing inappropriate influence to bear on
Agency decisions which might affect the financial interests of those individuals. The
SAB contributes to the decision-making process of the Agency by evaluating the
technical underpinnings upon which 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, Special Form 450, Confi-
dential 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., "Ethics in a Nutshell" and a
copy of Ethics Advisory 92-11.
c. Delivering briefings to M/C's on COI issues on a regular basis.
The following is a description of an additional voluntary1 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.
' Note: The disclosure procedure is voluntary, and members/consultants are not obligated to reveal information contained in
their Form 450 that would overwise remain confidential.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page 8-9
Procedure
When an agenda item is introduced that has the potential for COI-actual or
perceived-the Designated Federal Official (DFO) will ask each M/C on the panel to
speak for the record on his/her background, experience, and interests that relate to the
issue at hand. The following items are examples of the type of material that is appropri-
ate 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 per-
ceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-10 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B2
TYPES OF AFFILIATION WITH THE SAB
Members are individuals who serve on the SAB and who are appointed by the
EPA Administrator, normally for a two year term (renewable in two-year increments up
to a total of six years). Members are either can be either SGEs or Representatives (see
below), although the preference is that they serve as SGEs. They are compensated for
their time unless they elect to serve without compensation (WOC). Their travel and per
diem expenses are paid. They are subject to conflict of interest laws and fill out all
personnel paperwork. Members can vote on issues, although most SAB business is
conducted by consensus.
Consultants are individuals who serve on the SAB and who are appointed by the
SAB Staff Director, normally for a one-year terms, renewable on an annual basis until
either their expertise is no longer needed or they elect to stop serving. Consultants are
either can be either SGEs or Representatives (see below), although the preference is
that they serve as SGEs. They are compensated for their time unless they elect to
serve without compensation (WOC). Their travel and per diem expenses are paid.
They are subject to conflict of interest laws and fill out all personnel paperwork.
Consultants cannot vote on issues, although most SAB business is conducted by
consensus.
Special Government Employees (SGEs) are individuals who are brought "on-
board" using a personnel appointment involving a modest amount of
paperwork. They are normally compensated for their time unless they
elect to serve without compensation (WOC). Their travel and per diem
expenses are paid. They are subject to conflict of interest laws and
certain postemployment restrictions.
Representatives are individuals who serve on the SAB, but whose economic
interests cannot be fully separated from those of their employer. Repre-
sentatives are chosen because a) the SAB would gain technical benefit
from hearing the technical views of the employee and/or b) the employer
would not allow their experts to participate in any other way; cf., in some
instances, service as an SGE can limit subsequent activities of that expert
in future dealing with the Agency on the matter. They do not fill out any
personnel paperwork. They are not compensated for their time; travel and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-11
per diem expenses maybe covered by either their employer or EPA. They
are not subject to the financial disclosure or conflict of interest laws.
Federal Experts are Federal (other than EPA) employees who participate in SAB
reviews because of their peculiar experience and expertise. They speak for themselves
as technical experts. They are not compensated for their time by the SAB; however,
travel and per diem expenses may be paid. No paperwork other than a Travel Authori-
zation is prepared, in cases in which EPA does the travel. They are subject to their own
Agency's conflict of interest regulations, and they do not file an SF-450 (financial
disclosure form) with the SAB. They are asked to participate in the formal conflict of
interest disclosure at the beginning of SAB meetings, as appropriate. Federal Experts
may contribute to the development of the Committee's report, but they do not vote.
Other Terms:
The Chair is the leader of an SAB Committee or Subcommittee. A Committee
Chairs is an SAB member selected by the Administrator, informed by advice from the
Staff Director. A Subcommittee Chair is usually an SAB member selected by the
Committee Chair. Consultants and Representatives do not usually serve as Chairs.
An Invited Expert is an individual with special expertise who is brought to a meeting
at SAB expense, but who is not being brought on board as a Member or Consultant.
The individual's involvement with the Committee is limited to presentations and discus-
sion. He/she does not work on the report or vote on matters before the Committee.
The Travel Authorization reads Invitational Travel.
An Invited Participant is an individual who has been formally appointed as a Member
or Consultant but whose paperwork has not been completed prior to the meeting. The
person is reimbursed for travel expenses, but cannot receive salary prior to completion
of the personnel action (SF-50). A completed SF-450 (financial disclosure form) is
needed prior to formal participation on a Panel. The Travel Authorization reads
Invitational Travel. He/she may contribute to the report and, in the case of someone
invited to serve as a Member, may vote, if the occasion should arise.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-12
ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B3
SAB MEMBERS FOR FY94
LAST NAME
Abriola
Ayres
Bailey
Bair
Bean
Bockstael
Brown
Buffler
Bull
Bunn
Cams
Clesceri
Conway
Cooper
Cooper
Crump
Cummings
Daisey
Dale
Deisler
Dickson
Dudek
Fabryka-Martin
Fan-Cheuk
Ford
Freeman
Gallo
Gerba
Gonzalez-Mendez
Harwell
Hazen
Henderson
Hoel
Hoffman
Huggett
FIRST
NAME
Linda
Stephen M.
Paul
William
Judy
Nancy E.
Stephen L.
Patricia
Richard
William
Keith E.
Lenore
Richard A.
Edwin'
William E.
Kenny
Ronald G.
Joan M.
Virginia
Paul F.
Kenneth L.
Daniel J.
Joan
Anna
Jean
A. Myrick
Michael
Charles P.
Ricardo
Mark A.
Robert
Rogene
David
Owen
Robert
COMM
EEC
CASAC
IAQC
RAC
owe
EEAC
RAC
CASAC
owe
EHC
owe
owe
EEC
EPEC
EPEC
EHC
CAACAC
IAQC/EC
EPEC
EC/RSAC
EPEC/EC
CAACAC
RAC
DWC
CASAC
EEAC
EHC
DWC
RAC
EPEC
IAQCC
EHC
RAC
RAC
EC/EPEC
AFFILIATION
University of Michigan
Medical College of Virginia, VCU
Stoneybrook Laboratories Inc.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
University of Miami, Dept of Epidemiology
University of Maryland
Risks of Radiation Chemical Compounds
University of California
Washington State University
Mobil Corporation
Washington University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Union Carbide Corporation
UCLA School of Medicine
Michigan State University
ICF Kaiser
Georgia State University, Policy Res. Center
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Shell Oil Co. (Retired)
University of North Texas
Environmental Defense Fund
Los Alamos National Laboratory
California Environmental Protection Agency
Harlem Hospital
Bowdoin College
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
University of Arizona
University of Puerto Rico, School of Medicine
University of Miami
NJ Dept. of Envir. Protection and Energy
Lovelace Biomedi. & Env. Research Institute
Medical University of South Carolina
SENES Oak Ridge, Inc.
College of William and Mary
CITY, STATE
Ann Arbor, Ml
Richmond, VA
Princeton NJ
Richland, WA
Miami, FL
College Park, MD
Oakland, CA
Berkley, CA
Pullman, WA
Princeton, NJ
St. Louis, MO
Troy, NY
Charleston, WV
Los Angeles, CA
East Lansing, Ml
Ruston, LA
Atlanta, GA
Berkeley, CA
Oak Ridge, TN
Austin, TX
Denton, TX
New York. NY
Los Alamos, NM
Berkley, CA
New York NY
Brunswick, ME
Piscataway, NJ
Tucson, AZ
San Juan, PR
Miami, FL
Trenton, NJ
Albuquerque, Nf
Charleston, SC
Oak Ridge, TN
Gloucester, VA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-13
LAST NAME
Jackson
Johnson
Johnson
Kachel
Kahn
Klaassen
Kneese
Kolstad
Kripke
Larson
Leaderer
LJghty
Lioy
Uppmann
Liu
Loehr
Maki
Makhijani
Matanoski
Mattison
Mauderly
McCtellan
McElroy
Mendelsohn
Mercer
Middleton
Monson
Morandi
Morse
Murarka
Norton
Nordhaus
Oates
Pellizzari
Perera
Pfaender
Pitot
Pohland
FIRST
NAME
Richard
Charles
James H.
Wayne M.
Bernd
Curtis
Allan
Charles
Margaret
Timothy V.
Brian P.
JoAnn S.
Paul J.
Morton
Benjamin
Raymond C.
Alan
Arjun
Genevieve
Donald
Joe
Roger O.
Anne
Robert
James W.
Paulette
Richard
Maria
Roger
Ishwar
Bryan
William
Wallace
EdoD.
Frederica
Frederic K.
Henry C.
Frederick
COMM
EHC
DWC
EEC
EEC
RAC
DWC
EEAC
EEAC
EC
IAQCC
IAQCC
EEC
IAQC
EC
CASAC
EC
EPEC
RAC
EC
EHC
CASAC
RSAC/EC
EPEC
EEAC
EEC
CASAC
EHC
IAQCC
IAQC
EEC/EC
EEAC
EEAC/
CAACAC
EEAC
DWC
EHC/EC
EPEC
EHC
EEC
AFFILIATION
California St. Dept. of Health
Malcom-Pimie (Retired)
Howard University
Martin Marietta Corporation
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Kansas Medical Center
Resources for the Future
University of Illinois
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, U of Texas
University of Washington
John B. Pierce Lab, Yale School of Med
University of Utah
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
New York University Medical Center
University of Minnesota
University of Texas at Austin
Exxon Company, USA
Institute for Energy and Env. Research
Johns Hopkins University, Dept of Epidem.
University of Pittsburgh
Lovelace Biomedical & Env Institute
Chemical Industry Instutite of Toxicology
State University of New York - Stony Brook
Yale University
GeoTrans, Incorporated
Univ. Cooperation for Atmospheric Research
Harvard School of Public Health
University of Texas, Health Science Center
Environmental & Technical Services, Inc.
Electric Power Research Institute
Georgia Institute of Technology
Yale University
University of Maryland
Research Triangle Institute
Columbia University
University of North Carolina
University of Wisconsin
University of Pittsburgh.
CITY, STATE
Berkely, CA
Bethesda, MD
Washington, DC
Oak Ridge, TN
Atlanta, GA
Kansas City, KS
Washington, DC
Urbana, IL
Houston, TX
Seattle, WA
New Haven, CT
Salt Lake City, UT
Piscataway, NJ
Tuxedo, NY
Minneapolis, MN
Austin, TX
Houston, TX
Takoma Park, MD
Baltimore, MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Albuquerque, NM
RTP, NC
Stony Brook, NY
New Haven, CT
Sterling, VA
Boulder, CO
Boston, MA
Houston, TX
Troy, NY
Palo Alto, CA
Atlanta, GA
New Haven, CT
College Park, MD
RTP, NC
New York, NY
Chapel Hill, NC
Madison, Wl
Pittsburgh, PA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-14
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
Pojasek
Portney
Price
Radike
Ray
Reitz
Repetto
Samet
Schmalensee
Seeker
Sextro
Shaub
Silbergeld
Smith
Smith
Snoeyink
Stavins
Symons
Tietenberg
Upton
Viscusi
Watson
Wegman
White
Wolff
Yates
Young
FIRST
NAME
Robert B.
Paul
James
Martha J.
Veme A.
Richard
Robert
Jonathan M.
Richard
W. Randall
Richard
Walter
Ellen
V. Kerry
William H.
Vemon L.
Robert
James M.
Thomas
Arthur C.
W.Kip
James E.
David
Ronald
George T.
Marilyn
Terry F.
COMM
EEC
EEAC/EC
CASAC
EHC
DWC/EC
DWC
EEAC
IAQCC
CAACAC/EC
EEC
RAC
EEC
EC
EEAC
EPEC
DWC
EEAC
DWC
EEAC
EHC
EEAC
RAC/EC
EHC
IAQC
CASAC/EC
DWC
EPEC
AFFILIATION
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Resources for the Future
Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm.
University of Cincinnati
Pfizer, Inc.
Dow Chemical Co.
World Resources Institute
Johns Hopkins University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Energy & Environmental Research Corp.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories
Corp. on Res. Recovery & the Env., Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
Duke University
Yale University
University of Illinois
Harvard University, JFK School of Govnt.
University of Houston
Colby College
University of New Mexico
Duke University
University of North Carolina
University of Massachusetts
American Lung Association
General Motors Env. & Energy Staff
University of California
Environmental Defense Fund
CITY, STAT
Winchester.MA
Washington, DC
Austin, TX
Cincinnati, OH
Groton, CT
Midland, Ml
Washington, DC
Baltimore, MD
Cambridge, MA
Irvine, CA
Berkeley, CA
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Durham, NC
New Haven, CT
Urbana, IL
Cambridge, MA
Houston, TX
Waterville, ME
Santa Fe, NM
Durham, NC
Chapel Hill, NC
Lowell, MA
Washington, DC
Warren, Ml
Riverside, CA
Oakland, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-15
APPENDIX B4
SAB CONSULTANTS FOR FY94
LAST NAME
Adams
Ahmed
Alexander
Allen
Aim
Auerbach
Bartell
Bates
Bauman
Beck
Beckett
Bedford
Benowitz
Berkowitz
Bishop
Boesch
Bond
Boston
Bostrom
Bheriey
Buchsbaum
Burks
Bums
Byus
Carlson
Carpenter
Cartwright
Charbeneau
Chien
Chisolm
Clifton
Coates
Colome
Coppock
Cortese
FIRST
NAME
William
Abdul Karim
Martin
Herbert
AJvinL.
Stanley
Steven
David
Bruce J.
Barbara
William
Barbara
Neal
Joan B.
