906R92901
Science Advisory Board
FY1992 Staff Director's Annual
Report -- "Getting Results"
f
i
This report is a Staff summary of activities for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science
Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 1992, with projections for Fiscad Year 1993. This report has not been
reviewed by the Board or the Agency and should not be construed as representing the views of
either organization.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
906R92901
ANNUAL REPORT
page i
FOREWORD
Four years ago the subtitle of this
report was "Making a Difference". That
descriptor is even more apt today, given
the demonstrable impact of SAB activi-
ties on the Agency's agenda, its practice,
and its prospects. This impact has been
especially visible in the way in which
Administrator Reilly has moved aggres-
sively to implement the recommendations
of the SAB's seminal report, Reducing
Risk. As a consequence, the Agency's
budget bears the imprint of the report;
the Agency's research agenda has been
reformulated; and the Agency's risk man-
agement thrusts reflect many of the
innovations suggested by the Board.
Three years ago this report was
subtitled "Taking Stock/Reaching Out".
During FY92 our reach has been extend-
ed even further. As examples, last fall
Dr. Alan Bromley, Science Advisor to the
President and Director of the White
House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, was the featured speaker at the
SAB's Annual Membership meeting.
This year US Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan introduced legislation that
would have the SAB develop an expand-
ed form of the Reducing Risk report on a
biannual basis. At hearings on the bill
this September, SAB Chair Raymond C.
Loehr provided testimony on the pro-
posed legislation and received many
favorable comments about the contribu-
tions of the Board. Further afield from
Washington, the Mayor of Columbus,
OH, in consultation with the SAB, has
established his own technical advisory
group, modeled after the EPA's Science
Advisory Board.
Two years ago this report was
subtitled "Working Smarter". During
FY92 we have initiated the "total quality
management" (TQM) philosophy through
a productive Staff retreat. Focused
group efforts to resolve particular prob-
lems and to address more completely the
needs of our customers (i.e., the SAB
members, the Agency, and the public)
have helped us both to work smarter and
to improve our product.
Last year this report was subtitled
"Making Progress", chronicling significant
developments within the Committees and
within the SAB Staff. This progress has
continued apace in FY92 with improve-
ments office hardware, additional Staff
developments, and increased attention to
quality operations.
I trust that the contents of this
year's report will validate the accuracy of
its subtitle "Getting Results." The raw
numbers provide the broad framework
which is given substance in the text that
follows:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page if ANNUAL REPORT
The number of functioning committees Getting these results in FY92 is a
increased by 25% (from 8 to 10). testimony to energy, creativity, and dedi-
cation of the SAB members, its consul-
The number of members increased by tants, and its Staff. We are proud to
33% (from 60 to 80). have played this role in the protection of
public health and the environment.
The number of reports sent to the Ad-
ministrator increased by 150%
(from 22 to 55).
Donald G. Barnes, PhD.
Staff Director
December, 1992
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page Hi
ABSTRACT
This seventh Annual Report of the
Staff Director of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) provides background
information on the Board: its origins,
authorities, and function. The roster of
the SAB's Members and Consultants,
meetings of SAB committees, and
abstracts of the reports submitted to the
EPA Administrator during FY92 are
included in the report.
A number of the Board's activities
are highlighted for special attention:
a. The EMAP review (report in prep-
aration), and the continuing act-
ivity re implementation of Redu-
cing Risk
b.The reassessment of the
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
draft risk assessment
c. Reviews of the Revised Radon Risk
Estimates and Associated
Uncertainties, the National
Survey for Radon in Schools, the
Citizen's Guide to Radon, the
Homebuyer's/Seller's Guide to
Radon, and the Correlation of
Short-Term and Long-Term Tests
for Radon.
d. An "experimental" review of a site-
specific issue, the Idaho
Radionuclide Study Review (was
helpful to the Region X office in
determining its response to this
problem).
e. Completion of the report on a draft
risk assessmentforformaldehyde.
This issue generated considerable
public interest, and elicited major
involvement by the public, with
participation in the discussions by
several public interest groups, in-
dustry associations, and individual
members of the public.
f. Establishment of an Environmental
Economics Advisory Committee
(EEAC) at the request of the EPA
Administrator in response to a
recommendation in the Science
Advisory Board's Reducing Risk
report, and a Clean Air Act
Compliance Analysis Council
(CAACAC) per the mandate of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
The emphasis given to "Getting
Results" during FY92 has resulted in
considerable gains in productivity. We
increased the number of functioning
committees by 25% (from 8 to 10),
increased the number of SAB Members
by 33% (from 60 to 80), and increased
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page iv
ANNUAL REPORT
the number of reports sent to the
Administrator by 150% (from 22 to 55).
FY93 should see a continuation of
the trend toward getting results and
working more effectively with both the
Agency and with the public. This will
result, in part, from continued
implementation of the recommendations
of previous management and self-
initiated studies, as well as the adoption
and implementation of the concepts
embodied in 'Total Quality Management
(TQM)" as all SAB Staff begin to apply
the lessons learned from formal TQM
training. All of these efforts will stand the
SAB in good stead as it continues to
confront a growing number of requests
for advice/review on increasingly complex
and contentious issues in protecting
public health and the environment.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page v
THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD:
GETTING RESULTS
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 FY92 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 9
3.3 SAB Activities 15
3.3.1 Overview 15
3.3.2 Criteria for activities 16
3.3.3 Impacts of activities 21
3.3.4 Responses and reactions to SAB Activities 23.
3.4 Examples of the SAB's "Getting Results" 24
3.4.1 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) 24
3.4.2 Radionuclides in Drinking 25
3.4.3 teachability 26
4. REVIEW OF FY92 ACTIVITIES 27
4.1 Introduction 27
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities 27
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC) 28
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page vi
ANNUAL REPORT
4.2.2 Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC) 28
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 28
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC) 29
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) 30
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) 31
4.2.7 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) 32
4.2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC) 33
4.2.9 Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC) . 33
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) 34
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) 36
4.3 Getting Results in the SAB Staff Office 36
4.3.1 Computer Systems 36
4.3.2 Total Quality Management (TQM) 37
4.3.3 Structural Changes and Resource Support 37
4.3.4 Administrative/Operational Changes 38
4.4 SAB Staff in Transition 39
5. CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECTIONS 40
TABLES
I. SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades 11
II. FY92 SAB Committee Chairs 12
III. SAB Expenses for FY88-92 17
IV. SAB Activities and Resources: FY80-92 17
V. SAB Activities by Committee: FY88-92 18
FIGURES
1. SAB Resources and Outputs, FY 1982-92 20
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page vii
APPENDICES
A. Charters of the Science Advisory Board, the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Clean Air Act
Compliance Analysis Council.
B. SAB Members and Consultants in FY92
C. Organizational Chart of the SAB in FY92
D. Guidelines for SAB membership adopted in FY92
E. Staff Support and Committee Leadership in FY92
F. SAB Committee Meetings in FY92
G. SAB Reports and Abstracts in FY92
H. Procedures for Public Disclosure at SAB Meetings
I. Biographical Sketches of SAB Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction to the Report
This purpose of this report is to:
a. Provide a succinct introduction to
the Science Advisory Board
(SAB);
b. Provide a summary of the SAB
activities for Fiscal Year 1992
(FY92).
c. Offer a near-term projection of
future SAB activities.
Section 2 is a brief introduction to
the Report. Section 3 provides
background information on the SAB, its
organization, history, membership, and
procedures, including specific examples
of the way the SAB is getting results.
Section 4 contains summaries of the
activities of each of the SAB Committees
during FY92. Examples of the ways that
the SAB Staff Office are getting results
are included. Section 5 contains some
projections for FY93.
The Report also includes a
number of specialized appendices: char-
ters, organizational charts, leadership
information, membership lists, guidelines
on service on the SAB, lists of meetings,
abstracts of FY92 report, and information
about the SAB Staff.
1.2 Introduction to the Board
The purpose of the Board is to
provide qualified, independent technical
advice to the Administrator of EPA on
scientific, engineering, and economic
underpinnings of Agency positions (See
charters in Appendix A). The SAB often
functions as a peer review panel,
assessing the technical rationales
underlying current or proposed Agency
positions. In recent years, however, it
has initiated a number of activities on its
own; e.g., the study of leachability of
hazardous wastes and a commentary on
the relative risks of radon in drinking
water vs radon gas in homes.
The SAB was formally chartered in
1978 by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration
Authorization 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 Committee Act, and is
composed of non-governmental scientists
and engineers appointed by the EPA
Administrator. The 80 members of the
Board (see Appendix B) are appointed by
the Administrator and conduct their
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 2
ANNUAL REPORT
business through ten Committees,
coordinated through an Executive
Committee (See the organizational chart
in Appendix C and Staff support and
committee leadership in Appendix E).
The members of the Board are some of
the most qualified scientists, engineers,
and economists in the country, as
evidenced by the credentials of the FY92
Committee Chairs (See Table II). The
work of the Board is supported by over
300 consultants to the Board (see
Appendix B), who are also non-
governmental scientists, engineers, and
economists appointed by the SAB Staff
Director. Technical experts employed by
the Federal Government who have
special skill or knowledge in particular
areas participate as Liaison Members on
several Committees, as needed.
The SAB is supported by a Staff
Office of 17 persons and an FY92 budget
of some $1.7 million. These resources
enabled the Board to conduct 48
meetings and issue 26 full reports and 29
short reports (generally less than 10
pages, including Letter Reports and
Commentaries) and six Notifications of
Consultations (See Tables III and IV).
The SAB carries out projects at
the request of the Agency, at the request
of Congress, and on its own volition. In
recent years, the number of requests for
SAB action have been 3-5 times the
number that the Board can address.
Therefore, the Board has adopted criteria
for use in establishing priorities among
the various requests, determining the
degree to which such requests:
a. Impact overall environmental pro-
tection
b. Address novel scientific problems
or principles
c. Integrate science into Agency
actions in new ways
d. Influence long-term technological
development
e. Respond to emergencies
f. Deal with problems that transcend
federal agency or other
organizational boundaries.
g. Strengthen the Agency's basic
capabilities
h. Serve Congressional and other
leadership interests
The reports produced by the SAB
have a positive impact on many aspects
of the Agency's operations and policies,
to wit:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 3
a. The rigor of the Agency's technical
positions
b. The specific areas to which the
Agency allocates resources for
scientific and technical activities
c. The directions taken by emerging
science policy
d. The directions taken by the
Agency's planning
e. The directions and form of public
debate of scientific, engineering,
and economic issues
Of particular note, in terms of the
Board's "getting results" and affecting
major aspects of EPA's operations in
FY92, were
a. The Agency's risk assessment of
environmental tobacco smoke
("passive smoking" or "ETS").
b. The Ecological Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
and Ecological Indicators
Program.
c. The Agency's risk assessment of
the carcinogenic effects of
electromagnetic fields (EMF).
With all of these activities,
attention and impacts, the Board has
maintained a broad base of support both
within and outside the Agency. In
particular, the current Administrator and
Deputy Administrator have been strong
supporters of the SAB.
1.3 Review of FY92 Activities
During FY92, the ten SAB
Standing Committees conducted 47
public meetings and one closed meeting,
all of which were announced in the
Federal Register. In addition, two
conference calls were held for planning,
writing, and administrative purposes. A
wide variety of topics were covered: from
the health effects of specific chemicals
techniques for assessing risks at
Superfund sites; from aspects of the
Agency's research program to various
reports to Congress. Appendices F and
G contain a full listing of FY92 SAB
meetings and reports (with abstracts),
respectively.
In addition to its traditional
activities of holding SAB meetings and
producing reports, the Board and the
SAB Staff took steps to develop ways of
"getting results" by rebuilding the
infrastructure that enables the Board to
do its work. These include the following:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 4
ANNUAL REPORT
a. Continued implementation of the
recommendations of the Mission
and Functioning report that was
received in October, 1989.
b. Additional acquisitions, per the
recommendations of the 1989
Management and Organization
report, of modern computers and
related systems, including
upgrading the Local Area Network
(LAN), an image and character
scanning system, and additional
laptop computers and printers for
use at meetings.
c. Continued the use of Annual
Meetings of the SAB to involve
Members in determining the
Board's long-range view that
provides direction for the Staff.
d. Continued development of formal
procedures for setting the agenda
for the SAB, involving many of the
Board's constituencies, including
the Executive Committee, the
Administrator's Office, the
Assistant Administrators,
Regional Administrators, and the
EPA program offices-much of the
activity coordinated through the
SAB Consultative Group.
e. Attendance at formal training on
Total Quality Management (TQM)
for the entire SAB Staff.
f. Hiring additional staff.
The Board itself underwent a
significant restructuring in FY92. The
new Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC)-requested by the
Administrator in his response to the
SAB's Reducing Risk report-became
operational, investigating a number of
important issues of how economic
analysis is applied to environmental
problems. In addition, the Clean Air Act
Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)
(see Section 812 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990) became a distinct
entity under the administrative umbrella
of the Science Advisory Board; cf.,
CASAC. The start-up phases of both
these groups attracted considerable
attention from the Board, the Agency, the
Congress, and the public.
1.4 Projections and Conclusions
FY93 should be an exciting and
busy time for the SAB. There will be
several activities associated with
completing tasks started in FY92, as well
as a range of on-going efforts related to
the FY90 Reducing Risk project.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 5
The FY93 agenda-building
exercise, although not yet completed,
has surfaced many important issues,
some of which will generate considerable
public interest; e.g., reviews of health risk
assessment guidelines for cancer and
non-cancer effects, review of the
Agency's reassessment of the risks
posed by "dioxin," assessing radon
research needs, and an examination of
teachability phenomena and impacts on
groundwater. In addition, as in the past,
FY93 is likely to bring a number of impor-
tant topics that cannot be anticipated at
this time.
The Staff Office joined the
Agency-wide movement to practicing
the principles of Total Quality Manage-
ment (TQM). The TQM approach calls
for organizations to study themselves
and their goals and operations. This
process began with the Staff Director
becoming a Facilitator for the Agency
TQM training program, and his
subsequent formal training of all staff
members at an off-site retreat in March
1992. Careful analysis of the Office's
"customers" and "suppliers" and its
capability to meet the needs of the
Board, the Agency, and the public for
accurate, timely, and effective advice on
issues of health and environmental
protection are already leading to
additional improvements in our service to
the Board, the Agency, and the public.
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
2.1 Purpose of the Report
The Science Advisory Board
(SAB) is a legislatively mandated group
of non-governmental scientists,
engineers, and economists charged with
providing independent technical advice
on environmental issues to the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and others;
e.g., Congressional committees.
Generally, the SAB does not get involved
in or provide advice on regulatory policy
aspects of problems confronting the
Agency, since such matters are the
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
continuing importance in the protection of
public health and the environment.
However, some people both within and
outside of the Agency are hard-pressed
to describe the extent of the Board's
activities or the detailed nature of its
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 6
ANNUAL REPORT
findings. This is due, in part, to the
complex structure of the Board and the
aperiodic issuing of its reports. To some,
the SAB is viewed as a hurdle which
must be cleared on the way to issuing
regulations; much like having to defend
one's thesis on the way to getting an
advanced degree. To others, the SAB is
seen as a court of last resort in which
competing scientific arguments are
objectively and dispassionately
evaluated.
Board, to those who think they
understand the Board, and to those who
know enough to know that they don't
understand the Board. The intent is that
each reader gain a broader perspective
of the SAB, its activities, and its impact.
Specifically, the purpose of the Staff
Director's Annual Report is three-fold:
a. To provide a succinct introduction to
the SAB.
For some puzzled observers of the
SAB, the biggest problem is simply
finding out "What does the SAB do?" A
somewhat flippant, but accurate, answer
to that question is: "The SAB makes a
difference." For example, 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 appropriately by the Agency to
address environmental problems.
This Report is intended to reveal
the SAB to a wide audience: to those
inside the Agency, to those outside the
Agency, to those who understand the
b. To provide a summary of the SAB
activities for FY92.
c. To offer a near-term projection of
future SAB activities.
In short, the Report is designed to
provide "a group photograph" of the
SAB-its people, its products, and its
prospects-in sufficient detail that the
interested reader can distinguish the
major features and identify paths for
investigating the finer details.
2.2 Content of the Report
The Report consists of five
principle sections, plus appendices which
supplement the discussion in the main
sections. Following the Executive
Summary (Section 1) and this
Introduction (Section 2), Section 3
provides basic background information
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 7
on the SAB. Here the reader will find
brief discussions on the history of the
Board, its organization and membership,
and its principal activities and
procedures. Specific examples are
described that illustrate the way in which
the SAB impacts positively on the
functions and operations of the Agency.
Section 4 focuses on SAB
activities during FY92. This portion of
the Report contains descriptions of the
activities of each of the Board's
Committees during the past year.
Specific examples are given of the way
in which FY92 was a year of "Getting
Results." In addition, changes in the
SAB Staff and operations of the Office
are highlighted. Section 5 provides a
glimpse into what FY93 holds in store for
the Board. Significant topics have
already been identified, and some
reviews planned; additional issues will
arise during the course of the year.
The Appendices contain important
information, such as organizational
charts, membership lists, abstracts of
SAB reports, and the like. These
Appendices provide a source of more
detailed information about specific
aspects of the SAB.
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and
Function
The SAB was established by
Congress to provide independent scientif-
ic and engineering advice to the EPA
Administrator 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 Risk in the Federal Govern-
ment, 1983), the SAB deals with risk
assessment (hazard identification,
dose-response assessment, exposure
assessment and risk characterization)
and only that portion of risk management
that deals strictly with the technical
issues associated with various control
options. Issues of Agency and Adminis-
tration policy 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 mandate of ERDDAA, the SAB pro-
vides "such scientific advice as may be
requested by the Administrator, the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 8
ANNUAL REPORT
of the United States Senate, or the Com-
mittees on Science and Technology,
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, or
Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives". Because the
Science Advisory Board is a Federal
Advisory Committee, it must comply with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. C) and related
regulations. Consequently, the Board
has an approved charter, which must be
renewed biannually, announces its meet-
ings 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
predecessor 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
scientist, engineers, and economists who
are recognized, non-governmental ex-
perts in their respective fields. These
individuals are drawn from academia,
industry, and environmental communities
throughout the United States and, in
some limited cases, other countries (See
Appendix B for a listing of Members and
Consultants).
Increasingly, the Agency has
placed a premium on basing its regula-
tions on a solid technical foundation.
Therefore, during the past 14 years the
SAB has assumed growing importance
and stature. It has become formal prac-
tice 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 Standards (NAAQS) be re-
viewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advi-
sory Committee (CASAC), which is ad-
ministratively 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 evi-
dence amounts to incontrovertible proof
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 9
might court irreversible ecological and
health consequences. In such cases, the
Agency makes certain assumptions and
extrapolations from what is known in
order to reach a rational science policy
position regarding the need (or lack
thereof) for regulatory action. 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 A)
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 of
sufficient size and diversity to provide
the range of expertise required to assess
the scientific and technical aspects of
environmental issues," and that "No
member of the Board shall be a full-time
employee of the Federal Government."
The Charter requires formation of an
Executive Committee and inclusion of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(see separate charter, also in Appendix
A). Otherwise the Board may organize
itself as needed to meet its responsibili-
ties.
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-
tains a chart of the FY92 SAB organiza-
tion. The Executive Committee meets
four times a year to act on Agency re-
quests for reviews, hear briefings on
pertinent issues, initiate actions/reviews
by the Board which it feels are appropri-
ate, and approve final reports prior to
transmittal to the Administrator. (Reports
from CASAC and the new CAACAC are
submitted directly to the Administrator,
without need for prior Executive Commit-
tee approval.)
Five Committees have historically
conducted most Science Advisory Board
reviews:
a. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Com-
mittee (CASAC)
b. Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (EPEC)
c. Environmental Engineering Com-
mittee (EEC)
d. Environmental Health Committee
(EHC)
e. Radiation Advisory Committee
(RAC)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 10
ANNUAL REPORT
In recent years, five additional
committees have been added:
f. Indoor Air QualityHbtal Human Ex-
posure Committee (IAQC)
Mandated in the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act in FY86
g. Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC)
Requested by the Administrator in
response to SAB recommendations
in FY88
h. Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Evolved from the EHC in FY90
i. Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis
Council (CAACAC)
Mandated in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments
j. Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC)
Requested by the Administrator in
response to the Reducing Risk re
port in FY90
The activities of these committees
are supplemented by a variety of sub-
committees, as well as by ad hoc sub-
committees which are created as re-
quired.
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 for the past 18 years are
listed in Table I. Table II testifies to the
caliber of individuals who have served as
chairs of SAB Committees in FY92.
Although the number of appointed
members is flexible, the FY92 SAB con-
sisted of 80 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 continuous service. A formal guideline
on membership service was adopted by
the Executive Committee in making FY92
and FY92 appointments (See Appendix
D). More than 300 additional technical
experts, invited by the Staff Director,
serve on an "as needed" basis as con-
sultants to the Board on various issues
where their expertise is relevant. The
number of consultants is also flexible,
and their one year terms can be re-
newed. Consultants are required to meet
the same standards of technical exper-
tise as members. The term "Member or
Consultants (MIC)" is used throughout
this report to refer to these outside tech-
nical experts. Appendix B contains a list
of the FY92 M/Cs on the Board. Nearly
all of them serve as "Special Govern-
ment Employees (SGEs), subject to all
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 11
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
Affiliation
University of California
Michigan State University
University of Texas
New York University
University of Texas
Date
1974-1978
1979-1981
1981-1983
1983-1988
1988-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
appropriate restrictions, including conflict
of interest statutes (18 U.S.C. Sections
202-209)
The SAB Staff consists of 17 EPA
employees: a Staff Director, Assistant
Staff Director, five technical Designated
Federal Officials (DFOs), a Project
Coordinator, a Program Assistant, seven
Staff Secretaries, and one clerk/typist.
There is also a receptionist, who is hired
by contract through the AARP.
The duties of the Staff include
identifying potential issues for SAB atten-
tion, focusing questions for review by the
Board, working with the Board to identify
and enlist appropriate M/Cs, interfacing
between the Board and the Agency and
the public, coordinating logistics for re-
views, and producing minutes and re-
ports for submission to the Administrator.
Appendix E contains information on the
Staff support within each of the Commit-
tees.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 12 ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE II FY 1992 SAB Committee Chairs
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. Raymond Loehr
H.M. Alharthy Centennial Chair and Professor, Civil Eng. at the
University of Texas at Austin. v
Member, Nat. Academy of Engineering
Member, Soc. of Env. Tox. and Chemistry
Member, Water Poll. Control Federation
Member, Am. Society of Civil Engineers
Former Chair, SAB Env. Engineering Committee
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)
Dr. Richard Schmalensee
Dir., Center for Energy and Env. Policy Research, Mass. 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. Roger McClellan
President of the Chem. Ind. Inst. of Toxicology
Member, National Institute of Medicine
Member, Am. Veterinary Medical Assoc.
Member, Radiation Research Society
Member, Society of Toxicology
Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Dr. Verne A. Ray
Asst. 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
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page 13
TABLE II (Continued)
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. Allen V. Kneese1
Sr. Fellow, Quality of the Environment Division, Resources
for the Future
Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Fellow. American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science
Member, American Economic Association
Member, Assoc. of Environmental and Resource Economics
Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Ecological Economics
Dr. V. Kerry Smith1
University Professor of Economics, North Carolina State University
Member, American Economic Association
Member, Assoc. of Environmental and Resource Economics
Editor, Advances in Applied Macroeconomics
Associate Editor, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Associate Editor, Review of Economics and Statistics
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Mr. Richard Conway
Senior Corporate Fellow, Union Carbide Corp.
Member, Nat. Academy of Engineering
Diplomate, Am. Acad. of Environ. Eng.
Fellow, Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers
Member, NRC Water Sci. & Technology
Board Affiliate Member, Assoc. of Env. Eng.
Prof. Member, Soc. of Environ. Tox. & Chemistry
Member, Amer. Inst. for Pollution Prevention.
Co-Chairs
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 14 ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE II (Continued)
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Ken/ie0i L Dickson,
Director, Inst. of App. Sci. and Dept. of Bio. Science.,
University of North Texas
Member, American Fisheries Society
Member, Soc. of Env. Tox. and Chemistry
Member, N. American Benthological Soc.
Member, J. K. G. Silvey Society
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Arthur Upton
Professor and Director, Institute of Environmental Medicine, N. Y. University
Member, American Assoc. for Cancer Research.
