\
-------
At EPA, our major tasks ate to protect and safeguard the nation' s environmental
resources. In order to achieve this goal, EPA must rely on the highest quality science
available for decision making. The three scientific advisory committees whose
accomplishments are described in this report have helped strengthen Agency deci-
sion making and will help us build a stronger scientific base for future decisions.
I believe that the best environmental decisions are based on sound science, cou-
pled with common sense and open participation from our stakeholders. EPA
depends on open, credible scientific processes, which are the essence of work under-
taken by the committees supported by the Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
Peer review that uses credible, independent scientists has helped EPA establish underlying facts and build a
common ground for collaboration. Independent scientists serving on our chartered advisory committees and their
panels provide review of important Agency strategies such as the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy or key
agency guidance such as the recent Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Susceptibility fnun Early-Life
Exposure to Carcinogens. Scientific advisory committees not only help build this solid foundation through peer
review, they also provide independent, wide-ranging advice that stimulates the Agency to take new directions.
Over the past two years, EPA has received advice in new, important science topics as different as computational
toxicology, analyses of the effects of toxicants in embedded sediments, and approaches that could be used for
leach testing of wastes. With the recent reorganization of the Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Board is now bet-
ter able to provide forward-looking scientific and technical advice on emerging issues such as nanotechnobgy and
information technology. Ready access to this type of advice helps EPA keep pace with the rapid evolution in sci-
ence and technology. EPA needs such advice in facing the complex environmental challenges that lie ahead.
Stephen L, Johnson
Administrator
vv \ .Science Advice for Strategic Goals
In 2003, EPA published the ZOOS-
ZOOS EPA Strategic Plan: Direction
forthe Future. This plan identified
five goals for achieving a healthy,
safe environment and seven strate-
gies for achieving those goals. In
the past two years, the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC), the Advisory Council on
Clean Air Compliance Analysis
(Council), and the Science Advisory
Board (SAB)—all chartered federal
scientific advisory committees at
EPA—provided peer review of
agency scientific work products and
forward-looking advice to nurture
Agency science as it develops. Both
efforts were needed to help the
Agency make the best use of sci-
ence in achieving the goals of clean-
er and safer air, water, and land and
protection of healthy communities
and ecosystems.
To provide early, strategic advice for
Agency science and to provide peer
reviews of well-developed Agency
work products, the CASAC, Council,
and SAB provided advice in Fiscal
Years (PYs) 2003-2004 through
several mechanisms;
?.— A public session in
which a panel of knowledgeable
experts discusses a technical topic
before the Agency begins substan-
tive work on that particular subject.
• Mvfexy — A report summarizing
the deliberations of one or more
public sessions in which panel
members provide advice on tech-
nical issues. These public sessions
take place at the same time as the
Agency is developing its position
on a topic.
• P&tt Kawaw— A report summariz-
ing the deliberations of one or
more public sessions in which
panel members review a complet-
ed Agency product .
•;Qeafi.viiir ",y-J ^*;:.!': !< •$>.:,!: :^«
'''-
jiita Jfvesiriatiwj' SfjcJ Restoration
.:"'XT;::%!}l!:i:i';!£::^
* CfEKESXiSTf—A short communi-
cation issued primarily by the SAB
that provides unsolicited advice
about an important technical
issue.
• GSiffl- te&tesx —The SAB,
CASAC, Council, and their sub-
committees of ten receive informa-
tion briefings from the Agency.
The SAB also conducts scientific
workshops and undertakes origi-
nal studies as deemed appropriate
or requested by the Agency.
-------
Rjf!K!«»** In FY 3K303 r.
letter from tfie flasf C/iafr oA tfie Science Advisory Board
In November 2003, EPA announced the reorganization of the SAB, an institution
with twenty-five years of accomplishments in advising the Agency on the science
needed tor environmental protection. From my perspective as chair of the SAB since
2000,1 believe these changes will increase the ability of the SAB to provide high-
quality, independent advice that responds to the Agency's current priorities and antic-
ipates future needs. Indeed, I believe that they have already begun to do so.
There are two Key features of the SAB reorganization. A Board, composed of 25
to 30 Members appointed by the Administrator, has responsibility for strategic advice
and final approval of SAB reports. New quality review committees, aided by additional experts, are formed as
needed to review high-priority reports authored by SAB committees and peer review panels before the Board's
final review and approval These changes will help the Board and the Agency keep pace with the rapid advance-
ment of science and technology by enabling the Board to focus on emerging scientific issues. The reorganization
will assist us In providing on a timely basis the kind of thoughtful, insightful advice that the Agency needs while
ensuring peer review processes that follow the highest standards. I also believe that the reorganization will help
the Board attract the best scientific minds in our society to provide this advice.
Many memteis of the Board and staff have invested hours of time and much energy in working with the
Agency and the many Interested members of the public interested in this important reorganization. I would like to
thank them and the staff, especially the Director, Dr. Vanessa Vu, and the SABs own Reorganization
Subcommittee for their insights and lime invested in the future of the Board.