Richard C.
Donald
James A.
Harry L
Anne
Corale
Robert
Sterling L
David
Craig
Gary P.
George F.
Keros
Randall J.
Calvin
J. Julian
Kelly
Joseph
Steven
Robert
Anthony D.
COMMITEE
EPEC
EHC
EPEC
RSAC
RSAC
EPEC
EPEC
RAC
EEC
CASAC
RSAC
EPEC
IAQCC
EEC
EEAC
EPEC
EHC
EPEC
RAC
EPEC
EPEC
EPEC
IAQC
RAC
EHC
EEC
EEC
RAC
EEC
CASAC
RAC
RAC
CASAC
EEC
RSAC
AFFILIATION
ABC Laboratories
Committee for National Inst. for Envir. (NIE)
Cornell University
University of Delaware
Science Applications International, Inc.
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Univ of British Columbia
American Petroleum Institute
Gradient Corp.
Yale University School of Medicine
Cornell University
University of California at San Francisco
Farkas Berkowitz & Company
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Maryland
Chemical Industries Inst. for Toxicology
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Georgia Institute of Technology
VistaTech Partnership, Ltd.
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Oklahoma State University
University of California at San Diego
University of California at Riverside
Purdue University
Michigan Dept of Natural Resources
Illinois State Geological Survey
University of Texas at Austin
E.I.DuPont deNemours Company
Kennedy Krieger Institute
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Coates & Jarratt, Inc.
Integrated Environmental Sciences
World Resources Institute
Tufts University
CITY, STATE
Columbia, MO
Washington, DC
Ithaca, NY
Newark, DE
McLean, VA
Oak Ridge, TN
Oak Ridge.TN
Vancouver, BC
Washington, DC
Cambridge, MA
New Haven, CT
Ithaca, NY
San Francisco, CA
Washington, DC
Madison, Wl
Cambridge, MD
RTP, NC
Oak Ridge, TN
Atlanta, GA
Sandy, UT
Wenham, MA
Stillwater, OK
San Diego, CA
Riverside, CA
West Lafayette, IN
Lansing, Ml
Champaign, IL
Austin, TX
Wilmington, DE
Baltimore, MD
Madison, Wl
Washington, DC
Irvine, CA
Washington, DC
Medford, MA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-16
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
Cory-Slechta
Costanza
Crapo
Cropper
Cummins
Cutshall
D'Elia
Dabberdt
Dagirmanjian
deFur
Denison
Diamond
Dickinson
DiGiovanni
DiGiulio
Dockery
Dorn
Dysart
Eatough
Enslein
Ensley
Epstein
Ewing
Feero
Fenters
Finkel
Fisher
Fishoff
Ford
Frank
Gallagher
Gasiewicz
Gentile
Goldstein
Goldstein
Gordon
Gordon
Gosselink
Goyer
Grelecki
FIRST NAME
Deborah
Robert
James D.
Maureen L.
Kenneth
Norman H.
Christopher
Walter
Rose
Peter L.
Richard
GaryL
Robert E.
John
Richard
Douglas W.
Philip B.
Benjamin
Delbert
Kurt
BurtD.
Lois
BenB.
William
James
Adam M.
Gerald
Baruch
Davis L.
Nedd R.
John
Thomas A.
James M.
Bernard
Robert A.
Gilbert
Theodore
James G.
Robert
Chester
COMMITEE
EPEC
EPEC
CASAC
EEAC
EPEC
EC
EPEC
EPEC
DWC
EPEC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
RAC
EPEC
CASAC
EPEC
EEC
IAQC
EHC
EPEC
EEC
EEC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
CASAC
CASAC
EEC
CASAC
EPEC
EHC
DWC
EHC
CASAC
DWC
EEC
EPEC
EHC
EEC
AFFILIATION
University of Rochester
University of Maryland/Cheasapeake
Duke University Medical Center
The World Bank
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. District
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
University of Maryland
National Ctr for Atmospheric Research
University of Louisville
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Defense Fund
Syracuse Research Corporation
National Center for Atmospheric Research
University of Texas
Duke University
Harvard School of Public Health
Shell Development Company
Environmental Issues Management
Brigham Young University
Health Designs, Inc.
Envirogen, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
Consultant
Electric Research and Management, Inc.
ITT Research Institute
Resources for the Future
Sandoz Research Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Davis L. Ford & Associate
Johns Hopkins University
University of Delaware
University of Rochester, School of Medicine
Hope College
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Electric Power Research Institute
Miami University
Retired
Louisiana State University
Consultant
Hazards Research Corporation
CITY, STATE
Rochester, NY
Solomons Island, \
Durham, NC
Washington, DC
W. Palm Beach, F
Oak Ridge, TN
College Park, MD
Boulder, CO
Louisville, KY
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Syracuse, NY
Boulder, CO
Smithville, TX
Durham, NC
Boston, MA
Houston, TX
Atlanta, GA
Provo, UT
Rochester, NY
Lawrenceville, NJ
Washington, DC
Lummi Island, WA
State College, PA
Chicago, IL
Washington, DC
E. Hanover, NJ
Pittsburgh, PA
Austin, TX
Baltimore, MD
Lewes, DE
Rochester, NY
Holland, Ml
Piscataway, NJ
Palo Alto, CA
Oxford, OH
Vero Beach, FL
Rock Island, TN
Chapel Hill, NC
Mount Arlington, N
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-17
LAST NAME
Greer
Guilmette
Hammond
Hammond
Hansen
Harbison
Harris
Hartung
Hawkins
Heath
Hidy
Hockman
Hopke
Howard
Inyang
Jacobson
Jasanoff
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson
Johnson
Johnston
Kabat
Kalton
Kasperson
Kaufman
Kendall
Khalil
Kim
Kimberle
Koenig
Kreamer
Kuschner
Laird
Lamb
Lebowitz
Lederman
Lee
Legge
Longo
FIRST NAME
Linda
Raymond
Katharine S.
Paul B.
Frederic J.
Raymond
Robert L.
Rolf
Charles
Clark
George M.
Edwin L.
Philip
Walter
Hilary
JayS.
Sheila
Harvey E.
Kenneth
E.Marshall
James D.
Carol A.
Geoffrey C.
G. Graham
Roger E.
David G.
Ronald
M. Aslam
Nancy K.
Richard A.
Jane Q.
David K.
Marvin
NanM.
James C.
Michael
Peter B.
Ramon
Allan
Lawrence D
COMMITEE
NRDC
RAC
IAQCC
CASAC
EC
EHC
RAC
EPEC
EPEC
RAC
EEC
EEC
RAC
EHC
EEC
CASAC
EC
CASAC
EPEC
EHC
DWC
EPEC
IAQC
RAC
EPEC
DWC
EPEC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC
EHC
RAC
RSAC
CASAC
EEC
DWC
CASAC
CASAC
AFFILIATION
Natural Resources Defense Council
Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute
University of Massachusetts Medical Ctr
University of Cincinnati/Ketter
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Univ. of Florida
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Michigan
Utah State University
American Cancer Society
Electric Power Research Inst.
Amoco Corporation
Clarkson University
Retired
Geoenvironmental Design & Research, Inc.
Boyce Thompson Institute at Cornell Univ
Cornell University
University of North Carolina
California State University
Jefferson Medical College
University of North Carolina
Univ. of Minnesota
Yeshiva University
Westat
Clark University
University of North Carolina
Clemson University
Oregon Graduate Institute
New York Department of Health
Monsanto Company
University of Washington
University of Las Vegas
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Harvard University
Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc.
University of Arizona,
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Illinois American Water Company
Biosphere Solutions
Loma Linda University
CITY, STATE
Washingtin, DC
Albuquerque, NM
Worcester, MA
Cincinnati, OH
Portland, OR
Alachua, FL
Chapel Hill, NC
Ann Arbor, Ml
Logan, UT
Atlanta, GA
Palo Alto, CA
Tulsa, OK
Potsdam, NY
St. Louis, MO
Fairfax, VA
Ithaca, NY
Ithaca, NY
Chapel Hill, NC
Long Beach, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Chapel Hill, NC
Duluth, MN
Bronx, NY
Rockville, MD
Worcester, MA
Chapel Hill, NC
Pendleton, SC
Beaverton, OR
Albany, NY
St. Louis, MO
Seattle, WA
Las Vegas, NV
Stony Brook, NY
Boston, MA
Arlington, VA
Tucson, AZ
Westchester, PA
Belleville, IL
Calgary, Alberta, CA
Loma Linda, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-18
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
Lowndes
Lue-Hing
Luthy
MacKay
Mahoney
Mailman
Mancini
Manning
Martin
Marty
Massmann
McBee
McClelland
McKinley
McMichael
McMurry
Menzel
Mercer
Meyer
Michel
Miller
Mitchell
Moomaw
Morey
Morgan
Morrison
Mueller
Mullins
Mushak
Napier
Nerode
Neuhauser
Neuhold
Nielsen
Nisbet
Nixon
North
Nygaard
O'Connor
O'Melia
FIRST NAME
Herbert E.
Cecil
Richard G.
Donald
James
Richard B.
John
William
James
Melanie
Joel
Karen
GaryH.
Marvin D.
Francis C.
Peter H.
Daniel B.
Robert R.
H. Robert
Jacqueline
Fred
Robert C.
William R
Rexford
M. Granger
Robert D.
Peter K.
Judith
Paul
Bruce A.
Anil
Edward
John M.
David M.
lanC.
Scott
D. Warner
Oddvar
Mary Ellen
Charles
COMMITEE
EHC
EEC
EEC
EPEC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC
CASAC
EEC
EPEC
EEAC
EEC
EEC
CASAC
EHC
CASAC
RAC
RAC
EHC
EEAC
EPEC
EEC
EEC
EC
CASAC
EEC
CASAC
RAC
RSAC
EPEC
EPEC
EEC
EPEC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
RAC
EEC
AFFILIATION
Rutgers University
Metro. Water Reclam. Dist of Gtr Chicago
Carnegie-Mellon University
University of Toronto
International Technology Corporation
University of North Carolina
John Mancini Consultants, Inc.
University of Massachusetts
Univ of Michigan
CA Office of Env Health Hazard Assessment
University of Washington
Oklahoma State University
University of Colorado
University of Alabama
Carnegie-Mellon University
University of Minnesota
Duke University Medical Center
Duke University Medical Center
Consultant
Research Planning Inc.
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Clark University
Tufts University
Morey Environmental Mgmt, Inc
Carnegie Mellon University
R. Morrison & Associates
Electric Power Research Institute
General Motors
PB Associates
Battelle Pacific Northwest
Cornell University
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp
Utah State University
Nielsen Ground-Water Science, Inc.
I.C. T. Nisbet & Company, Inc.
University of Rhode Island
Decision Focus, Inc.
Case Western Reserve University
University of Tulsa
Johns Hopkins University
CITY, STATE
Piscataway, IMJ
Chicago, IL
Pittsburgh, PA
Toronto, Ontario
Torrance, CA
Chapel Hill, NC
Arlington, TX
Amherst, MA
Ann Arbor, Ml
Berkeley, CA
Seattle, WA
Stillwater, OK
Boulder, CO
Tuscaloosa, AL
Pittsburgh, PA
Minneapolis, MN
Durham, NC
Durham, NC
Fort Collins, CO
Columbia, SC
RTP, NC
Worcester, MA
Medford, MA
Hudson, NH
Pittsburgh, PA
Valley Center, CA
Palo Alto, CA
Detroit, Ml
Durham, NC
Richland, WA
Ithaca, NY
Syracuse, NY
Logan, UT
Galena, OH
Lincoln, MA
Narragansett, Rl
Los Alto, CA
Cleveland, OH
Tulsa, OK
Baltimore, MD
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-19
LAST NAME
Oberdoerster
Olsen
Omenn
Oppenheimer
Overcash
Pefley
Peterson
Pierce
Poe
Presto
Rabinowitz
Rail
Regal
Reuhl
Riley
Ringen
Ringer
Rtsser
Roberts
Roberts
Rockette
Rodier
Rod ricks
Rose
Ross
Ross
Roth
Rowe
Rozman
Rundberg
Russell
Ryckman
Safe
Saum
Schachter
Schnoor
Schreck
Schull
Scialli
Segerson
FIRST NAME
Gunter
Betty H.
Gilbert
Michael
Michael R.
Richard
Richard
Donald
Gregory L
Lynne
Michael B.
David
Philip
Kenneth R.
Jesse
Knul
Robert K.
Paul G .
Donald W.
Paul
Howard
Patricia
Joseph V.
Joan B.
Benjamin
Stephen T.
Philip
Robert D.
Karl K.
Robert S.
Clifford S.
Devere
Stephen H.
David
Edwin Neil
Jerald
Richard
William
Anthony
Kathleen
COMMITEE
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
EEC
CASAC
EPEC
RAC
EEAC
EEC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
EHC
EPEC
EPEC
EPEC
EEC
IAQC
DWC
RAC
EHC
RAC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
EHC
RAC
EEAC
EEC
EHC
EEC
CASAC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC
EHC
CASAC
AFFILIATION
University of Rochester
University of California, Irvine
University of Washington
Environmental Defense Fund
North Carolina State University
Retired
University of Wisconsin
Oregon State University
Cornell University
ICF Kaiser Engineers
Marine Biological Laboratory
Consultant
University of Minnesota
Rutgers University
Consultant
Center to Protect Workers Rights
Consultant
University of New Mexico
University of Arizona
Stanford University
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
Environ Corporation
University of South Florida
Disposal Safety, Inc.