Member, Assoc. of Path, and Bacteriologists
Member, American College of Toxicology
Member, American Society for Exp. Path.
Member, Radiation Research Society
Member, Soc.for Exp. Biology & Medicine
Member, Society for Risk Analysis
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)
Dr. Morton Lippmann
Professor, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York Univ.
Director, Aerosol Inhalation Research Laboratory
Member, Am. Conf. of Gov. Ind. Hygienists
Member, Am. Academy of Indust. Hygiene
Member, Am. Industrial Hygiene Assoc.
Member, American Thoracic Society
Member, Am. Assoc. for Aerosol Research
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 15
TABLE II (Continued)
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Dr. Oddvar Nygaard
Professor of Radiology and Biochemistry, Case-Western Reserve
University
Member, Radiation Research Society
Member, Environmental Mutagen Society
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, Society of Sigma Xi
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Mr. AMn Aim
Director, Senior Vice President, Environmental Technology Group, Science
Applications International Corporation
Member, Nat. Academy of Public Admin.
Member, Board of Directors of Environmental Law Institute
3.3 SAB Activities
3.3.1 Overview
The types of projects and the
range of subjects reviewed by SAB con-
tinue to grow. The Board takes on re-
views at the request of Congress, the
Administrator and program offices, as
well as on its own initiative. In general,
the trend over time has been for more
SAB reviews, addressing more varied
subjects, requested by a wider range of
individuals and organizations
Most of the outputs of the Board
are in the form of full reports. Such
reports are generally the result of the
peer review of some Agency docu-
ment^) and go into the details of the
findings and recommendations, 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:
a. Letter reports
Similar in origin, content, and pur-
pose to full reports; simply shorter
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 16
ANNUAL REPORT
b. Commentaries
Unsolicited SAB advice about
technical issues that the Board
feels should be drawn to the Ad-
ministrators 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 work on an
issue. The goal of the consultation is to
leaven EPA's thinking on an issue by
brainstorming a variety of approaches to
the problem. There is no attempt or
intent to express an SAB consensus or
generate an SAB report. The Board
simply notifies the Administrator that
such a consultation has taken place.
The magnitude of SAB activity has
increased dramatically during the past 10
years. Tables III - V and Figure 1 pro-
vide summary information on the Board's
activities and resources as a whole.
From FY90 to FY91 there was a
decrease in the number of meetings and
reports. This decline resulted from sev-
eral factors including an increase in com-
plexity of the Board's review topics, and
in the degree of public interest, scrutiny
and involvement. Also during this period
of increasing workload, several staff
members were lost to other worthy activ-
ities. In FY92, the large increase in
reports without concurrent increases in
funding or meetings has been a result of
improved report preparation and process-
ing, an emphasis on reduced turn-around
of advice being tendered, and collective
total quality management efforts on the
part of the SAB Staff.
3.3.2 Criteria for activities
As the volume of requests for SAB
involvement has increased, the Board
has had to decide how to set its priori-
ties. As a part of the "self-study" initiated
in FY89, the Board's Mission and Func-
tioning 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:
a. Impact overall environmental pro-
tection; e.g., the EMAP review
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-92-008)
b. Address novel scientific problems
or principles; e.g., the concept
of using DMA protein cross-link-
ing as a measure of internal
dose of formaldehyde exposure
(EPA-SAB-EHC-92-021).
c. Integrate science into Agency ac-
tions in new ways; e.g., review of
the technical portions of the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 17
TABLE III SAB Expenses for Fiscal Years 1988-1992
Fiscal Compensation
Year Staff M/C
Total
Travel Other
Expenses Expenses
TOTAL
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
$550K
710
750
778
894
$460
450
390
459
413
$1,010K
1,160
1,140
1,237
1,307
$280K
270
210
329
298
$80K
140
320
162
54
$1,370
1,570
1,670
1,728
1,659
NB In FY 1990 there was considerable contract support for the development and production of Reducing Risk with consequent
reduction in the need for SAB funds devoted to compensation and travel.
TABLE IV SAB Activities and Resources, Fiscal Years 1980-1992
Committee Meetings Report Totals Staff Operating
Open* Closed* Othei* FulF Ltr* Totar Members FTEs Costsf
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
42
12
20
38
29
60
61
57
58
67
60
47
47
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
7
2
26°
16
7
6
26 35
13
10
10
11
17
41
28
36
43
38
33
22
61
81
72
37
44
48
60
59
74
74
61
55
62
80
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
900
750
600
650
1,050
1,200
1,200
1,350
1,400
1,550
1,650
1,750
1,650
a Meetings announced in the Federal Register, per the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
b Writing, planning, and administrative sessions do not normally require notice in the Federal Register. Some include
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 FY92 reports and abstracts.
f Operating costs in thousands ($000), rounded to nearest $50K.
g Includes three separate volumes of appendices to the Reducing Risk report.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 18
ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1988-1992
Committee
EC
EC/
Ad hoc
CAACAC
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
EEC
Fiscal
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1992
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1990
1991
1992
1992
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
# Meetings1
F.R. Other Total
4
4
4
5
18
0
0
1
1
1
3
4
8
5
2
8
7
7
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
4
5
5
263
20
244
0
0
1
2
8
1
1
3
4
8
5
2
5
11
8
8
8
Fun
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
2
4
0
4
2
3
# Reports2
Lfr Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
4
2
0
8
1
0
1
4
0
0
1
0
7
5
7
0
1
1
0
6
3
2
4
5
2
12
1
5
3
4
3
7
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 19
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee
Fiscal
Committee Year
EHC
EPEC
IAQC
RAC
RSAC
Where
EC
CAACAC
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
IAQC
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1989
1990
1991
1992
Executive Committee
#
F.R.
3
4
2
6
10
9
0
2
3
12
8
7
2
3
4
for Fiscal Years 1988-1992 (Continued)
Meetings1 # Reports2
Other
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Drinking Water Committee
Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Environmental Health Committee
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Com-
mittee
Total Full Lfr Total
9 19
9 13
3 505
4 347
2 213
3 4
7 3
6 303
10 404
10 8 3 11
1 0
2 1
0 011
2 101
3 224
9 8
2 3
12 011
10 011
7 4 10 14
4 4
2 303
1 201
4 303
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
1 For FY 90 and later indicates meeting requiring notice in
Federal Register and those not req. notice.
2 In 1990 and later, reports are entered as Full reports, or
Letter reports (which include commentaries and notifi
cation of consultations.
J Includes meetings of the Research Strategies Committee
4 Includes 22 meetings of the Relative Risk Reduction
Strategies Committee (RRRSC)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 20
ANNUAL REPORT
Figure 1 SAB Resources and Outputs, Fiscal Years 1988-1992
200 '
180
160
HO '
120 '
100 '
80 -
60
40
20
- 200
' 180
160
- 140
- 120
- 100
80
60
40
20
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Fiscal Tears
"Homebuyer's and Seller's Guide
to Radon (EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-
92-010).
d. Influence long-term technological de-
velopment; e.g., teachability is-
sues (EPA-SAB-EEC-92-003)
e. Respond to emergencies; (None in
FY92)
f. Deal with problems that transcend
federal agency or other organiza-
tional boundaries; e.g., review of
evaluation of dredged material
proposed for ocean disposal
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-014)
g. Strengthen the Agency's basic capa-
bilities; e.g., the review of the ex-
posure assessment guidelines
(EPA-SAB-IAQC-92-015)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 21
h. Serve Congressional and other lead-
ership interests; e.g., testimony
before a Congressional committee
a review of the President's FY 93
budget proposal for EPA's re-
search program (EPA-SAB-
RSAC-92-017)
3.3.3 Impacts of activities
Each SAB activity has a unique
set of consequences which can affect
subsequent activity by the Agency, and,
by extension, the rest of society. The
listing below provides examples of the
impacts of some of these activities during
FY92.
a. Impacts on the rigor of the Agency's
technical positions
The SAB completed its report on
a draft risk assessment for form-
aldehyde (EPA-SAB-EHC-92-021),
based on a its FY 91 review. This
issue generated considerable pub-
lic interest, and elicited major in-
volvement by the public, with par-
ticipation in the discussions by
several public interest groups, in-
dustry associations, and individual
members of the public. Interest
was particularly high in the scien-
tific community because of the
Agency's use of DMA protein
cross-linking (DPX) in its assess-
ment. After prolonged discussion,
the SAB determined that the use
of DPX held promise for the fu-
ture, but that the technique could
be endorsed only as a measure of
exposure at this time. The Com-
mittee also recommended that the
Agency pursue further work on
DPX as a marker of adverse ef-
fect, and look more carefully at
existing epidemiological data on
formaldehyde exposure to get a
better understanding of the effects
of joint particulate/formaldehyde
exposure.
b. Impacts on expenditures of funds
The SAB reviewed the Correla-
tion ofShort-Term and Long-Term
Tests for Radon (EPA-SAB-RAC-
92-008) and reminded the Agency
that long-term measurements of
radon more closely reflect expo-
sure than do short-term measure-
ments and that reliance on long-
term measurements will reduce
the likelihood of homeowner's
mitigating where mitigation is not
needed, or failing to mitigate
where mitigation would significant-
ly reduce cancer risk.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 22
ANNUAL REPORT
c. Impacts on emerging science policy
The SAB commented on he Sta-
tus of EPA Radionuclide Models
(EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-001), re-
minding the Agency that quantita-
tive uncertainty analysis is impor-
tant and will become increasingly
important to the scientific credi-
bility of the Agency's products.
d. Impacts on Agency planning
The SAB established an Eviron-
mental Economics Advisory Com-
mittee (EEAC) at the request of
the EPA Administrator in response
to a recommendation in the Sci-
ence Advisory Board's "Reducing
Risk" report). The EEAC re-
viewed EPA's effort on a pilot
application of environmental ac-
counting—the Cheasapeaka re-
port. In its commentary report
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-92-010)
on this topic, the Committee ad-
vised EPA that research in this
general area should be continued
as a means of learning more
about environmental accounting,
but that it should not serve as a
template for a series of such stud-
ies in other geographic areas.
The EEAC felt that methodology
has not yet been sufficiently de-
veloped to serve as a guide for
future efforts. Rather, it should
continue to be used to stimulate
further thought about fundamental
conceptual and measurement
issues which only percolate to the
surface in the context of specific
studies.
e. Impacts on the public debate of sci-
entific and engineering issues
Through a series of reports over
the past decade, public attention
has been drawn to the issue of
the possible association between
cancer and electromagnetic fields
(EMF). Various groups have stud-
ied and analyzed the situation-
from states and foreign govern-
ments to the Office of the
President's Science Advisor. The
popular press has carried stories
on the controversy, amid calls for
more research, if not more regula-
tion. Although epidemiological
studies suggest a weak associa-
tion between cancer and EMF, the
results are not altogether clear
and the possible mechanisms of
action are even less clear.
The RAC conducted an exten-
sive review of the issue, holding
four public meetings over the
course of nearly a year. The
meetings were some of the most
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 23
heavily attended in the Board's
history. The SAB's reports (EPA-
SAB-RAC-92-013 and EPA-SAB-
RAC-LTR-92-009) on the matter
should be useful steps in moving
towards a resolution of the techni-
cal issues involved.
3.3.4 Responses and reactions to
SAB Activities
Since 1984, the Board has formal-
ly requested written Agency responses to
SAB reviews. The majority of the re-
sponses indicate that the Agency has
acted positively on the advice given by
the Board. In many instances, the Agen-
cy initiated action on the basis of the
advice rendered at the public meetings,
prior to receipt of the formal report form
the Board. In some cases the Agency
and the Board "agree to disagree".
Support for the SAB both inside
and outside the Agency remains strong.
The Administrator and Deputy Adminis-
trator have made it a practice to attend
Executive Committee meetings to dis-
cuss topics of mutual interest. Several
Assistant Administrators also made pre-
sentations and requests at meetings of
the Executive Committee in FY92. The
greater number of EPA requests for SAB
reviews speaks to the Agency's commit-
ment to the SAB. However, resource
constraints continue to limit the extent to
which the Board can respond fully to the
needs of the Agency.
Outside the Agency, mention of
the meetings and reports of the SAB
appear in the trade press on a regular
basis and in the public press on selected
topics; e.g., environmental tobacco
smoke, the national ambient air quality
standard for ozone and other photochem-
ical oxidants, and carcinogenicity of
electromagnetic fields. SAB members,
as recognized experts, are sought out by
representatives of the media for com-
ments on various environmental prob-
lems.
Congressional interest also contin-
ues. This year's ETS review again drew
close scrutiny from certain offices on
Capitol Hill. In addition, the Subcommit-
tee on Natural Resources, Agriculture
Research and Environment, which over-
sees the EPA's research programs,
regularly invites members of the SAB's
ORD Budget Review Subcommittee to
testify at its hearings. The Chair has
commented favorably on the Board and
on the utility of its report on the magni-
tude and distribution of the ORD budget.
This year US Senator Daniel Pat-
rick Moynihan introduced legislation that
would have the SAB develop an expand-
ed form of the Reducing Risk report on a
biannual basis. At hearings on the bill in
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 24
ANNUAL REPORT
September, 1992, SAB Chair Raymond
C. Loehr provided testimony on the pro-
posed legislation and received many
favorable comments about the contribu-
tions of the Board.
SAB reports and commentaries
also contributed to Congressional direc-
tives in the FY93 appropriations bill for
the Agency. Specifically, EPA is re-
quired to conduct multi-media risk as-
sessments and comparative cost/benefit
studies for radon gas. In addition, the
Agency must complete a study of the
cost/benefits of drinking water regulations
by mid-summer of 1993. The former re-
ports must be submitted to the SAB for
review prior to submission to the Con-
gress; the latter report is likely to go to
the Board also.
3.4 Examples of the SAB's "Getting
Results"
3.4.1 Environmental Tobacco
Smoke (ETS)
The Science Advisory Board's
(SAB) Indoor Air and Total Human Expo-
sure Committee (IAQC) met in public
session on July 21-22,1992 in Arlington,
Virginia to review the draft EPA docu-
ment Respiratory Health Effects of Pas-
sive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other
Disorders (EPA/600/6-90/006B May 1992
SAB Review Draft). At this public meet-
ing, the Committee received presenta-
tions from Agency staff concerning the
draft document, and public comments
from 15 individuals representing them-
selves or various groups with an interest
in this matter, including the R. J. Rey-
nolds Company, the Tobacco Institute,
Action on Smoking and Health, the Coali-
tion on Smoking On Health, and the Cen-
ters for Disease Control. The Committee
also received written comments from 27
individuals or groups. Since the Agency
did not initiate a formal public comment
period, the SAB was the sole recipient of
formal public comments under the provi-
sions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act. Copies of all written comments
were provided to the Committee prior to
the public meeting, as well as to Agency
staff for their consideration in revising the
draft document.
This constitutes the second review
conducted by this committee on this
issue. This draft document is a revision
of an earlier EPA draft report formerly
titled, Health Effects of Passive Smoking:
Assessment of Lung Cancer in Adults
and Respiratory Disorders in Children,
which the Committee reviewed on De-
cember 4 and 5,1990. The Committee's
earlier findings (An SAB Report: Review
of Draft Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Health Effects Document, EPA-SAB-
IAQC-91-007, April 1991) concurred with
EPA's conclusions that ETS should be
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 25
designated a Group A or known human
carcinogen, but suggested that the con-
clusions on respiratory disorders in chil-
dren could be made stronger. The SAB
report also suggested several areas in
which the health risk assessment could
be improved, and offered to provide addi-
tional advice on a revised document.
EPA's draft document has been
significantly revised from the 1990 draft,
and is quite different in size as well as
format. The current draft is about 600
pages in length, compared to the 350 of
the earlier draft. The increased size is
the result of several changes, including:
a new Chapter (3) on physical/chemical
components and assessing exposure to
ETS; a new Chapter (4) on the relation-
ship of active smoking and lung cancer;
an expanded Appendix (A) which in-
cludes a review of all the pertinent ETS
lung cancer studies in non-smoking wom-
en; a rewrite of the non-cancer respira-
tory disorders Chapter (7) to include ap-
proximately thirty more studies than did
the 1990 draft; and a new quantitative
risk assessment chapter (8) on non-
cancer respiratory effects.
As a result of the SAB's earlier re-
view, two appendices from EPA initial
draft were dropped in the revision.
These dealt mostly with lung deposition
modelling and active to passive smoking
dose-response modelling. As the SAB
suggested in its earlier report, some of
the material from these appendices was
extracted and included in Chapters 3 and
4 of the revised draft.
3.4.2 Radionuclides in Drinking
Water
In FY1993 the Radiation Advisory
Committee (RAC) reviewed a series of
EPA reports on the risks associated with
radionuclides in drinking water. This
activity was a follow-up to an earlier SAB
review in 1987. After providing technical
comments (EPA-SAB-RAC-92-009) on
the Agency's document, the RAC went
on to issue a commentary (EPA-SAB-
RAC-COM-92-007) on the comparative
risks the Agency had addressed in the
radon levels in drinking water versus the
radon levels in homeowner's basements
[The Administrator had encouraged the
Board to make such comparison, in the
spirit of the SAB's 1990 Reducing Risk
report.] In the Board's view, the Agency
(following the mandates of Congress in
the Safe Drinking Water Act) seemed
bent on controlling much lower radon
risks in the case of drinking water than
the risks existing in basements that are
below the Agency's recommended "ac-
tion level" for radon in homes. The
Board wanted to call this incongruity to
the Administrator's attention.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 26
ANNUAL REPORT
Although there were logical rea-
sons-based in Congressional legislation-
-for this disparity, the Board was simply
pointing out that the differences did not
rest on a firm technical foundation. In a
wave of publicity and letters that followed
on the issue, the SAB reports were often
cited as support for rethinking the
Agency's and Congress's) position. In
the end, the Congress required EPA to
conduct a multi-media risk assessment
and cost study to more clearly lay out the
costs and benefits of controlling radon in
different media. Congress has also
mandated that the SAB provide a reac-
tion to the reports when they are forward-
ed to the Hill in July of 1993.
Getting these kinds of results, this
quickly, from the public, the Congress,
and the Agency should be helpful to all
of us.
3.4.3 teachability
Over the past decade, the SAB's
Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC) has reviewed a number of EPA
issues involving leachability phenomena
and noted several problems relating to
this release term which were common to
a variety of Agency regulatory programs.
The Committee believed that these com-
mon problems would best be called to
the Agency's attention through a general
review of leachability processes. There-
fore,, nearly two years ago the EEC
launched a self-initiated study aimed at
providing information on leachability,
examining current practices, recommend-
ing specific actions for leachability test
development, and providing insights on
the application of tests and computer
models to the assessment of leachability
in the real world
The Committee has conducted a
series of information and fact-finding
public meetings, including an SAB-spon-
sored Leachability Workshop with inter-
national participation. This year the SAB
got results--in the form of a substantive
report (EPA-SAB-EEC-92-003) containing
recommendations for both test methods
and the development and user of com-
puter models.
The EEC has continued to encour-
age the Agency to follow up on the
SAB's recommendations on leachability.
During this past fiscal year, the EEC con-
ducted a broad distribution of this report,
as well as follow-up activities with the
affected program offices within the Agen-
cy. In the spirit of continuing coopera-
tion, the Agency's Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) asked for a consultation on oily
waste issues.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 27
4. REVIEW OF FY92 ACTIVITIES
4.1 Introduction
Even more than last year, FY92
was a busy and varied year for the Sci-
ence Advisory Board. The number of
meetings held and the number of issues
addressed during the year continued at a
high level. The Board again examined
several new topics whose ramifications
for Agency planning, policy and practice
are far-reaching. The SAB Staff main-
tained its commitment to quality service
to the Board, the Agency, and the public
while undertaking various actions to
assess and enhance its own institutional
health.
This section of the FY92 Annual
Report consists of a brief overview of
SAB Committee activities, a presentation
of the ways in which the SAB is "Getting
Results," and staff changes in the Sci-
ence Advisory Board Office. Additional
details and summaries are found in the
appendices.
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities
In FY92, the various Committees
and Subcommittees of the SAB conduct-
ed 48 public meetings and 2 public con-
ference calls and issued 26 full reports
and 29 letter-size reports (generally
under 10 pages) and six notifications of
consultations. Some of these reports re-
flected culmination of work initiated in the
previous fiscal year, just as some of the
FY92 meetings will result in FY93 re-
ports.
The SAB was involved in some
way with nearly every program office of
the Agency. The SAB both responded to
requests for reviews from the Agency
and took the initiative in delving into new
areas and new approaches, providing the
kind of technical advice that makes a
difference in the Agency's operations.
FY92 also saw the Third Annual
Meeting of the Science Advisory Board,
held in October 1991. Featured at the
meeting was an address by Dr. C. Allen
Bromley, Science Advisor to the Presi-
dent and Director of the Office of Science
Technology Policy in the White House.
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 G contains a list of all FY92
SAB reports, together with their ab-
stracts.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 28
ANNUAL REPORT
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC)
The EC met four times during
FY92 to conduct its business of over-
seeing activities of the Board and review-
ing Committee reports for transmittal to
the Administrator. (The separately char-
tered CASAC and CAACAC submit their
reports directly to the Administrator, with
information copies being supplied to the
EC.) The EC also held an Annual Meet-
ing in conjunction with its first meeting of
the year. During this year, the EC has
continued to take a much larger role in
the planning and prioritizing of the
Board's activities and in the review of its
Committee-prepared reports. This has
helped to provide consistency in SAB
products, and worked toward broadening
the Board's activities.
In addition, the EC prepared a
commentary on Anticipatory Research
(EPA-SAB-EC-COM-92-006).
4.2.2 Clean Air Act Compliance
Analysis Council (CAACAC)
The CAACAC is a statutory advi-
sory group (See the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990) was formed under
the administrative umbrella of the SAB.
Like CASAC, it reports directly to the
Administrator and has a separate charter.
The Council and the EEAC have comple-
mentary responsibilities and some over-
lap in membership.
The CAACAC conducted one
meeting during FY 92, its first year of
operation, and released one report:
Review of the Agency's workplan for
producing the mandated retro-
spective study of impacts of the
Clean Air Act
(EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-92-019)
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC)
CASAC primarily reviews docu-
ments relating to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). By law,
these standards are to be re-evaluated
by EPA every 5 years. In practice, how-
ever, the process often takes longer.
CASAC does not set the review sched-
ule; rather, it is responsive to Agency
time tables.
During FY92, the CASAC held
three meetings and produced three re-
ports:
a. Review of the Agency's Air Quality
Criteria for Carbon Monoxide:
Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-92-016)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 29
b. Review of the Agency's Air Quality
Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-92-017)
c. Commentary on the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-92-009)
The Committee also conducted a
consultation on approaches to prioritizing
the 189 hazardous air pollutants that are
listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amend-
ments.
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee
(DWC)
The DWC held five Committee
meetings and issued 12 reports during
FY92. Seven of them dealt with Agency
criteria documents (CD) on specific pol-
lutants:
a. Review of the Agency's CD on
Chlorinated Acids
(EPA-SAB-DWC-92-002)
b. Review of the Agency's CD on
Chlorine Dioxide
(EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-012)
c. Review of the Agency's CD on
Cryptosporidium
(EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-011)
d. Review of the Agency's CD on Cy-
anogen Chloride
(EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-002)
e. Review of the Agency's CD on
Nitrate/Nitrite
(EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-001)
f. Review of the Agency's CD on
Ozonation Disinfection and Its
By-Products
(EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-014)
g. Review of the Agency's CD on
Trihalomethanes
(EPA-SAB-DWC-92-011)
Three reports deal with research
programs and a computer model:
h. Review of the Agency's Corrosion
Research Program
(EPA-SAB-DWC-92-010)
i. Review of the Agency's Arsenic Re-
search Plan
(EPA-SAB-DWC-92-018)
j. Review of the Agency's Viral Tran-
sport Model (VIRALT)
(EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-013)
The DWC also issued two com-
mentaries:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 30
ANNUAL REPORT
k. Commentary on Disinfection By-
products
(EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-92-008)
I. Commentary on Microbial Risk Model
(EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-92-04)
In addition, the DWC conducted
public meetings which will result in trans-
mittals to the Administrator in FY93 on
the following topics:
a. The Health Effects Research Labora-
tory Drinking Water Research
Program
b. The Chlorine and Chloramines Cri-
teria Documents
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee (EPEC)
In FY92 EPEC held nine Com-
mittee and Subcommittee meetings,
generating 10 reports. The Committee
reviewed a wide variety of topics, and
conducted one consultation. A Subcom-
mittee also reviewed the Agency's con-
cepts for developing ecological risk as-
sessment guidelines.