William H. daze. Professor
OGI School of Science & Engineering,
Oregon Health and Science University
SAB Chair (2000-2004)
nf«g the fioc.f.if for
I ftter from SAB Staff Office Director
The SAB Staff Office, housed within EPAS Office of the Administrator, performs manage-
ment and administrative functions and provides technical assistance to the CASAC, the
Council, and the SAB, which are all separately chartered federal advisory committees
providing scientific and technical advice to EPA. The Staff Office serves as the interface
for these advisory bodies in their interactions with EPA and the public. The Staff Office
also ensures that the CASAC the Council and the SAB conduct advisory activities as
part of a public process that meets the sunshine requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) and the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act. We
ensure that the public has an opportunity to provide input during the advisory process,
Over the past two years the Staff Office has focused on charting a path forward for the federal advisory com-
mittees and for enhancing the advisory process by strengthening the public involvement process, by addressing
policy and legal issues, and by strengthening the staffing and infrastructure supporting key science advice. To
assist the SAB in Keeping pace with complex environmental challenges facing the Agency, the SAB Staff Office rec-
ommended the structural and functional realignment of the SAB; this new direction was approved by the
Administrator in November 2003. The Staff Office also developed an Implementation Plan for the New Structural
Organization of the EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-04-002). This document, available on the SAB Web
site (www.epa.gov/sab), describes how the SAB Staff Office is implementing the new structural and functional
changes in the SAB.
It has been an intense, rewarding, and challenging two years. We managed changes in the SAB structure and
committee processes and also supported the committees in providing early, forward-looking advice and rigorous
peer reviews of EPA technical and scientific work products that directly impact major EPA policies and decisions.
This Accomplishments Report illustrates how (he advisory committees have responded to the Agency's need for sci-
ence advice that supports EPA's three major goals of protecting air, water, and land, as well as the need for advice to
guide Agency science planning and science policy decisions. I thank all our advisors for their work, most especially
the chairs of our advisory committees, for their insights and their commitment to the work of the Agency.
Vanessa T. Vu, Ph.D.
Director
-------
Key Advice In FY 2003-2004
This report highlights examples of
key advice provided by (he federal
advisory committees on important
scientific and technical issues spe-
cific to EPA's goats of clean air, clean
and safe water, and Land preserva-
tion. These examples illustrate
how committees have helped the
Agency plan for its science needs
and for the integration of science in
policy decisions. The examples
below also include responses from
the Agency describing the useful-
ness and impact of the advice
received. A look at the committee
and panel chairs that steer the
major projects gives a sense of the
range of expertise and experience
of the scientists who serve the
Agency through the CASAC,
Council, and SAB.
Cfsun Air
Congress mandated the establish-
ment of the CASAC and the Council
to provide ongoing advice to EPA on
scientific and technical issues relat-
ing to clean air. The CASAC was
established under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 (42 U.S.C. §
7409(d)(2)) to provide advice, infor-
mation, and recommendations to
the Administrator on the scientific
and technical aspects related to the
criteria for air quality standards,
research related to air quality,
sources of air pollution, and the
strategies to attain and maintain air
quality standards and to prevent
significant deterioration of air quali-
ty. The Council was established
under the Dean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (12 U.S.C.
§7612) to provide advice, informa-
tion, and recommendations on the
technical and economic aspects of
analyses and reports EPA prepares
concerning the impacts of the Clean
Air Act on the U.S. economy, public
health, and the environment
Over the past two years, both
I committees worked intensively to
• provide advice on the data and
I analyses to be used by EPA's Office
I of Air and Radiation. These com-
mittees also serve as peer reviewers
for major scientific and technical
work products. In addition, both
committees have strengthened their
expertise in the area of ecological
assessment since publication of the
last Accomplishments Report for PY
2002. The SAB Staff Office formed
an Ecological Effects Subcommittee
(EES) of the Council in 2004. The
EES, chaired by Dr. Charles Driscoll
of Syracuse University, was estab-
lished to provide advice to the
Agency through the Council to
strengthen the Agency's assess-
ments of the ecological effects of
implementing the Clean Air Act.
Ecological expertise on the CASAC
was also augmented by the
appointment of Dr. Ellis B. Cowling
of North Carolina State University.
Highlighted below are examples
of CASAC and Council projects that
focused on different aspects of sci-
ence underlying EPA's clean air goal.
EPA vXfzx 01 Ai: CltsJiri- Paraing
*;:r) !Hsr.rJ-:vrfs. OS-re or'i?f:if:«:.vh
sr.ri rjtwsSBjCTiSitt. anf. vegjsnd
:£:':•:•.?, a!yf.sioni. s-ile. SK; I->.Y:l
?.U: :ir.v :?.'s~&iv:'.\f-;K: T-w d«i«
Svvtsgy prspoK-r) a 'X-tx\x;;x\::$ .;•!
sir •Yitftitcrfog ne-vwxks inrnos:
ntS'teA il» :;Kftrar,Kn;:K!.:';r:? and i":
Biccipt from Agncy ret^msc Bnn
AdmtnWrator Mfchari O. Learttt
tin behalf of everyone involved in
the strategy's development, 1 applaud
the constructive advice provided by
your committee. The value of this
dialogue between our program spe-
cialists and scientific experts at the
initial stage of a project should reap
enormous long- term benefits for our
monitoring networks.
"We rave reviewed all of the
committee's recommendations and
are in the process of incorporating
your advice in the revised National
Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy
document, as well as in forthcom-
ing modifications in the air moni-
toring regulations."