University of Southern Mississippi
Envair
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
University of Kansas Medical Center
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Vanderbilt University
REACT
Texas A&M University
Infiltec, Saum Enterprises, Inc.
Mt. Sinai Medical Center
University of Iowa
General Motors Research Laboratory
University of Texas
Georgetown University Medical School
Department of Economics
CITY, STATE
Rochester, NY
Irvine, CA
Seattle, WA
New York, NY
Raleigh, NC
Santa Clara, CA
Madison, Wl
Corvallis, OR
Ithaca, NY
Oakland, CA
Falmouth, MA
Washington, DC
Minneapolis, MN
Piscataway, NJ
Charlotte, NC
Washington, DC
Traverse City, Ml
Albuquerque, NM
Tucson, AZ
Palo Alto, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
Rochester, NY
Arlington, VA
St. Petersburg, FL
Washington, DC
Hattiesburg, MS
San Anselmo, CA
Boulder, CO
Kansas City, KS
Los Alamos, NM
Nashville, TN
St. Louis, MO
College Station, TX
Falls Church, VA
New York, NY
Iowa City, IA
Warren, Ml
Houston, TX
Washington, DC
Storrs, CT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-20
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
Shapiro
Shugart
Shugart
Sinclair
Small
Smith
Sobsey
Spacie
Speizer
Spengler
Stein
Stetter
Stolwijk
Stout
Sundemnan
Susskind
Suter
Swenberg
Taub
Taylor
Templeton
Tephly
Thein
Tiedje
Tikuisis
Till
Travis
Trehy
Trussell
Utell
Valentine
Van
Konynenburg
Vlachos
Voilleque
von Lindern
Wallsten
Walton
Ward
Ware
FIRST NAME
Joseph
Herman H.
LeeR.
Warren
Mitchell
Clifford V
Mark D.
Anne
Frank
John D.
Michael
Joseph R.
Jan
Judy
Frederick
Charles
Glenn
James A.
Frieda B.
George E.
William L.
Thomas R.
Myint
James M.
Peter
John E.
Cheryl
Michael
R. Rhodes
Mark
Jane
Richard A.
Evan
Paul
Ian
Thomas
Barbara
C. Herb
James H.
COMMITEE
EPEC
EPEC
EPEC
RAC
EEC .
RAC
DWC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
EC
IAQCC
IAQCC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC
DWC
EC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC
RSAC
RSAC
DWC
CASAC
EHC
RAC
EEC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
EEC
CASAC
AFFILIATION
University of Minnesota
University of Virginia
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Council on Radiation Protection
Carnegie Mellon University
GE Fund
University of North Carolina
Purdue University
Harvard School of Public Health
Harvard University
University of Chicago
Transducer Research, Inc.
Yale University
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
University of California
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
University of North Carolina
University of Washington
University of Nevada-Reno
Battelle Pacific Northwest
University of Iowa
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Michigan State University
Defense Civil Inst of Env. Medicine
Radiological Assessments Corp.
University of Tennessee
Monsanto Corporation
Montgomery Watson Consulting Engineers
Univ of Rochester Medical Center
University of California at Los Angeles
Lawrence LJvermore National Laboratory
Colorado State University
MJP Risk Assessment, Inc.
TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering
University of North Carolina
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Rice University
Harvard University
CITY, STATE
St. Paul, MN
Chariottesville, VA
Oak Ridge, TN
Bethesda, MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairfield, CT
Chapel Hill, NC
West Lafayette, IN
Boston, MA
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
Naperville, IL
New Haven, CT
Dauphin Island, AL
Farmington, CT
Berkeley, CA
Oak Ridge, TN
Chapel Hill, NC
Seattle, WA
Reno, NV
Richland, WA
Iowa City, IA
Oak Ridge, TN
East Lansing, Ml
North York. ONT
Neeses, SC
Knoxville, TN
St. Louis, MO
Pasadena, CA
Rochester, NY
Los Angeles, CA
LJvermore, CA
Fort Collins, CO
Idaho Falls, ID
Moscow, ID
Chapel Hill, NC
Oak Ridge, TN
Houston, TX
Boston, MA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-21
LAST NAME
Weiss
Weis
Weiss
Whicker
Whipple
White
Wiersma
Williams
Wilson
Wilson
Winner
Witschi
Wood
Woods
Wyzga
Yosie
Zeise
FIRST NAME COMMITEE AFFILIATION
Bernard EHC University of Rochester
JudithS. *? EPEC Rutgers University
Scott T. IAQC Harvard University
Floyd W. RAC Colorado State Universtiy
Christopher RAC Clement International
Warren H. CASAC Washington University
G.Bruce EPEC University of Maine
Philip B. EHC Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.
John EEC New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Richard RAC Harvard University
William EPEC Oregon State University
Hanspeter RSAC University of California-Davis
Ronald W. CASAC New York University Medical Center
James E. IAQC Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Ronald EHC Electric Power Research Institute
Terry F. EC E. Bruce Harrison Company
Lauren EHC California Environmental Protection Agency
CITY, STATE
Rochester, NY
Newark, NJ
Boston, MA
Fort Collins, CO
Oakland, CA
St. Louis, MO
Orono, ME
San Francisco, CA
Socorro, NM
Cambridge, MA
Corvallis, OR
Davis, CA
New York. NY
Blacksburg, VA
Palo Alto, CA
Washington, DC
Berkeley, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page C-1
APPENDIX C SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-2
ANNUAL REPORT
o
^^
CO
cc
-o
10 J,,
£« o
eg CC »
a a*
*3*
lit
O
c
0)
G)
O CO
3= o
o
Q. W
« 1
s <
o 0
c o
c c
£3
>«
LU
0)
s^
"c "°
"552?
Chartere
Section
CAAofl
O
<
0
3
O
111
LU
o
LU
Q_
111
m £
£^
|§.
8§
in iZ
^^
s|
i c
U. LU
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page D-1
APPENDIX D
STAFF SUPPORT AND COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP IN FY94
Many of the following positions were filled by two (or more) people during the
year as changes in personnel or staff alignments were made. Where two persons
occupied a position during the year, both are listed. The latter name is the incumbent at
the close of FY94.
I - SUPPORT STAFF ALIGNMENT
STAFF DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Staff Director:
Secretary to the Staff Director:
Stay-in-School
MRP Assistant
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Mrs. Priscilla Tillery
Ms. Monique Ford
Ms. Betty Fortune
ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR
Assistant Staff Director: Mr. Robert Flaak
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
Chief:
Program Analyst:
Project Coordinator:
Program Assistant:
Management Analyst:
Secretary:
Administrative Tech.:
Stay-in-School:
Mr. Randall Bond
Ms. Janice Cuevas
Ms. Joanna Foellmer
Ms. Carolyn Osborne
Ms. Patricia Thomas
Ms. Lori Gross
MsVicki Richardson
Mr. Rasheed Tahir
Committee Operations Staff
Designated Federal Officers:
Staff Secretaries/
Meeting Planners:
Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Dr. Edward Bender
Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Mr. Manuel Gomez
Ms. Stephanie Sanzom
Mrs. Dorothy Clark
Mrs. Diana Pozun
Mrs. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page D-2 ANNUAL REPORT
II - COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP
Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Staff Secretary: Mrs. Pricilla Tillery
Clean Air Act Compliance Advisory Council
Chair: Dr. Richard Schmalensee
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
Staff Secretary Mrs. Diana Pozun
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. George Wolff
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Randall Bond
Staff Secretary: Ms. Lori Gross
Drinking Water Committee
Chair: Dr. Verne Ray
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Manuel Gomez
Staff Secretary: Mrs. Dorothy Clark
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Chair: Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Designated Federal Official: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Co-Chair: Dr. A. Myrick Freeman
Co-Chair: Dr. Paul Portney
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Staff Secretary: Mrs. Diana Pozun
Environmental Engineering Committee
Chair: Dr. Ishwar Muraka
Designated Federal Official: Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Staff Secretary: Mrs. Dorothy Clark
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page D-3
Environmental Health Committee
Chair: Dr. Frederica Perera
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Staff Secretary: Mrs. Mary Winston
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee
Chair: Dr. Joan Daisey
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Manuel Gomez
Staff Secretary: Mrs. Mary Winston
Radiation Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. James Watson
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
Staff Secretary: Ms. Diana Pozun
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Roger McClellan
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Ed Bender
Staff Secretary: Ms. Lori Gross
ad hoc Environmental Futures Committee
Chair: Dr. Raymond Loehr
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Edward Bender
Mr. Robert Flaak
Staff Secretary: Ms. Lori Gross
ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill Panel
Chair: Dr. Robert Huggett
Dr. Jan Stolwijk
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Robert Flaak
Staff Secretary: Ms. Janice Cuevas
Ms. Lori Gross
ad hoc SAB Reinvention Committee
Chair: Dr. Geneive Matanoski
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Donald Barnes
Staff Secretary: Ms. Janice Cuevas
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page E-1
APPENDIX E - SAB MEETINGS FOR FY94
Key to Committees of the Science Advisory Board
CAACAC Clean Air Act Compliance Advisory Council
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
DWC Drinking Water Committee
EC Executive Committee
EEAC Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
EEC Environmental Engineering Committee
EFC ad hoc Environmental Futures Committee
EHC Environmental Health Committee
EPEC Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
IAQC Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Committee
IEL ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill Panel
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RC ad hoc Reinvention Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
SAP Scientific Advisory Panel (for FIFRA, not an SAB Committee)
Note: Meetings listed in bold italics are public conference calls
Dates issues/Projects Committee
Oct 1 CAA Study AQ Models CASAC
Oct 21 Radon Science Initiative RAC
Oct 21 CAA Study AQ Models CASAC
Oct 26-27 Quarterly Meeting EC
Oct 27 SAB Annual Meeting/Environmental Futures EC
Oct 28 Futures IAQC
Brief: Indirect Exposure Methodology
Discuss: IAQ Research Draft
Oct 28 Planning for FY94 DWC
Futures
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page E-2
ANNUAL REPORT
Dates
Oct 28-29
Oct 28-29
Oct 28-29
issues/Projects
Planning/Coordination for FY94
Futures
Review/Planning for FY94
NORMRA
Radon Science Initiative
Radon Measurement Protocol
ORIA Clean-up Stds
Futures
Planning for FY94
Review: MASTER
Consult: Aquatic Life Criteria
Brief: Eco/Econ Sustainability Modeling
Futures
Committee
EEC
RAC
EPEC
****************
NovIO
Nov18
****** **********
Dec 1
Dec 2
Dec 2-3
Dec 3-4
Dec 8
Dec 14
Dec 16
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 17
************
Jan 5
Jan 10-11
Jan 19
Jan 20
Jan 21
Jan 27-28
Futures
Ozone NAAQS Exposure
Futures
CAA Study AQ Models
Indirect Exposure Methodology
IAQ Research Draft - Revisions
Futures
Futures
Futures
IEL (Uniontown, OH)
Futures
Ozone NAAQS Exposure
Futures
NORM RA
EPA Lab Study
Futures
Futures
EPA Lab Study
Futures
Futures
Quarterly Meeting
EFC
CASAC
EEC
CASAC
IAQC
RAC
EFC
EC/IEL Panel
DWC
CASAC
RAC
RSAC
EEC
EPEC
RSAC
EFC
RAC
EC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page E-3
Dates
Feb?
Feb 10-11
Feb15-16
Feb 22
Feb 23-24
Feb 23-24
Feb 24
************
Mar 2-3
Mar 2-3
Mar A
Mar 24
Mar 28
Mar 31-
ApM
************
Apr 6
Apr 7-8
Apr 8
Apr 12
Apr 21-22
Issues/Projects
Futures
Futures
Futures
Futures
Planning/Review
NORMRA
Radon Science Initiative
Futures
Futures
Planning
CEEPES
Brief: Ecol/Econ Sustainability Modeling
STAA (CLOSED TO PUBLIC)
Futures
Cons: Superfund Soils Screening Levels
Futures
Ozone Exposure 2
NORM RA
Futures
Cancer Guidelines
Repro. Tox. Guidelines
Environmental Hormones
Futures
Pollution Prevention
Futures
Briefings:
Monte Carlo Activities
Indoor Air Program
Exposure Factors Handbook
ORD Budget
S02 Reproposal (RTP, NC)
Quarterly Meeting
Committee
EEC
EEC/Subc
EPEC/Subc
RAC/Subc
RAC
EFC
EEAC
RSAC/Subc
EEC
EEC/Subc
CASAC
RAC
EFC
EHC
IAQC
RSAC/Subc
CASAC
EC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page E-4
ANNUAL REPORT
Dates
Apr 27-28
Apr 27-28
Apr 28-29
************
May 4-5
May 12-1 3
May 18-1 9
May 31
**********
Jun 1
Jun14
Jun 15-16
Jun 20
Jun 22-23
Jun 28-30
**********
JUI11
Jul 12-13
JuM3
Jul 14-15
Jul 19-20
Jul 21
Jul 20-21
Jul 19
«***«»**»*
Aug 2-3
Issues/Projects
Information Collection Rule
Futures
Wildlife Criteria (GLWQI)
Bioaccumulation Methodology
Planning/Coordination/Review
EMF Carcinogenicity
Futures
EPA Lab Study
Futures
Futures
Planning
Briefings on Econ. Activities
Ecol/Econ Sustainability Modeling
Reinvention
Futures
Futures
Planning-Futures
Consult: Saltwater DO Criteria
Cons: Combustion (various topics)
Futures
Environmental Tech.lnit. Strategy
Futures
Planning/Coordination/Review
Futures
Quarterly Meeting
Review: Integrated Ecosystems Issue Plan
Review: EMAP Landscape Charac.