EPEC has established five themes
which it will cover in long term reviews:
Ecorisk, EMAP, Environmental Quality
Criteria, Global Climate Change, Habitat
and Biodiversity.
The following reports were de-
veloped during this year
Ecorisk Theme
a. Review of ERA'S Ecorisk Assess-
ment Research Program
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-006)
b. Review of Ecorisk Guideline Ap-
proach
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-023)
EMAP Theme
c. Review of the EMAP Program Plan
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-92-008)
Environmental Quality Criteria Theme
d. Review of Research on Expert
Systems to Predict Fate and Ef-
fects of Chemicals
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-004)
e. Review of Guidance for Disposal of
Dredged Materials
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-014)
f. Review of the final Alaskan Biore-
mediation Project
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-92-015)
g. Review of Dioxin Ecotox Research
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-024)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 31
Global Climate Change Theme
No reports in FY92
Habitat and Biodiversity Theme
h. Evaluation of the National Estuary
Program Monitoring Guidance
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-005)
i. Review of EPA's Wetlands Re-
search Program
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-007)
j. Review of Habitat Assessment Re-
search
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-025)
The Committee also conducted a
consultation dealing with the Habitat and
Biodiversity theme.
In addition, the Committee com-
pleted work on two reports in FY92 that
will be reviewed by the Executive Com-
mittee at their first meeting in FY93:
Review of Development Process for
Sediment Criteria
Review of Guidance for the Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative
4.2.6 Environmental Economics
Advisory Committee (EEAC)
The Committee was created dur-
ing FY91 at the request from the Admin-
istrator who was responding to a recom-
mendation in the Board's Reducing Risk
report.
During FY92, its first year of oper-
ation, the Committee conducted two
meetings and released one commentary:
Commentary on the Agency's
Cheasapeaka Report
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-92-010)
The Cheasapeaka Report is the
Agency's first attempt to explore new
approaches to economic accounting of
environmental resources, a recommen-
dation contained in the Reducing Risk
report.
In addition, the EEAC has dis-
cussed in public session a controversial
notion that regulations imposed to pro-
mote specific health benefits could have
unintended negative general health con-
sequences. The Committee is preparing
a commentary on this issue for release in
FY93.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 32
ANNUAL REPORT
4.2.7 Environmental Engineering
Committee (EEC)
The EEC conducted eight meet-
ings of the full Committee and various
subcommittees, covering 11 topics. In
addition to the five reports and commen-
taries described below, the Committee
conducted three consultations on oily
waste issues, on the Superfund
Groundwater Strategic Plan, and on
dense non-aqueous phase liquids
(DNAPL's).
a. Recommendations and Rationale
for Analysis of Contaminant Re-
lease by the Environmental Engi-
neering Committee
(EPA-SAB-EEC-92-003)
b. Review of ORD's research program
in Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment
(EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-92-006)
c. Review of ORD's Draft Pollution
Prevention Research Strategic
Plan
(EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-92-007)
d. Review of the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OS-
WER), Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention
Office (CEPPO) Issues on Crite-
ria for Explosives and
Flammables for SARA Title III
(EPA-SAB-EEC-92-020)
e. Review of ORD's Bioremediation
Research Program Strategy
(EPA-SAB-EEC-92-026)
The Committee also generated a
report that will be reviewed by the Execu-
tive Committee at their first meeting in
FY93:
Review of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OS-
WER), Chemical Emergency Prepared-
ness and Prevention Office (CEPPO)
Draft Hydrogen Fluoride Study:Report to
Congress
In addition, the EEC held public
meetings on two issues that will result in
FY93 reports:
a. Review of ORD's Indoor Air Engi-
neering Research and Develop-
ment Program.
b. Review of ORD's Underground
Storage Tank (LIST) Research
Program
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 33
4.2.8 Environmental Health
Committee (EHC)
The EHC conducted two Com-
mittee meetings and released two reports
during FY 92.
a. Review of Agency approaches to
assessing complex mixtures
(EPA-SAB-EHC-92-001)
b. Review of Agency's Risk Assess-
ment of Formaldehyde
(EPA-SAB-EHC-92-021), described in
greater detail in Section 3.3.3.
The Committee also conducted a
consultation on the Agency's approach to
determining populations-at-risk at
Superfund sites.
In addition, the EHC held public
meetings on two issues that will give rise
to reports in FY93:
a. Dermal Exposure Assessment
b. Superfund Health Risk Assessment
Guidance (RAG)
4.2.9 Indoor Air Quality/Total Human
Exposure Committee (IAQC)
The Committee held three meet-
ings and issued three reports during
FY92.
a. Review of the Exposure Assess-
ment Guidelines
(EPA-SAB-1AQC-92-015)
b. Review of the Uptake Biokinetic
Model for Lead
(EPA-SAB-IAQC-92-016)
c. Commentary on Asbestos Re-
search
(EPA-SAB-IAQC-COM-92-005)
The Committee also conducted a
consultation on National Human Expo-
sure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS),
which will be the subject of a formal
review in FY93.
In addition, the IAQC completed
work on three reports that will be re-
viewed by the Executive Committee at
their first meeting in FY93:
a. Review of the Agency's risk as-
sessment of Environmental To-
bacco Smoke (ETS)
b. Review of Risk Assessment Forum
(RAF) Guidelines on Exposures
to Volatile Organics from Shower
Water
c. Review of RAF Guidance on Expo-
sures to Gasoline Vapors in
Buildings
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 34
ANNUAL REPORT
The ETS review is a follow-up to
an earlier review (see FY91 Annual Re-
port). The interest and involvement of
the public, the Congress, and the news
media during the second review re-
mained high, thereby providing the SAB
with a broad platform for the SAB to
provide its advice.
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory
Committee (RAC)
In FY92 the RAC advised the
Administrator on a variety of radiation-
related issues including electric and mag-
netic fields, indoor radon, radiation risks,
radionuclides in drinking water, and the
disposal of radioactive wastes. The
Committee took a special interest in
environmental transport modeling for
radionuclides, uncertainty analysis, and
harmonizing chemical and radiation risk
reduction strategies.
During the year the RAC finalized
14 reports and conducted seven public
Committee and Subcommittee meetings.
The reports were focused primarily on
radon and electromagnetic field issues:
Radon
a. Review of the Agency's Revised
Radon Risk Estimates and
Associated Uncertainties
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-003)
b. Review of the draft revised Citizen's
Guide to Radon
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-005)
c. Review of the Agency's
examination of the correlation
between short-term and long-
term tests for radon
(EPA-SAB-RAC-92-008)
d. Review of the Agency's 1990 Draft
Drinking Water Criteria
Documents for gross beta,
radon, radium and uranium
(EPA-SAB-RAC-92-009)
e. Review of the Agency's
Homebuyer's-Seller's Guide to
Radon
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-010)
f. Review of the Agency's design of
the national radon survey
(EPA-SAB-RAC-92-012)
EMF
g. Review of the Agency's Research
Strategy for Electric and
Magnetic Fields: Research
Needs and Priorities
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-009)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 35
h. Review of the Agency's Evaluation
of the Potential Cardnogenicity
of Electromagnetic Fields
(EPA-SAB-RAC-92-013)
Other
i. Review of the Agency's Idaho
Radionuclide Study
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-004)
j. Review of the Agency's suggested
guidelines for the disposal of
drinking water treatment wastes
containing Naturally Occurring
Radioactive Materials (NORM)
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-018)
The Committee also issued four
commentaries that have had a significant
impact on the Agency, the public, and
the Congress.
k. Commentary on transport models
for radionuclides in the environ-
ment
(EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-001)
I. Commentary on residual radioac-
tivity and contaminated sites
(EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-002)
m. Commentary/closure letter on the
proposed regulation for radionu-
clides in drinking water and sup-
porting documentation
(EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-003)
n. Commentary on Harmonizing
Chemical and Radiation Risks
(EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-007)
The Committee has also
completed work on a report that will be
reviewed by the Executive Committee at
its first meeting in FY93:
Review of the Agency's estimate of
Radiogenic Cancer Risks
In addition, the RAC held public
meetings on the following topics that
should result in formal reports of
commentaries in FY93:
a. The Agency's estimates of risks
associated with potential release
of carbon-14 (C02) from high-
level radioactive waste disposal
b. Improvements to uncertainty an-
alysis using commonly available
methods
c. The Superfund approach to dealing
with radioactivity
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 36
ANNUAL REPORT
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC)
During FY 92, the RSAC held four
Committee and Subcommittee meetings,
releasing the following three reports:
a. Review of the President's FY93
Budget Request for the EPA
Office of Research and
Development
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-92-017)
b. Recommendations for Scientific
and Technical Achievement
Awards (STAA)
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-92-019)
c. Review of 14 Strategic ORD Re-
search Issues for FY94
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-92-022)
In addition, the Committee
completed work on a report that will be
addressed by the Executive Committee
in early FY93:
Review of the EPA draft "Stimulating
Environmental Progress: A Social
Science Research Agenda"
The ORD Budget Review and the
STAA review are both annual events for
the SAB. The former has been routinely
requested by Congress for the past sev-
eral years. The latter is an opportunity to
review the more than 100 published
technical articles by EPA scientists and
engineers and to make recommendations
for professional recognition and cash
awards from ORD.
4.3 Getting Results in the SAB Staff
Office
During FY89 the SAB was subject
to internal and external studies: through
a self-study by Board Members (the
"Mission and Function" study) and
through a management analysis of the
operation of the Staff Office by manage-
ment experts from EPA's Office of Man-
agement and Organization (M&O).
These two studies were formally pre-
sented to the SAB in early FY90. During
that year, the SAB Staff followed-up on
many of the recommendations of the two
groups. The FY90 SAB Staff Director's
Report summarized the important recom-
mendations and progress to date. In
sum, the reports urged the Board and the
Staff Office to "work smarter" to achieve
the goals of the SAB. The Staff believes
that they are now "getting results", as
evidenced by the above outputs of the
Board and descriptions of the accom-
plishments that follow.
4.3.1 Computer Systems
In FY92 the Staff Office activated
its Local Area Network (LAN), linking the
two parts of the Office that are separated
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 37
by eight blocks of traffic, tourists, and
occasional turmoil. The system is
connected to the main EPA "backbone"
system, providing access to all the other
LAN's within the Agency across the
country. The LAN provides the capability
to efficiently share wordprocessing files,
rapidly transfer information (including
spreadsheet, graphics and databases),
and electronically exchange internal
messages through the LAN Mail system.
The acquisition of additional
portable computers in FY93 has
enhanced the ability of Committees to
generate reports, minutes, etc.
expeditiously.
With increased fax quality and
scanner capability, there is increased
flexibility and efficiency in the Staff
Office. For example, it is possible to
convert printed pages, even telefaxes,
into an electronic format for merging with
wordprocessing files.
An electronic file storage system
has been obtained that will be used in
FY93 to convert many of the Staff Office
paper files into an electronic format,
thereby reclaiming people-usable space
in the often-too-cozy quarters.
In FY92 arrangements were made
to place SAB documents (reports,
Federal Register notices, agendas, etc.)
on a publicly accessible "800 number"
computer bulletin board. The system
should be activated in early FY93.
4.3.2 Total Quality Management
(TQM)
Like the rest of EPA, the SAB has
embarked on a journey of self-improve-
ment through quality enhancements.
The Staff was trained in the techniques
of TQM at a three-day retreat in March,
1992. Several "Quality Action Teams"
are currently addressing a variety of
problem areas; e.g., strategic assault on
office files, expedient reservation of SAB
meeting space, and equitable award
system for Staff.
4.3.3 Structural Changes and
Resource Support
The Staff Office is exploring a new
structure that will consolidate primarily
administrative operations in five-person
unit. The intention is to seek increased
efficiencies through focused attention to
administrative matters.
Three of the Office's Staff
Secretaries have been promoted to
higher levels in recognition of the
qualitatively different work they perform
from the standard secretarial operations.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 38
ANNUAL REPORT
The added economics work of
EEAC and CAACAC are being supported
by resources supplied by the Office of Air
and Radiation and by the Office of Policy
Planing and Evaluation.
During FY92 the SAB was asked
to provide assistance in addressing a
technical issue at a Superfund site in
Ohio. The Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response will contribute
resources to fund this activity under the
auspices of the Executive Committee.
Steps are being taken to obtain
additional DFO and secretarial support.
4.3.4 Administrative/Operational
Changes
We are continuing to actively
prepare standard procedures, setting-up
document control procedures, creating
mailing systems, and highlighting training
for all staff on administration and comput-
er systems. We are refining our stan-
dard format for SAB reports and other
advisory documents to reflect newly
available computer equipment and soft-
ware. We published a brochure on the
SAB in FY92, which is undergoing a re-
print for further distribution in early FY93.
During FY92 and the transition
into FY93, we are actively applying the
guidance contained in Appendix D on
Membership Terms. The application of
these guidelines have resulted in the
FY93 renewal of 31 positions of individu-
als who have served less than a full tour
of duty with the Board, 27 replacements
of individuals whose tours have ended
this year, and the creation of 6 new
positions. This total of 64 positions with
some change does not reflect the full
Board membership, since a number of
other Members are currently in the mid-
dle of a two-year term.
In early FY92, we received a
request from an outside group who
wished to transcribe an SAB meeting. In
the view of the SAB Staff, the Chair and
the Agency Staff, the issues were not
such that they desired a transcript of the
meeting. However, a client of this out-
side group who was unable to attend the
meeting, wished a verbatim record of
portions of the meeting. Pending further
advice from the legal counsel and the
Executive Committee, the outside group
was permitted to pay for and arrange to
transcribe the meeting. As a result of
this, the Executive Committee discussed
this issue at a meeting later in the year
and agreed to allow outside groups to
transcribe meetings undercertain circum-
stances. A formal policy is being devel-
oped.
There is a great deal of interest on
the part of both the public and the Agen-
cy concerning the issue of conflict of
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 39
interest (COI). Particularly when conten-
tious issues are discussed, the audience
at a meeting is often curious as to the
established point of view or previous
pronouncements made by those sitting
on an SAB Committee. In order to clarify
procedures for public disclosure of poten-
tial conflicts of interest, the SAB Staff
has prepared guidelines which docu-
ments the procedures that are followed
by Committee Members and Consultants
at SAB meetings. This procedure is
voluntary and members and consultants
are not obligated to reveal confidential
information that is contained in their
Form 3120-1 (Appendix H).
4.4 SAB Staff in Transition
Ms. Frances Dolby took over re-
sponsibilities as Staff Secretary for the
Indoor Air Quality and Total Human
Exposure Committee, while retaining the
same position for the Drinking Water
Committee. In these roles she supports
Assistant Staff Director Bob Flaak in his
capacity as Acting DFO for both IAQC
and DWC. Carolyn Osbome had been
Staff Secretary to IAQC before being
promoted to Program Assistant last year.
Dr. Ed Bender was nominated for
and received a prestigious internship
sponsored by the Department of Com-
merce. For much of FY93 he will be a
part of a select group (less than a dozen)
who will participate in weekly seminars in
an informal setting with governmental
luminaries; e.g., Dr. Bromley, the
President's Science Advisor. Dr. Bender
had essentially carte blanche to conduct
his internship wherever he desired in the
government. He selected an exciting
opportunity in the Department of Energy.
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone joined the
Staff to serve, initially, as DFO to EPEC
during the "sabbatical" of Ed Bender.
The birth of her first child delayed her
arrival until December, 1992. An ocean-
ographer by training, Ms. Sanzone previ-
ously worked in the Agency's Wetlands
Program.
Ms. Barbara Spencer-Pulliam
joined the SAB Fairchild Office Staff as
Receptionist at the beginning of the year.
As a retired school teacher and ex-Dept
of Defense employee, she brought a
wide range of experiences to the Staff
Office, through a hiring arrangement with
the American Association of Retired
Persons. She left the Staff at the end of
the year to accept another position in the
Agency EPA which held the prospect of
a permanent position. She leaves us
with good memories and good advice.
Ms. Darlene Sewell is now known
as Ms. Darlene Sewell-Oliver, following
her wedding, at which she was attended
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 40
ANNUAL REPORT
by her SAB Staff co-worker LaShae
Cardenas.
Mr. Roger Hildebettel joined the
SAB Staff on a short term rotational as-
signment from the Department of the
Interior (DOI), as a part of a Senior Exec-
utive Service-related rotational program.
Working with the SAB Staff, he explored
the SAB process and its relation to the
Agency, as model for what might work at
DOI.
Ms. Kahlil Posey, Stay-in-School
student at the Fairchild Office, resigned
to continue her studies.
Mr. Rasheed Tahir became the
new stay-in-school student at the
Fairchild office. He is majoring in pre-law
at Bowie State University.
Ms. Janice Jones joined the Fair-
child Office as the Staff Secretary for
CASAC and RSAC, supporting Randy
Bond. Her experience includes work in
the private sector, as well as a previous
stint at EPA as secretary to then-Assis-
tant Administrator for ORD, Dr. Bernard
Goldstein.
Biographical sketches of the SAB
staff are located in Appendix I.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECTIONS
FY92 was one of the most pro-
ductive years in the history of the SAB.
Not only were a record number of reports
issued, but the backlog of reports was
essentially eliminated. The announced
quality goal for FY93 is to transmit re-
ports to the Administrator no later than
six months following the final public
meeting on the issue.
FY93 promises to be a time of
continuing evolutionary change for the
SAB. Recent years have seen more
Board activity "at the interface" between
risk assessment and risk management.
The release of Future Risk in 1988,
Reducing Risk in 1990, and an in-
creasing number of commentaries has
moved the SAB beyond its traditional role
of "peer reviewer of last retort". These
initiatives have been received with con-
siderable enthusiasm by top Agency
management. Administrator Reilly and
Deputy Administrator Habicht have ac-
tively encouraged the SAB to, in the
words of CASAC Chair Roger McClellan,
"answer the essay question"; i.e., How
important is this issue and why? For
example, partly as a result of these un-
solicited efforts, the Agency is:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 41
a. Paying additional attention to micro-
bial contamination of drinking
water
b. Examining the costs/benefits of reg-
ulating different chemicals in
drinking water
c. Investigating the effectiveness and
accuracy of communication
methods for radon
d. Rethinking its conceptually different
approaches to assessing chemi-
cal vs. radiation risks.
The coming year will cast into
even sharper relief the growing gap be-
tween what the SAB is asked (and would
like) to and the legitimate resource con-
straints that exist. Consequently, a more
conscious effort will be made to involve
the Executive Committee, the Administra-
tor, and the Agency in the establishing
priorities for the SAB agenda. The
recently formed Council of Science
Advisors within the Agency will work as
an Agency-wide "consultative group" to
the SAB Staff Director.
It is the intention of the SAB in the
coming year to explore further interaction
with other advisory groups. For example,
initial contacts in FY92 have resulted in
a member of the SAB serving as a liai-
son to the Administrator's Environmental
Financial Advisory Board (EFAB), who
are charged with advising him on prob-
lems associated with the regulated
communities' ability to raise money to
comply with environmental regulations.
Further, issues such as the significance
of lead levels at Superfund sites suggest
interaction with advisory groups at the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis-
ease Registry, the DHHS unit charged
with advising EPA on health issues at
such sites.
The SAB Staff anticipates a busy
year, augmented by new faces but con-
strained the same limitations affecting the
rest of the Agency. Our intention is to
be in a position to welcome FY94 with as
much satisfaction and enthusiasm as we
welcome FY93.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-1
APPENDIX A
Charters of the Science Advisory Board
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-2 ANNUAL REPORT
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 out these special activities in which consultants of special expertise
may be used who are not members of l:he 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, a,-; 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.
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
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-4 ANNUAL REPORT
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 employee's.
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 workyears.
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 4. 1991 F. Henry Habicht II
Agency Approval Date Deputy Administrator
November 8. 1991
Date Filed with Congress
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-5
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;
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 c)f 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,
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,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-6 ANNUAL REPORT
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 c)f 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 workyears of staff support.
6. DURATION. The Committee will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter
will be effective until August 7, 1993, at which time the Committee charter may be
renewed for another two-year period.
F. Henry Habicht. II
Deputy Administrator
August 7. 1991
Date Filed with Congress
August 7. 1991
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
This document was prepared by the Staff of the Science Advisory Board.
Single copies are available free of charge from:
Science Advisory Board,
Office of the Staff Director (A-101),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
1. PURPOSE. This Charter establishes the Council 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, 11990 (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 for 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.
At the Agency's request, the Council will:
review other reports and studies prepared by the Agency relating to the benefits
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-8 ANNUAL REPORT
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 Lat)or. 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
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS FOR FY92
On the folowing pages, Members of the Board are designated by the
letter "M" in the "Status" Column; Consultants are designated by the
letter "C."
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
i
!
CO
D
S
CO
1
1
ICITYSTATE
,
lAFrLIATION
2
§
IO
CXI
CM
d)
I H
| ^
. CO
^
I
E
I
! '5
?
! UJ
CO
i
1
!
.University of Michigan
UJ t
1 !
U. Jj
UJ
2
2 r.
*~ 2
Q
e
Ol
O
o
i
S
g
§•
55
.•=
a
o !
. |
c
_o
ro
'Science Appllcalions Intern
Oak Ridge National Labs
-i jr
c c
> a
< CO
jr
Aim
Auorbac
1 ' ' ' i
2
I
CM
1 |
2
i
CO
rv co
0 «-
CM CM
£2
Jf
a
CL
0
c?
U
| Cambridge, MD
01
2
i
o
CM
f^
^
O)
2
i
o
IO
ID
^
CD
!
2
§
eo
CO IO
a eo
1
U
5
S
o
.y
0
iS
01
? t
DjI
"° ' O
0) ! O
Q ' D.
I
(University of Maryland
University of Maryland
<0
I
8
i
CB
UJ
Ol
j
{Princeton. NJ
2
i
^.
w
09
^
o
O)
V
«;
J_
0)
i i
1 i
2
§
^.
eg
in
O)
g
»"
E
2
§
o>
0
a
CO
^
i
01
c
a
2
0
U
10
CM
^
^
01
| Pasadena, CA
S
1
2
8
_
ID
CO
0
CM m
O)
rv
n
IO
[Madison. Wl
i ' ' t
i
!
1 i i
! 01 '
i 2 i i
! CO,
College of Pharmacy
202 Carnegie Center
1334 RE. Heine Pharm.
1
01
CO
S
m
CM
CM
0
m
2
1
CO
I
1
"5
o
n
IO
CM
<
3
[South Charleston.
i
i
2
i
^
CM
CO
2
£
o
CM
CO *-
^
2
o>
1
^j
a
UJ
r-
_l
c
o
i
i i
600 Highland Avenue
3200 Kanawha Turnpk
l
J203 Natural Science
^j
CO
0)
£M
I
2
i
0
CM
f^.
t^
at
Berkeley, CA
2
§
i
CO
o
CO
IO
^.
CM
O
rv
[Houston, TX
i
One Cyclotron Road
S
eg
Ol
_c
CM
^
1 j ;' "i • §
i ! S g! Si 6
Univ of Calif-Berkeley
Washington Stale Univ/Ph
._ - .
Mobil Corporation
Purdue University
Michigan Dept of Natural R<
California Institute of Tech
Univer of Wisconsm-Madisi
Union Carbide Corporation
Michigan State University
Clement Inl'l Corp.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboral
1
c
! u.' : < uj _ !
?3! S1 S £; 2 £: =„!!!»*
i' i t • S' §; 5 1 s; 6: =: t' I; g §' =
2
i
CO
K
O
CO
«o
o
CM
CO
f*
X
t-
1
a
2
§
0
0
o
0
I"
1
!
IT
Ol
CD
S
o
3
CO
1
IO
CM
University of North Texas
Env. Defense Fund
.n
i
1
2
§
|
-«—
V
o
2
§
^
IO
CO
CO
O ; 0
[Brunswick. ME
| Bowdoin College
[plscataway, NJ
i
I
IO
ID
t
Dept. of Economics
Robert Wood Johnson Med.
2
B
E
CO
e>
0
O)
^
m
n
u.