-------
Ot Philip Hopke j" v» if t' - 'd>-c ' *•
Chair Oeao Air Scientific i"oi«iir* * * '<• 'a >x
Advisory Committee v»v V >'K t Auivis
i vO l\t tl't S^fl f
• CKntean "i,-j ^ Jilt v* "*>*._<",
r' T* <*" ™i \ i ys ih E *
arxJSieflirwtoroff^CjMWrfclf/iK1 'i- rr , --i-ci >"h-"i . i )
Resource: Coginewing and Science: «"" <•»• »>v" • IT>. >c 'fii
Professor Hop**'ft *ie.<• tt,»tt 't i'<>«'
^WaacwIfie^rchCdunC^cOrtcxsssior^/^rtf^ i %<_ t"'v »,.' lu ',.{'(So,
tes«a«ftPriorti)etfcta«dhBrB£ fri
Cbemntiy fcomTiwitv O#*g« (Hartfore)) and f«s MA and Ph D degrees >n
chemiaiy foam Pwrfetbrt University AA» a pcttxtartouif appointment at
M IT, he (pern faurjrtSR as *i atsatdnt professor .at the Sote Ufwertty
tob«A TOi^frof«Wrv«i*aprir«P^fap^x5Nrfi<»tinir»D«paf^ T-i r n ^)? -r"*.-
Chem&By HHe*iai servedartteianerfrft^(>ed(ja«BS<'Toot chairofthe .'i .? >vi -'^ ^o.i"i\ ^
Department o< C?wnMOy, afxt head of ihc Owsion of Chefmcal ^rva nyaca oif J"'t 'j(*i d" WJf ')r
So«««befc«h«imc«*edliBpnriapatapixiintmerit to the Depsrtment of .1 r, o '*v\f\ (v i'
M0'' tfi j<*M>' 1\ rt i f i
A ^ 'V '*.r *'t'"" ifs t
i*11" o > " i r*z \ TI MK"* /*T* ts\O" * ' "!/• -i T
tf 'c (•'/•'ooi *->ttt r ^^ 'irjo y*')" ^ r v \>< i -5.4. ^' i "• i" T "•»
t "' ', ioc"n 'v /• i*1 xi'l '« i i "« i <*>»*»}•
SxofSsst issxi
"(••adds rn -rt-
»• vr.1i.vr,. "hiittHKit :K'X:}v:>
v:i'i't: aoHCt'/t^irfjMj} ths
?•«:•> ire :;miUi:icn5 w'd uru:^
•ht' <*g!!:iC.y fjrjurxi: nRffiix'/i
.•;s£-i\«1 vy ssssi
AdmkibcaMMKtiadO.Leavttt.-
"I applaud the thoroughness and
technical sophislication of your
advisory, and I appreciate the
Council's ongoing efforts to provide
high-quality advice regarding the
design and implementation of this
important series of studies. Given
the substantial scope and depth of
the advisory EPA will respond by
taking specific actions to address
and implement the report's recom-
mendations through the redirection
of our analytical efforts. These ana-
lytical changes will be reflected in
the first draft of the study report,
which will be submitted to the
Council for review. In addition. EPA
Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron v ^
Chair.- Advisory Council on
Clean Atr Compliance Anatysis "'
Of,Tfudy.Anrt Caineran is «he Raymond f.
Mteself fwftsfot of environmental and
resource economics at the univefsiry of
Oregon, She holds a Ph 0. in economies
from Princeton University andwa; a mem-
ber of trie/.actiBym economicj a( th^UravefjtypfCafrfbffxa; loi ^ >
Angeles, for ieventeen years befcte mowrtg » tfie UnfcErsay o^ Offigort
fr> January 2002> She tias sewed * a Ttiembet of ttie bo»rf «rf tHfeaors,
as weS as wce-predtient of the AaodatJon Sf SrtvitarwienBt and
Resource Economic: and as an asstwnaw e also served on the: Erwlronnientif
Ecanqmics Advisory Committee of the 5AS and die Economics and
Assessment Wortinrj Cfoop of the EPA CMldrenS Health ftotettion'
AtMsoiyComrriinBe, Dr, Camera^ rBseaMricortcefttfaws on the
methociciiogy of rtw»-maiK«fes3UB:e ewJuation> with special emphasis
on eewometrfe t«i
data. Her recent prqfecs h*/e tndudst) a jtu^ or ptpjiar supper? fre,
VWdngnesi to pajj for climate change nuag^ion programs (funded by
me N3nan4l Vtente Foundation}. /Viottier current preset oses sated
preferenrt: survey methods to efirit nousebdld choices lhat tev^ai wtln1d>
ness to pay » awski ittness, iriMy, and death, TH* v3)u» of a statisricat
life fe a Key ingredfeni in the oenefiteost ana^sls of many «nvWmwental
heaNh, and $afe^ ttSMtettons. ano jjiis prcjifict; »etes «> mons cleatV Wer>
% *wv *w contwt of such shotee* influences aw pucScS v*4»ngni» to
pay for such policies ; ,
anticipates conducting additional
interim consultations with the
Council and its subcommittees.
during which the project team will
describe EPA's efforts to address all
the key elements of your advisory."
-------
«MteS
Water
Among the many activities begun,
completed, and under way over the
past two years related to the goal of
Clean and Safe Water, this
Accomplishments Report highlights
the establishment of a consultative
panel of the SAB's Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC) to provide early strategic
advice related to risks from pollu-
tants embedded in sediments. In
addition, the SABfe Drinking Water
Committee addressed key human
health impacts facing EPA^
Drinking Water Program and
received briefings on upcoming
projects for future fiscal years.
moving fevv.Virtl
'••MT 'ifc
'iiiiv.' !.>:- :f it: uui: '
i?sy a:rtsnUy in \se irc
TTi'jrnbfivs provJdM .'.dvi
;rte:i3. raafivf ?;«';; sa
uaftid pn;bdbi|.;v. Bii-io
Stfti-Cfi
phic ct
aiiil arwx.Mf.;v:f. in: synE
(.:;irih:.U3:xj':; of uiuirlA.
views oa she aJ-AVi-JsK'.^ -j:id dis
i EcdoglralCltefaDMjton,Offleeof
j Science and Tedmology, Office d
j Water "Our program received key
i recommendations from the consul-
I tation that confirmed the validity of
j the proposed approaches for sus-
i pended and bedded sediments and
• the usefulness of suggested imple-
i mentation tools. Committee mem-
• bets confirmed the synthesized
i approach envisioned, based on ref-
i erence conditions that include ele-
j ments of all other tools suggested
j by staff, and the conditional proba-
[ bility technique for analyzing field
j data and setting thresholds. It was
i beneficial to hear that any criteria
I approach should show a strong link
between the measurement of sed-
iment and biological conditions.