Marsh Management Review - 1
Ozone Criteria Document
Repro. Tox. Guidelines
Futures
Committee
DWC
EPEC
EPEC/DWC
RAC
RSAC
EFC
EEAC
EPEC
RC
EFC
RAC
EPEC
EEC
RAC/Subc
RAC
EFC
EC
EPEC
EPEC/Sub
CASAC
EHC
EFC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page E-5
Dates
Aug18-19
Aug29
**********
Sep 7-8
Sep8
Sep 13-14
Sep 26
Issues/Projects
Review of As Issues
Multiple Briefings
Futures
Marsh Management
Reinvention.
Futures
Futures
Committee
DWC
RAC
EPEC/Sub
RC
EFC
EFC
Total: 58 Open Meetings
1 Closed Meeting
15 Open Conference Call Meetings
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-1
APPENDIX F
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD FY94 REPORT ABSTRACTS
F1 LIST OF SAB REPORTS, LETTERS, COMMENTARIES, ADVISORIES,
AND CONSULTATIONS FOR FY94
REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EEAC-94-001 Contingent Valuation Methodology (CV 1)-Review of the Contingent
Valuation Method for the Proposed RIA for RCRA Corrective Action Rule
EPA-SAB-EEC-94-002 Review of MMSOILS Component of Proposed Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the RCRA Corrective Action Rule
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-003 Evaluation of Draft Technical Guidance for Biological Criteria for
Streams and Small Rivers
EPA-SAB-DWC-94-004 Review of the Draft Drinking Water Criteria Document on Inorganic
Arsenic
EPA-SAB-EHC-94-005 Assessment of Potential 2,4-D Carcinogenicity
EPA-SAB-DWC-94-006 Review of the Research Program on Disinfectants and Disinfectant
By-Products in the Risk Reduction Research Laboratory
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-007 Evaluation of a Testing Manual for Dredged Material Proposed for
Discharge in Inland and Near Coastal Waters
EPA-SAB-DWC-94-008 Review of Indoor Air Issue Plan
EPA-SAB-IAQC-94-009a Review of Draft of Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing
Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions-Interim Report
EPA-SAB-lAQC-94-009b Review of Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health
Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions
EPA-SAB-EC-94-010 Review of EPA's Approach to Screening for Radioactive Waste
Materials at A Superefund Site in Uniontown, Ohio
EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-011 Recommendations on the 1993 Scientific and Technological Achieve-
ment Awards Nominations
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-2 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-012 Review of the Midwest Agrichemical Surface/Subsurface Transport
and Effects Research (MASTER) Program
EPA-SAB-RAC-94-013 Review of Diffuse NORM Draft Scoping Document
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-014 Review of the Strategic Plan for the Terrestrial Elements of EPA's
Global Change Research Program
EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-015 Review of Mitre Corp. Draft Report on the EPA Laboratory Study
LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EEAC-LTR-94-001 Review of Economic Aspects of the Proposed RIA for the RCRA
Corrective Action Rule (also referred to as CV-2)
EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-94-002 Overview of SAB Comments and Recommendations on the
Proposed RIA for the RCRA Corrective Action Rule
EPA-SAB-EHC-LTR-94-003 Review of Health Benefits for the Proposed RIA for the RCRA
Corrective Action Rule
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-94-004 Review of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program's Draft Assessment Framework
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-94-005 Ground Water Monitoring Network Research
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-94-006 RIA's Radon Measurement Protocol Evaluation Study
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-007 CASAC Closure on the Supplements to Criteria Document and
Staff Position Papers for SO2
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-94-008 Review of the FY1995 Presidential Budget Request for the Office
of Research and Development
EPA-SAB -CASAC-LTR-94-009 CASAC Comments on Air Quality Modeling for the Section 812
Retrospective Study
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-94-010 Review of Information Collection Rule (Monitoring Requirements
for Public Drinking Water Supplies)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-3
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EPEC-COM-94-001 Commentary on Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed
RIA for RCRA Corrective Action Rule
EPA-SAB-DWOCOM-94-002 Drinking Water Committee Commentary on Negotiated Regula-
tions for Disinfectants and By-Products
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-94-003 Commentary on Peer Review of Research Used in Support of
Environmental Policy
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-004 Commentary on Strategic Research Planning
EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-94-005 Commentary on Data Sets for PM10
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-EPEC-ADV-94-001 Advisory Evaluation on A National Methodology for Wildlife
Criteria.
CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-94-001 Notification of Consultation on Cleanup Standards
EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-94-002 Notification of a Consultation on Soil Screening Levels
EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-94-003 Notification of a Consultation on the Comprehensive
Environmental Economic Policy Evaluation System (CEEPES)
EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-94-004 Notification of a Consultation on National Saltwater Dissolved
Oxygen Criteria
EPA-SAB-EPEC/DWC-CON-94 -005 Notification of a Consultation on Bioaccumulation Issues
EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-94-006 Notification of a Consultation on A Conceptual Plan for an
Integrated Ecosystem Protection Research Program
"EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-94-007 Notification of Consultation on Low Level Waste Standards
s
EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-94-008 Notification of Consultation on Waste Minimization and Combus-
tion
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-4 ANNUAL REPORT
F2 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, and Commentaries for FY1994
REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EEAC-94-001 Contingent Valuation Methodology (CV 1 )-Review of
the Contingent Valuation Method for the Proposed
RIA for RCRA Corrective Action Rule
The EEAC addressed the design, conduct, and results of the contingent valua-
tion study (undertaken for the EPA Office of Solid Waste by Drs. McClelland, Schulze,
et a/.), focusing on a Charge organized around five major questions: a) the survey
respondents' understanding of groundwater resources; b) selection of the best method
for estimating non-use values from the survey responses; c) use of the Box-Cox
econometric procedure to address large bids; d) the problems of embedding, non-bids,
and scenario rejection; and e) the applicability of the valuations obtained in this study as
a basis for EPA to determine the non-use values of groundwater. The Committee
commends EPA staff for supporting exploratory research of this nature. There is little
doubt that this study represents a substantive contribution, extending our understanding
of the issues associated with contingent valuation estimation of non-market values.
Addressing the last, but most encompassing element of the Charge first, the Committee
can not endorse the McClelland et al. study as a means of generating valid and reliable
estimates of the nonuse values associated with cleaning up contaminated groundwater.
Specifically, the Committee has no confidence that the respondents were clear about
what it is they were being asked to value. Although the study was innovative in a
number of respects, this most basic failing gives the Committee no choice but to
question the validity of the findings. Addressing other aspects of the Charge: a) The
Committee does not believe that the pre-testing and survey design techniques offer
convincing evidence that a well-defined groundwater commodity was understood
properly by all the respondents; b) The Committee does not believe that any of the three
possible methods for separating the non-use or passive use values from total values
can be established as preferred at this time; c) the Committee deems it impossible to
judge whether the Box-Cox econometric estimates alone provide an acceptable and
defensible method for dealing with the scenarios and the large bids associated with
them; and d) the Committee does not believe that the approaches for treating embed-
ding, scenario rejection, and the potential effects of non-bidding responses can be
assessed for their reliability on the basis of the information provided in the report. The
EEAC feels that the problems in using the study results to meet the needs of the RIA
effort arise from requirements imposed on the research by the EPA, including the need
for separate estimate of nonuse value and for a method that abstracted from the
specific features of the local conditions associated with each specific case of groundwa-
ter contamination. The approaches taken to deal with these requirements have no
basis in the theory of non-market valuation, nor precedent in practice, and were never
subjected to peer review. The Committee's report offers specific suggestions for further
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-5
research to help resolve the questions raised by this study, including the criteria for
deciding which households would be among the groups demanding increases in the
amount available of specific commodities or values and study of the sensitivity of CV
outcomes to the survey methods used.
EPA-SAB-EEC-94-002 Review of MMSOILS Component of Proposed Regu-
latory Impact Analysis (RIA) for RCRA Corrective
Action Rule
*
The MMSOILS Model Review Subcommittee (MMRS) of the Environmental
Engineering Committee (EEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has prepared
a report on the Agency's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) MMSOILS Multimedia Contami-
nant Fate, Transport, and Exposure Model. This model and guidance document was
developed as a technical resource for estimating potential health risks at sites contami-
nated by toxic wastes or spills of toxic chemicals.
The review by the SAB's MMRS dealt with the adequacy of methods for using a
screening level model where there is substantial subsurface heterogeneity or where
non-aqueous phase contaminants are present, the appropriateness of the Agency's
approach for aggregating releases from solid waste management units (SWMUs) to
estimate concentration at exposure points over time, and the adequacy of the Agency's
approach for developing long-term effectiveness and failure scenarios for site remedies.
The general consensus of the MMRS was that the use of a multimedia pathway
model for screening purposes could be an appropriate approach for developing risk and
cost estimates for a national-level Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), as long as the
input parameters are accurate and the model is not applied outside its range of validity.
Furthermore, the Agency's use of a single model, to the extent defensible for each
facility considered, was viewed by the MMRS as necessary in order to ensure consis-
tency among model results. The major overriding concerns of the MMRS were: a)
application of MMSOILS outside its range of validity; b) large uncertainties in input
parameters; c) consequent large uncertainties in MMSOILS results; d) clear communi-
cation of this uncertainty to decision-makers; and e) presentation of the results in the
draft RIA document in a scientifically defensible manner that communicates the
uncertainties of the calculations and their implications for the cost/benefit analysis.
The MMRS recommended that the Agency augment the MMSOILS results with
cost/benefit estimates derived by alternative approaches, such as utilizing assessment
data generated for Superfund sites, using more sophisticated models with better-
defined data to develop estimates for representative sets of waste sites, applying site-
specific models to analyze that relatively small number of facilities which MMSOILS
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-6 ANNUAL REPORT
results indicate dominate the total costs or risks, and submission of selected case
studies to expert panel review.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-003 Evaluation of Draft Technical Guidance for
Biological Criteriafor Streams and Small Rivers
On May 13-14, 1993, the Biological Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee reviewed the draft document, "Biological Criteria:
Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers." Biological criteria*(biocriteria) are
numeric or narrafive expressions that describe the biotic integrity (health) of aquatic
communities in minimally impaired reference areas. The Subcommittee concluded that
the options presented for selecting reference conditions (i.e., use of reference sites in
concert with historical data, empirical models, and expert opinion/consensus) were
appropriate. The Subcommittee also supported the use of multiple metrics to evaluate
the integrity of aquatic communities, but felt that seasonal variability requires that
sampling be conducted at various times of the year. The report stresses the importance
of consistent taxonomic identification of biological specimens, use of established
museum repositories for curation of voucher specimens, and the importance of develop-
ing diagnostic tools to differentiate probable causes of impairment. The Subcommittee
also highlights the important linkages between the biocriteria program and other Agency
efforts, including the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), the
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, and the Ecoregion Research Program.
EPA-SAB-DWC-004 Review of the Draft Drinking Water Criteria
Document on Inorganic Arsenic
On April 19-20,1993, the Drinking Water Committee of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) reviewed the Agency's draft Drinking Water Criteria Document on Inor-
ganic Arsenic.
The Committee found that the document generally addresses the important
aspects of arsenic toxicology, but that it does not adequately integrate the available
scientific information. They agreed that the methylated forms of arsenic are less toxic
than the parent compound. They found that appropriate data were used to derive the
•Reference Dose (RfD) for arsenic, but "recommended against the use of an additional
uncertainty factor (UF) of three.
The Committee agreed that there is an association between excess risks of
certain internal organ cancers and exposure to high levels of arsenic. They recom-
mended, however, that EPA develop a better understanding of the relationship between
arsenic exposure and cancer risk before completing an in-house quantitative risk
assessment. In particular, they found a need to take into account possible differences
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-7
between Taiwanese and U.S. populations, such as diet and background arsenic levels,
before using the results of Taiwanese studies to assess risks for U.S. populations.
The Committee agreed that arsenic has not been shown conclusively to be an
essential element. They recommended clarification of the use of the concepts of
prevalence, exposure and use in the document, that the uncertainty surrounding arsenic
exposures be estimated and reported, that issues of variability of dietary arsenic intake
be addressed, and that the Agency also address potential ingestion of arsenic-laden
dust by infants and toddlers.
EPA-SAB-EHC-94-005 Assessment of Potential 2,4-D Carcinogenicity
In August 1980, the EPA required oncogenicity testing of 2,4-D
(2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. EPA reviewed the results of those studies completed
to date (some of which reported an association of phenoxy herbicides, including 2,4-D,
and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)) and requested that a joint Committee of the
Science Advisory Board and the Scientific Advisory Panel review the epidemiologic
studies and other available relevant data. A joint Committee was formed, and met in
Arlington, Virginia on April 1-2, 1993 to review human/canine epidemiological studies
and animal toxicology studies re possible human carcinogenicity and mutagenicity.
Epidemiologic cohort studies have generally shown no increased risk of cancer,
albeit that all of the populations for which specific exposure to 2,4-D have been identi-
fied were small, and the follow-up period usually short. Some case-control studies
have shown a risk of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) in association with farming but
many of these studies did not control for exposure to other agents in addition to 2,4,D.