2
4600 Rickenbacker
University of Miami
1
je
• ' T ! "E. ' S "*
c , S J?i ™ ,,
c ' c 2 . -g i •£
tn ' MI i .is i CD
Z O CO CC $ G ^ O O'^ CC > ^.-s CL'^.O <"'S'2
— ' 1 • — » j ^ -^ 1 1
'•••'.' •- : i ' 1
2^: *COc^ c • x' ^ , Ic!
Ol'O Cl .'O'_ 0' i C . B OJ.a XifciO;^
ll*'=5.:§lls I'll gilf llf
si a en CD ca u o o 5 u'o:o o a' a1 o o
• i
Freeman
Gallo
Harwell
2
IO
CO
^
|V
CO
[Albuquerque. NM
CO
2
0)
cc
X
o
1
o
1
g
_J
0>
o
2
flu
O
CM
CO
o
eo
CM
Gloucester, VA
|l06 Raymond Drive
1
CO
2
»
i
i
"o
=5
O
_j
•c
01
o
et_^ oc
R
|Henders<
I
Ol
D
2
§
N.
O
v»
O
*»
[Philadelphia, PA
£
55
_
o
Jefferson Medical College
1
jC
o
i
2
8
CO
o
o
^
^
X
8"
I
o
S
D.
g
_l
1
Z
1
Pilko & Associates, Inc.
Q)
c
CB
UJ, $
Ijohnson
2
§
10
CM
10
fv
at
0>
IO
Fv
CM
i
I
u
515 Brinkhouse Bull
University of North Carolina
C)
?
(B
0
i
•5
1
V
I Kaufman
i
2
8
m
CO
CO
CO
o
CM
CM
^
i
J2 UniversHy Place
I
New York DeparlmenI of H
^
u
c
ft
E
V
1
2
1
CM
CO
10
N.
eo
w
CD
i
55
BOO N Lindbergh Blvd.
Monsanto Company
<
•o
1
S.
[Kimerle
-------
-------
to
cc
LU
m
LU
2
o
a
o
CM
O
2
1
C
«
"5)
s
O
(A
fs.
OJ
"c
O
E
|
UJ
a
1
C
O
CL
6
w
5
CO
CO
2
|
^
0
CO
to
1
5
N Malhews A
o
DJ
n
"6
c
"S
"c
— '
1
jSnoeyink
2
|
o>
a>
ID
CM
O
^
1
jr
O
to
*-
(00, Rosenau
^
U
•J5
a
O
B
"o
8
0)
'c
-^
O
S
0)
V)
CO
2
1
U)
«t—
^
CSJ
o
x
cc
CO
.c
1
3
Q.
o
0
o
c
-D
a
n
-o.
Q
1
ISpengler
2
•1
CD
n
^«
Cvj
o
Cambridge. MA
ard University
£
n
I
O
o
•c
-3
.O
O
tt
Istavins
2
I
o
^
10
CD
o
V
«
25
1?
•5
£
al« University
>
c
n
-3
J
O
05
2
|
„
5
N.
^.
O
CM
N.
X
X
niversity of Houston
D
2
n
~5
O)
C
o
>s
CO
2
§
UI
^
o
o>
0
Watervllle, ME
Q>
O>
JD
"O
U
J"
o
O
ept. ol Economics
O
Thomas
en
JTellenbei
2
§
eg
o
,-
;
z
«
0)
U)
5
IB
u
>
Z
Arthur
c
o
0.
•=>
2
U
CM
^
CD
,-
Rochester. NY
CM
(D
X
O
CD
n
u
niv of Rocheater/Medi
D
0}
5
2
1
CD
O
^">
CM
i
0
0)
. of Economic
5.
CD
O
"c
B
Ci
a.
2
Iviscusi
2
|
o
a
0
ID
O
CO
?
Idaho Falls, Idal
c>
JC
1
s
JP Risk Assessment. 1
2
d
3
n
D.
jVoilleque
2
UJ
ID
O
o
r^
X
1
X
CO
c
CO
0}
8
ice University
c
S
X
u
•p
a
2
|
0
0
r^
o>
0)
to
CM
Chapel Hill, NC
8
X
o
ffl
2
o
6
"o
m
I
D
UJ
1C
-3
Walson
2
a
m
CD
•^
CM
5
0
r
o
"o
0)
I
CO
o
IWegman
2
§
<^-
O
**"
O)
g
>*
*0
i
^
i
I
CO
"5
I
"o
f
o
CO
"5
U
o
£
—
IWesolow;
2
i
o
CO
o
•V
5
S
S
CD
1
eneral Motors Researc
G
V
S
o
"5
2
g
CO
ID
O
,1
CD
0
CM
[ Blacksburg, VA
«
X
§
i
K.
E
irginia Pofylechnic fns
>
UJ
to
0)
I
-------
m
h-
(55
^
«j
|
UJ
1
u
1 AFFLIATION
LLi
LL
UJ
i
o
§
0
o
f.
IO
Madison, Wl
tn
c
o
1
->
5
5
c
u
0)
.1
[Seymour
c
o
(Abrahams
u
Gj
1
09
IO
2
§
o
1
§
55
P
o
<§
CO
to
0
o
H-
3
lo
I
C
ffi
*»
1
o
B
0
O
u
«D
Columbia, MD
i
u
ABC Laboratories
E
i
i
1
o
i
0
o
IO
IO
55
i
§
i
3
i
_c
"o
1
1
[Adelman
o
g
^
S
o
01
E
1
c
CO
0
PS.
UJ
z
£
O
•c
a
I
lAhmed
0
su
o
ID
0
^
1
I
I
15
0
c
1
O
S
2
1
0
S
I
0
a
o
0
r-
JLong Meadow Road
1
New York University Medical Ci
a
2
f
O
1
o
e
e
Ol
H
1
55
£
O
ps.
UJ
Z
0
U
1
lAmhed
u
i
Ol
o
o
Ol
u
d
4
•8
•
1
£
"c
5
c
Ul
LJ
o
f*.
«
0
3
li
s
E
2
1
To
ffi
1
O
(i
c
O
**
i
US
O
o
a
o
0
I
i
1
CE
•D
2
*5
c
O
c
m
c
o
c
o
JC
O
§
01
0
Pittsburgh. HI
e
fl
S
1
Univerlsty ol Pittsburgh
a
c
3
c
1
O
§
S
K
A
ID
Madison, Wl
U)
jf
o
.5
"5
'£
c
£*!
a
2
lAnderson
U
§
a
o
Js.
Ol
o
i
•
Research Trlang
|fi Davis Drive. PO B
o
*~
Chemical Industries Institute lo
2
i
g
B
e
•D
C
O
5
1
0
a
0
0
UJ
S
s
&
o
CO
i
OB
J£
S
1
'o
0
3 !
11 1
•B '•
O '
i
a i
o>
c
U
f
j£
1
S
eg
n
Ol
Richmond, VA
1
*O
U
"5
1
2
2
c
V
1
CO
O)
s.1
< •
0
§
o
o
a
Kalamazoo, Ml
_
I
1
i
1
Western Michigan Unlversi
•S
JZ
2
CO
a
u
i
0
«
0
0
0
Oak RIdge.TN
S
e
O
a.
1
l
1
o
Steven
«
C
ffi '
(
j
u
§
0
a
0
>
Vancouver B
c
I
o
a
•5
75
u.
^
o
s
1
Q
S
a
a •
u
-.
?
S
0
0
fB
Ol
Cambridge, MA
CO
S
a
Qradlent Corp.
Barbara
8
a!
o
n
0
0
^
^
I
i
u.
5
c
1
6
o
Barbara
Bedlord
[
U
§
a
0
Ol
01
>*
1
O
|t Batlerymarch Park
Nail. Fire Protection Aesn.
J2
o
.•
c
a
i
J
!
i u
§
0
0
0
I
0)
e
1
3M Environmental Engineering
1
o
•o
1
c
0)
ffi
i
!
t
u
i
o
^
a
o"
1
f)
I
1
i
o
u
J2
i
c
3
£
'5
U
c
8
IBenowltz
!
;
j
O
i
8
e
o
0
01
8
1
1
*
1
Farkas, Berkowitz 4 Co.
a
IBerkowitz
|
[
O
1
f\
' p
E
Ol
0
*•
Ol
a
0
I
EA Technologies
"i
I
i
o
§
S
f^
^1
I
I
Chemical Industry Insl. ol Tox.
S
->
1
a
i O
1
i
1
1
i
•5
3
•S
c
1
Commission ol the European
£
o-
I
1
1
1
u
§
Ol
0
a
a
[Richland. WA
1
8
a
1
i
0.
1
!
i
I
MtehaelR
mrambley
i
• O
»
i 4?
o
0
o
a
0
2
i
2
E
EC
tee
CO
1
2
Rutgers University
d
UJ
JBrennan
;
U
fX
^
ffi
0
e
^>
0
t:
3
1
^-
i
|
PS.
NewmonI Metallurgical Service!
5
o
1
-------
U
§
M
IO
01
Chapel HHI, NC
to
ffl
g
g
C
X
o
ffi
0
|
Ol
a
•9
10
Madison, Wl
600 Highland Avenue
Unlv. Wisconsin/Gen. Clin
t-'
0
1
O
i
£
O
|
IO
M
Ol
r-
X
I
I
I
o
I
£
*>
i
*
c
Patricia
3
ffi
U
i
e
a
IO
o
M
Baltimore, MD
*
•o
§
ffi
o
£
o
X
Johns Hopkins Unlv/Sch of Pu
•0
1
f-
1
5
m
U
i
o
o>
Ol'
5
01
s
1
1
226 W. Dickinson SI
1
0
1
u
•5
£•
»
c
1
O
I
CO
0
1
n
o
a
O
1
I
r
3
0
1
o
Systems Applications Inc.
C. Shepherd
[Burton
O
§
o
2
i
1
c
i
J.C. Butler & Associates,
6
I
3
ffl
u
|
•s.
o
Ol
Riverside, CA
rr
2
i
1
University of California
«
o
1
o
i
•^
o
o
8
i
CD
0
i
I
National Ctr for Atmospheric
Jack G.
[Calverl
o
§
o
01
5
o
1
0
f
*
a.
i
>
0.
0
e
a
o
£
O
Charles
3
U
8
a
o
^
Champaign, M
65
1
ui
0
Illinois Stale Geological Surve
S
c
(Cartwrlght
U
§
a
in
IO
Ol
e
a
n
•B.
o-
Columbus, Mlsslsa
PO Drawer GY
Mississippi Slate University
ui
c
[chambers
O
i
5
1
3
5
Z
1
a
S
EVA Consullants, Inc.
S
^
Q.
[chapman
O
I
IO
o
01
01
Baltimore, MD
707 North Broadway
Kennedy Institute
c
1
jChisolm
U
1
g
Ol
IO
Cincinnati, OH
I
UJ
o
Mai Location 050-Dept
Univ. of Cincinnati Med Ctr
0
u
CO
6
•E
S
U
o
g
o
01
n
Rochester. NY
CD
tc
School of Medeclne FOB
Unlv Of Rochester
Thomas
[darkson
O
|
^
•
01
S
§
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
Lenore
jciescerl
(
4
J
1
^
<
^
(
*
t
<
i
•
\
I
.
«
.
i
*
•
C
.
C
J
>
1
r
9
>
E
f
5.
i
5
S
!
i
M
I
3
S
>
§
g
c
;
3
2
5
!
O
g
g
m
8
School of Engineering
U
Yorum
g
*
0
i
^UJ
JI
o
Ol
College Park, MD
6
i
§
1
Maryland Biotech Institute
i
1
o
0
i
^
Ol
o
0
a
*
8
Unlverslly of Calif
UCLA/School of Med.
1
UJ
|
0
1
IO
01
i
I
=5
|
O
Tufts University
O
§
£.
1
[corlese
O
I
m
V)
o
o
ag
co
o
Ol
Solomons, MD
1
g
•t
Unlv of Maryland/Cheaeapeak
1
o
£
[coatanza
O
1
V)
o
o
a
I
1
1
N
University of Southern Cal
Q
1
•5
2
o
I
e
Ol
O
fc
n
1
2
t
Duke University Medical Cent)
Q
E
O
„
§
fs.
£
CO
I
i
f
i
CD
r«-
a
89
Dow Chembal Company - US
m
t
[Grummet!
U
ffi
e
K
01
£
5
»
O
e
s
-i
o
S
1
S
1
o
03
n
u
1
a
§
•£
e
a
e
New Brunswick.
1
•g
O
^
U
Robert Wood Johnaon Medtea
CO
i
£•
|curran-Smi
U
g
^
5
n
Savannah, QA
6 Longstreet Lane
c
1
U
£
o
o
o
n
r-
O
o
•0
8
**
c
S5
c
3
8
n
«
£E
i
1
s
5
1
a
I
JDabberdt
O
§
Ol
a
01
e
Louisville, KY
University of Louisville
,
c
JDagirmanjia
O
g
^
B
01
Gainesville, FL
i
f
i
University of Florida-IFA
2E
[Davidson
-------
f,
1
10
o
CM
0
Gainesville. FL |
1
O
LL
"o
5=
•n
0
'c
o"
i
I
O
O
g
0
0
o
o
CM
Washington. DC |
ft
Q.
(D
C
U.
o
1
o
Q
*ee
'c
0
O
UJ
Richard
lOenison
O
i
o>
0
CM
Cambridge, MA |
I
cc
S
O
c
u
e
-5
Massachuaelts Institute
2
1
IDeutch
O
§
o
0
o
0
CM
0
Syracuse, NY |
0
c
2
is
•=
Z
Q.
0
U
£
u
CO
o>
s
er
«
CD
i
co"
C3
[Diamond
0
1
o
§
*?
i'
o
0
8
DO
o
CO
03
o
«
c
^
«
|
<
o
5
z
ui
1
cc
s
C
-5
o
o
i
0
o
0
o
CM
O
r*>
X
1
f*
1
CD
O
e
1
i
z
"5
^
0
« 1
2
3
_l
Kennelh
IDickson
U
|
0
O
0
X
jf
i
g
1
i
IDiGiovannl
o
i
«
o
K
N.
CM
Durham, NC |
s
i
i
•D
{school of Forestry an
1
0
Q
Richard
DiGlulio
Q
o
i
0
01
i
[666 Huntington Ave.
£
*tc
X
1
^
Harvard Untverslty/Sch. i
5'
S
•&
s
O
1*
Ij
5
O
U
O
i
to
e
o
o
CM
Washington. DC |
0
CO
i
9
3
American Petroleum Ins
k_'
I
o
tx
1
Q
O
o
i
o
o
a
g
i
o
i
0
a
£
*
§
g
!
cc
1
"5
c
CO
O
O
&
E
IO
CM
n
|QU» Breeze. FL |
CD
>•
I
•8
O
O
'
— '
CD*
*
O
i
cc
"5
*
h-
Tnomas
«>
3 1
o
g
0
CM
10
Fayetleville, NC |
CO
0
0
i
o
S
cc
UJ
i
u
cc '
1
,
_c
*£ i
o •
o
I
0
o
0
z
i
o
B
0
0
o»
S
in
to
Chemical Waste Mgml
i
O
Benjamin
i
!
CO 1
U
§
CM
O
0
o*
1
a
i
5
E.
0
O
ffl
u.
S
^
'£
1
Ok
^
E
f1
m
Delberl
i
a
I
UJ
O
§
CM
0
-------
f,
§
CM
CD
_
Rochester, NY |
|s7S Elmwood Ave.
Rochester
Univerisly of
JThomas A.
Kt
JGaslewli
O
|
3
Ol
**•
2
X
O
1
I
§
UJ
B
O)
?
U
S.
5
s
|
-3
Gentile
U
§
CM
10
CO
g
I
s
D)
i
I
University of
£
a
1
O
u
1
§
a
CO
^
co
ep
CM
«
Indianapolis, IN |
O
B
*
1
CM
DOW ELANCO
UJ
E
g
O
0
i
0>
^
V*
co
co-
ca
•r
Indianapolis, IN
B
1
Q.
§
o
OONVT3 MOQl
i
Qlbson
U
g
fi
. e
o
IO
5
*•
*
1
B
U.
ID
O
"£
Cornell Unlver
[James
£
6
U
1
o
e
CM
i
d>
i
[307 Hamilton Avenue
[Michael
1
c
1
1 0
o
1
e
o
i^
o>
B
IO
CM
Chapel HHI. NC
ffl
U
X
3
I
8
cc
£
X
•§
^
irolina/Sch of
U
I
1
William |
0
I
u
Q
i
m
o
40
a
S
o
CM
i
o
a.
Research 1
o.
•i
•g
UJ
^
jO
c
JQoldslel
O
§
IO
n
CD
IO
ID
co
CO
o
Ptecataway, NJ
o
IO
ffc
1C
2
£
S
•O
j
| Bernard
c
lOoldstel
U
g
£
t
a
10
[Bozeman, MT j
X
_f>
s University
Montana Stati
li
"c
O
c
IGoodma
U
g
Washington. DC
T5
o-
•5
c
i
5
Michael
1
D
O
g
^
»
e
Z
| London, Ontario |
^o
2
6
c
"5
~m
~c
Robert
0
O
U
§
O
£
CM
[Durham. NC
X
c
c
B
U
2
f
1
B
D
d
B
s-
o
JGraham
U
Q
U
%e
CM
I
I
677 Hunllngton Ave.
£
S
X
1
-o
.c
u
CO
•o
5
Qareth
n
0
g
N.
o
o
CO
8
Q
S
-
in
6
U
Company of
1
&
O
1
a.
«y
I
0
n
o
g
UJ
o
o
CM
Washington. DC
B
1
*
O
u
§
o
irces Defense
g
*>
£
*a
z
3
0)
O
g
CO
CO
F*»
i
s
I
•o
CD
O
cc
I
arch Corporal
B
i
1
a
I
Chester
loreleckl
0
y
i
CM
e
CO
g
O
X
3
a.
ui
1
S
I
1
o
o
u
c
s.
d
8
IHackney
O
i
n
o
01
5
Unlverslly of
S
o
a
"a
O
Q
1
S
o
o
CO
10
^
g
u
<
.
•o
UJ
nnati/Kelter
5
"5
1
ffl
•3
a
•5
IHammor
i
«o
at
CM
Chapel Hm, NC
g
ffi
=
UNC-Chapel H
Robert
U
i
S
o
CM
B
i
[National Museum of NH
Institution
Smithsonian
o
-3
fe
a
|
O
i
CO
o
CO
^
S
I
J3125 Fernwood Avenue
•e
&
!
f
0
•c
'o
s.
1
O
g
i
to
IO
1
O
f
S
!
u.
ui
CM
§
1
§
-------
-------
O
1
a
e
•»•
1
|
ID
1
o
i
CO
5
-j
.8-
f
c
A
g>
1
_J
0
el
0
o
"5
Chelsea Street
•5
0
u
CO
*
o
1
[Jonathan
.c
a
U
JJ
|p
Rochester. NY
8
|
1
«
University of Rochester Medical £
O
S
5
"5
o
£
5
eg
IO
Pittsburgh, PA
en
P
i
u.
Carnegie Mellon University
CD
ffi
I
o
1
e>
CD
New Haven. CT
§
c
o
U
3
I
Brian P.
jleaderer
u
8
o
eg
r-.
IO
cp
N
O
Z
i
o
I
"o
>
3
Michael
JLebowlli
U
8
o
IO
a
Stanford. CT
Stanford University
James O.
[leckie
O
8
e
0
a
Westehester, PA
Westonway
1
uJ
o
e
C3
c
0
Q.
C
JLederma
U
§
co
o
2
1
1
i
i
U)
eg
AWWS Company
O
i
e
0
0
o
B
£
CD
^
CO
Savannah, QA
CO
C9
i
Skldaway Inl of Oceanography
Richard
c
_j
o
9
1
IV
UJ
cu
I
i
o
z
i.
^
25
i
Alberta Research Council
X
c
e
o>
a
«
O
8
IO
CD
O
co
Worthlngton, OH
3
J5
s
o
NatI Weflwaler Assn
I
a
1
U
8
£
o
CO
§
1
D
6376 Riverside Dr.
8
«
1
i
I
X
ks
a
-s
.c
U
§
a
o
IO
IO
S
1
95'
•5
i
1
S
1
u
2
-fc
c
CC
i
r
o
§
co
a
u
i
UJ
B
o
S
a
.£•
O
*
!
u
u
u
CD
CO
eg
Cambridge. MA
29 Oxford Sl/Plerce
Harvard University
Jennifer A
c
V
0
%
0
e
IO
eg
a>
O
1
_J
School of Medeclne
c
1
«
i
0
Lawrence
o
O!
C
o
O
£
eg
«•
o
Philadelphia. PA
55
•o
S
S
1
Temple University
Leonard A
JLosclulo
O
%
e>
CD
e
10
IO
CD
CD
e
Ptacalaway, NJ
1
X
6
o.
Rutgers University
UI
X
JLowndes
O
§
^
eg
o
0
I
U
S
UJ
ui
I
o
"o
«
o
E
1
CC
S
j
u
|l_ue-Hlng
o
3
s
CO
n
eg
IO
Pittsburgh, PA
Porler Hall/Frew St
Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
Richard Q.
{
0
o
ffi
6
»
*•
0)
3E
Toronto, Ontario
University of Toronto
Donald
1
8
o
CD
a
CM
CU
Richmond. VA
to
1
S
CO
Virginia Commonwealth Unl
1
|Macrlna
O
0
i
f»
o
N.
CU
Durham. NC
Duke University
1
1
O
£
o
10
|-»
a
a
10
eg
Chapel Hm. NC
CB7250-Braln/Dev. R
O
1
Richard B.
1
o
o
1
eg
o
e
h»
Houston, TX
55
§
•
•
-»
Exxon Company, USA
c
a
I
0
§
S
K.
CU
B
8
N»
i
o
a
Ballelle Memorial Instllute
X
1
0
S
to
to
IO
i
1
55
S
|
a
z
Minnesota Pollulion Control Boarc
ui
M
JMaschwl
O
1
j;
d>
IO
Pittsburgh. PA
S
"5
1
University of Pittsburgh
I
§
O
1
V
0
§
2
CO
M
|
J
1
ui
i
g
I
C
0
o
»-
CO
IO
^^
1
1
cc
t
1
Boyce Thompson Instllute
Delbert
i
0
o
i
„
*f
IO
eg
X
I
Woods Hole Oceanographic
S
1
1
-------
U
g
^
CO
N.
Houston, TX •
"5
o
o
CO
~
a i
a
I
o
Ok i
u
U
g
^
IO
Pittsburgh. PA
SOOO Forbes Ave/Por
Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
0 SI3UBJJ
IMcMtehael
O
O
u
IO
IO
IO
IO
Z
1
m
c.
o
University of Minnesota
Q.
o
1
O
|
o
40
CO
Princelon, NJ
1
O
c
m
r*.
c
o
2
c
3
2
U
§
o
CM
0
*
O
1
o
Duke University Medical
ffi
O
i
T5
c
e •
' O
g
o
CM
CM
5
I
c
f
*
1
Rexfotd
I
Or I
O
1
i U
Q
i
V9
«•
ia
^
Pittsburgh, PA
d
<
1
u.
Carnegie Mellon Unrveral
S
cc
6 :
z
i
c
w •
o>
S,
0
S
0
•p
S
IO
o
IO
o
Burlington, VT
Medical Alumni Building
1
>
'1
£
~c
*-'
a ,
1,
ffl
c
n
1
5
0
O
1
«o
o
a
ej
1
CM
I
X
O
&
Electric Power Research
c
Q.
S
1
Z '
u
o
5
«o
O
CM
Durham, NC
1
CO
£
o
e>
.c
o
O
"o
~S>
I
i
1
0)
1
1
o
g
0
n
IO
^
Pittsburgh, PA
f
ct
E
I
jj
8
C !
S
CD ;
D
1
1
je.
eg
i
1 O
|
1
i
i
' O
g
^
M
•9
^
g
o
m
IO
1
cc
I
g
-j-
co
Si
I
6
1
z
1
a
JNeilsen
i
U
1
99
IO
^
I
Corned University
f?
a
"5
°
1
1
a
1
!
u
£
CM
e
^
j
I
B
•c
UJ
a.
o
Niagara Mohawk Power C
Edward
INeuhauser
O
ft
E
^»
CM
5
CO
5
i
2
CM
Utah Stale University
,!