"It was also helpful to receive
the suggestion that criteria should
be developed by each major water
body type, including lakes, estu-
aries, wetlands, rivers, streams.
and headwaters, and then tiered
by classes of similar water body
types within each of these major
categories (e.g., cold clear-water
mountain si reams). Committee
members also encouraged that the
methods and tools be understand-
able to the community that will
implement the criteria and show
consistency across the country.
"Given (he confirmation of the
proposed Office of Water approach
to criteria for suspended and bed-
ded sediments, the Office of Water
plans to develop a draft National
Suspended and Bedded Sediments
Strategy and make it available for
public review by spring ZOOS."
Olwr: SAB Ecological Praeeuci
and tffecti tomm'rttwt
i«ulty member ro the Depanmeint of "
ftoiogy ana fvduitonaiy Biology at me
knivef%ofTennesSt* She received he;
mctthetnatictf ecoto^y in f?80, Qt. Dales jpno«ry reseafcKjrtte/ejjs*1* iti
er.vfronmeriui detSon (naKirtg, ny«t suaxssgn. tend-use dev^opfng
foots for fcnd man«gem?n(; wegetatsjn f¥5,- fo^a devetopmem subsequent to fnsectoKbnsaKs, fin^,.
wmdthiow;, and cfear^utnng; WecB of air potution «nd cSmate change cxv
(oresb, tropkai rv fa Asa SreJ Ulifi Amencs; «nd Bifegratwig
So«r>oe the Committee of Soentifls appranteci by tW ^eoetaiy -of
Natfof«i'Sc:pena Foumwtfon
Governing Bosia of *<* Eoologlc?! SocWy of America ^he Is current^ «r>
trier edliona) txW^ for the joumats ButogKnl Economies anff fi;D*jgi
-------
*** 3;
rtri Pr
««<* Restoration
Highlighted below arc two projects
completed in FY 2003-2004 related
directly to land preservation and
restoration. One provided early
consultative advice on an important
testing procedure for wastes.
Another addressed a complex mod-
eling effort developed in a partner-
ship between EPA's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
and the Office of Research and
Development. In addition, the
Board provided advice on science
planning related to contaminated
sediments and contaminated sites,
important science issues for Goal 5
X UV.' pf':.''.*s:-.'Uli; ??!£l CV-Uiij :\V:;V.U'.''-T-
• t t 1 1 O:«!::!itt!»'fr:-Tla:;
, •' "' T- ?OC:J. •>;• o.MKiijf.: a r ai-
• t 0" v* '}•• sij-ji: tvVJ .TI.^-;.?;S?L-
'-c •) - ( <"sr.mvn:3i Tossi'iicn
<",!•• r,- }tfkr;of::.o:U: Vfr.jrs*;*)
,.V? 5*fl I C> *CSCeV,i'h tliVJ
it ' t, 1 1 « J to itat-jK. (he
iVncalivtr •* no: tffUirwi by ;*'s:«fi-
>:c;\ AircttiAKtret }.c vvt puxasinf.
•:w if tef xv«xfii so 5?r> i!-. sxx&ai*
it~«iff.ri snA ••?.:??&•,!•£ '.-Act •'••!>]
:•< nKKi; tu v;u.'l; UVsV.i'il a oxx?
if: :nr.!:.;f;R JUCAO rfAUVvi (fi
-*:: of wasvr i
ri. Tiaf. W.V.V.:-!2tte : WfiS
vo:*:-2ff.h K; utv«tf^ 3 Sj^r;:;- (•.•.&&
"•eritei u;Kt«s!dnuinjc u! :!V!-::i;f:j!
prar ffsos 'or isrprcwffj :etis .'.r.d
ii!tu£e: :;iui»!:cn!j. y;r :t IVP.;: no-
rtfKr KVViK w.: a 'nVy,': o: &\TOK
ftiSiiMr of f,;::;;!liw;s fr:w;;i«; ;in
.•Jsvdvp.1^!?.'.: WCi.H WJS :.V.'3.tsri. ''hi?
< ornisvK*'' fKKsHoi •xtftev.'Xt on
;;r;w wtiXAii; invmirrit'iv its wiausi
oj^v/rrurijtiw m ivorii wi!h Wf^vs,
ifR-hav;:^.; ijvp Styartrexaa uf
;ie:«i:W. r;<\;Mrr:0;;r:.f5/:r:i^jv;
iiiiil :i:ft ffxSzti" Hij;?rvv;i»
ftri-rr.;-.i:.tre:k-". re •"•aw ;hs •;«;•:
v.i'S'ii l'J rKe-f.-r.!". znri •;."«:•
Agency Reqxmae fluii Mr. Robot
k'S ?v5v.v:^;?.ho.". tte VA'-ik tt': zJK'i •
Wtete MenrfflcBtoi DWjJoti, Offlce
d Sold Waste end Emergency
Response: 'This consultation was
conducted at the request of the
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) as
part of an ongoing discussion
between the office and the SAB on
the best approaches to the use of
leach testing to evaluate the likely
environmental impacts of waste
management. In earlier reviews of
Agency leach testing (in 1991 and
1999), the SAB had urged the
Agency to expand its waste leach-
ing research program and to
improve and identify alternatives to
the currently used leaching test, the
Tbxtary Characteristic Leaching
Procedure. The SAB was con-
cerned, in large part, that the proce-
dure was used loo broadly and in
circumstances where it was not
expected to perform well,
Or,
Chair: SAB LeaChmg Comuftalfon
Of, Oaw&A- Ozon**. S pfttesOf of mwit tretiiaiti»eo(
He
erf Eninrorwnental eng««nng and ^Oence frot&son; a; chair of *
Associjrfpo of Penn^ftwiia «j$02, isn ^Ido tscfooia U^dershp Program
f eKowsrup ty «e> EcologJcal Sodetj1 of America and ff»* Cav« and Lae*<
^ ^actarti foundation n ZOOO, 9nd the Jacfe Edwiirct McSee Medal from the
"WaterEnvironmentfoundattoo in 2008.