The Committee concluded that current studies cannot distinguish whether observed
risks reported are due to the use of 2,4,D. The single canine epidemiologic study
suggested that pet dogs may be at risk from exposure to 2,4,D or to areas treated by a
lawn care service. Although this study is supportive of a finding of carcinogenicity, there
are questions about its applicability to human carcinogenicity because of poor informa-
tion on exposure and possible non-comparability between canine and human lympho-
mas. Toxicology studies show that rats (but not other animal species tested) may
develop astrocytomas from exposure to 2,4,D, but this outcome has not been reported
in the human studies. An ongoing rat study at higher doses will clarify whether this
finding is treatment-related or not. Tests of 2,4-D have not shown any mutagenic
changes under experimental situations.
The Committee concludes that the data are not sufficient to find that there is a
cause and effect relationship between the exposure to 2,4,D and NHL. Because there
is some evidence that NHL occurs in excess in populations that are likely to have been
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-8 ANNUAL REPORT
exposed to 2,4,D, there should be continued examination of the issue through further
studies. Other data gaps exist, and decision-making on 2,4-D would benefit from com-
pletion of rodent studies previously requested by EPA, particularly further animal
carcinogenicity studies that test 2,4-D jointly with other substances that might reflect the
human exposure situation; a replication of the dog epidemiology study; additional
case/control studies, with careful attention to exposures; additional human cohort stud-
ies designed to assess both relative risk of NHL and the comparative risk of all mortality;
and additional follow up and analysis of worker cohorts involved in the production of 2,4-
D.
EPA-SAB-DWC-006 Review of the Research Program on Disinfectants
and Disinfectant By-Products in the Risk Reduction
Research Laboratory
On December 2-3, 1992, the Drinking Water Committee of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) met to review, at the request of the Committee, the Agency's research
program on disinfectants and disinfection by-products. The Committee concluded that
the Agency is doing an excellent job in the performance of research activities in this
area, but that reductions in funding levels are seriously delaying the acquisition of
critical data in the microbial, disinfectant and disinfection by-products areas. The
Committee strongly recommended the addition of additional resources.
The Committee recommended additional research efforts regarding: (a) by-
products associated with alternative (non-chlorine) disinfectants, especially ozone; (b)
brominated compounds arising from chlorination; (c) the use of granular activated
carbon and membranes for control of by-product precursors; (d) new technologies with
promise for small systems.
The Committee also found the Ground Water Survey of Viruses to be a valuable
undertaking, but recommended that the Agency undertake a representative survey of
human enteric viruses in ground waters. Finally, the Committee recommended that the
Agency undertake efforts to establish criteria for the interpretation of biotechnological
methods currently used for detection of viruses.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-007 Evaluation of a Testing Manual for Dredged Material
Proposed for Discharge in Inland and Near Coastal
Waters
On July 7-8, 1993, the Sediment Quality Subcommittee of the Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee met to review the draft document, Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Inland and Near Coastal Waters: Testing
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-9
Manual, to determine whether it provides an appropriate testing framework to evaluate
potential ecological and human health impacts of proposed discharges of dredged
material under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Overall, the Subcommittee con-
cluded that the tests were validated and appropriate for use at this time. However, the
Subcommittee questioned the premise of comparing contaminant-related risks from
dredged material to those from reference material which might itself be causing adverse
biological effects. Rather, the Subcommittee recommended that the toxicity of dredged
material be determined relative to known clean sediments. The Subcommittee felt that
the assessment of risks from discharge of dredged material in inland and near coastal
waters should be conducted in accordance with the Agency's Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment, considering the full range of risks (including those from resuspension
of pathogenic microorganisms in dredged material) and risks associated with alternative
disposal options. In assessing risks to human health from bioaccumulating substances,
the Subcommittee agreed that FDA action levels are the appropriate benchmarks for
comparison, as long as the tests are made on edible portions of food organisms;
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) determined in amphipods or aquatic insects are not
appropriate for such a comparison. The panel also recommended that plant bioassays
be conducted in conjunction with animal tests in cases where the dredged material
discharge site will be vegetated (e.g., beneficial uses of dredged material for creation of
wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation beds, and beach nourishment).
EPA-SAB-IAQC-94-008 Review of Indoor Air Issue Plan
On September 8-9, 1993, the Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Commit-
tee (IAQC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the Agency's Indoor Air Issue
Plan, a research plan prepared by the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The Committee found that the Research Plan document, together with the oral
presentations and supporting documents, provided a clear description of a coherent
indoor air research strategy and program. They found that the program was clearly-
focused, as were its inter-relationships with related activity elsewhere in ORD and the
rest of the Agency, other federal agencies and the private sector. Although there are
insufficient funds to adequately pursue all of the important indoor air issues, they
concluded that EPA staff has adequately identified key areas for focus and developed a
•generally sound research program around these areas.
The Committee was concerned, however, that these evident strengths of the
planning process and the research program were not adequately captured by the Issue
Plan document. They recommended that the document be revised to more accurately
represent the content of the presentations and the supporting materials, particularly a
more complete discussion of the approach to be used to integrate the various program
elements, as well as a "Rationale" section.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-10 ANNUAL REPORT
The Committee also commented on numerous scientific issues raised or
addressed by the goals of the Research Plan. They recommended increased emphasis
on a more explicit and clear-cut linkage of the research to health effects of potential
concern, airborne particulate matter, and complex mixtures. In addition they addressed
questions regarding the quantification of health effects that are associated with indoor
environments, the identification of sensitive sub-populations, the definition of a "complex
mixture" and protocols to study such mixtures, airborne particulate matter,
biocontaminants, monitoring methods, and others.
EPA-SAB-IAQC-94-009a and Review of Draft Addendum to theMethodology
EPA-SAB-IAQC-94-009b forAssessing Health Risks Associated with
Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions
On December 3,1993, the Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee
(the Committee) of the Science Advisory Board reviewed the draft document "Adden-
dum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure
to Combustor Emissions" (the Addendum).
Although the multi-media model of the Addendum is not yet fully developed, the
Committee found merit in the model and recommended its use as an analytical tool to
identify the chemicals most likely to accumulate in the environment, the environmental
compartments most at risk of unacceptable accumulations, and the exposure pathways
and chemicals most likely to result in aggregate health risks that reach levels of
concern. Such analyses will provide strategic guidance for environmental sampling to
obtain data on indirect exposure to humans and to ecosystems. However, they did not
recommend the release of the Addendum as an "EPA Methodology" for routine,
quantitative, site-specific risk assessments for incinerators because of substantial
scientific uncertainties in the model and the absence of many important model parame-
ters.
In addition to their general findings regarding the use and possible misuse of the
methodology in the Addendum, the Committee addressed numerous specific issues
concerning: 1) air emissions and modeling; 2) soil impacts and the food chain; 3) water
impacts and modeling; and 4) exposure. Finally, the Committee stressed the need to
establish a framework to ensure that the entire range of potential risks from stationary
combustors are addressed holistically, including both direct and indirect risks, as well as
local, regional, national and international concerns.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-11
EPA-SAB-EC-94-010 Review of EPA's Approach to Screening for
Radioactive Waste Materials at A Superefund
Site in Uniontown, Ohio
The ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill Panel of the Science Advisory Board
reviewed issues related to the USEPA's screening criteria and procedures for radioac-
tive waste materials, using the Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund site in Uniontown,
Ohio as a test case. The Panel was asked: a) For screening purposes, what types of
temporal and spatial sampling and analyses are sufficient to test a hypothesis that
radioactive contamination is present? b) What radiological parameters are sufficient to
determine the possible existence/extent of potential sub-surface radiological contamina-
tion? Are the methods employed by EPA for analysis of radioactive contamination
adequate and appropriate for analyses of samples from hazardous waste sites? c) What
modifications to generic guidelines for sampling and analytic methods and chain of
custody protocols are scientifically justified while still assuring accurate, precise and
valid data? d) What factors need to be considered in the development and application of
data validation criteria for evaluation of radioactive contaminants at hazardous waste
sites? e) What practices and organizational changes could lead to improved credibility
for the U.S. EPA and constructive public participation at hazardous waste sites with
potential radioactive contamination? The Panel responded to these and other questions
in their report. Many of the Panel's conclusions and recommendations concerning
issues such as sampling protocols, laboratory selection, data validation and verification,
chain of custody, and risk communication should be taken broadly to apply to EPA's
actions concerning Superfund sites in general, and not just the Industrial Excess Landfill
which is featured in this report.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-011 Recommendations on the 1993 Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards Nomina-
tions
This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding the 1992 EPA
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) program. The STAA
Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board reviewed and evaluated the 131 papers
nominated in eight scientific and technical categories for the 1992 STAA awards. The
Subcommittee recommended 41 papers (32 percent of the nominations) for awards at
three levels and also recommended to the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
that additional papers be recognized with honorable mention. The Subcommittee
recommended awards for papers from eleven EPA research laboratories, the Office of
the Administrator, and two Environmental Services Divisions (Region VII and Region
VIII). The Subcommittee encouraged the Agency to continue support for the STAA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-12 ANNUAL REPORT
program as a mechanism for recognizing and promoting high quality research in support
of the Agency's mission.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-012 Review of the Midwest Agrichemical Sur-
face/Subsurface Transport and Effects Re-
search (MASTER) Program
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee met on October 28-29, 1993,
to review the Midwest Agrichemical Surface/Subsurface Transport and Effects Re-
search (MASTER) Program. The MASTER Program is an inter-agency effort between
EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological Survey, designed to
assess the impacts of agricultural practices on the watershed scale. EPA's participation
in MASTER has focused on the ecological effects of agricultural best management
practices (BMPs). The Committee strongly supports EPA's involvement in research
such as MASTER to assess the impacts of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution in
agroecosystems and in seeking ways to attain sustainability and ecological quality in
agriculture. The MASTER Program provides the opportunity to consider not only the
ecological effects of toxic chemicals, but to include a broader consideration of stressors
such as habitat alterations associated with various agricultural BMPs which may have
ecological consequences equal to or greater than those from agrichemicals. The
Committee urges the Agency to continue support for the MASTER Program beyond the
development of models and baseline data in the pilot watershed so that the predicted
effects of management changes in the watershed can be compared to results from field
tests.
EPA-SAB-RAC-94-013 Review of Diffuse NORM Draft Scoping Docu-
ment
The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAG) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
has reviewed the Agency's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) study entitled
"Diffuse NORM - Waste Characterization and Preliminary Risk Assessment," dated
May, 1993. The RAC responded to the six specific questions asked by ORIA and also
provided more general comments and suggestions.
The RAC believes that, despite its shortcomings, the NORM document nonethe-
less provides indications that some categories of NORM may produce risks that exceed
those of concern from other sources of radiation. Consequently, the RAC is of the
opinion that the issue of NORM deserves substantial attention within EPA, and is
concerned that resolution of this issue will require an increased commitment of re-
sources. If the EPA addressed the deficiencies identified by the RAC in its response to
the charge, then the revised NORM scoping document could serve as a useful and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-13
much-needed compilation of information for the public on NORM source terms and
potential exposure pathways.
However, to go beyond this limited use and to meet the goal of serving as a
screening tool for identifying those categories that may require possible regulatory
attention, it would be necessary for the Agency to conduct its risk assessment analysis
using a consistent approach for addressing uncertainties, such as the methodology
suggested by the RAC in its report. Care should be taken to recognize the differences
between those categories of NORM that may be rated high with respect to individual
risk and those that may be rated high with respect to population risk.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-014 Review of the Strategic Plan for the Terrestrial Ele-
ments of EPA's Global Climate Change Research
Program
This review by the Global Climate Change Research Subcommittee of the
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the Science Advisory Board focused
exclusively on the terrestrial elements of the Global Change Research Program under
the direction of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in EPA. Three ques-
tions were specifically addressed: (1) scientific merit of the current research plan, (2)
effectiveness of Agency management and program coordination (internally and nation-
ally), and (3) recommendations for future directions.
In general, the specific research projects appeared to be of high quality and
adequately reviewed. Scientific accomplishments appeared consistent with the funds
invested. Deficiencies, however, were revealed in program management. These
deficiencies include absence of a clear vision of ORD's role in the National Program,
lack of a strategic plan for implementing research, and inadequate linkage and integra-
tion with other Agency and Federal programs. The Subcommittee strongly recom-
mends that EPA take an active role in: (1) defining and justifying the ecological effects
and risk assessment needs for the National Program; (2) specifying the methodological
development, data acquisition, and assessment research tasks necessary to meet
those needs; and (3) implementing a national integrated research program focused on a
clearly defined EPA role and national policy needs. There is a clear need to fund new
policy-relevant research on ecological effects, assessments at different spatial and
temporal scales, and responses strategies. Therefore, research should be concluded
on methane budgets, carbon storage and dynamics, and UV-B impacts on rice. Also, a
primary earth systems model should be selected.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-14 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-RSAC-94-015 Review of Mitre's Draft Report on the EPA Lab-
oratory Study
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory Board
reviewed the Mitre Corporation report on the "EPA Laboratory Study", a compilation of
data and analysis. This report was prepared for senior EPA managers and evaluated
the facilities, equipment, and staffing of three types of laboratories (ORD, program
office, and regional). The SAB was asked to review the report and offer its recommen-
dations for laboratory realignment and management.
The Committee found that the research management was dysfunctional,
research funding and capacity had declined significantly over the past 15 years, and
that long-term strategic research lacked a customer/advocate. The Committee recom-
mended the Agency correct its management problems before it begin any reorganiza-
tion of the laboratories. They recommended that ORD headquarters resources also be
considered as part of a comprehensive reorganization of the laboratories within ORD.