1
i
I
1:
0
1 p
o
CD
o
a
o
o
I
0
i
1
i
Gordon
"5
I
O
£
(M
CO
a
S
a
La JoDa. CA
Seripps Inat of Oceans
O
•5
1
i
i
JNierenberg
:
1
l
i
u
8
C4
CN
*r
•
s"
8
cc
g
0
i
Decision Focus, Inc.
Warner
i
£
O
1
O
g
^
O
^
s
Manhattan College
i
s
o :
O'Connor
i
O
£
a
n
^
o
v
^
g
i
«
1
•5
U
CO
University of Tulsa
in
5
[O'Connor
1
• 0
l
§
MI
e
^
o
CM
^
if
i
1
g
£
.
NY Stale Department of
Patrick
[o'Keefe
*•
g
CO
CM
Baltimore, MD
CO
1
u
1
i
Johns Hopkins University
6
[o-Melia
-------
0
§
J
Rochester, NY
Box EHSC
(university of Rochester
Guenlor
Oj
n
|Oberdoer
U
1
CD
O>
i
i
o
I
S
Univ of Washlnglon/Sch
1
0
Jomenn
O
o
U
o
o
e
1
|
I
I
S
§
u_
o
0)
g
o
2
o
c
UJ
Michael
m
F
|oppenhei
0
m
IO
»
ce
a>
i
ti
1
I
co
Institute for Environ.
University of Washington
.
Gordon
S
CD
O
tJ
g
IO
o
a
o>
S.
CM
I
o
ID
5
1
o
J
JJ.
2
jOvercash
U
g
^»
M
N
O
Riverside, CA
i£
«6
f
1
O
2
J;
>
Unlverslly of Callfornla-Rl
E
1
e
U
§
^.
e
o>
Alameda, CA
S
O
"3
I
c
s
McLaren/Hart
•>
V
O
^
u
jPaustenb
O
|
o
e
M
g
S
C4
CO
2
•
2
J
c
o
i
E
d
o
T3
UJ
•c
CO
N
"5
o.
U
§
eg
•5
O
Z
I
>
Z
8
X
I
0.
Columbia Unlv/School of
CB
Frederic
i
O
g
a
10
i
g
|
i
GO
1
O
Z
ID
ni
i
"o
•)
Richard
[Peterson
O
B
E
§
IS.
O)
(U
s
X
o
CO
IO
c
"o
o
.c
o
1
c
X
u
&
1
£
c
o
u
1
f^
a>
o
Unlversily of California-
(T
1
u
0
1
(O
e
CD
6
u.
Colorado Stale University
I
1
if
U
|
S
CD
^
a
ff
O
m
U
„
«
a
CO
'o
Q.
«
O
3
£
K
g
.?
0
5
§
O
(Pierce
£
n
Montreal, Quebec
1
N.
CD
g
Univ. ot Montreal
i
n
1?
O
g
e
CD
Winchesler.MA
S>
_c
o
GEI Consultants Inc.
1
E
•$
CO
o
g
^
o
o
§
i
V
£
1
CC
z
1
0
«
O
0
g
CM
CM
N
^
CU
CD
2
1
i
5>
Natural Resources Bk
^
3
65
.5"
u
2
CB
1
O
i
o
CM
Falmouth. MA
I
CM
(n
Michael
N
1
u
§
^
o>
UJ
0
i
E
g
i
S
s
o
2
>.
c
1
5
£
o
Charles
(flelnhardl
O
§
o
e
10
e
Ptecalaway, NJ
>>
Dept. of Pharmacolo!
Rulgers Unlverelty
E
Kenneth
0
§
^
Pittsburgh. PA
CB
C
CD
n
Univ of Pittsburgh
Howard
JRockette
0
|
^
e
ni
I
u.
Z
Environ Corporation
s
-^
(Rodericks
O
£
(£
CD
Rochester, NY
i
i
University of Rochester
_o
I
fc
r?
u
§
^
•i
CO
§
„
£
£
Research Associates In k
ffi
-a
1
O
i
CD
0
CD
CD
8
*
8
CO
35
f
i
RCQ/Hagler, BalDy. Inc.
1
E
1
0
§
49
O
e
f
|
i
•0
i
s
1
u
*
V
Unlverslly of Kansas Med
i
JRozman
U
§
o
r«.
e
0
Knoxvffle, TN
i
1
CO
£
n
University of Tennessee
S
{Russell
H
^
*5
CD
n
Z
1
5
I
6
Q."
(V
To
O
ffi
c
|
O
I
to
eg
i
I
1
677 Huntlngton Ave
*
S
X
Harvard School of PubHc
&
1
0
g
4P
J
§
— 1
1
CM
i
Devsre
i
O
§
co
«
^
n
CO
K
i
i
i
o
Texas AiM University
X
1
£
-------
0
B
UJ
OB
m
CM
(Cambridge. MA
1
•§
c
1
H
*o
0
JMassachusettss InstituI
£
CO
z
[Ohio State University
o
n
X
k.
ISchecte
O
g
CL
CM
^
^
<^-
CO
3
O
JC
i
X
Q>
s
Q)
I
e
0
§
{university of Utah
"5
0
O>
.2
1
u
<
<
U
CM
01
01
IO
§
1
1
UJ
?
s.
08
a
o
O
5
i
•5
s
1
s
s
iSchnoor
O
X
1
CO
O
N
CD
g
Univ of Texas
| William
o
CO
o
Q
CC
IO
CD
N.
Weatwood. NJ
0
i
c
0
1
CO
s
JTeledyne Corporation
u_'
a
iSchutz
O
S2
ID
a>
CM
^
o
o
o
CM
8
I
3800 Reservoir Rd N
•5
I
s
"S
[Georgetown University
>,
Anthon
:=
§>
in
0
S2
ID
^
o
CM
Ol
[Baltimore. MD
660 W Redwood St/Ho
University of Maryland
g
s
2
0)
I
i/>
o
9
CL
o>
o
IO
Ol
Chapel Hill, NC
&
UJ
*o
&
o
?
=
o
University of North Car
Steven
g
cc
o
9
CC
Ol
o
03
O
CM
[Olney MD
c
JS
U
CO
i
Warren
Isinclair
U
<
<
O
01
o
CO
CD
<
&
University Park
fC
^
1
CD
Ol
CM
i
Q.
c
o
"S
ft
u
o
a
CL
^
o
f-
o>
c
o
«f
g
S1
UJ
1
CO
0
i
Decision Research
I
_o
o
rn
O
B
UJ
CO
^
Ol
10
Pittsburgh, PA
Schenley Park
Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Milchell
rn
o
p
£
ID
^B
^K
IO
CD
U
X
1
75
Q.
0)
O
O
m
Yale University
I
I
.C
rn
o
cc
^
m
o
[Fairfleld, CT
JOE Foundation
Clifford
1
o
<
§
o
10
^>
CM
i
cf
0
s
CD
1
160 Longwood Avenue
Channing Laboratory
LLJ
it
O
_N
Q.
m
u
„
§
o
n
0
CM
CM
Ol
[Arlington, VA
O
X
S
2
Z
CO
Envrlon Corporation
CO
Thomas
£
U
p
E
tu
n
IO
CM
•§
1
_O
-§^
Woods Hole Oceanogra
c
o
-5
C
CD
1
s-
m
U
o
IO
o
CO
Napervide, IL
1
0
O
CM
SJ
Transducer Reaearch, Ir
of
1
-3
e
£
(n
0
p
K
UJ
•0
CM
10
CD
CO
<
1
0
m
CO
g
Q)
i
i
1
o
•o
3
0
en
o
o
§
£
IO
CD
O)
«
o
^
^
^
(ft
<
San Fransico, C
g
CO
•5
CO
s
£
3
To
_c
Bechtel Environmental
I1
CC
jstrelow
i
i
O
m
UJ
O
•5
o
CO
Farming! on,
|263 Framlngton Ave.
3
University of Connectic
JC
Frederic
c
«
1 Sunder rr
O
9
£
0
OJ
IK*
^
o>
s
if
o
1
CD
University of California
Charles
1
CO
o
v
to
^
^
IO
f^
Ol
o
X
I
6
111 Stoneridge Or
1
571
Iswenber
O
n
^»
CM
IO
*-
[Pittsburgh, PA
c
s
1
i
o
u.
±:
|carnegle Mellon Unlven
-5
S
0
Q
sp
UJ
M)
O>
^»
CO
CD
i
J?
I
m
104 Fisheries Center
g
01
1
•5
1
CD
U.
(0
O
0
<
<
o
o
CM
Ol
o
CD
O
10
a
CO
o"
1
li
CD
1
g
^
§
CC
"o
3
UJ
O
O
a
O
S
Ct
CM
IO
m
a
CD
Richland, W
1
g
1
£
&
1
£
i
.5
5
_
o
iTemplet
1
O
§
o
01
Ol
01
10
O
I
Bowen Science Building
a
f
•o
E
J
of
t-
O-
0>
0>
-------
u
f^
J2
CM
O
03
O
ID
=
o
Ol
1
6
CO
.E
i
5
0
Iff Research lost
o
c.
JThomas
O
|
r*
O*
(9
en
o
o
at
O
8
a.
c
1
a
0
a.
JTIkuisis
Q
|
^»
o
Ol
CM
i
z
E
0
CO
CM"
3
o
01
'c
E
cn
s
0)
u
e?
£
CO
cc
UJ
i
,
O
i
o
o
o
CO
o>
CO.
o
o
,1
o
^
Go
| Pasadena, CA
e
a
H
CO
C
UJ
I
01
g
a
C
C
(Trussed
O
|
e
CM
E
<
p Auburn Business P
I
i
c
5
t-
o
§
to
o
o
i
1
I
£
\L
o
us
10
£
NY University Medical Cen
u
3
£
C
O
"H.
0
g
^j.
0
IO
o
1
IO
n
Charles R. Velzy Assoclat
Charles O.
N
01
O
g
n
CM
IO
o
0
8
g"
i
o
u.
Dept. of Sociology
Colorado State University
6
3
UJ
(Vlachos
0
Q
U
CO
CO
CD
Moscow, ID
g
01
1
0
CO
CM
*-
1
Terragraphics Env Engine
i
E
fl>
1
o
8
f*»
CO
«D
O
J!
3
03
^
[eoo N.Lindbergh Blvi
I"
o
o
s
g
z
lli
o
1
0
1
CO
0
m
n
0
CO
N.
C
O
I
0
tr
CO
CO
o
a
X
t-
Z
0
I-
1
"co
O
§
0
CM
m
OB
GO
CM
i
Z
I
U
[Depl. of Psychology
•5
U
Z
_>*
c
Thomas |
jwallsten
o
1
CO
CO
o
co
,1
n
n
Z
S
X
X
o
CO
e
u
0
S
Q.
a
:s
I
I
8
Barbara
(wallon
O
o
u
IO
CM
i
C
o
8
m
J677 Huntington Ave.
Harvard School of Public
i
S
-5
£
1
0
§
f^
^
«•-
Rochester, NY
5
§
CO
Unlv of Rochester Medical
Bernard [
"1
0
1
10
CM
I
i
8
o
a!
15
o
_J
o
09
Harvard University
o
u
CO
I
O
i
*o
CM
0
CO
8
u
u.
Colorado Slate University
L.
jwhicker
o
Q
O
o
a
CO
^
o
CO
CO
O
_j
CO
««•
s
CO
o
Washington University
Warren H. |
1
u
1
IO
^
CM
^.
CM
O
Washington, DC
g
S
CD
1
CO
o
I
jO
i
CL
£
CO
1
1
O
1
IO
CM
O
o>
CO
e
I
6
"a
X
3
CO
University of Maine
e
6
(Wiersma
C5
Q
i
03
CO
CM
IO
^
>»
CO
o
Princeton, NJ
[Princeton University
1
c
o
UJ
•e
f
c
Ul
£
£
"E
0
X
(X
| Williams
O
§
^
O
ce
S
o
g
8
CO
o
1
O
•5
E
t-
1
s
0
0)
Z
1
1
U
§
«a
IO
a
S
0
University of Callfornla-
I
g
at
o
i
CO
(M
Cambridge, MA
3
1
_j
Harvard University
Richard |
g
=
o
i
CM
IO
o>
a
Richland, WA
g
CO
O
0,
S
a
I
£
a
CO
n
CD
g
m
0
P
0
u>
CO
^1
V)
at
jCorvallls, OR
n
X
1
.Oregon State UnlvereHy
William
c
c
O
1
CO
~
IO
0)
i
o
-i
University of California-Da'
Hanspeter
SL
>
o
H
e
00
O
0)
S
San Francisco, <
I
o
CO
i
Qenelech, Inc.
"Z
0.
S
1
o
§
CO
0
5
o
o
S
o
c!
1
:=
CM
'«
Electric Power Research Ir
2
8
c
3,
N
%
0}
i?
0.
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page C~1
APPENDIX C
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
ORGANIZATONAL CHART
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
o
0)
D)
O CO
«= O
g ffl
£ >%
O g
a.
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page D-1
APPENDIX D
GUIDELINES ON SERVICE ON THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Background
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the
Administrator and in 1978 given a Congressional mandate to provide an independent
source of scientific and engineering advice to the EPA Administrator on the scientific
and technical underpinnings of Agency positions.
The SAB consists of approximately 80 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 the
use of consultants, who are appointed by the SAB Staff Director after conferring with
the Chair of the Executive Committee and 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 exception is reports from
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which is a separately chartered FACA
committee.
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).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page D-2 ANNUAL REPORT
The charter provides guidance and restrictions on selection of SAB members. The
four most significant of which are:
a. Members must be qualified by education, training and experience to
evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the
Board.
b. The composition of Board committees, subcommittees and panels must
be "balanced", representing a range of legitimate technical opinion on the
matter.
c. No member of the Board may be a full-time government employee.
d. Members are subject to conflict-of-interest regulations.
The scientific and technical quality and the credibility of those selected is
paramount and is the balance of technical opinion achieved. Secondary factors
considered include the geographic, ethnic, sex, and academic/private sector makeup
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 appointed 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 an 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
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page D-3
Years
as member
2
2
4
6
Followed by years
as Chair
0
2 or 4
2 or 4
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.
Since consultants are appointed to provide the necessary expertise for specific
issues, their terms of appointment are for one year, 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 DFO's, EPA staff, staff at the National Academy of
Sdences\National Research Council, trade groups, environmental groups, professional
organizations, scientific societies, regulated industries, and the informed public.
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
-------
page D-4 ANNUAL REPORT
Statement of Intent on Women and Minorities, adopted by the Executive Committee in
1990.
Consultants are appointed by the Staff Director following much the same
procedure as for members with the exception that consultants are appointed to
address a specific issue. This is addressed in more detail in the following section.
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
Committee or 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 will begin by soliciting ideas about potential members from the
Agency staff who are intimately acquainted with the issue and will often be 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 review 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.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page D-5
The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an
independent assessment of the technical matters before the Board. Discrete inquiries
about the nominees are made with a number of different sources. This might include,
for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters, professional colleagues, and
experts who are on "the other side" of the issue. As time and resources permit and
controversy demands, names of nominees will be investigated via computer search of
their publications and pronouncements in public meetings.
Of course, a determining factor is often the availability of the individual to
participate in the public review. However, in the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the
SAB will 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.)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page D-6 ANNUAL REPORT
However, the Board is also concerned about "apparent conflicts-of-interest".
Consequently, consultants to the Panel are generally selected from the "broad middle"
spectrum of opinion on the technical issue under discussion. Experience has shown
that achieving balance through equal representation of extreme views reduces the
chance of achieving a workable consensus-pro or con-that the Agency needs to
more forward.
The "public disclosure" process 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. Public
disclosure is a standard part of all SAB Panel meetings.
Conclusion
These Guidelines are intended to assist the SAB in adhering to the mandates
and spirit of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. By following these Guidelines the
Board should be well-positioned to provide technically-sound, independent, balanced
advice to the Agency. At the same time, they provide assurance that there will be
adequate participation by and renewal with well-qualified experts from the various
communities served by the Board.
Prepared: Oct 14, 1991
Revised: Nov 26. 1991
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page E-1
APPENDIX E
STAFF SUPPORT AND COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP IN FY92
Many of the following positions were filled by two people during the year as
changes in personnel or staff alignments were made. Where two persons occupied a
position during the year, both are listed. The latter name is the incumbent at the close
of FY92.
STAFF DIRECTOR'S OFFICE:
Staff Director: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Project Coordinator: Ms. Joanna Foellmer
Secretary to the Staff Director: Ms. Darlene Sewell
Clerk Typist: Ms. Lori Gross
Stay-in-School Ms. LaShae Cardenas
Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Raymond C. Loehr
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Staff Secretary: Ms. Darlene Sewell
FAIRCHILD STAFF OFFICE:
Assistant Staff Director: Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Program Assistant: Ms. Carolyn Osborne
Receptionist: Mrs. Barbara Spencer-Pulliam
Stay-in-School: Ms. Kahlil Posey/Mr. R. Tahir
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
Co-Chair: Dr. Allan Kneese
Co-Chair: Dr. Kerry Smith
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page E-2 ANNUAL REPORT
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Roger McClellan
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Randy Bond
Staff Secretary: Ms. Janice Jones
Drinking Water Committee
Chair: Dr. Verne Ray
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Robert Flaak
Staff Secretary: Ms. Frances Dolby
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Chair: Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Edward Bender
Staff Secretary: Ms. Marcy Jolly
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Richard Schmalensee
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston
Environmental Engineering Committee
Chair: Mr. Richard Conway
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
Staff Secretary: Ms. Diana Pozun
Environmental Health Committee
Chair: Dr. Arthur Upton
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page E-3
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee
Chair: Dr. Morton Lippmann
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Robert Flaak
Staff Secretary: Ms. Carolyn Osborne/Ms,
Frances Dolby
Radiation Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Oddvar Nygaard
Designated Federal Official: Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Staff Secretary: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Chair: Mr. Alvin Aim
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Randy Bond
Staff Secretary: Ms. Janice Jones
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page F-1
APPENDIX F - SAB MEETINGS FOR FY92
Key to Committees of the Science Advisory Board
CAACAC
CASAC
DWC
EC
EEAC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
IAQC
RAC
RSAC
Dates
Oct 29-30
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Drinking Water Committee
Executive Committee
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Environmental Health Committee
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Committee
Radiation Advisory Committee
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Issues/Projects
Oct 28
Oct 30
Oct 31 - Nov 1
Oct 31 - Nov 1
Quarterly Meeting
Air Toxics Prioritizing
Annual Membership Meeting
Planning for FY92
Planning for FY92
Pollution Prevention Report
Explosives & Flammables Report
Constructed Wetlands Report
Oily Waste Consultation
Committee
EC
CASAC
EC
DWC
EEC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-2
ANNUAL REPORT
Oct 31 - Nov 1
Nov 7-8
Nov 21-22
Dec 4-5
Dec 17-19
Jan 7-8
Jan 22
Feb 10-12
Feb 11-12
Feb 12
Feb 10-11
Planning for FY92
Global Climate Research
Mesocosms Briefing
Great Lakes Dep Briefing
Biomarkers Briefing
Habitat Briefing
NRC EMAP Update
Highlights of recent reviews
Planning for FY92
Biokinetic Uptake Model for Lead
Planning for FY92
EMF Research Report
Radon in Drinking Water Commentary
EMAP: Integration & Assessment
Drinking Water Research at HERL
Quarterly Meeting
Social Science Research
Home B&S Guide
Radiation Risk Assess. Method I
Chemical vs. Radiation risk
Ozone by-products
Chlorine dioxide
Cryptosporidium
ORD Budget Planning
Bioremediation Research
EPEC
IAQC
RAC
EPEC
DWC
EC
RSAC
RAC
DWC
RSAC
EEC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
Feb 18-20
Feb 24-25
Feb 28
Mar 2-3
Mar 4-5
Mar 5
Mar 19-20
Mar 26-27
Apr 7-8
Apr 13-14
Apr 14
Apr 15
Apr 16-17
Apr 27-28
Apr 30 - May 1
Great Lakes WQC
Antidegradation
Asbestos Briefing
Gasoline Vapors Guidance
Showering and VOC's Guidance
NHEXAS Consultation
ORD Planning issues
Awards - STAA (CLOSED)
Planning
Carbon Monoxide Staff Paper
"Dioxin" Eco Research
Eco Risk Assessment Framework
"Dioxin" Briefing
Superfund Risk Assess. Guidance
Populations at Risk Consultation
Gt Lakes WQI
Chloramines
Chlorine
CAAA Section 812 Report to Congress
"Chesapeaka"
Quarterly Meeting
Oxides of Nitrogen
Habitat/Biodiversity
page F-3
EPEC
IAQC
RSAC
RSAC
EEC
CASAC
EPEC
EPEC
EHC
DWC
CAACAC
EEAC
EC
CASAC
EPEC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-4
May 21-22
Jun 1-2
Jun 1-2
Jun 10-11
Jun 16-17
Jun 18-19
Jun 29-30
Jul 7-8
Jul9
Jul 14-15
Jul 20-21
Jul 27-28
Jul 21-22
Aug 3-4
Aug 4-5
Radon RA Methodology-ll
DW NORM—I Briefings
Alaska Bioremediation
Committee Report Revisions
Sediment Criteria
C-14 & High Level Waste
Planning/Review
LIST Research
Planning Meeting
HF Report to Congress
DNAPL Consultation
Review Draft Cheasapeaka
report; OPPE briefing
on "health-health" and
review future topics
Indoor Air Research
Quarterly Meeting
Environ. Tobacco Smoke II
C02/HLW -- II
Uncertainty Analysis
Planning
Finalize Radiogenic
Changes to DW/NORM
ANNUAL REPORT
RAC
EPEC
DWC
EPEC
RAC
EPEC
EEC
EEC
EEC
EEAC
EEC
EC
IAQC
RAC
RAC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-5
Aug 17-18 Dermal Exposure EHC
Sep9-10 C02/HLW-III RAC
Total: 47 Open Meetings; 1 Closed Meeting
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-1
APPENDIX G
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD FY92 REPORT ABSTRACTS
EPA-SAB-EHC-92-001 Review of ORD's Draft Strategy for Health Effects Research
on Exposure to Complex Mixtures
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) reviewed an ORD's draft strategy
document for conducting research on the health risks of exposure to complex chemi-
cal mixtures. Such mixtures are not only pervasive in the environment, but also
represent the dominant mode of chemical exposure for the U.S. population. The
Committee found that a basis for a major expansion of current efforts is not cogently
presented in the document. The coupling between the research program, which is not
described in specifics, and the Agency's thrust toward risk reduction, remains vague.
The EHC views validation and improvement of the methods applied to the risk
estimation of mixtures as a primary objective of ORD programs in this area. Current
translations into risk assessment and regulatory decisions rely upon the additive model
(the assumption that algebraic summation of dose is the most reasonable default
position). The proposed research expansion emphasizes what is called the bottom-up
approach, defined as the identification of mixture components, followed by a study of
their joint actions and how these might be modified by various biological mechanisms.
A relative ranking of the priorities for such a program, or, at least, the means by which
priorities will be established, needs to be devised by ORD. The Committee also sees
tests of interactions at low doses as a top priority, recognizing that such tests may yet
have to be developed. Studies of interactions require exploration of the entire
dose-response function. If such research then fails to detect a significant problem at
these low exposure levels, the issue of inflated toxicity due to interactions might be
assigned a lower ranking in EPA's list of priorities for risk reduction. Instead, more
efficient techniques for determining the comparative potencies of truly complex
mixtures should receive greater emphasis. The comparative costs and time require-
ments of bottom-up and top-downapproaches, including bioassay-directed fractionation
for the latter, should be calculated for each mixture to be tested. Complex mixture
issues transcend EPA's purview and also involve the Food and Drug Administration,
the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of
Health, and others. Generic problems should be shared with the other agencies.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 6-2 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-DWC-92-002 Review of the Office of Drinking Water Health Criteria
Document on Chtoriated Acids/AIcohols/Aldehydes/Ketones
The Toxicology/Clinical Subcommittee of the Drinking Water Committee met
April 4-5, 1991 in Washington, DC to review issues relating to the Office of Drinking
Water's preliminary draft Health Criteria Document on Chlorinated Acids/Alcohols/
Aldehydes/Ketones. The Subcommittee answered specific questions posed by the
Office of Drinking Water, and obtained informational briefings from the Office of
Research and Development (ORD), in particular the Health Effects Research Labora-
tory (HERL), concerning specific ongoing or anticipated research efforts to provide
answers for some of the questions regarding the toxicity of these disinfection by-
products and to fill in data gaps. In reviewing the preliminary draft document present-
ed by the Agency, the Subcommittee concluded the following: 1) with a few exceptions
the studies selected for non-carcinogenic risk assessment were appropriate and
justified; 2) the approach being taken on evaluating the possibility of a threshold for
the carcinogenicity of dichloroacetic acid in mice is correct but is limited and should be
expanded to include both rat and mechanistic studies; 3) the tumor potency of chloral
hydrate in mice may be similar to that of dichloroacetic acid but further studies are
needed as well as an evaluation of any epidemiological studies that may have been
done on this formerly widely used medication; 4) no recommendation can be made at
the present time regarding whether the MCLG for DCA should be made on the basis
of its carcinogenicity or neurotoxicity, but we recognize the importance of the latter
and strongly urge EPA to continue research in this area; and 5) that there was
insufficient information to make a judgment concerning what relative source contribu-
tion should be applied to the risk assessment of these chemicals. The Committee
recommends that the document be separated into two or three individual documents.