\ "As a result of the concerns
| expressed by SAB, as well as the
; occurrence of several instances in
i which the procedure performed
poody, the Agency expanded its
efforts to understand and account
for through testing the factors that
affect waste constituent leaching.
-------
After several yeans of this effort,
OSWER sought feedback from the
SAB in the form of a consultation,
particularly regarding the scope and
general direction of the work. Asa
result of thai consultation, OSWER
has continued to work with aca-
demic researchers on testing
approaches that consider the effects
of pH, test liquid-to-solid ratio (infil-
tration rate), and the effect of the
physical form of the waste on met-
als leaching. We have also begun
to work on field validation studies
of this testing approach, a signifi-
cant recommendation of the SAB
panel. In future work we hope to
address other factors affecting met-
als leaching (such as oxidation/
reduction conditions) and begin to
more closely examine leaching of
organic chemicals while addressing
other SAB recommendations."
«fw iircTwe AsVswrp fevvr
x m;yx SKA ij/
-l\ yfTJ'vldklJj 'A fi-ttjilte '.ilK;
.TfA foe! hi os!itri?;:r:ft :'«
.vi/iicn'; c'shs y&Xaxj&v o:
; Agency Bopcrae tan Dr.
ss c' s vtshoLig IIKM ra ./ViBask-
»«;;.;« fcr tfranprkxi :':w?> fiuKvi
K.Y-.
lha' sivsi ri>p
! BuuciuudBfMcUKMbflndimi
I AnelysisDh«on,OfflceofSond
wastes.
man.':*!
!j U';f
h;r.h .iMSA wtsi oe
: "The SAB review was critically
i important because 3MRA represents
1 the first comprehensive and integrat-
j ed risk assessment technology for
i assessing human health and envi-
i ronmental impacts related to pro-
: grams under the Resource
i Conservation and Recovery Act. The
i review establishes that modeling
i systems lite 3MRA and the underiy-
! ing science are worthy of investment
i and development not only within
i the EPA community, but also across
| the federal agencies and private sec-
i tor. For a number of years there had
i been significant apprehension and
i debate on the part of the multimedia
i modeling community as to whether
i policy, technology, science, and appli-
: cation could come together into a
.Tva&ttfe, ;•••?. yinxl t-xnnKZKVlxA r workable, practicable, and scientifi-
iiiA! tiw ASWW.V mttaxsiif. n ftun -!ov [ cajiy sound mf;as;t:::A< thfiion^-
atiiiiy '•:!;(: viwiuv f;' ll>s .'.v-
i^ip?':-*1^.' i:i:c?ir'.iv.ion Iwis
In short, the independent support
and acknowledgement of this SAB
review suggest that the Agency is
on the right track and as such may
well provide the direction and sig-
nal that is needed to launch the
environmental research and policy
communities toward investment in
and development of the next gen-
eration of multimedia modeling
tools.
"The SAB review highlighted a
number of innovative approaches
and tools associated with the 3MRA
development and regulatory appli-
cations. These include elevating
probabilistic ecological risk assess-
ment on par with human health
risk assessment; using census data
and similar information to go
beyond individual risk point esti-
mates and instead construct valid
estimates of the distribution of indi-
vidual risks across a population in
space and time; developing a soft-
ware technology designed for 100
percent reprodutibility and quality
assurance that houses, manages,
and reports enormous amounts of
information on a PC platform,
developing scientifically sound eval-
uation protocols for models where il
is physically impossible to validate
in the field; and developing risk-
based standards that no longer rely
on the most driving exposure path
Dr. Thomas L Thus
Chair-. SAB Multimedia Mulkipathway
MuftirKeptor «ak Asittwtnent (3MRA) '
Modeling System Pane*
«*
. a «ios«i(sciplirBfyunirt»Klfc^«l a
promoting radSboratwe reward! on *» envt.
rooment, at the University of ffltnois at Chicago Mis areas of expertise include
me lyetherreoeai fnodettf>g end iysierns arsfyw of efjvrorimerna processes.
the ertv«qnm«irfia cncnwtfy of iwcs*ig*iif »w BiorgarA: Substance^ «ire*v
J»cte*fl!a«iOf«, subsurface wntamrnaot transport ha^sretous was* flHCvjge-
rriefH ftxhjstrf^ poKtHKyi p»evenHbn, £rsd inaostria) «totooy . Hfe ras be^n
prfnclpal «• coprfncfpaf nwestfcjator on monf than lify ftjnded re^raretv prcj-
«rs tatalincj m *xfes$ ol $ id rrnSmn and Ms authored Qr co-ajtjtored over
on6 rturtdred ftsonn 'm peer-feviewed research.jouiTwfs, coofe, ana reports,
fcswrch -Ceww Ja eotetwrwor* of the Birnw (nstfruts of techno*oay ancf ih^
ijinKifrstyof Notnfpam 1 9B9 f*> was am invited participant on »e Unftect N^UOOJ
Scrwitfe Commatee orv ftotierm in Ihe Eovifbrtmeflr for to wcVjahopon
grouncKvitt* cOrvtarnnation. In [998 he was invited by the wortd Sir* to
«Sr» tf> (Me cteveupmem Of tW first en^fOrlmertSi) er^wnrtg program trt
eaowtion Resejorh and Training gviB of ihe Nptfpnsl Science Fqund^iton
{ way but instead jointly and simulta-
j neously consider all pathways.