They recommended that the Administrator become the advocate and primary client for
centralized, long-term strategic research. The management plan should also include a
consideration of the human resources and activities to develop and maintain the pool of
scientific talent; options for coordinated budgets and evaluations with the client program
office; a commitment to increase extramural research; and plans to convert contractor
laboratory research personnel to federal employees. The Agency was advised by the
Committee to resist pressure to make decisions on laboratory realignment in the near
term.
LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EEAC-LTR-94-001 Review of Economic Aspects of the Proposed
RIA for the RCRA Corrective Action Rule (also
referred to as CV-2)
The EEAC completed its review of the analytical methodology for the draft RIA at
its meeting of September 23, 1993. The Committee evaluated four aspects of the
proposed economic methodologies, including a )the desirability of disaggregate
information as part of the development and presentation of benefit-cost information in
the RIA for a large, complex national rule; b) the exploration and presentation of "human
health benefits," including both the cancer and non-cancer health effects associated
with the proposed rule; c) the possibility of using the McClelland ef a/. (1992) CV
analysis as the basis for estimating the non-use values for groundwater cleanup on a
national scale; and d) the application of hedonic methods to evaluate the effects of
contaminated sites on residential property values.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-15
Overall, EPA staff are to be commended for a number of innovations in the
methodologies outlined for use in the full RIA and illustrated with the examples in the
draft report. The Committee also had a number of recommendations for improvement.
For example, it should be possible to classify Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU)
by size, location, and other characteristics and to develop the estimates according to
these categories. This practice would facilitate evaluation of the methods used and
improve the transferability of disaggregate results to the aggregate level. The second
major element of the review addressed the RIA's evaluation of the benefits from
avoiding adverse human health effects. While there are notable features in this compo-
nent of the RIA, the Committee believes that there are also important limitations.
Finally, the cost effectiveness analysis and presentation of overall impacts aggregates
effects over a 128 year time horizon. The Committee recommends that alternative
strategies be investigated for dealing with the effects of this long time horizon, including:
discounting the measures of physical effects before gauging cost effectiveness;
calculating cost effectiveness based on a year-by-year cost effectiveness and these
ratios then discounted to a base period or an annualization of all factors relevant to a
comparison.
Based on the earlier review of the McClelland et al. study itself, and two further
issues raised by the methodology proposed for adopting the McClelland et al. results for
use in the RIA, the Committee believes that the McClelland et al. estimates cannot be
used for the intended purposes. Last, a key element in the development of aggregate
estimates is the determination of the number of households which would be willing to
pay (a non-use value) for cleanup of the groundwater. No specific evidence has been
developed on how to determine the number of these households. The original
McClelland et al. study focused on per-household values. Subsequent work appears
very preliminary based on the information made available to the Committee. Overall,
the Committee recommends against using the specific approach proposed in the draft
RIA for developing the aggregate estimates of non-use values. The Committee found
the hedonic analysis to be a careful and systematic evaluation of the effect of proximity
of a contaminated site on the prices of nearby residential properties.
EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-94-002 Overview of SAB Comments and
Recommendations on the Proposed RIA
for the RCRA Corrective Action Rule
This report presents a summary of the findings and recommendations of the SAB
compiled by the RCRA RIA Steering Committee (RRSC). This report is one of a series
of six reports. The RRSC was charged by the Executive Committee of the SAB to
organize the reviews of standing committees, to ensure coordination and provide its
own comments and overview and clarify the nature of the SAB review. The steering
committee noted concerns with the Agency's use of contingent valuation (the study
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-16 ANNUAL REPORT
design and its probity as used), the representativeness of the selected samples, the
lack of validation for the assumptions of the MMSOILS model, and a general failure to
characterize the uncertainties associated with non-cancer risks. The reader is directed
to individual reports for full and detailed descriptions of the findings.
EPA-SAB-EHC-LTR-94-003 Review of Health Benefits for the Pro-
posed RIA for the RCRA Corrective Ac-
tion Rule
This report was prepared by the SAB's Environmental Health Committee
following the circulation (by mail) of initial comments prepared by a Committee Member,
and a public teleconference held on September 24,1993. The report focuses on the
risk assessment methodology used to generate the estimated impacts on human health
resulting from proposed corrective action at RCRA facilities. In general, the methods
used are well known and correspond to "much-used"goidelinesrmethods and practices
(GMP).
There are some areas where we suggest possible improvements, i It would be
very useful to include a way to estimate, even crudely, the fraction of the population
presumably exposed to significant levels of contaminants (HI > 1) who actually manifest
adverse, non-cancer effects. Without some attempt at providing such estimates for the
most important cases, the cost/benefit calculation remains seriously incomplete. By
including such estimates, the monetization of both cancer and non-cancer effects
avoidance benefits can be done in a formal sense, and that portion of the cost/benefit
calculation would at least be present in the overall screening analysis.
Addressing other areas, we note that the term "population risk" (and related
terms in connection with both cancer and non-cancer adverse effects) is employed
correctly vis-a-vis cancer, but not with non-cancer effects. The Agency should be more
explicit in distinguishing cancer and other disease conditions with respect to risk and
"population at risk." The benefits of abating disease are not monetized in the RIA
document. At some point, the decrease in cancer cases and the decrease in numbers
exposed to possible risks of non-cancer adverse effects may need to be balanced,
along with other benefits (either monetized or not) against the dollar costs of corrective
action. This is a difficult if not impossible aim to achieve in any objective way. It would
be useful to estimate for cancer, the number of individuals "at risk" (already done for
non-cancer effects) so as to have comparable numbers of people at risk for cancer and
non-cancer effects. An estimate of the population exposed at levels of exposure of
concern for cancer (i.e., levels leading to a lifetime individual risk of 10"6 or greater)
would yield such estimates recognizing the fact that what is of concern is not identically
defined in the two cases. Lastly, we urge increased emphasis on the collection and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-17
management of good exposure data as a foundation for this, and other efforts by the
Agency. The importance of good exposure data can not be underestimated that it is
such a basic and important consideration that it needs to be highlighted in our com-
ments especially since some problematic chemicals have not been Included in the
assessment.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-94-004 Review of the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Programs Draft As-
sessment Framework
In June 1993, the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee met to review the
Assessment Framework for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP). The Committee felt that the Assessment Framework is a critical component of
the program since it provides the framework for interpreting and evaluating EMAP data
to answer policy-relevant questions about ecological resources. For this reason, the
Committee recommended that assessment activities be given a greater priority within
EMAP to ensure that the monitoring data being collected will be integrated into a form
which is useful to Agency managers. They also felt that collection and analysis of
monitoring data using existing ecological indicators should proceed in parallel with
research and development of new indicators and they reaffirmed their belief that the
primary focus of EMAP's monitoring effort should be on effects rather than stressors.
Overall, the Committee found the Assessment Framework to be an appropriate guide
for EMAP assessments, although they recommended that the document be revised to
stress that EMAP assessments are consistent with the Agency's Framework for Ecologi-
cal Risk Assessment and to include discussion of the sources and nature of uncertain-
ties inherent in EMAP assessments. They also cautioned against inferring causal
relationships based only on temporal and spatial associations. The Committee recom-
mended that EMAP establish a centralized group, with representatives from each
ecological resource group, to focus specifically on the integration and assessment
across resource groups and regions.
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-94-005 Ground-Water Monitoring Network Re-
search
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) requested that the Science Advisory Board's
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) review the Ground-Water Monitoring
Network Design Research Program of the Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory is Las Vegas (EMSL-LV). The EEC's Ground-Water Monitoring and Network
Design Review Subcommittee (GWMNDRS) conducted its review of a June 1993 draft
of the subject research plan at a site visit at EMSL-LV on July 29-30, 1993.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-18 ANNUAL REPORT
OSW would like to use the results of this research to develop quantitative
standards for the design of ground-water monitoring well networks. The Subcommittee
found that the goal of developing tools for implementing quantitative data quality
objectives (QDQOs) for RCRA ground-water monitoring network system design and
performance is achievable and has practical merit for RCRA as well as for the
Superfund monitoring programs. Although the scientific quality of the work reviewed is
very high, the projects as structured appear to fall short for meeting the stated specific
needs for delivering readily useable methods in the near future. Additional planning is
needed to improve guidance for new network design and to provide tools for evaluating
existing networks and modifying them as needed.
The Subcommittee's chief recommendations are: (1) that the Agency sponsor a
comprehensive literature review on the research topic, (2) undertake a "fourth project"
that attempts to implement the methods and tools developed in the first three projects at
actual RCRA sites, and (3) critically review the problems associated with current
approaches to network design.
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-94-006 ORIA's Radon Measurement Pro-
tocol Evaluation Study
The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC, also "the Committee") of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed, at its meeting in July 1993, the Agency's Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) study design for the Radon Measurement Evaluation
Protocol Study. Overall, the Committee is pleased that many of the concerns and
questions raised in an earlier November 1992 discussion have been addressed and that
the resulting study design appears to be robust and seems reasonable to achieve the
stated Data Quality Objectives (DQOs).
This letter report addresses the specific elements in the charge from the Agency
to the Committee, and provides recommendations for improvements to and additional
comments on the proposed study. These recommendations include 1) exclusion from
the study those houses which have had radon mitigation systems installed; 2) contin-
gency plans for the study design cell with the smallest sample size; 3) formulation and
discussion of the specific study hypotheses to be analyzed statistically; 4) presentation
•of results as direct comparisons of concentration measurements, including measure-
ment/analysis uncertainties; and 5) not to use the present study design to evaluate the
effect of climate.
In addition, the report offers comments on 1) whether to use basement or first-
floor radon concentration measurements of 4 pCi/L for disaggregating the selected
study houses; 2) the desirability of using other short-term measurement devices in place
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-19
of the planned use of 2-day open-face charcoal canisters; and 3) the use of continuous
radon measurements in some of the study homes.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-007 CASAC Closure on the Supple-
ments to Criteria Document and
Staff Position Papers for S02
On April 12, 1994, the CASAC completed its review of the criteia document and
staff paper for sulfur oxides. The Committee felt that the documents were consistent
with available scientific evidence for sulfur oxides and should provide an adequate basis
for a regulatory decision. The Committee also highlighted 4 major points concerning the
issue.
1) A wide spectrum of views exist among asthma specialists regarding clinical and
public health significance of the effects of 5 to 10 minute concentrations of sulfur dioxide
on asthmatics engaged in excercise.
2) It was the consensus of the group that the exposure scenario of concern is a rare
event.
3) It was the consensus of CASAC that any regulatory strategy to ameliorate such
exposures shouyld be risk-based -- targeted on the most likelysources of shot-term
sulfur dioxide spikes rather than imposing short-term standards on all sources.
4) CASAC questioned the enforceability of of a 5 minute NAAQS or "target level".
Current instrumentation used to routinely monitor sulfur disxide does not respond
quickly enogh to accurately characterize 5 minute peaks.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-94-008 Review of the FY 1995 Presiden-
tial Budget Request for the Office
of Research and Development
The Budget Review Subcommittee of the SAB conducted a broad review of the
total research and development program and related budget and a more detailed review
of four specific activities: the Ecosystem Protection Initiative; the Environmental
Technology Initiative, and the Human Health Risk Assessment Methods and Criteria Air
Pollutant Issues. The Subcommittee found that although the ORD budget represented
an increase over last year, there has been a long-term erosion in the level of ORD
funding, in spite of a substantial increase in FTEs and resources for the Agency and a
substantial increase in the mission of the Agency. The Subcommittee also found that
the Agency lacks a functioning, integrated management system with provision for
planning, budgeting, implementing, reporting, and oversight of its research and develop-
ment activities. It was noted that the lack of a management system has wasted
resources and contributed to communications problems within the organization and with
its client offices. The Subcommittee supported new investments in ecosystem protec-
tion, criteria air pollutants, and human exposure, but challenged the Agency to tie its
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-20 ANNUAL REPORT
research to a strategic vision for its future application. Detailed comments were
appended to the letter report.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-94-009 CASAC Comments on Air Quality
Modeling for the Section 812 Ret-
rospective Study
At their December 22,1992 meeting the SAB's Clean Air Act Compliance
Analysis Council decided to refer review of the air quality modeling methodology part of
the "Retrospective Study" of the impacts of the Clean Air Act to CASAC.
Three public confernce calls on October 1, 21, and December 2, 1993 served to
brief the Panel members on their charge and for Panel members to provide comments
on the methodoogy proposed by the Agency. The comments of the panel focused on
ways to reuce the uncertainties in estimating what hisorical pollutant concentrations
would have been in the presence and absence of the Clean Air Act and subsequent
Amendments.
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-94-010 Review of Information Collection Rule
(Monitoring Requirements for Public
Drinking Water Supplies)
On April 27,1994, the Drinking Water Committee of the Science Advisory Board
reviewed the Agency's proposed "Monitoring Requirements for Public Drinking Water
Supplies" ("Information Collection Rule or ICR)."
The Committee supported the development and implementation of this rule but
recommended that the Agency articulated an overall research plan to guide the
collection and analysis of the data in a meaningful way. The plan should define clearly
defined scientific objectives and methodology.
The Committee supported the archiving of virus samples but cautioned that
without a research plan for their use and adequate commitment of resources, it is
unlikely that archived samples would be put to a profitable use. They did not see merit
in archiving parasite samples.
The Committee does not recommend the use of particle size count data in lieu of
monitoring for Giardia and/or Cryptosporidium in finished water. They encouraged the
Agency, however, to obtain as much data as possible concerning the relationship
between particle counts and concentrations of protozoan parasites in order to better
establish if relationships between them exist.