As currently structured, it is very difficult to follow. The compounds with the most
information, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, and trichloroacetaldehyde, tend to
become lost in minimal discussions of the ketones and alcohols.
EPA-SAB-EEC-92-003 Leachability Phenomena - Recommendations & Rationale
for Analysis of Contaminant Release
The Leachability Subcommittee (LS) of the Environmental Engineering Commit-
tee (EEC) conducted a self-initiated study on the topic of leachability phenomena,
providing recommendations and rationale for analysis of contaminant release. The
recommendations are: 1) A variety of contaminant release tests and test conditions
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-3
which incorporate adequate understanding of the important parameters that affect
leaching should be developed and used to assess the potential release of contami-
nants from sources of concern; 2) Prior to developing or applying any leaching tests or
models, the controlling mechanisms must be defined and understood; 3) A consistent,
replicable and easily applied, physical, hydrologic, and geochemical representation
should be developed for the waste management scenario of concern; 4) Leach test
conditions (stresses) appropriate to the situations being evaluated should be used for
assessing long-term contaminant release potential; 5) Laboratory leach tests should
be field-validated, and release test accuracy and precision established before tests are
broadly applied; 6) More and improved leach models should be developed and used
to complement laboratory tests; 7) To facilitate the evaluation of risk implications of
environmental releases, the Agency should coordinate the development of leach tests
and the development of models in which the release terms are used; 8) The Agency
should establish an inter-office, inter-disciplinary task group, including ORD to help
implement these recommendations and devise an Agency-wide protocol for evaluating
release scenarios, tests, procedures, and their applications; and 9) Core research on
contaminant release and transport within the waste matrix is needed.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-004 Evaluation ofEPA's Research on Expert Systems to Predict
the Fate & Effects of Chemicals
A Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee reviewed
research in progress on "Expert Systems for Predicting the Environmental Fate and
Effects of Chemicals". Three research programs were reviewed. SPARC is an expert
system for estimating chemical and physical reactivity. CRAMS predicts reactivity
parameters of organic chemicals from spectroscopic data. The QSAR has several
expert systems within it, but for this review, the Subcommittee concentrated on the
"Single Integrated Language for Chemicals" and the plans for predicting mechanisms
of toxic action from chemical structure. The Subcommittee supports the continued
development and vigorous testing of each system. The SPARC and QSAR systems
were considered state-of-the-art. CRAMS is more preliminary and shows promise
particularly in the area of predicting metabolites. EPA was cautioned on the prema-
ture designation of these as "expert" systems. Other comments and suggestions are
offered in the report.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-4 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-005 Evaluation of the National Estuary Program Monitoring
Guidance Document
This report presents the conclusions and recommendations of the Science
Advisory Board following a review of EPA's draft "National Estuary Program: Monitor-
ing Guidance Document". The Board found that the Monitoring Guidance was an
important document for estuaries but that it should allow more flexibility among the
particular estuaries to select methods and develop approaches and data management
systems for their particular needs. The Board also made several specific suggestions
for changes to the appendices which contained information on monitoring methods.
They were particularly interested that the Agency assure that the monitoring of the
NEP be coordinated with the EMAP.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-006 Review of EPA's Ecorisk Assessment Research Program
This report presents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board following a review of EPA's
Ecological Risk Assessment Research Program. The Subcommittee considered that
the Ecorisk research program was fundamental to support the Agency's extensive
need in ecological risk assessment; however, they felt that the funding and the scope
of the current program were inadequate. They recommended expanded efforts on
methodologies for population, community, ecosystem, and landscape level assess-
ments and on quantifying uncertainty of risk estimation. Overall, they recommended
that the Agency expand support for this research to cover all of the Agency program
offices.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-007 Evaluation of EPA's Wetland Research Program
This report presents the conclusions and recommendations of a Subcommittee
of EPEC following its review of EPA's Wetlands Research Program. The Subcommit-
tee supported the direction and the priorities of the WRP and recommended that EPA
implement the WRP consistent with the strategy document and oral briefings they
reviewed. The Subcommittee recommended that the strategy document be revised to
clarify and concisely define the program and clarify other issues raised in the review.
While the strategy was confusing and failed to explain the strengths of the program,
the oral briefings provided important details that illustrate a risk based approach that is
supported by the Subcommittee. Program strengths included: 1) its emphasis on
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-5
synthesis and integration of wetlands research for the regulatory process; 2) the
development of a risk-based framework; 3) the focus on a landscape scale; 4) the
characterization of populations of wetlands by function; 5) a comparison of artificial
and natural wetland functions; 6) a technology transfer; and 7) the emphasis on wet-
lands types that are in significant danger of loss. The Subcommittee further recom-
mended that WRP further examine its coordination role with EMAP for the develop-
ment of indicators. The Subcommittee also recommended that EPA add a research
project dealing with coastal seagrass if additional resources can be found.
EPA-SAB-RAC-92-008 Correlation of Short-term and Long-term Test Results for
Indoor Radon
The Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed the Office of Radiation Program's
approach to analyzing the effects of substituting short-term tests for long-term tests in
determining the concentration of radon gas in homes. The Committee endorsed the
long-term test in the lowest lived-in space as the standard against which other test
results should be judged; noted that the lower the radon level, the less accurately
informed the homeowner is likely to be by results obtained with currently available test
devices; expressed concern about the false positive and negative rates that are likely
to result from short-term tests near an assumed action level of 4 pCi/L; and noted that
the long-term test, when properly done, provides a more scientifically appropriate
basis for mitigation decisions, particularly in the range of radon levels most commonly
found in U.S. homes. The Committee observed that improving the test methods
and/or improving the means of estimating actual radon exposure could lead to a
greater number of correct mitigation decisions.
EPA-SAB-RAC-92-009 Review of the Office of Drinking Water's Criteria Documents
and Related Reports for Uranium, Radon and Man-Made
Beta-Gamma Emitters
The Radiation Advisory Committee registers its concern about the inconsistent
approach within the Environmental Protection Agency regarding reducing risks from
radon exposures in homes. This letter report: 1) addresses the fragmented and
inconsistent approaches to reduce radon risk; and 2) provides closing comments on
the revised drinking water criteria documents that support the proposed regulations.
This instance illustrates a larger concern that the Agency is not effectively applying the
recommendations set forth in the Science Advisory Board report Reducing Risk:
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-6 ANNUAL REPORT
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. The Committee's
conclusions result from reviews of several issues related to airborne radon [Relation-
ship Between Short- and Long-term Correlations for Radon Tests (EPA-SAB-
RAC-92-008); Revised Radon Risk Estimates and Associated Uncertainties
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-003); Draft Citizen's Guide to Radon
(EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-005) brought to it by the Agency during the past year-and-
a-half and of the criteria documents supporting the proposed regulations for
radionuclides in drinking water (Report to the Administrator on a Review of the Office
of Drinking Water assessment of Radionuclides in Drinking Water and four Draft
Criteria Documents (SAB-RAC-87-035); Review of the Office of Drinking Water's
Criteria Documents and Related Reports for Uranium, Radium, Radon, and Manmade
Beta-gamma Emitters (EPA-SAB-RAC-92-009)]. In the context of these reviews, the
proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Radionuclides (National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides: Proposed rule. Federal Register,
56:33050-33127, 18 July 1991) appears to regulate waterborne radon at a level that
may be 1-2 orders of magnitude below the recommended action level for airborne
radon in homes.
EPA-SAB-DWC-92-010 Review of the Drinking Water Research Division's Corrosion
Research Program
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) met in Cincinnati, Ohio on May 9-10,
1991 to review the Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water Research
Division's (DWRD) Corrosion Research Program. The Committee was asked to
review and evaluate the state-of-the-art use of pipe loop tests for the evaluation and
optimization of corrosion control treatment methods; and identify and consider the
relative severity and scope of the secondary impacts of regulated corrosion control.
The Committee's primary recommendations were: 1) that the Drinking Water Research
Division continue its research with pipe loop tests to obtain data that can be used to
provide a better understanding of corrosion and control procedures; 2) that studies be
undertaken to determine whether the concentrations of lead, copper, and other metals
that enter water as a result of corrosion are directly related to the measures of
corrosion rate that are made using gravimetric and electrochemical methods; 3) that
the search for a standard protocol for evaluating corrosivity should be undertaken
starting with the simplest test, gravimetric-either with iron or lead test systems,
moving on to more complex approaches if this is unsuccessful; 4) that studies be
undertaken to determine how lime can be added to meet the goals of the lead/copper
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-7
rule, and at the same time, eliminate the operational problems associated with adding
it; and 5) that research on the corrosion of brasses and the variety of available solders
be undertaken to determine effective control procedures. In summary, the Committee
was pleased with the research program that was presented, and urged that EPA
accomplish the additional work recommended.
EPA-SAB-DWC-92-011 Review of the Office of Drinking Water's Health Criteria
Document for Trihatomethanes
The Science Advisory Board's Drinking Water Committee met in Washington,
DC on October 25-26, I990 to review the Office of Drinking Water's document Revised
External Draft for the Drinking Water Criteria Document for Trihalomethanes (THM),
addressing issues concerning the toxicity of THMs. The 1979 THM regulations were
based primarily on tumor formation in mouse liver and rat kidney following chronic
exposure to chloroform. Health data were not available on brominated THMs at that
time. Some new information has been generated and the revised document address-
es the issues related to the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for THM's.
The Committee addressed the selection of the key studies serving as the basis for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk assessments (The Committee concluded that
the studies utilized for estimating carcinogenic risks are the best currently available);
the effects of the vehicle of administration on the toxicity exhibited by chloroform (The
Committee recommended that the hepatic carcinogenicity produced by THMs adminis-
tered in an oil vehicle be disregarded from making quantitative estimates of risk); the
designation of the THMs collectively or individually as epigenetic carcinogens (The
Committee found that the data does not support a contention that these compounds
can be considered collectively as epigenetic carcinogens. Tribromomethane and
bromodichloromethane have demonstrated sufficient activity in several assays to be
considered genotoxic whereas the evidence for chlorodibromomethane and trichlo-
romethane is inconclusive for genotoxicity); The consideration of the four predominant
THMs as a group or mixture, opposed to using separate assessments for regulations
(The Committee recommends that separate MCL values be calculated for each of the
THMs, since their carcinogenic properties differ significantly in both quantitative and
qualitative terms); Restrictions to using mouse liver tumor data as the basis of
quantitative risk assessments (The Committee recommended that mouse liver tumor
induction should be utilized in making the weight-of-evidence judgment that chloroform
is a carcinogen); the role of the alpha-2u-globulin mechanism in renal tumor induction
(Based on published reports it does not appear to play a role in the etiology of
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-8 ANNUAL REPORT
chloroform-induced renal tumors in rats); The use of hepatocellular adenomas and
carcinomas as a basis for quantification of carcinogenicity for bromodichlorornethane
(The Committee found it inappropriate to consider hepatic tumors as the basis for
quantification of carcinogenicity for bromodichloromethane and recommends that EPA
utilize renal of intestinal tumors); The classification of dibromochloromethane in group
C: possible human carcinogen, based on liver tumors in mice (The Committee
recommends that the EPA classify dibromochloromethane in group C); The weight-of-
evidence classification for bromoform as B2 (The Committee supports the classifica-
tion of bromoform in the B2 category). The Committee also recommended that a
section on human exposure and body burden to chloroform be incorporated into the
criteria document.
EPA-SAB-RAC-92-012 Review of the ORP's Design lor the National Survey lor
Radon in Schools
Two designs for a national survey of radon in schools were developed by
Research Triangle Institute with the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Radiation Programs (ORP). The survey designs were submitted to the National
Radon Survey Review Subcommittee of the Radiation Advisory Committee for review.
The Subcommittee found either design to be statistically valid, but considered Design
option II to be the better protocol. However, the Subcommittee strongly urges the
EPA to consider long-term radon measurements during occupancy more represen-
tative of actual exposure than the two-day weekend charcoal canister measurements
planned by the Office of Radiation Programs.
EPA-SAB-RAC-92-013 Review of ORD 's Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromag-
netic Fields
This review constitutes comments by an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) appointed subcommittee to review a draft version of EPA's report Evaluation of
the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields (EPA/600/6-90/005B). The
reviewers suggest numerous changes in emphasis, coverage, and wording; comment
on some policy considerations; and conclude that the draft report, in effect, will have
to be rewritten if all of these suggestions and comments are to be taken into account.
The Subcommittee also presented its conclusions on the substantive scientific
questions discussed in the EPA report.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-9
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-014 Review of Testing Manual for Evaluation of Dredged Materi-
al Proposed for Ocean Disposal
On April 16-17, 1991 and September 24, 1991, the Sediment Criteria Subcom-
mittee reviewed the "Evaluation of Dredged Materials for Ocean Disposal-Testing
Manual". The manual outlines a tiered testing approach for evaluating dredged
materials for compliance with the limiting permissible concentration (LPC) as defined
by the Ocean Dumping Regulations. The Subcommittee reviewed the adequacy of
the bioaccumulation and toxicity testing procedures in the manual and provided
recommendations for mandatory tests, selection of test organisms, and the develop-
ment of a regulatory framework for interpreting the results. The Subcommittee also
recommended that EPA revise the guidance to clarify the use of the tiered approach,
to elaborate the requirements for evaluation under tier IV of the scheme, define the
relationship of Sediment Quality Criteria to the "Green Book", expand guidance on the
selection of reference sites, and to address several scientific questions about
bioaccumulation and its effects on the organism. The Subcommittee further recom-
mended several editorial changes for clarity and consistency of the definitions,
eliminating redundancies, and consolidating the quality assurance requirements for the
test results.
EPA-SAB-IAQC-92-015 Review of the Office of Health and Environmental Assess-
ment and the Risk Assessment Forum's Draft Final Guide-
lines for Exposure Assessment (Dated May 8, 1991)
On September 12-13, 1991, the Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure
Committee reviewed the Agency's Draft Final Exposure Assessment Guidelines. This
is the latest revision of the Agency's exposure guidelines, the SAB having reviewed
and provided advice on earlier versions in 1986 and 1988. The Committee was asked
by the Risk Assessment Forum to provide advice on the following issues: 1) is the
document scientifically sound and does it represent current thinking in exposure
assessment?; 2) are the concepts of exposure and dose presented in Chapter 2
consistent and well characterized?; 3) what are the Committee's views on the con-
cepts and terms used in describing "high end exposure"?; 4) is the presentation in
Chapter 6 concerning the role of uncertainty analysis in exposure assessment, the
sources of uncertainty, and approaches to characterizing uncertainty correct and
scientifically adequate?; and 5) are the approaches described in Chapter 7 relating to
communicating the results of exposure assessment well characterized and is the level
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-10 ANNUAL REPORT
of guidance presented sufficient? The Committee found the draft document to be well
crafted and complete, scientifically sound, and a major improvement over previous
efforts. In addition, the Committee noted that the draft document is consistent in
approach and definitions with the 1991 National Academy of Sciences exposure
assessment report. The Committee was pleased that the current draft document
included new developments in the exposure assessment field that have taken place
since 1988. The Committee was also pleased to observe that it provided resolution of
most of the general and specific SAB comments provided during its previous reviews.
The description and discussion of (high-end) exposure was awkward and not as well
done as the rest of the document, as noted previously by the Risk Assessment Forum.
In this report, the Science Advisory Board offers an alternate framework for consider-
ing (high-end) exposures, that the Committee believes is sounder conceptually and
analytically. The Committee also offers specific suggestions to improve the clarity and
usefulness of the guidelines.
EPA-SAB-IAQC-92-016 Review of the OSWER Model to Assess Total Lead Expo-
sure and to aid in Developing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at
Residential CERCLA/RCRA Sites
On November 7-8, 1991, the Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure
Committee of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the Agency's Uptake
Biokinetic (UBK) Model for Lead. The Committee found the model to be basically
sound, but was concerned that the reliability of the results obtained using it were very
much dependent on the selection of the various coefficients used for the variable
terms, and of the specification of default values that would be used when suitable
site-specific data were not available. The Committee found it unlikely that the user of
the model will be guided to the "proper" GSD based on the criteria in the Guidance
Manual. This has implications for cleanup recommendations and costs. The Commit-
tee suggested that the concept of the use (or non-use) of default values should be dis-
cussed more clearly in the Manual. For situations where default values are not
appropriate, the Committee advised the Agency to provide guidance on the methods
for acquiring measured or sampled data. The Committee recommended that the
guidance document for the model include more explicit discussion of the basis for
selecting the particular values to be used in a specific application, and of the uncer-
tainties associated with such values and their impact on the overall uncertainty of the
resulting model predictions. While refinements in the detailed specifications of the
model will be needed, the Committee was convinced that the approach followed in
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT ' page G-11
developing the UBK model was sound, and constitutes a valuable initiative in dealing
with program needs in evaluating and controlling human exposures to lead. It can
effectively be applied for many current needs even as it continues to undergo refine-
ment for other applications, based upon experience gained in its use. The refine-
ments will not only improve the scientific basis for evaluating and controlling lead, an
essential Agency responsibility, but also provide a basis for the use of the model for
other toxicants that present similar challenges. Examples could include arsenic,
cadmium, and various polycyclic hydrocarbons.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-92-017 Review of the FY1993 President's Budget Request for
Research and Development (R&D) Activities within the U.
S.EPA
On February 12, 1992, the Budget Review Subcommittee of the Research
Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) reviewed the FY 1993 President's Budget
Request for Research and Development activities within EPA. The Subcommittee
included representatives from each of the Science Advisory Board's standing Commit-
tees and focused on the budgetary impacts on both existing and future research
endeavors. The Subcommittee concluded that insufficient S&E funds and FTEs pose
a serious threat to the continued viability of the EPA research program. Such
inadequacies result in three major weaknesses which threaten the core capabilities of
the Agency's research efforts: 1) reliance on on-site contracts for continued research
effort rather than mere support services; 2) attrition of federal career scientists with a
subsequent loss of historical perspective and invaluable experience with the Agency.
This situation is compounded by inability to hire due to inadequate Personnel Com-
pensation and Benefits (PC&B) funds, and lack of funds for adequate training and
professional development; and 3) Increasing obsolescence/inadequacies of equipment
and facilities capabilities. Although the Subcommittee commented that ORD has
made tremendous strides in environmental research and has the potential to become
the premier environmental research facility, each of the above deficiencies continue to
erode such capabilities. Consequently, Administration and the Congress are urged to
provide an infusion of resources to abate the decline of EPA's scientific capability.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-12 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-DWC-92-018 Review of the Office of Research and Developments Ar-
senic Research Recommendations
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) reviewed the document "Arsenic
Research Recommendations" produced by EPA's Ad Hoc Arsenic Research
Workgroup. The document was first reviewed in three conference calls (January 2, 15
and 25, 1991) by a Subcommittee of the full Committee. This was followed by a
Subcommittee meeting on February 7, 1991 and a review by the full Committee on
that date in Washington, DC. The Committee was asked to comment on the following:
1) is the framework scientifically sound?; 2) does the framework provide an effective
structure for thinking about arsenic research needs as well as for developing, evaluat-
ing and prioritizing recommendations?; 3) does the framework provide a practical
basis for evaluating arsenic risk as a basis for establishing regulatory policy?; 4) do
the recommendations presented address the key questions surrounding the risk
assessment of arsenic?; and 5) are they the most appropriate recommendations? The
document was developed by the Agency in response to a negotiated settlement of a
lawsuit directed at the promulgation of national primary drinking water standards. The
settlement allowed EPA the option of pursuing a research program that would address
risk assessment issues surrounding arsenic-induced cancer. To be responsive to the
lawsuit, the results of the proposed research would have to significantly impact the risk
assessment for arsenic within a 3 to 5 years. The Committee concluded that there
are research efforts that can be conducted that would have substantial impacts on the
risk assessment for arsenic. These recommendations are directed at questions of the
mechanism by which arsenic induces cancer and the extent to which human suscepti-
bility to arsenic depends on a limited capacity for detoxification of arsenic. The
Committee recommended a series of important research projects that can be conduct-
ed that are classified by whether they can be successfully completed in time to satisfy
the consent decree. However, it is important to note that this prioritization would be
significantly altered if time were not a paramount consideration.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-92-019 Recommendations on the 1991 EPA Scientific and Techno-
logical Achievement Awards Nominations
The report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding the 1991 EPA
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) program. The Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-13
reviewed and evaluated the 1991 nominations for the STAA program. The Subcom-
mittee evaluated 114 nominations of scientific papers representing some of the best of
the scientific foundation of the EPA regulatory programs. The Subcommittee recom-
mended twenty-nine papers (25% of the nominations) for awards at three levels and
also recommended to the Office of Research and Development that thirteen additional
papers be recognized with honorable mention. The Subcommittee made no attempt
to ensure equality of numbers or proportion of awards across the categories of
science and technology or Agency research components. The Subcommittee recom-
mended awards for scientists from nine EPA research laboratories and two program
offices. The Subcommittee recommended the Agency develop additional opportunities
to reward scientific accomplishments, provide a minimum cash award of $500.00, and
recognize winners in other special ways. The Subcommittee also encouraged the
Agency to support the program at the highest levels of manageme
EPA-SAB-EEC-92-020 Review of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse/CEPPO Issues on Criteria for Explosives and
Flammable for SARA Title III
The Explosives and Flammables Criteria Subcommittee (EFCS) of the Environ-
mental Engineering Committee (EEC) reviewed the Agency's explosives and
flammables criteria which were developed in response to an August 27, 1990 Ad-
vanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (40 CFR Part 355) pursuant to
provisions of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title
111, Section 302. The EFCS met on May 29 and 30, 1991 and reviewed nine issues
raised by over 60 commenters in the ANPRM. The issues examined by the EFCS
pertaining to explosives deal with whether explosives (low and/or high explosives)
should be listed individually or categorically, setting the appropriate Threshold
Planning Quantities (TPQ) for the explosives, examining the appropriate overpressures
and tables of distances for explosives, whether fireworks should be listed or excluded,
and specific comments in the technical background documents such as the appropri-
ateness of the United Nations (UN) classification schemes, appropriateness of the
consequence analyses, and specific objections to use of the Automated Resource for
Chemical Hazard Incident Evaluation (ARCHIE) model as a means to evaluate
potential exposure scenarios. The issues examined by the EFCS pertaining to
flammables deal with whether there are significant hazards posed to the community in
quantities less than 10,000 pounds, whether flammables should be listed categorically
or individually, whether specific flammable gases and very volatile flammable liquids
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-14 ANNUAL REPORT
should be treated as a special category of flammables, the appropriateness of the
consequence analysis for flammables, the appropriate hazard criteria and scenarios to
use for modeling, and specific comments in the technical background document for
flammables, such as use of the 100-meter fence-line distance and other factors to be
used in the analysis.