'With respect to the conduct of
the review itself, the Agency is par-
ticularly pleased thai the panel
devoted so much effort to this
review. Because more than 43 peer
reviews of individual 3MRA science
models had already been completed,
the SAB panel was asked to focus its
attention on the integrated 3MRA
science and technology "system"
-------
»<;,
with special emphasis on the nation-
al risk assessment methodology.
When the panel determined that a
quality systems level review was not
possible without a thorough under-
standing of the individual compo-
nents (i,e., science models) they ded-
icated significant extra time and
energy to developing this under-
standing. The result was not only a
well-informed system level review,
but also a comprehensive review of
the science components of 3MRA
from the integrated systems perspec-
live. Through this review Ihe panel
has provided valuable insight and
recommendations that the Agency
will consider in the context of imple-
menting the model for its regulatory
assessment programs."
The SAB's process for providing
advice on science and research
planning at EPA changed in 2004
as a result of the reorganization of
the Board and in response to
changes in science planning at
EPA. The Board's reorganization
Plan emphasized the importance of
providing strategic advice to shape
future science at EPA. Advice on
science and research planning
became a priority for the chartered
SAB and for SAB standing commit-
tees. The SAB Staff Office organ-
ized a set of SAB advisory activities
to respond to the complex set of
research planning efforts designed
by the Agency to implement the
2003 EPA Strategic Plan, to provide
advice limed to the annual science
and research planning process
mandated by the congressional
budget cycle, and to respond to
emerging science needs.
The SAB advice on EPA's
science planning had three main
components. The major component
was the chartered SAB'S work with
EPA representatives to acquire infor-
mation systematically on Agency
science and research programs.
Drawing on the experience of its od
hocand standing committees, the
SAB expanded its scope of advice
on EPA's annual science and
research budget in PY 2004 to
Include all Agency science and
research, not only the investments
in EPAs Office of Research and
Development. As separate activities
that also contributed to that major
effort, SAB standing committees
reviewed several mulU-yeat plans
devebped by EPA's Office of
Research and Development in col-
laboration with EPA program and
regional offices. In addition, SAB
ad hoc technical panels reviewed
draft Agency research plans and sci-
ence plans
Examples of SAB advice on the
topics of science and research budg-
ets and research plans in emerging
science areas are highlighted below.
Ongoing SAB wo* for FY 2005
involves review of additional EPA
multi-year science plans, as well as
overall Agency science and research
planning for FY 2006.
tof Kt&i YCS? 20QS; f. .&}XXi Aj?
biv.tsst MJUK: re; £?Ai KSfuxs
ana
diutiag mir-fxcfM wvisivs •'-* :i:W*
sutTior flivi fssafiji'h tU'iiviwrs ever
mast Lhmi h> yra.'t. t:ai (h»- OiSc*4
oi' SfiOfiiirf: ivui ilsrrtlfjjarafi! Jus B
sirnnjj csdreo'site-wis •/»•'« r»r.
.Tissarrii riiKg'Sf;*. 'J'ai &.VT.JS X:
ufVjfz, SPA f.'i:s-.;r;[:fi T rw ;?«;'.t adcfltxtrt to leacttfig **} research,
Of Mwmcski hsr heW appohwv-fw in a nmrftw of tesetifng *r« trahmg
program^ !n'th£ United ?tat« ?rtci abroad JKK) 15 a frequent atMsop to tegisk-
t3ot*«!hoth'rQrgov»nmenti)l agencies and fdr jrxaaslry
of the £PA icfenreAcWsory &>3rct ar ««» at a past rtiair or tfw 4*6 Bad«alion
tfts EnamnrtKnfai f
-------
.Srrasfjy/j?- /*;;.* fftitog
;f:k wwtt-iiitt"'!:. T;v-; KTJK-S;^
lrftjf^'Si, '>*j:J::itv.1 ;:; the: Jiirrtl'vir/
tts ;:v:;:^: '*; ewwc-* o;; ;:av-
>r.i:;:\K f:-r-k "•.>>:-?:•;:-•:••.>;;'.?