The Committee agrees with the Agency's proposal to require monitoring for
coliphages and C. perfringens.
With regard to the Agency proposal to develop a database that includes the
relevant characteristics of the water treatment plants covered by the ICR, the Commit-
tee recommended that the Agency carefully define the scientific objectives for its
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-21
modeling effort, its planned approach for use of the database, and standardization and
verification procedures for data collection, prior to the start of the monitoring.
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EPEC-COM-94-001 Commentary on Ecological Risk
Assessment for the Proposed
RIA for RCRA Corrective Action
Rule
As part of the Science Advisory Board's overall review of the draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) for the RCRA Corrective Action Rule, the Ecological Processes
and Effects Committee met in June 1993 to review the ecological risk analysis in the
RIA. The Committee congratulated the Agency for beginning to incorporate ecological
risk assessment into management and regulatory decisions and acknowledged the
difficulty of assessing ecological risks at a large number of RCRA sites with varying
contaminants and ecological conditions. However, the Committee concluded that the
consideration of ecological risks in the RIA was incomplete and not fully consistent with
the Agency's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Specifically, the Committee
recommended that 1) the analysis consider the benefits (or risks) which would result
from remediation (rather than looking only at the "no action" scenario), 2) the Agency
follow the ecological risk framework for problem formulation, selection of ecological
endpoints, and risk characterization; and 3) the results of the case studies be used to
evaluate and refine the conceptual model used for the risk assessment. In addition, the
Committee expressed concern that the stratification of the sample frame does not
consider the distribution of ecologically-relevant site characteristics. In summary, the
Committee recommended that the RIA be modified to consider the full range of ecologi-
cal endpoints, or to state clearly that only a subset of endpoints have been evaluated
and why these were selected.
EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-94-002 Drinking Water Committee Com-
mentary on Negotiated Regula-
tions for Disinfectants and
By-Products
On August 17, 1993 the Drinking Water Committee of EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) was briefed by the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water on the
outcome of the negotiations regarding the rules for Disinfectants and Disinfection By-
products (D/DBPs), Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (ESWTR) and Information
Collection (ICR). The Committee had requested this briefing. The Committee con-
cluded that a comprehensive, carefully targeted, and adequately funded research
program is indispensable to clarify risks associated with drinking water disinfection.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-22 ANNUAL REPORT
Specifically, they recommended that the Agency's research in this area address: 1) the
identification of toxic by-products of chlorination; 2) the identification and characteriza-
tion of toxic by-products of alternative treatment processes; 3) the collection of risk and
occurrence data for microbiologic hazards; 4) the choice, collection and analysis of data
under the information collection rule to address clearly identified research needs. The
Committee also recommended a special effort to develop a comparative quantitative
risk assessment of the multiple chemical and microbial risks associated with disinfection
of drinking water.
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-94-003 Commentary on Peer Review of
Research Used in Support of Envi-
ronmental Policy
The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC), based on its Mem-
bers' experience both prior to joining this Committee and in the tasks undertaken as part
of its activities developed some general recommendations regarding the role of peer
review of scientific research conducted in support of environmental policy-making.
The Agency's staff is attempting to develop and use research methods and findings at
the frontiers of their disciplines in the areas relevant to EPA's regulatory mission. These
efforts are to be commended and encouraged.
Because the research is often directed at the frontiers of each discipline's scientific
understanding, it is particularly important to incorporate external peer review as an
integral part of the development of the research design. Clearly, the need for such
comprehensive involvement of peer review at all stages in research design and execution
will depend upon the scale of the research undertaken. As the size and complexity of the
effort (as well as its importance for policy) increases, so also should the resources
devoted to peer review. The Committee's experience with the economics components of
the research efforts we have reviewed has found only limited evidence of systematic
external peer review conducted prior to the time when documents were presented to the
Committee for evaluation (This is apparently not a recent problem — the Environmental
Engineering Committee commented on the need to organize peer review efforts in a
1989 report on mathematical models [EPA-SAB-EEC-89-012]).
We believe that this lack of peer review is a mistake, and understand that it is not
consistent with Agency policy on peer review which calls for such review as an integral
part of the research activities associated with EPA's regulatory policy. The resulting de
facto assignment of the primary peer review to the SAB's Committees typically imposes
that review at the wrong time, in the process — when the research is largely done. Ideally,
external peer reviews (other than those performed by the SAB) would be conducted on
an ongoing basis as research for large projects is underway, and the results of all such
reviews made available to the relevant SAB Committee at the time a more comprehen-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-23
sive review of a research program or policy evaluation was undertaken. EPA staff should
develop a network of external peer reviewers in topic areas where there will be continuing
research interests. This could enable these reviews to be conducted prior to submitting
materials to SAB Committees. In cases where SAB involvement at other than the final
stage is desirable, Agency program officials should seek Consultations, through which
the SAB can provide discussion and advice from various individual Members directly to
the appropriate staff, outside the formal framework of a full review. The use of a
Consultation in no way precludes a full review and a formal SAB report at a later stage of
the effort.
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-94-004 Strategic Research Planning Com-
mentary
Strategic Research and Development Planning is the subject of a commentary by the
Environmental Engineering Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board. The Committee
(1) recommends that EPA adopt and implement a consistent, reliable and comprehensive
approach to strategic planning for EPA research and development, (2) recommends that
EPA consider the several models presented earlier in this letter as it develops this
comprehensive approach, and (3) suggests that there be a particular locus for such strategic
planning within EPA for successful ongoing implementation. We would be pleased to
suggest ways that this could be accomplished or to review the Agencywide strategic
planning process in the future.
Strategic planning is an integral part of an overall management system with provision
for budgeting, prioritizing, planning, implementation and oversight of the research program.
It is especially important because strategic planning provides the overall guidance for the
other activities.
The SAB has often been critical of the plans due to a number of deficiencies including lack
of a vision statement, lack of definition of measures of success, not taking into account
critical factors essential to developing the strategic plans, and lack of priority setting
mechanisms. In addition, the strategic research plans have been varied in format, content
and approach. EPA should adopt and implement a consistent, reliable and comprehensive
approach to strategic research planning to develop research and development strategic
plans that provide both continuity with long-range research while being responsive to
changing environmental issues.
The Environmental Engineering Committee of the SAB recommends that EPA adopt
a defined approach for strategic R&D planning for the Agency that builds upon concepts
now being used by industry and other government institutions. EPA's approach will need to
be adaptable to changing needs of the Agency. The Committee notes successful industrial
and EPA regional use of methodologies involving the development of a vision statement,
a definition of a mission, conducting an assessment of the region's strengths, weaknesses,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-24 ANNUAL REPORT
external opportunities, and threats, defining strategic initiatives, and defining metrics of
success. While we do not endorse this specific approach used by Region I as the only
approach, it is one example of how to successfully conduct strategic planning. Whatever the
approach selected, it must be adapted to the special needs of environmental research and
development.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-94-005 Commentary on Data Sets for PM10
On May 16, 1994, the present and former chairs (Drs. Wolff and McClellan) of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee sent a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner
requesting that the Agency take steps to assure that crucial data sets linking exposure to
partculate matter and health responses are available for analysis by multiple analytical
teams. This would help to assure the validity of the results before they are used in making
regulatory decisions on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Material.
The authors feel that EPA should take the lead in requesting that investigators make
available the primary data sets being analyzed so that others can validate the analyses.
Further, the Agency should actively facilitate the conduct of such validating analyses.
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-EPEC-ADV-94-001 Advisory Evaluation on A National
Methodology for Wildlife Criteria.
On April 27-28,1994, the Wildlife Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes
and Effects Committee of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met to hear briefings and
consider 34 questions prepared by Agency staff about the development of a national
methodology for deriving wildlife criteria. The issues considered were similar in many
instances to those raised during SAB review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. The
Subcommittee then prepared this advisory with their assessment of the overall program and
the approaches being considered by the Agency for developing wildlife criteria.
The Subcommittee recommended that the wildlife criteria program be guided by the
ecological risk assessment framework, that several approaches for deriving wildlife criteria
be further developed, and that the objective of the program should be the development of
a national methodology which would be used to derive regional or site-specific wildlife
criteria. In addition, the Subcommittee felt that models under development should be
validated with existing data for well-studied chemicals and that wildlife criteria should be
designed to protect wildlife populations rather than individuals. The Subcommittee endorsed
the Agency's proposed research agenda supporting the development of wildlife criteria but
urged the Agency to test wildlife criteria methodologies with a wider array of chemical
groups, ecosystems and regions, and wildlife species.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-1
APPENDIX G
DETAILED TIME TO COMPLETION GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS FOR FULL
AND LETTER REPORTS
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-2
ANNUAL REPORT
<•» «•>
Ok Ok O* Ok
5* «5 tr o?
n n ft n
0k 0k 0k 0k
^^=J »
N
c*
o> ok oft* ok
" "
-r- o> ao
n M c*
T313-9-W-B-V-G13 T513WTJ "V "9 "B •& V "O "9 "O 'CT'O'O'W ~B W tt
ooooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
r»
Ok in
co 10
to c*
ok
s —
a. ^
g > _- > u- >
— & S 2: -2.
i a.. » s.w s a..
? 5-0 ^ s-» » a-*
ff o
•s
f < Ef
— C a-S
E5
o "g
9v
i "C <. Ji •
If o- . <• *
w aa <•• !— .«>
t
M
Hi
1U
C-p»don *f . Protoco
«*tinQ
Kf
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page G-3
•
*
3s«
~.
1
*
«
to
•
i
Si
g
S
S
3
^
•
•
a
c
i
u
b
*
^
3
IS g 1
1111
5 ~ 3 1 1 1
? 1 I |
! j 1 1
51 111
! 1-3 1
: ~ ""
i
*
•
c^ ^7 r^ r^ ^^ ^j ^j ^^ ^^ ^7 ^3 ^t ^j ^7 ^7 ^7
">'S.T?'> "S"???^ ">-5>T?^ 'S'STi'S
i&ai i|-oi 2|o^ s|-§s
S«o-fc5 8»!2&3» S-^fcS ^S&p*
T- M ^ T- T-^^T- O T- ^* O o CM £S O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
«o v- m ^~ p>» o CM » fM eo CM o com T- co M oo «•<- ot -o»eo
t ' -
: • •
« «• 5 1 * -5
^| »» So S«
1 ll 1 li | |( S is
1 Ei S ci t c i u jS
i If 1 If f ll 1 ll
*»OE 5 »a £ «»ol 3£»o£
5l*< St*< "?»*2 <=»2
$!*» Sfst ss*» "I?t
iSSlUH- y£SllftK SrSlUH- ^SlliK
u» u* iu a. i
=
i
SP
i I ' 1
1 = i
1 1 -1
1 1
i i
i i
s
1
i
_ i
0% -0) 0) 9fc Ot 0> 0) O A A 0> Q>
>1?^ >»?> s^-ss
o 5- " o oo^o «4»«o^ OCH^IO •r-p|»o»»
c>« o *• r» e* »- o
_>»
! i i 1 1
C a z * »
» 2 fc » o» £
* fc> 1 S» 5 fS
u * Tt > < •« * ^-1£
a cffJTeS^ -i^
i E-s. Qi £-5 ^ £t£
•^ A ffflr ^» VP __ ^» W
^ £-5 ou £-5 ^ £-5
^* f> •= Q a — S o» —
DL ?u £ a »u £ -f ?o £
tf _ • TT ^ _ • ^ * — . ^
|«?5 A»S< J^s.*
35>c» Si^*» ul5><*
*2iu.H- 5Smi- gsiui-
u a. iu
Report of t/re Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-4
ANNUAL REPORT
1
A
a* a» a*.
"a."S 2
•»W» •»•»•»»
•* <^ •*• ^
4^ 4^ tf^ tf^
Tp <•*
dfe tfv '
I» «
•^ ^r <•> «r
4^ 0^ fl^ tffc '
:"•* gi
22 < 2 12§ §
^* fN* '*•*' ^^ ^* *? r-^a ^^
«
CO
ww •»•»•»•» •»•»•»
9999 999^ 999
•9- •»•»•»•» -W^-WT*
*» »- 3» M>
> •^ v- K>
rw c* p» c* e»»- w>
o ««* v ov r~
c* c* T- T-
•^ T- C* «» ^T1
e«*. c* <«» e*
r9hPf
Approv
9Y
Ap
(9r
WAP-STAA
MfttiOfl
f*f 9- P9m
T9 AdmiMi
*i I *I i *i
.^ U» JP M UP. ti. <•— *—•
6»»*
^25.2'
it*
»^ 1 If
:f«f If^I
:^5< S*^*
- » » »> »£. g1' ~ ~~
:Su? ^Su
P
g
T
6^
To
Report oi th& Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page G-5
c
*
5*
*"* «
«
*
Jl
6
V
I
j
(i
<2
«
5 ^
1
»
^
t
•*
9
2
&
i
<
1
CO
a
I
S
*
a
3
a
If "^
_ 1
i
u
It
•
•»
s
3
*
S
8
a
9
4
a
B
1
1
t
1
»
•
!l
^r ^ v ^
l|ll
al"" *
?: SJ ^ ^
o^-oo
•9 •9'9'V
O O O O
3A8AC-S02 Cl9«urv< 01
Mtftlnfl 1
EMQ. P«mm. Approyil go
T« f dmlnl*tr»t9r 0
1 _ m =
0* Ofr OV O> 0
3.3.3.3. f
ii§i i
t>» 0 CM 0* «
•o -a- ^ -a ti
o o o o o
18AC-QRP 0Hdgf t Review* 22
Mffting 1
E*tc- Pomm- Approve) 13
T« A
3
i
•o
o
(V
<—
I
I
Report of tft* Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page H -1
APPENDIX H
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS
Staff Director:
Assistant Staff Director:
Designated Federal Officials:
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Dr. Ed Bender
Mr. Randall Bond
Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Mr. Manuel Gomez
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H -2 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. DONALD G. BARNES
Staff Director and Designated Federal Official for the Executive Committee
DR. DONALD G. BARNES assumed his position as Staff Director in 1988.