EPA-SAB-EHC-92-021 Review of the Office of Toxic Substances' Draft Formalde-
hyde Risk Assessment Update
An updated draft formaldehyde risk assessment was presented to the Environ-
mental Health Committee on July 17, 1991, incorporating information that had become
available since the 1987 EPA report (Assessment of Health Risks to Garment Workers
and Certain Home Residents from Exposure to Formaldehyde). The updated docu-
ment reviews the evidence bearing on both the cancer and non-cancer effects of
inhaled formaldehyde vapor. The Committee found the draft update to be a generally
well-written document, but raised issues and provided suggestions on several aspects
of the Update. The current report reaffirms the 1987 classification of formaldehyde as
a Group B1 (Probable Human) carcinogen. Animal data are unequivocal, demonstrat-
ing in rats that formaldehyde is a nasal carcinogen. The epidemiological evidence is
currently judged to be less certain than the experimental evidence, primarily because
of problems in identifying exposure. Some Committee Members noted, however, the
high relative risk estimates for nasal cancer in certain epidemiologic studies and
suggestions of a dose-response relationship. As in 1987, a quantitative risk assess-
ment was derived from animal data, but there was increased reliance on a biomarker
of formaldehyde exposure (DNA-protein cross-links, or DPX) rather, than on ambient
chamber concentration as the source of dose-response information. DPX data from
monkeys were obtained to provide a species showing greater correspondence with
human breathing patterns than do rats. The resulting upper bound inhalation unit risk
(based on the linearized multistage procedure) was calculated as 2.0 x IO"3 per ppm for
the rat data and 3.3 x 10"4 per ppm for the monkey data. These values are consider-
ably lower (for both species) than the values based on airborne exposure concentra-
tions as calculated for the 1987 document and generate a variety of questions about
the application of DPX measures to risk assessment, except as a measure of expo-
sure. The Committee is concerned (as is EPA) about the absence of DPX data based
on chronic exposures, and about the inability to procure information about the correla-
tion between topographical DPX variations in the monkey and possible tumor sites.
The Committee recognized the advances in exposure assessment stemming from the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-15
use of DPX measures, but views their application to quantitative risk assessment,
except as a measure of exposure, as equivocal. The Committee recommended that
the risk estimates based on animal DPX data be compared to those derived from the
most appropriate human studies, particularly on those subjects followed in the
American Cyanamid Corporation studies (Blair et al, 1986; Marsh, unpublished
communication submitted to EPA's Office of Toxic Substances, 1991). In addition, the
Committee believes that the joint effects of particulates and formaldehyde warrant
more extensive discussion, since particulates may serve as efficient carriers for toxic
materials and modify both exposure and pharmacokinetic parameters. Further, the
rationale for selecting the monkey model-congruency with human breathing pattern
and respiratory system structure-also invokes the possible contribution of exercise
because it engenders a shift toward oral breathing. Both rats (which are obligate nose
breathers) and monkeys can be induced to exercise, and consequent shifts in
respiration patterns could yield useful new information about the applicability of DPX.
Non-cancer risk assessment was addressed in detail, but the Committee recommends
that some issues be further expanded. These include subclinical effects, potentially
sensitive subpopulations, full presentations of data, tolerance development, the contri-
butions of particulates and exercise, and methods for the precise psychophysical
measurement of irritant responses.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-92-022 Review of 14 Strategic ORD Research Issues for FY 1994
The Office of Research and Development has implemented a new issue based
planning system for environmental research. This approach to R&D planning holds
promise for research programs. Each of the 14 "issue strategy" documents (Non-point
Source Pollution, Indoor Air Pollution, Health Risk Assessment Methods, Environmen-
tal Education and Outreach, Anticipatory Research, Exploratory Grants and Centers,
Drinking Water Pollutants and Disinfectants, Terrestrial Systems, Habitat/Biodiversity,
Wetlands, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), Global
Warming Environmental Releases of Biotechnology Products, and Bioremediation)
provided a brief description of the topic, future activities in the area, an high/low
resource scenarios. The Committee views the process as an excellent start for future
planning cycles.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-16 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-023 Review of the Process and Rationale for Developing Eco-
logical Risk Assessment Guidelines
The Ecorisk Subcommittee met on March 26-27, 1992 to conduct this review.
The Subcommittee found that the Ecological Risk Assessment program had developed
useful guidance to address important issues and recommended that the Agency
increase its efforts to develop issue papers and expanded case studies. The Subcom-
mittee agreed that the current framework should be viewed as evolving and that its
focus must go beyond traditional chemical stressors dose-response approach of and it
should be revised to effectively include biological stressors. Further, they recommend-
ed that the Forum serve as a major coordination point for scientists within the agency
and in other Federal Agencies. Coordination is particularly important with EPA
programs for EMAP, Geographic Initiatives using ecological criteria, Habitat Protection,
and Global Climate Change. The Subcommittee also recommended that RAF
activities should also be used to stimulate research on ecological risk assessment
methods, assessment techniques, the selection of endpoints and indicators, and
assessments of multiple stressors and cumulative impacts. The Framework should
also be expanded to include biological stressors, data acquisition and public input to
the formulation of the conceptual model.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-024 Review of the Rationale for Development of Ambient Aquat-
ic Life Water Quality Criteria for TCDD (Dioxin)
The Subcommittee commended EPA for its innovative and well conceived
research plan to support the development of a dioxin water criterion. The Subcommit-
tee endorses the body burden approach and encouraged the Agency to continue and
expand research that would validate the assumptions of the approach. The Subcom-
mittee found that the use of the fish, Medaka, was inherently controversial and
recommended that EPA consider either a native substitute species or modify the
guidelines for developing water quality criteria. The Subcommittee also recommended
that EPA add tests to evaluate metabolism of dioxin, develop additional biomarkers,
and improve analytical measurements and verify predicted aqueous concentrations to
support the development and implementation of the criterion. The Subcommittee
found that the TEF approach was promising but recommended further verification
before it could be applied to aquatic life and wildlife. Overall, the Subcommittee found
that EPA presented several alternatives to conventional testing of chemicals which, if
verified by additional research, will provide valuable insights about compounds that
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-17
bioaccumulate and depurate slowly. This research may also lead to a new approach-
es for criteria that should be reflected in the national guidelines for developing water
quality criteria.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-025 Review of Synoptic National Assessment of Comparative
Risks to Biological Diversity and Landscape Types
The Habitat and Biodiversity Subcommittee reviewed this proposal and received
briefings on the planned research from scientists with EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, and the Nature Conservancy.
The Subcommittee supported the concept of the proposal but recommended the plan
be revised to extend the schedule and expand the budget and address the recommen-
dations herein. Further the Subcommittee recommended that the project focus on a
longer term pilot to demonstrate feasibility, develop better indicators of stress, and
compare various types of satellite imagery. They also encouraged further coordination
among the participants and within EPA and with NASA. The Subcommittee noted that
while the proposal offered many useful opportunities, EPA should be clear that they
were only addressing issues of species richness at very coarse scales of resolution.
The SAB also recommended that research be conducted to understand the basis for
people's perception of the values of biodiversity and habitat.
EPA-SAB-EEC-92-026 Review of the Office of Research and Development's
Bioremediation Research Program Strategy
The Bioremediation Research Review Subcommittee (BRRS) of the Environ-
mental Engineering Committee (EEC) reviewed ORD's draft "Bioremediation Research
Program Strategy," dated December 1991. The BRRS found that the strategy
presented in the draft report, which is driven by actual site conditions and knowledge
gaps, to be useful and basically sound in concept. The BRRS commends the Agency
on the team approach used to address the topic, but recognized that the authors need
to clarify concepts and terminology related to the term, "site-directed approach." The
BRRS believes that, while the strategy has many good features, the draft document
and the entire bioremediation research program could benefit greatly from a more
explicit treatment of the strategic planning process. Additional recommendations are
as follows: 1) Bioavailability is a major limiting wide-scale application of bioremediation
technologies - there is a need to conduct research to understand the physical-chemi-
cal changes that affect bioavailability of chemical pollutants including mixtures in order
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-18 ANNUAL REPORT
to develop more effective bioremediation technologies; 2) there is a need to coordinate
with other governmental agencies, as well as with the private sector; 3) the EPA
bioremediation strategy needs to recognize other EPA research, as well as an "open
windows policy to reach out and keep abreast of new developments in the field; and
4) specific criteria to measure success are needed. A number of other recommenda-
tions were made with the aim of improving both the draft strategy document and the
Agency's overall bioremediation research program.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-19
FY 1992 SAB LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-001 Review of the Office of Drinking Water's Revised
Criteria Document on Nitrate/Nitrite
The Science Advisory Board's Drinking Water Committee (DWC) reviewed the
revised Drinking Water Criteria Document for Nitrate and Nitrite on October 15, 1990.
The Committee previously reviewed this topic in 1987 (report EPA-SAB-EHC-87-029).
Two major issues identified as areas of concern were: 1) the lack of a carcinogenicity
classification in the criteria document (the DWC noted that it would like to review the
carcinogenicity classification when an assessment is available); and 2) questions con-
cerning the basis of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L. The most
sensitive exposed group, i.e., infants with gastrointestinal disturbances, may not be
protected adequately, because the Walton study, used as a basis far determining the
MCL, assumed, but did not verify, that the most sensitive subpopulation of infants, i.e.,
those with acute diarrhea, had adequate representation. Also the reporting process
did not report the incidence of methemoglobinemia, a consequence of nitrate inges-
tion. In addition, EPA staff indicated their estimate that drinking water contributes
50% of the nitrate intake, but the MCL is based on an assumption of 100% ni-
trate/nitrite intake from drinking water. Lastly, EPA stated that the National Academy
of Sciences 1977 report Water and Health (National Academy of Science, Washington
DC, 1977), confirms the value of 10 mg/L, but did not note that this report also states
"there is little margin of safety" at this level.
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-002 Review of the Office of Drinking Water Issue Paper
on Cyanogen Chloride
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) met in Washington, D.C. April 4-5, 1991
to review the Office of Drinking Water issue paper on cyanogen chloride. The
Committee recommended that the option of conducting research on the toxicity of
ingested CICN be implemented. The Committee also provided a number of other
specific comments designed to improve the issue paper.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-20 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-003 Review of Revised Radon Risk Estimates and Asso-
ciated Uncertainties
The Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed the Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) documents supporting the reassessment of radon associated risks to the
general population "EPA's National Residential Radon Survey Preliminary Results"
and "Proposed Revisions in EPA Estimates of Radon-Risks and Associated Uncertain-
ties." These documents represent an important step forward by the Agency in
assessing the health risks of exposure to radon and its decay products, in reviewing
and utilizing the recent scientific results and deliberations on issues affecting the dose
and risk, and in attempting to quantify the attendant uncertainties. The National
Residential Radon Survey is a success story, since it represents the first significant
nationwide survey of an indoor air pollutant with a firm statistical basis for its design
and implementation. Overall, the Board has found that the methods and analyses
used by the Agency for the assessment of radon risk are generally appropriate. The
nationwide average of radon concentrations in U.S. homes, based on the National
Residential Radon Survey, represents the best available data. The Agency's pro-
posed adjustment of the exposure/dose relationship between miners and the general
population, obtained from the recent EPA-sponsored National Research Council
report, survey, uncertainty about the equilibrium factor, and uncertainty about the
percent of time people spend in their residences.
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-004 Review of Idaho Radionuclide Study
The Idaho Radionuclide Study was originally designed to support the
rulemaking on the radionuclide National Emission Standard-Hazardous Air Pollutant
(NESHAP), not for an explicit evaluation or remediation of individual radiation expo-
sures. However, the study did provide radiation exposure data that has prompted the
Agency's consideration of current and past uses of phosphorus slag. Gamma-
radiation exposure levels from elemental phosphorus slag can reach 60-65 uR/hr in
some areas, which is 4-5 times the background level prevalent in Southeastern Idaho.
This level is within the range of background radiation worldwide; however, the
radiation exposure levels in this case are increased due to technological activities.
Members of the general public can come into contact with the gamma radiation fields
associated with past uses of phosphorus slag, and exposure patterns can be highly
variable. The Committee suggests that the Agency establish a set of graded decision
guidelines based upon technical and economic factors for both short-term and long-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-21
term exposure of the public due to past uses of slag, and make them available for
public and SAB review. The Committee suggests that past and current phosphorus
slag uses be considered separately, because the cost/risk considerations involved
make them distinctly different technical issues for assessment and control, including
selection of any action levels.
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-005 Review of draft revised Citizen's Guide to Radon
The Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed the August 28, 1991 draft Citizen's
Guide. The Committee continues to affirm that a long-term test is the best basis for
citizens to determine whether to fix a home; however, for those circumstances where
a shorter-term decision is required or appropriate (a high reading, for example) two
short-term tests, at a minimum, may be used. A single short-term test is not decisive
and that at least two short-term tests are needed before a decision to fix a home is
made, if the preferred long-term test is not feasible. An empirical evaluation (field
testing) of this draft Citizen's Guide would be valuable because such tests are the best
way to determine whether the information is presented in a manner that is likely to be
a manner that is likely to be accessible to the intended audience.
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-92-006 Research-ln-Progress Review ofORD's ^Constructed
Wetlands for Waste wafer Treatment"
The Constructed Wetlands Subcommittee (CWS) of the Environmental Engi-
neering Committee (EEC) conducted a review of the Agency's research-in-progress on
constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. The CWS noted that, while the Office
of Research and Development (ORD) Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
focus on revision of the design manual and its publication is a tangible goal, given the
modest funding for the current program, this will only lead to modest improvement of
the manual. The CWS further noted that, because the current research is fragmented,
significant advancement in system design cannot be expected. The CWS identified
areas for additional or expanded research, recommending that ORD improve its
overall research strategy and organization to guide priority development and to
coordinate activities in the various laboratories, as well as increase funding and
staffing in constructed wetland research. In particular, the CWS recommended that
the Agency should prioritize and allocate adequate funding and staff support for further
growth areas, such as surface flow and open water systems (lagoons) designed for
water quality improvement and wildlife habitat value enhancement; integrated systems;
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-22 ANNUAL REPORT
urban storm water treatment; other aspects of non-point source, agriculture, mine
drainage, road/highway runoff treatment; and, constructed wetlands as polish-
ing/protection of natural wetlands or surface water bodies. It was noted that, the ORD
program needs significant coordination. The CWS recommended sponsorship of a
national workshop to refocus Agency priorities and to coordinate with other Federal, as
well as State and local agencies and private organizations. Other comments were
offered on specific projects.
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-92-007 Review of ORD's Draft "Pollution Prevention Re-
search Strategic Plan"
The Pollution Prevention Subcommittee (PPS) of the Environmental Engineer-
ing Committee (EEC) reviewed the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's)
Research Strategic Plan for Pollution Prevention. The review examined a draft report
entitled, "Pollution Prevention Research Strategic Plan," dated March 1991 and
culminated in specific recommendations. The PPS found the Plan, to be an informa-
tive assessment of pollution prevention research currently underway at the Agency.
However, the PPS believes that the draft document does not contain all the elements
commonly contained in a strategic plan, and urged the Agency to redraft the document
accordingly. Additionally, the PPS identified inconsistencies in the ranking process
and recommended that it would be prudent to revisit and explain the rankings so that
they are clearly objective. Pollution prevention research will not eliminate the need for
ongoing research in areas that serve to control post-generation pollution. It is
proactive by design, and while challenging to develop; more emphasis needs to be
given to anticipatory research. The PPS also stressed the need for the Agency to
develop means to measure the success of the pollution prevention program. The
Plan's emphasis on consumer products is appropriate and reflects a growing recogni-
tion of these products as important diffuse sources of pollution and the role of
consumer demand in reducing the environmental burdens associated with their
production, use and disposal. The PPS recommends that serious consideration be
given to incorporating specific social science research activities into the Plan.
Encouragement should be given to various objects which facilitate communication and
technology transfer. Numerous additional comments are offered and aimed at
reinforcing and improving the draft Strategic Plan.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-23
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-92-008 Review of the EMAP Program Plan and Concepts for
Integration and Concepts for Integration and Assess-
ment
This letter report discussed the significant recommendations of the Environmen-
tal Monitoring Subcommittee of EPEC for further improvements to the Program Plan
for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). This is the third
SAB report evaluating critical aspects of EMAP. The Subcommittee acknowledged the
improvements that EMAP had already made in its program document and urged them
to provide further clarification of EMAP's role in ecorisk assessment, its design,
information management plans, its clients and to publicize its on-going contributions to
science and monitoring. The Subcommittee also recommended that EMAP prepare
specific documents showing data assessment and integration approaches.
EPA-SAB-RAC'LTR-92'009 Review of "A Research Strategy for Electric and
Magnetic Fields; Research Needs and Priorities"
The Radiation Advisory Committee's Nonionizing Electric and Magnetic Fields
Subcommittee reviewed Review of A Research Strategy for Electric and Magnetic
Fields: Research Needs and Priorities (EPA/600/9-91/016A). The June 1991 Re-
search Strategy contains chapters on health effects, biophysical mechanisms,
exposure assessment, and control technology. Although the topics identified in the
document are relevant to EPA's mission, the Subcommittee notes that a national
research agenda should also consider occupational, diagnostic, and therapeutic uses
of extremely low frequency fields. The document itself does not specify the breadth of
the audience for this research strategy. The document, which is well written and
informative, describes both the relevant tissues and EPA's responsibilities. However,
the level of detail in the document is insufficient for setting specific research goals and
priorities. The EPA document properly focuses on cancer and on exposure-definition
issues as priority areas for human health research; however, effects on nervous
system and sensory structures should receive more emphasis than indicated in the
EPA document because there is evidence of interaction of electric and magnetic fields
with neutral tissue cellular and animal studies. The Subcommittee, therefore, recom-
mends that scientific information sufficient to support credible formal risk assessment
of exposure to electric and magnetic fields be developed.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-24 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-010 Review of the draft revised "Homebuyer's and
Seller's Guide to Radon"
The Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed the scientific basis of the real
estate testing protocol options proposed in its December 23, 1991 draft revised
document, Homebuyer's and Seller's Guide to Radon, an Appendix on non-interfer-
ence controls (methods to discourage tampering), options for real estate testing
protocol, and a national profile of the real estate testing protocol options. The
Committee believes that all radon remediation decisions should be based on estimat-
ed exposure to individuals. Therefore, the Committee has for some time recommend-
ed a year-long integrated radon concentration measurement, taken in the lowest lived-
in-space, because this measurement most accurately reflects the annual average
radon concentration in a home (exposure also depends on the time an individual
spends in a particular area). However, the Committee realizes that the best option is
not currently the most realistic option for real estate transactions where decisions may
be made in matters of days or weeks. The Committee's recommendations include: 1)
encourage longer tests whenever possible; 2) consider alternative approaches, such
as long-term testing of the home after the sale has been completed; and 3) research
directed toward improving the analysis of both the precision and accuracy of the
various measurement methods, testing protocols, and interpretive procedures. These
efforts should include more data on day-to-day and season-to-season variability for a
variety of radon concentrations. It is also important to investigate how increasing
integration time improves the accuracy of short-term test results in comparison to
estimating the annual average radon concentration.
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-011 Review of the Drinking Water Criteria Document for
Cryptosporidium
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) met on February 11-12, 1992 and
reviewed the Drinking Water Criteria Document for Cryptosporidium. Overall, the
Committee considered the draft document to be inadequate as a criteria document
because: 1) it does not reflect the current state of knowledge; 2) it is superficial in its
coverage of information on Cryptosporidium in drinking water and the aquatic environ-
ment, especially concerning treatment efficacy; 3) it does not identify the important
gaps in scientific knowledge and understanding of Cryptosporidium or its public health
significance in drinking water; 4) it does not identify the scientific needs that must be
met to go forward with a risk assessment; and 5) it draws no conclusions and makes
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-25
no recommendations on future scientific directions to decide if Cryptosporidium in
drinking water should be regulated and if so, how to regulate it. The Committee
recommended a comprehensive revision of the document to include an insightful and
critical analysis of the following topics: 1) the organism and its diseases in humans; 2)
the sources and occurrence of the organism in water and the role of water in its
transmission; 3) the efficacy of water treatment processes for its removal and inactiva-
tion; and 4) the risk of drinking water as a source of human exposure, infection and
illness.
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-012 Review of the Drinking Water Criteria Document for
Chlorine Dioxide
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
met on February 11-12, 1992 and reviewed the Drinking Water Criteria Document for
Chlorine Dioxide. The Committee concluded that: 1) EPA has selected the appropri-
ate studies as the basis of the risk assessments for chlorine dioxide and chlorite; 2) it
is appropriate to use an uncertainty factor of 100 for chlorine dioxide and chlorite,
instead of the usual 1,000 given the acute nature of the toxic response for these
compounds: 3) a combined Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) should not be
derived for total residual oxidants when chlorine dioxide has been used as the
disinfectant? When asked does the SAB agree with the Agency on the proposed
decision not to establish an MCLG for chlorate due to data limitations, the Committee
responded that they were uncomfortable for both scientific and regulatory reasons to
leave a blank in this area and offer no guidance to the water industry. Therefore, the
Committee recommended that until such time that there are more data available upon
which to establish an MCLG that a Health Advisory (HA) be given. This would
certainly give some sense of the possible toxicity of this compound to both the
regulated industry and public health officials. In its review and discussion of the
document, the Committee also offered a number of concerns and suggestions which
need to be addressed in future revisions of the document.
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-013 Review of the Viral Transport (VIRALT) Model
On December 6-7, 1990, the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed VIRALT, a modular semi-analytical and
numerical model for simulating transport and fate of viruses in ground water. The
Committee was asked to: 1) make a thorough review of the appropriateness of the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-26 ANNUAL REPORT
modeling assumptions and suggest possible revisions that might improve the predic-
tive capabilities of the model, and discuss the limitations of the model; and 2) review
the validity and utility of the model. The most serious deficiency of the model devel-
opment is the lack of field validation. Default values for source concentrations,
adsorption coefficients and other parameters have been taken from the literature and
are not well supported or documented. Furthermore, the assumptions used to develop
the model must also be validated. Without these validations, VIRALT cannot be used
to identify wells at risk or the disinfection levels required. The target user audience
needs to be defined and the documentation revised accordingly. The documentation
is not adequate for users with a cursory knowledge of groundwater flow and transport
phenomena.
EPA-SAB-DWC-LTR-92-014 Review of the Criteria Document on Ozone and
Ozonation By-Products
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) reviewed progress in developing
maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) for ozone and ozonation by-products in drinking
water at its February 11-12, 1992 meeting in Washington, DC. The Committee
reviewed the June 24, 1991 draft document: Revised Final Draft for the Drinking
Water Criteria Document on Ozone and Ozonation By-Products. In general, the draft
poorly documents the health effects of ozone by-products, does not bring the reader to
any understanding of the critical issues with the ozonation of drinking water, and
frequently leaves the real regulatory issues unresolved. The Committee had serious
concerns about the rational development of regulations in the drinking water disinfec-
tant area. There is little doubt that scientifically defensible regulations for individual
by-products can be developed using current guidelines. However, as long as they are
considered individually it appears quite likely that the sum total of such regulations
could be irrational. This could present a dilemma to the regulated communities.
Some of these alternatives may actually increase the calculated risks from cancer
and/or seriously compromise the ability to prevent the spread of waterborne infectious
disease. In the Committee's opinion, the solution to this dilemma is to be found in
developing the research information that is needed to allow decisions to be made.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-27
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-92-015 Review of the Alaskan Bioremediation Oil Spill Pro-
ject
The Alaskan Bioremediation Tasks Group met on June 1-2, 1992 to complete
this review, which builds on the SAB review of the preliminary plan (EPA-SAB-EPEC-
89-023). The Task Group commended the Agency for its response to a significant
problem and for the work which should lay a foundation for research and planning to
improve future emergency responses. The results indicated that the bioremediation
technique reduced cleanup time in some instances, but the mechanism for this
acceleration was unclear. Further research was recommended for the selection and
testing of fertilizers, the underlying mechanisms of bioremediation and the fertilizer
application/ beach washing, and assessment techniques that could be applied to other
situations. Overall, the Task Group found that these results would be most useful if
applied to develop strategies for evaluating the use of bioremediation in future oil
spills. Additional efforts were suggested for data interpretation, revisions of the report,
chemical measurements of the oil fractions, and the use of mechanistic models.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-92-016 Closure Letter on the OAQPS Staff Paper for Carbon
Monoxide
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) met on April 28, 1992, to
review the Office of Air and Radiation document: Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Infor-
mation. The Committee believed that the document provides a scientifically adequate
basis for regulatory decisions on carbon monoxide. The staff paper concludes, and
the CASAC concurred, that a standard of the present form and with a numerical value
similar to that of the present standard is supported by the present scientific data on
health effects of exposure to carbon monoxide.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-92-017 Comments on the draft "Air Quality Criteria for Ox-
ides of Nitrogen" Developed by the Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, RTP, NC.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) met on April 27-28, 1992
to review the draft document Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). The
Committee's consensus is that the document is generally well prepared and, with
appropriate revision, provides an adequate scientific basis for a regulatory decision on
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-28 ANNUAL REPORT
oxides of nitrogen. The Committee provided detailed comments to further facilitate the
development of the revised criteria document.