> rho
U'ftO'i^; up h.-
the- ;:;:::c-.-:f (i? vJ'KC-
HTp--v.;h'.::.-:-i^f?.: fv
i&Kp? anf. iivins; .:
Agency response from Dr. Harold
Zenick, Associate Director for
Health, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development: "...thank yuu
and the rest of the review panel of
the Science Advisory Board fur the
excellent and insightful comments
concerning the review of ORD's
Human Health Research Strategy
(HHRS) document. We are pleased
that it is the sense of the review
panel that the strategic directions
described in the document may
have a direct impact un the overaU
focus of the risk assessment
research community.... ORD will
rely on the comments and judg-
ment of the review panel to draft
the final version of the research
strategy*
Chair, Hufliart Health Research
Strategy Review Panel
De James E. Kbunig is Professof of
Towcotagy and Director ,«•»• , *",**•' s
i ' £ ~v/-->- •
^',"!«W * <5t J*v
' '•*," /' ' ^ ,' .; s
•'»! 'i v' '»
^ •>«• *
'•• 3' >*£-A?: .-:!i;*fOJt«(: t?:-? ;:::
• *'t> j ::;i:?' wfxEfsUi v; r *;(.'•: irr/;vh
Indiana tit ij( tdltctMn
associate editor of Toxitofogkal Serenas, and ij on the edttonat board of
Tajucologiicil Pathok>£y. H« * a member of the National Toxicology
Program Boarfof Scientific Counselors for the National Institgtes of
Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences He also has
served as president of the Carcinogen** Specialty Section president of
the Ohio Valley Society of Toxicology, member and thair of the Education
Committee, and member of the finance and program coRumtfees of the
Society of Toxicology, HP is currently the treasurer of the Society of
Toxicology Me aba .serves the Stale of Indiana on the {nduna fcsttodo
Review Board, the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving,
and the. Indiana ControJIed Substances Advisory Board He his trained
mote, (ten fifty graduate, students and postdoctoral feflo*s H« research
interest* are: dedicated to understanding tfi* ntfchaniBnj of qheniically ;
induced csmnoger*s(s, $p«]fica!lyrh* mode of action of rtongenotoxtc
carcinogens, understanding the fait ofowdative strwsjn caronogenesis
and cell injury, and understanding the multistage natuni of the cancer
process.
[A
-------
OK Maureen L. Cropper
Chate SAB Environmental economics
Adviiory Committee
Cf Marten I Gispper is protesor <3f eco-
receded a B,A tr> econorocj from Biyn Mawr
Go»ege tn I ?49 and A Ph.J? »> economics
Mwtt Cwh«> university m 1 W3 Her rtfeafch has focused on vauiofj emfreW-
rwnta! amefttoes, esftecially wWortraerttal heath effects on crts oiscoorttn^g
(torn. Her n*certt research fpcusK on
Dr
Cropper is past president of the Association of Environmental ana" ReiQufte-
economists «ncJ a tamer chair of the Adroory Countil for dean MA* -•
me rtmws. if* Harw-irrf an w for «w*,/m<«ysis, *s DanaW Bw $c»x>c* of
•?;•:• :ai'^:(r- af
vvi:h this ttrsiaxv Tn!f nechaivan
astsd Ai'x1! siiOiV HP*, '.v ri'Ufif: '.:«:-
fti fcetiiSKK :s.w:i msi-iifce.'S K? '.he
oft iv>
"I thank you. the Science Advisory
Boaid, and Environmental
Economics Advisory Committee for
your review of the Environmental
Economics Research Strategy. As
we work to ensure (hat EPA's poli-
cies are founded on a solid under-
pinning of science, peer reviews like
this are an important part of our
efforts.
"Research developed in
response to the EERS will be partic-
ularly important as we search for
belter ways to protect the environ-
ment. It will lead us to new and
more effective environmental man-
agement approaches and will help
ensure that the policies we adopt
are both efficient and fair"
Sf« a-: >?ks Office of
Trsxfcnfegy.
cs ;!r4v.::;j.'ii So
rif'A itfy#"?>;~'X.
VJlfc :t ?:t
&= :i':t- Lv
aift ui ;:« o;r:>-.'::
•"•:) :c zc
ca:: fc'.': :»-c; f*
i •:oi'!v-ur:«-ii.
P'jns! srMtOKjsd vp-.%-'£ ^u
far.rerr.inJ5 "^^ SieSnaou o: v.iv
fffjfmM U:aif!.~J a; f '•"-::: f
itMivs !iiv*;i tw K-.;ji
cjy w-Pi ;ro:e
ptsx«!itB!ifii of rfala J'!f.r.i;
tiivi risk i^iwisfrirswi ?ov t
10fiS« oC
and njtfvt:!op;r;efi- as-WErt tiw p
w rev'sv/ tlw '-;••••!»«>•:•* .'.".0. ,
vifa? aS»%- nn ivo'v sucst rsr-HL
i. anr- mift
W. RdW. Urector, Natlanal Heath
and Builiuuiiatfal Hteas tteaendi
mdareanttB Lead tor the
•The consultation with the SAB on
the Ftamework, which was held on
September 12, 3003, represented a
i critical step in the evolution of the
i Computational Toxicology Program.
', For the first lime, the strategy was
presented to an external peer
review group and reactions were
sought. We were extremely pleased
that the SAB fdt that the
i Framework was a good effort on
i the part of a cross -section of scien-
i tists in the Office of Research and
S Development and that it should
j prove a useful tool for advancing
| our mission. We took their advice
| to better integrate with the policy
| arms of the Agency, to reach out in
f partnerships with public and private
i organizations in an effort to better
j leverage resources, to develop better
] links with other complementary
1 research areas within our office.
j and to consider a number of specific
{ steps to aid in the implementation
i of the program.