Since arriving, he has overseen a 25% growth in the Committees of the Board and a
50% increase in the membership of the Board. During his tenure the Board has
completed two major de novo reports (Future Risk (1988) and Reducing Risk (1990)
and two self-studies (1989 and 1994), in addition to more than 200 reports to the
Administrator.
Dr. Barnes is active in Agencywide issues associated with science and risk assess-
ment. For example, he serves on the Administrator's Science Policy Council, the Risk
Assessment Forum, and the Council of Science Advisors. He continues to publish a
variety of risk assessment topics, such as benchmark dose and toxicity equivalency
factors, recently receiving special Agency recognition for a paper on PCBs.
Dr. Barnes came to the SAB following ten years' service as Senior Science Advisor
to the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. In that role he
became involved with a number of controversial issues; e.g., pesticide re-registrations,
the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA, and "dioxin", for which he received two EPA
Gold Medals for Superior Service.
He has been active in the area of risk assessment for more than a decade 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.
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, with
a minor in physics) from the Institute of Molecular Biophysics at Florida State University,
and subsequent graduate courses in several health-related areas; i.e., pharmacology,
toxicology, immunology and epidemiology.
His real world education continues to be provided by Dr. Karen K. Barnes and their
two sons.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H -3
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
Assistant Staff Director
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Futures Committee
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK has served as the Assistant Staff Director since
January 1991, overseeing the committee operations of the Board. He has been a
Designated Federal Official (DFO) at the SAB for over ten years, serving as DFO for the
following: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) (1978-1979; 1984-1991);
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC) 1986-1993; Drinking Water
Committee (DWC) (1991-1993); ad hoc IEL Panel (1992-1994); Environmental Futures
Committee (1993-present); and a host of SAB subcommittees and working groups
involved with issues such as global climate and biotechnology.
Mr. Flaak serves as an Instructor for the General Services Administration Course
on Federal Advisory Committee Management. Since 1990, he has helped design,
organize and teach the course. Along the way, he has taught several hundred Federal
workers how to run Federal Advisory Committees. Mr. Flaak's academic background
and training is in the field of biological oceanography. He graduated from Stuyvesant
High School in New York City, the City College of New York (BS in zoology), the
University of Delaware (MA in marine studies), and Central Michigan University (MA in
public administration). He has taken other graduate level environmental and manage-
ment courses and has over 20 years of experience as a trainer.
Mr. Flaak served (as a civilian) for five years with the U.S. Coast Guard Head-
quarters Office of Marine Environment and Systems as Senior Environmental Specialist
developing and implementing environmental policy and guidance for the preparation of
environmental impact statements for bridge construction throughout the United States
and its territories. His non-government professional positions include service as Staff
Marine Biologist with an engineering consulting company where he designed and
coordinated sampling and data analysis for oceanographic surveys. He has also been
a consulting marine taxonomist for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration,
the du Pont Co., Roy F. Weston Inc., and the University of Delaware's College of Marine
Studies. These activities reflect his research interests in estuarine and coastal ecology,
phytoplankton dynamics, bivalve nutrition, and invertebrate mariculture.
His 28 years of military service (US Army) includes over three years of active
duty with a tour in South Vietnam in 1968-69, and service during 1991 in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Desert Storm. He is currently the Acting Deputy Chief
of Staff for Logistics with the 352d Civil Affairs Command in Maryland, an Army Reserve
Component of the 1st Special Operations Command stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC. He
lives with his wife, Dottie, and their nine-year old son, Chris in Clifton, Virginia.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H -4 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. EDWARD BENDER
Designated Federal Official for the Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Futures Committee
DR. EDWARD S. BENDER is the Designated Federal Official for the Research
Strategies Advisory Committee, having previously served as the DFO for the Ecologial
Processes and Effects Committee. He is also serving as the principal DFO for the
Steering Committee of the Environmental Futures Project.
Prior to joining the SAB, Dr. Bender spent ten years working in EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System enforcement program as an expert in biological
monitoring of effluents. In this position, he helped develop and/or revise the program
policies and guidance for self-monitoring by permit holders, compliance inspections and
reporting, and civil and administrative penalties. He reviewed over 100 litigation reports
that alleged violations of permit conditions and he also provided technical support,
including expert testimony in two trials. In one case, the US vs Olin Corp, he helped
negotiate the clean-up and restoration of a National Wildlife Refuge that was contami-
nated with DDT. Prior to his work with EPA, he conducted ecological assessments and
research for the Army at ammunition plants, arsenals, and depots throughout the United
States. He recently completed a Department of Commerce Science and Technology
Fellowship in which he worked for the Department of Energy developing programs in
Advanced Materials authorized under the National Energy Policy Act.
Dr. Bender received a B.S. from Westminster College, New Wilmington, PA, an
M.S. (Zoology) from the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, and a PhD. from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. His dissertation research
focused on the process of recovery of a stream macroinvertebrate community from
chronic DDT contamination. This past year, he chaired a session on the "Role of
Science Policy Advice at EPA" at the Annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry which included several SAB members.
Dr. Bender and his wife, June, share their interests and labors in horticulture and
home improvement projects and in raising their three daughters.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H -5
MR. RANDALL BOND
Chief, Committee Evaluation Staff
Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
MR. RANDALL BOND joined the Science Advisory Board staff in Decem-
ber 1990. Randy started with EPA as a student assistant to the Medical Science
Advisor in 1976 while working on his undergraduate degrees in chemistry and biology.
After finishing his undergraduate work at George Washington University, he accepted a
position with ORD's Office of Research Program Management where he served as
Executive Secretary to the newly formed Pesticides Research Committee and the
Chemical Testing and Assessment Research Committee. Randy has also served as a
participant in the LEGIS (Congressional Fellowship) program, and served as EPA
coordinator for animal welfare issues. He has also chaired a number of international
committees related to biological environmental specimen banking. His most recent
position was in ORD's Office of Health Research where he coordinated pesticides and
toxic substances health research issues and served as the Chairman for the committee
responsible for planning all TSCA related research and development activities.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H -6 ANNUAL REPORT
MRS. KATHLEEN CONWAY
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Engineering Committee
MRS. KATHLEEN CONWAY received her BS and MS from Tufts University
where she studied biology, public health, and sanitary engineering. Between degrees
she wrote for the Hartford Courant. Mrs. Conway was a sanitary engineer for the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health and later for the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Region I where she worked in the wastewater treatment plant
operations and maintenance program. During this time she chaired the Boston
Section of the Society of Women Engineers.
In 1977 she joined EPA's Office of Research and Development. Her subsequent
service as acting Director for two divisions in the Office of Health Research lead 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. She served the Science Advisory Board as Deputy Director from 1984 to 1989
when she resigned the position to work part-time.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H -7
MR. MANUEL GOMEZ
Designated Federal Official for the Drinking Water Committee
Designated Federal Official for the Indoor Air Quality Committee
MR. MANUEL GOMEZ joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in late 1992 as
the Designated Federal Officer of the Drinking Water Committee and the Indoor Air
Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee. He brought to the SAB a very diverse
previous experience in the environmental and occupational health arenas, most recently
with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he was active in exposure assessment
research activities as part of an occupational epidemiology research group.
Prior to the NCI, Mr. Gomez served as Assistant Professor in the School of
Health Sciences of Hunter College of the City University of New York, as an industrial
hygienist with both state and federal agencies, as well as a consulting firm, and as a
research leader with a public interest organization in New York. He is the author of a
study of health and safety issues in the copper smelting industries, along with other
publications in the scientific literature. In the mid-1980's, Mr. Gomez also served as the
Executive Director of a civic organization engaged in a variety of public education and
policy analysis activities on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Gomez has an undergraduate degree in Biochemistry from Harvard, a
master's degree in Environmental Health Sciences from Hunter College of the City
University of New York, and is now completing his dissertation for a Doctor of Public
Health degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.
In the recent year, Mr. Gomez has been very active in the conduct of activities concern-
ing the improvement of occupational exposure databases, under the auspices of two
industrial hygiene professional organizations in which he is active.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H -8 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
Designated Federal Official for the Radiation Advisory Committee
Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July,
1988 as Designated Federal Official (DFO) of the Environmental Engineering Commit-
tee (EEC). In 1993, he transitioned into becoming the DFO of the Radiation Advisory
Committee (RAG), handing off the EEC activities to Ms. Kathleen Conway. In January
of 1994, he was asked to concurrently serve as DFO of the Clean Air Act Compliance
Analysis Council (CAACAC), as well as the RAC. While this combined workload has
kept him extremely busy, he brings to his work at the SAB over 25 years of engineering
and professional experience with environmental issues, including over 20 years of
diverse experience within EPA Headquarters.
In the mid-1970's he worked in the Office of Solid Waste, documenting cases
involving the improper disposal of hazardous wastes which contributed to the passage
of the landmark legislation known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) in 1976. He also gained experience with saturated and unsaturated zone
modeling and ground-water model assessment during this time. He has over four years
experience in the Office of Water developing guidelines and regulations for industrial
wastewater sources. From 1979 through 1988, Jack was very involved with the Super-
fund's Emergency Response program. He developed the multi-media hazardous
substance reportable quantity regulations, and was also responsible for oil and hazard-
ous substance pollution prevention regulations, oil spill reporting, the emergency
response data base known as OHMTADS (Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical
Assistance Data System), as well as the oil and dispersant testing and registration
program (old Subpart H, now Subpart J) of the National Contingency Plan.
Dr. Kooyoomjian received a BS (Mechanical Engineering) from the University of
Massachusetts, and a MS (Management Science) and a Ph.D. (Environmental Engi-
neering, with a minor in Economics) from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His aca-
demic career included his induction into a number of honorary societies: e.g., Sigma Xi
(research), Chi-Epsilon (civil engineering), Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics). His
professional activities continue apace. He served as a member of the Board of Control
of the Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) [now known as the Water Environ-
ment Federation (WEF)] from 1986 to 1989, and was a member of its Policy Advisory
Committee in 1988/1989. In 1988 he received the Arthur Sidney Bedell Award from
WEF for extraordinary personal service in the water pollution control field. He served as
Local Arrangements Co-Chair of WEF's 63rd Conference and Exposition, which was f
held October 1990 in Washington, D.C. and hosted nearly 13,000 registrants. He is also
very active in the Federal Water Quality Association (FWQA), the local member
association of WEF, where he has served in numerous capacities, including President,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H -9
and "Ambassador-at-Large." He is currently Chairman of the Government Affairs
Committee of the FWQA. He is listed in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering," and
"Who's Who in the Eastern United States."
In April 26, 1992, he received an honorary professorship for his work as part of a
five-person team from the United States to develop an environmental engineering
bachelors program and to outline a master's curricula for the State Engineering Univer-
sity of Armenia (SEUA), which has over 23,000 students, as well as to assist in ad-
dressing the newly-independent republic of Armenia's environmental problems.
Closer to home, which he shares with his wife Gerry, and their three daughters,
Jennifer (20), Melissa (15) and Jessica (13), Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous
civic activities which focus on development, land-use and environmental issues in his
area. He was a candidate for the Governor's Award for volunteerism for the state of
Virginia in 1991. He also has received the EPA Public Service Recognition Award in
1988 and 1992 and several County Recognition Awards for his civic involvement.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H -10 ANNUAL REPORT
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Health Committee
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG retired from the Senior Executive Service (SES) in
August, 1988. He re-entered federal service and later joined the SAB staff in November
1988. 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, analyti-
cal, and policy formulation positions with the Department of Transportation and the
Veterans Administration's Department of Medicine 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 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 man-
agement, and the applications of electronic systems and telemetry to urban transporta-
tion.
Sam is married, the father of one daughter (who recently received an MSW
degree), and attempts to find time to pursue interests in modern history, the impacts of
technology on society and culture, amateur radio, and antique art (posters and
advertising graphics) as a reflection of our social history.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H -11
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE
Designated Federal Official for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE has served as the Designated Federal Official for
the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee since December 1992. Prior to joining
the SAB staff, Ms. Sanzone spent 4 years with EPA's coastal programs in the Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. In her role as coordinator for coastal programs in
the Southeast, she provided oversight and assistance to National Estuary Program sites
in the development of management plans for estuarine watersheds. Ms. Sanzone has
also served as a legislative aide for environment issues in the U.S. Senate and South
Carolina House of Representatives, and as a coastal resource specialist with the
Coastal States Organization in Washington, D.C.
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. Her thesis research examined the role of amino acids and hemolymph
proteins in a crustacean's response to changing environmental salinity
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
SINGLE COPIES OF THIS REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED FREE
OF CHARGE BY WRITING TO:
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (1400)
COMMITTEE EVALUATION STAFF
ATTN: PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M STREET SW, WASHINGTON DC 20460
PLEASE REQUEST THE FY94 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF, AND INCLUDE YOUR
NAME AND COMPLETE MAILING ADDRESS
-------
"it v"''' '.T V,-,>)04-3590
'0
------- |