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-92-018 Review of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Con-
taining NORM
The Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed the office of Drinking Water's
"Suggested Guidelines for the Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Contain-
ing Naturally-Occurring Radionuclides" dated July 1990. Guidelines for the disposal of
drinking water treatment wastes containing naturally occurring radionuclides are
certainly needed because of the potential radiation doses to treatment plant workers
and to the public. However, the Guidelines document lacks information needed to
fully assess the magnitude of risk from exposure to radioactivity in drinking water
treatment wastes. The 1990 "Guidelines" document includes all the relevant treatment
technologies but describes them only in general terms. Because the discussion of
both the treatment technologies and the waste disposal practices is highly qualitative,
the "Guidelines" document is not sufficient by itself for making scientific, engineering
or economic choices. The disposal of materials containing naturally-occurring
radionuclides is a complex problem which has not been addressed in a systematic
way by the Federal government. Although the 1990 "Guidelines" identifies and
considers relevant Federal regulations, it is, understandably, somewhat unclear in its
recommendations. The "Guidelines" should be revised to make both the scientific and
policy rationales clear to the reader. The "Guidelines" do not specify whether the
radiation exposures to drinking water treatment plant workers should be considered as
occupational exposures or be viewed against the dose limits for the general public.
This decision will have considerable bearing on any final guidelines. The Agency
should also reevaluate the numerical criteria for the disposal of wastes containing
lead-210.
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR'92-019 Review of OPPE's Workplan for the Retrospective
Study of the Impacts of the Clean Air Act
On April 14, 1992, the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)
met in Arlington, Virginia and reviewed the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's
(OPPE) workplan for the retrospective impact analysis required by section 812 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. The Council was asked three primary
questions: 1) is EPA using an appropriate paradigm for conducting the retrospective
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-29
assessment?; 2) within the context of a general equilibrium macroeconomic frame-
work, what is the appropriate way to measure the costs of air regulations?; and 3)
what are appropriate techniques for valuing the physical effects estimated in this
assessment? In general, based on the information available to it, the Council found
that the workplan developed by the OPPE is basically sound. From the perspectives
of science development and impact on future legislation, the Council observes that: 1)
The value of the retrospective (1970-1990) study of the cost-benefit of the original
CAA is two-fold; it both evaluates the efficacy of the CAA provisions and develops
procedures for planned prospective studies of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).
Since resources are limited and the CAA already has been superseded, the latter
effort should receive more emphasis. The retrospective study accordingly could be
trimmed by making it qualitative (provided that the Congress would approve of this
strategy); 2) The first prospective study (due November 15, 1992) on the efficacy of
the CAAA provisions should be started as soon as possible to allow proper periodic
review by the CAACAC; and 3) The primary goal should be to complete the second
prospective study (due November 15, 1994) on time and with minimum scientific
uncertainty as to the key standards studied. This will be helpful when reauthorization
of the CAAA comes up (perhaps in 1995). The Council also noted that benefits part
of the study will depend critically on the assumptions about exposure (and therefore
changes in exposure) to environmental risks. The linkage(s) between emissions
and/or concentrations and exposures should be very carefully analyzed with respect to
"conservative" assumptions that go into the relationship. An alternative approach,
which avoids (in theory) the need to make guesses about the emissions-concentra-
tions-exposure linkage would be the use of epidemiological results rather than
extrapolations from dose-response functions.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-3Q ANNUAL REPORT
FY 1992 SAB COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-001 Status of EPA Radtonuclide Models
In recent years many Science Advisory Board reports have included construc-
tive criticism of the models, databases, and uncertainty analyses used by the Agency.
The Radiation Advisory Committee of the SAB has concerns about the limited
progress it has seen in this area, because outmoded or inappropriate models,
supported by inadequate data and executed to produce conservative results, can lead
to significant overestimates of impact for specific potential hazards. This commentary
focuses on three principal topics: 1) models used for predicting radionuclides trans-
port; 2) data sets used as bases for prediction; and 3) lack of uncertainty analysis.
Many of the recommendations found in recent Radiation Advisory Committee reports
echo those in the August 1984 report of the Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on
Risk Assessment for Radionuclides and the SAB generic resolution on modeling
(SAB-EEC-89-012). The Committee hopes that by drawing this persistent problem to
EPA's attention, specific work, such as development of validated environmental
assessment models with integral uncertainty analysis capability, will be emphasized.
EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-002 Commentary on Residual Radioactivity
Upon the recommendation of its Radiation Advisory Committee, the Science
Advisory Board urges the Agency to develop Federal radiation protection guidance
specifically for removal or remediation actions for radioactive substances at various
locations, including Superfund sites and Federal facilities. No radiation guidance
directed to allowable residual radioactivity contamination at such sites currently exists.
The technical issues that should be considered in developing guidance should include
at least the following: 1) the types and forms of radioactive substances at sites; 2) a
consistent protocol for exposure assessment and risk estimation that recognizes both
spatial and temporal factors associated with human exposures to radiological contami-
nants at or from these sites; 3) the degree to which other contaminants and biota may
enhance or inhibit the on-site and off-site migration of radionuclides; and 4) consider-
ation of technical approaches for implementation of guidelines through managing
radionuclide contaminants, and the effectiveness, costs, and cost/risk balancing for
selected remedial actions.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-31
EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-003 Reducing Risks from Radon: Drinking Water Criteria
Documents
EPA's Office of Drinking Water developed draft criteria documents and related
reports that were the basis for new drinking water standards for uranium, radium,
radon and man-made beta-gamma emitting radionuclides during the period November
1989 - July 1990. The Radionuclides in Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science
Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed these documents during the
summer of 1990. The overall quality of the four draft criteria documents submitted to
the Subcommittee for its review was not good. Taken as a set, the documents are
inconsistent in approach and with Agency practice in the derivation of drinking water
criteria for other contaminants. The Subcommittee found that comments from a 1987
review had not been incorporated. Previous SAB recommendations that are directly
relevant to these documents were not addressed in-the drafts submitted for review.
Technical decisions contrary to those recommended by the SAB were presented
without justification and without acknowledgement of the existence of the
SAB-recommended alternatives. Relevant recommendations of the National Research
Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 1988 and 1990
reports were ignored or selectively adopted without explanation or rationale. Uncer-
tainties associated with 1) selection of particular models, 2) specific parameters used
in the models, and 3) the final risk estimates are not adequately addressed in any of
the documents.
EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-92-004 Commentary on the Disinfection By-Product Regula-
tory Analysis Model
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) was briefed by EPA Staff on a computer
model they are developing to compare microbial risk with chemical risk as part of the
Agency's regulatory process for disinfection and disinfection by-product (D/DBP)
regulations. The Committee noted that the development of this Model is a worthwhile
effort and encouraged its development for use in evaluating the economic and drinking
water quality impacts of various regulatory strategies. Because the model is at such a
preliminary stage of development, contains so many uncertainties, and is invalidated
at this time, the Committee recommended that it not be a part of the upcoming draft
D/DBP regulation.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-32 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-IAQC-COM-92-005 Commentary on the Agency's Asbestos Program
The Committee was concerned that the scientific basis for EPA's regulatory
actions and guidance documents on asbestos have not had the benefit of review by
the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The Committee invited representatives of the
Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Program Offices having signifi-
cant asbestos interests and responsibilities to provide a briefing on their current
asbestos-related activities. The briefing was held during the Committee's public
meeting in Arlington, Virginia on February 24-25, 1992. Based on these discussions,
the Committee was able to come to consensus on some preliminary concerns about
the Agency's asbestos program and its capacity to meet its regulatory responsibilities
and commitments to reducing future risk in cost-effective ways: 1) the Committee
heard no evidence that there is any strategic planning for addressing either important
research needs or the implications of past research concerning the importance of fiber
dimensions on inhalation hazard; 2) there appears to be little, if any ongoing research
on the critical issue of fiber properties affecting toxicity; and 3) there does not seem to
be any formal mechanism for coordination on hazard ranking, monitoring methodology,
or control technology on an Agency-wide basis. Further, there is no evidence of such
coordination between involved Federal agencies.
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-92-006 Commentary on Anticipatory Research Program
The Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board identified a need for
the Agency to improve its research efforts to anticipate future environmental problems.
They cited the following examples of activities the Agency could undertake in this
regard: 1) continue to stress programs that monitor environmental quality (such as
EMAP) and human exposure (such as NHEXAS) and develop ways to predict the
ecological and health consequences of continued patterns of pollutant loadings; 2)
Conduct expert workshops to review emerging basic science information for early
indicators of potential environmental problems; 3) Monitor technological trends
supported by socioeconomic responses and trends and develop ways to predict their
environmental and health consequences. Conduct activities that develop goal-
oriented, surprse-oriented, and other scenarios that reveal potential environmental and
health problems; 4) to improve early identification of new problems, conduct more
basic rfesearch in areas we know need to be shored up for EPA to be ready to
address emerging environmental quality and health needs; 5) establish a dedicated
group within EPA to conduct the above work and to prepare periodic reports on new,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page 6-33
emerging, and escalating ecological, health, and welfare problems caused by environ-
mental stressors. Ways to mitigate such problems should be identified.
EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-007 Commentary on Harmonizing Chemical and Radia-
tion Risk-Reduction Strategies
The Science Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory Committee call attention to
the need for a more coherent policy for making risk-reduction decisions with respect to
radiation and chemical exposures. The regulation of radiation risks has developed
under a different paradigm than for regulation of chemical risks, and a significant
potential exists for EPA decisions on radiation risk reduction to be seen as unjustified
by the health physics community, the chemical risk management community, or both.
The Science Advisory Board Report, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies
for Environmental Protection (EPA-SAB-EC-90-012) clearly enunciates the principle
that EPA's priorities should be directed towards reducing the greatest risks first,
especially when that can be accomplished economically. The corollary to that
principle is that similar risks should be treated similarly, which calls for the harmoniza-
tion, in so far as is possible, risk-reduction strategies between chemicals and radiation.
Harmonization does not necessarily imply identical treatment, but it does imply that
any differences in treatment are clearly explained and justified. A resolution to the
seeming discrepancy between the radiation paradigm and the chemical paradigm
could be achieved in any of several ways: 1) bringing risk-reduction strategies for
excess radiation exposures consistently in line with the chemical paradigm; 2) bringing
chemical risk-reduction strategies more in line with the radiation paradigm; or 3)
achieving harmony between the two systems by modifying both in appropriate ways,
explaining residual differences, and placing more emphasis on what can reasonably
be achieved. If none of these approaches seems appropriate, the Agency should at
least explain why the risks from radiation and chemicals are treated differently under
specified conditions and in specified exposure settings.
EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-92-008 Commentary on Alternative Disinfectant and Disin-
fectant By-Products
At a time when rules for the use of alternate disinfectants are being formulated,
it is essential that knowledge of disinfectant by-products is being acquired. Currently,
however, there is no focussed research program on these issues that involve the
whole treatment train. Such research would include both chemical and biological
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-34 ANNUAL REPORT
evaluations of combined treatments as well as disinfection practices that lead to the
formation of bromates and chlorates. The absence of such research and the resulting
paucity of data could have a detrimental effect on the credibility of a Federal Program
that regulates this country's water treatment industry. Clearly, funding priorities for
drinking water research and concomitant public health issues have to be reviewed and
given higher priority. Such important public health programs deserve a level of
supportive research that is commensurate with their impacts on community and state
programs across the country.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-92-009 Commentary requesting CAS AC'S early involvement
in Agency's development of position on ozone
CASAC has noted with interest that the Agency is not choosing to revise the
NAAQS for ozone and is initiating a new assessment of its health and environmental
effects. The Committee would like to offer its assistance in carrying out the review of
this assessment in as expeditious a manner as possible. The Committee would like to
participate in a briefing on the Agency's plans in this area.
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-92-010 Commentary on the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation's Study of Environmental Accounting,
Cheasapeaka
The Science Advisory Board's Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
(EEAC) reviewed the EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's (OPPE) study
of environmental accounting, Cheasapeaka. The Committee met on April 15, 1992 in
Arlington VA. The Charge to the EEAC was developed by the OPPE and encom-
passed six major conceptual issues based on the Cheasapeaka study, with each issue
including a variety of sub-issues-some highly specific and technical, others more
broad and generic in nature. The Committee felt that the issues raised in the Charge
were too extensive to be addressed within a single application of environmental
accounting, and decided that the most useful course of action would be to frame this
report in terms of broad comments on the topic of environmental accounting per se,
rather than address the specific considerations raised in the Cheasapeaka report and
the associated charge. Concerns about the inability of conventional economic ac-
counting systems to reflect accurately natural resource depletion and degradation of
environmental quality have led many economists to explore the possibility of imple-
menting accounting systems that "take nature into account." Several approaches
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-35
have been proposed and implemented on a case study basis. The Committee felt that
EPA should maintain a capability in environmental accounting so the Agency would be
able to learn about and contribute to activities at both the United Nations and the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis on these issues. While maintaining capability in this
area is important, EPA needs to clarify the purposes to be served by environmental
accounting. If environmental accounting is envisioned as a tool to measure welfare
effects (i.e. the changes in the value of resource stocks or environmental amenities),
research needs to address the connection between welfare analysis, which measures
social values, and national income accounting, which measures economic activity. In
the meantime, it is important to recognize that environmental accounting systems as
currently constructed do not provide consistent measures of welfare, and therefore do
not provide useful guides to the desirability of various policy changes. Additional re-
search might also compare current approaches with other methods for trying to take
nature into account in national income accounting, The Committee also thinks that
research in this general area should be continued as a means of learning more about
environmental accounting, but that it should not serve as a template for a series of
such studies in other geographic areas. The methodology has not yet been sufficient-
ly developed to serve as a guide for future efforts. Rather, it should continue to be
used to stimulate further thought about fundamental conceptual and measurement
issues which only percolate to the surface in the context of specific studies.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-36
ANNUAL REPORT
FY 1992 SAB CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-92-001
Notification of a Consultation on OSWs Modeling
Approaches, Assumptions, & Data to be Used in the
Subsurface Fate and Transport Model(s) for Oily
Wastes
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-92-002 Notification of a Consultation on Prioritizing the 189
Hazardous Air Pollutants Listed in the 1990 Clean
Air Amendments
EPA-SAB-IAQC-CON-92-003 Notification of a Consultation on the Office of Health
Research National Human Exposure Assessment
Survey
EPA-SAB-EHC-CON-92-004 Notification of a Consultation on the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response's draft study on
Superfund site Populations at Risk
EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-92-005
Notification of a Consultation on the Review of the
Superfund Ground-Water Strategic Plan and
Superfund Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-92-006
Notification of a Consultation on Plans for the Habitat
Cluster
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H~1
APPENDIX H
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AT SAB MEETINGS
Background
Conflict-of-interest (COI) statutes and regulations are aimed at preventing individu-
als 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 SAB 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 follow-
ing:
a. Having SAB M/C's regularly file EPA Form 3120-1, Confidential State-
ment of Employment and Financial Interest. This form is a legal require-
ment and is maintained by the Agency as a confidential document.
b. Providing SAB 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 SAB M/Cs and the observing public to learn more about
the backgrounds that SAB 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.
1 Note: The disclosure procedure is voluntary, and members/consultants are not obligated to reveal information contained in
their Form 3120-1 that would overwise remain confidential.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H -2 ANNUAL REPORT
Procedure
When an agenda item is introduced that has the potential for COI-actual or
perceived-the Designated Federal Official (DFO) will ask each M/C on the panel to
speak for the record on his/her background, experience, and interests that relate to
the issue at hand. The following items are examples of the type of material that is
appropriate to mention in such a disclosure:
a. Research conducted on the matter.
b. Previous pronouncements made on the matter.
c. Interests of employer in the matter.
d. A general description of any other financial interests in the matter: e.g.,
having investments that 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 disclo-
sures were made and, if possible, the nature of the disclosures. In addition, the
minutes should describe any situations in which, in the opinion of the DFO, an actual
or perceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page I -1
APPENDIX I
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE SCIENTIFIC 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
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page I-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 March,
1988. He came to the SAB from nearly 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
and the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA. His claim to infamy, however, is his
long association with "dioxin"; i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD. For many years, he served as the
Agency's principal technical point of contact on "dioxin" issues; e.g., 2,4,5-T cancella-
tion hearings, Agent Orange resolution, and emissions from municipal waste combus-
tors. His national and international (WHO and NATO) contributions, while not stilling
the controversy, have generally not exacerbated it-reason enough, one might say, to
justify his receiving two EPA Gold Medals for Superior Service for these activities.
Dr. Barnes has also been active in the area of risk assessment. He was one of
the Agency representatives to the Office of Science and Technology Policy-led effort
to produce a consensus view of cancer in the Federal government; i.e., Cancer
Principles. He was active in the writing of Agency's risk assessment guidelines for
cancer and for mixtures. As a member of the EPA Risk Assessment Forum, he joins
with other senior scientists in addressing complex risk issues that affect different
program offices. As former Coordinator and now Member of the EPA Risk Assess-
ment Council, he is actively involved with the policy review of scientific positions on
risk.
Prior to coming to EPA, Dr. Barnes was Associate Professor and Science
Division Chair at the innovative St. Andrews Presbyterian College in North Carolina.
Today, his teaching itch gets scratched through stints as "risk assessment trainer" in
EPA's Training Institute.
His formal education includes a BA (chemistry) from the College of Wooster, a
PhD (physical chemistry, with a minor in physics) from Florida State University, and
subsequent graduate courses in several health-related areas; i.e., pharmacology,
toxicology, immunology and epidemiology. His real world education is provided by Dr.
Karen K. Barnes and two college-aged sons.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page I -3
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
Assistant Staff Director
Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Expo-
sure Committee
Acting Designated Federal Official for the Drinking Water Committee.
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK is the most experienced of the SAB's Designated
Federal Officials, having served for six months as the original Executive Secretary for
CASAC 1978-1979 and re-occupying that position from 1984 to 1991. He currently
serves as the DFO for the Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee, and,
since June 1991, has served as the Acting DFO for the Drinking Water Committee. In
January, 1990 he assumed the duties of Acting Assistant SAB Staff Director. He was
formally appointed as Assistant Staff Director in February 1991.
In between appointments with the SAB, he served for five years with the U.S.
Coast Guard 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.
Prior to his first tour with the SAB, Mr. Flaak served as Staff Marine Biologist
with an engineering consulting company where he assisted in the design and coordi-
nation of sampling and data analysis for oceanographic surveys. He has also worked
as a consulting marine taxonomist for clients.including the National Oceanic Atmo-
spheric Administration, the du Pont Co., Roy F. Weston Inc., and the University of
Delaware's College of Marine Studies. These activities reflect his research interest in
phytoplankton ecology, bivalve nutrition, and bivalve and invertebrate mariculture.
Mr. Flaak has 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 management courses.
As part of his involvement with the Federal Advisory Committee Process, Mr.
Flaak is an Instructor for the General Services Administration Course on Federal
Advisory Committee Management. During the past three years, he has helped design
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page / -4 ANNUAL REPORT
and organize the course, and has taught several hundred Federal workers the proper
methods of operating FACA Committees.
His 26 years of military service include three years of active duty with a tour in
South Vietnam in 1968-69, and he was called to active duty and served for four
months (Jan - May 1991) in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Desert
Storm. He is currently an active US Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel, serving as the
Deputy Chief of Staff-Logistics for a Civil Affairs Command, part of the 1st Special
Operations Command. He lives with his wife, Dottie, and their seven-year old son,
Chris in Fairfax, Virginia.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page / -5
DR. EDWARD BENDER
Designated Federal Official for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.
DR. EDWARD S. BENDER is the Designated Federal Official for the Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee. He has assisted the Committee to expand its
agenda with reviews of several interesting and diverse issues, including sediment
criteria, ecological risk assessment research, wetlands, marine monitoring and disease
research, and planning for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
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 biologi-
cal 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 contaminated 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 also joined an expedition to Greenland, where he
backpacked through the tundra to band nestlings and to collect from aeries of pere-
grine falcons.
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.
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
-------
page I-6 ANNUAL REPORT
MR. RANDALL BOND
Designated Federal Official: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Designated Federal Official for the Research Strategies Advisory Committee
MR. RANDALL BOND joined the Science Advisory Board staff in
December 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
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page / -7
MRS. KATHLEEN CONWAY
Designated Federal Official: Radiation Advisory 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 in 1974 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 the 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.
She continues as Designated Federal Official to the Radiation Advisory
Committee. She volunteers with the Society of Women Engineers on the University of
California (Davis) SERIES project. SERIES is a science education program devel-
oped for use in informal educational settings.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page / -8 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Engineering Committee
DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July,
1988 as Designated Federal Official of the Environmental Engineering Committee. He
brings to his work at the SAB over 23 years of experience with environmental issues,
including over 18 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 Superfund's Emergency Response program. He developed the multi-media
hazardous substance reportable quantity regulations, and was also responsible for oil
and hazardous 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
Engineering, with a minor in Economics) from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His
academic career included his induction into a number of honorary societies: e.g.,
Sigma Xi (research), Chi-Epsilon (civil engineering),Omicron Delta Epsilon (econom-
ics). 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
Environment 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 Exposi-
tion, which was held October 6-11, 1990 in Washington, D.C. and hosted nearly
13,000 registrants. He is also 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 / -9
This year, Jack was invited to participate in a trip to Armenia from April 12
through 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
University of Armenia (SEUA), which has over 23,000 students, as well as to assist in
addressing the newly-independent republic of Armenia's environmental problems.
Closer to home, which he shares with his wife Gerry, and their three daughters,
Jennifer (18), Melissa (13) and Jessica (11), Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous
civic activities which focus on development and land-use issues in his area. He
received both an EPA Public Service Recognition Award in 1988 and several County
Recognition Awards. Most recently he was recognized as a candidate for the Govern-
or's Award for volunteerism for the state of Virginia in 1991, and as a Federal Employ-
ee Point-of-Light in May of 1992.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page I -10 ANNUAL REPORT
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Health Committee
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Economics Advisory Comrttee
Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG retired from the Senior Executive Service (SES) in
August, 1988 and re-entered federal service in November 1988, when he joined the
SAB staff. During his previous full and fruitful career at EPA, he served as an Office
Director and Associate Office Director in EPA's Office of Research Development
(ORD) and the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM).
Before joining EPA in 1974, Mr. Rondberg held research management, 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 U.
S. 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 is-
sues, and to improving the management of federal research activities. At EPA, he has
directed particular efforts to the complex problems and issues engendered by operat-
ing a research program within the context of a regulatory agency-coordination
between legal and scientific "cultures"; maintaining a stable long-term program in the
face of urgent and frequently changing needs for short-term support; and maintaining
an adequate resource base in the face of competition from regulatory programs
struggling to meet court or Congressionally mandated deadlines.
Mr. Rondberg pursued undergraduate (AB, 1959) and graduate studies at
Washington University, where he also served as a Teaching Assistant in the Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences and as a Public Health Service Fellow and Research
Associate in the Medical School. In 1967, he was awarded a National Institute of
Public Administration Fellowship in Systematic Analysis at Stanford university and
completed a special interdisciplinary curriculum in the Schools of Engineering,
Graduate Business, and the Departments of Economics and Computer Science.
Mr. Rondberg has authored publications in clinical psychology, research
management, and the applications of electronic systems and telemetry to urban
transportation.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page / -11
Sam is married, the father of one graduate student daughter, and attempts to
find time to pursue interests in modern history, the impacts of technology on society
and culture, amateur radio, marine aquaria keeping, and antique art (posters and
advertising graphics) as a reflection of our social history.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page / -12 ANNUAL REPORT
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE
Designated Federal Official for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
MS STEPHANIE SANZONE joined the SAB staff in September 1992, while on
maternity leave from the Agency. Beginning in December 1992, she will serve as the
Designated Federal Official for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.
Stephanie comes to the SAB staff after 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. Prior to coming to EPA, Ms. Sanzone served as a legislative aide for
environment issues in the U.S. Senate and S.C. 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
------- |