; 'The positive feedback from the
I SAB gave strong encouragement
i within trie Office of Research and
Development to move forward with
the Computational Toxicology
Program. Last fall, we held a work-
shop that included representatives
from the program offices and a
number of external organizations to
roll out the strategy to staff in our
office, and we established a cross-
Agency committee to oversee the
translation of the Rameworfrinto a
research program—the
Computational Toxicology
Implementation and Steering
Committee. In FY 2004, We issued
two internal requests for proposals
to fund research in computational
toxicology, and awarded nearly $2.5
million to ten existing projects and
seven new projects based on strate-
gic directions laid out in the
Framework. We also announced a
call for proposals to establish a
Center of Environmental
Bioinformatics through our Science
to Achieve Results Program and
began working with the Office of
Pesticide Programs to assist it in
addressing re-registration needs for
pesticidal inert: and non-food use
antimicrobials—two large classes of
chemicals with little supporting tox-
icological information. Ultimately,
the Office of Research and
Development made the decision to
institutionalize the program by cre-
ating a National Center for
-------
Steps in the SAB Life Cycle Process - Two Examples
Review 9t EPA* Kratt Report on th# Environment 2QQ3 JEFA-SAS-OS-004J
Requesting Offieai: The Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Environmental
Information developed the Draft Report en the environment, a report that seeks to address the statui of and
trend! in environmental conditions and their impacts on human health and the nation's natural resources.
Background: The EM asked the SAB for advice in five areas: the scientific analysis and presentation of
information describing status and trends; assessment of the draft's use of indicators; measures of human
health and ecological endpoints; the use of national and regional data; and the quality of the Public
Report intended to summarize the Agency's technical documents. After considering 55 candidates recom-
mended for their expertise in the following areas, the SAB formed a 2O-member Panel to review EPAs
Draft Report on the Environment.
Pan*! Expertise Required: Epidemiology of environmental pollutants • Human exposure to
environmental pollutants > Human health risk assessment of environmental pollutants • Natural resources
management • Whole ecosystems research • Ecological risk assessment
• Ecosystems sustainabjlity • Environmental indicators
• Water resources management • Land use management
• Waste management • Emergency response and
preparedness > Air quality
of
.f «}*«:#«« at
£ Public Iwolvement Steps
Proposed projea requests
The SA8 Stan oiilce publishes
a Fedsral Register noifcs u>
announce ihe esiablishmem
,-tfan S/\3/VW.«)ry Panel for
each projeti and solicits nomi-
naiions for panel membership
The SA3 Staff Office publishes
a preliminary list, or "short list."
of individuals selected for each
project and announces its final
selection of Panel mergers on
ihe SAB Vvetj site
Arier inraduaory pucilic con-
ference call meetings, panelists
meet in person 10 discuis a sei
»' consensus points to be
used in drafting tne final pr,5j-
tsi reptvt
An SAB Quality Review
Committee (ORCI reviews and
approves the diaft panel repon
dtjrinrj a public teleconference.
Following ihis rtvtew, the char-
tered SAB reviews the ORC
report and the draft panel
repon. and approves ihe iinal
report
The approved panel repon is
formatted and transrrSued to
iheAdrriinisiratoi and pawed
on ihe SAB Web she
The SAB Staff OiTice sseki for-
mal Teedtjack from ihe Agency
an the apprjjvsd panel report
and posts iheAgencj'
response on the SAB Vveb site.
si Project
The SAB Staff Office receives
nominal ed advisory projects
for SAB consideration from var-
ious EPA Offices. Program and
Regional Q'ikes, the Congress
(through the Adrninistratorl,
andtheSAB
£xs!:iAivH Comn
Msalng as pan of ihe Boards
upcoming Fiscal Ysar
Opwaiing Plan
; itfbnl'i'Werjewiiiderthg 75 !eand!datej'wommehd^
formed a 16-member Panel to review tne, complex modeling. jj^maridtiiijf--1''"2^--'1'—'--1-'1'--"'-'' -••:••
Panel ExpcrtiM R«|iilrad:-Integrated.Software Techi
Uncertainty: Analyses for Higher Order Erivironmrntal Models • puatity Assurance:a«f«
'• Integrated Wultimedia Fate and Transport Mo#'" ' '"' ' :':" ':''"''' "
grou
-------
Dr. George UK Luster
Chairt SA8 Computational
ToKkotogy Framework. Panel ,
Or George VK Uutierk^n envlnjoweoial
consultant with an emphasis on tcwicoloery,
. $nd risk WJRSfnenr
Or,
Uicfcf oetifed *om tf* National (nsfcWR vl«xirw«3i Heanh; Stfwces «i 2000
•wt>e/e n& served a* ctetor of the ehwreniweMai Toxicology ftsgwnv asoo-
aw aNttor of the rtetiorwl Tcwcotogy ProgrcWi, atxJ ted or1 th* research
group art molecular wwcctagy ar«a «p>demioio.gy He- also served as «xdf~
«s char of the Scientific Advoory edam for me /eguWtort of hSzatdouj air
"poftjwnw in North Camftw,
crorneiidr-jiefe exposure levels of sir poflutams. Oi;Luow(s
'' jar to tfie National lnreu)ew$d scientific Irteratuw and chaired attains of KJenefit: ton-
feicmSesandworttfKips. induidjog •lorbng groups crfielrtereitionel
Agency (or Ra«arch en Cancer, woiltshotif an. b«*?g«:aily*iBefl modeft for
human n!i«5s*Bfnenis and sxposue iBssssment anfl (jonfffBJCM oo
ooj attvis WWte
Hows* towniwse chaged *Wi reading agnwmem: anwng v^ncw agw.'.r*.'ss o-" ihr; &j>tficv"-; .-vivJyvis
of rhs ui.yJfiKy'i'g sit'.'JKflc ir£>r"'-8
(vji; r»:!-,;.i:l«i f.«:riiu><;sii.
Ih* Sard «!» adviwrfi Use Assrsry
rh:s Sssi* :';S (is-
Emtpt Ann Agency rapcnse ftan
Mctad 0. Laavltt:
"The SAB Supplemental Guidance
for Assessing Cancer Susceptibility
Review Panel provided thoughtful,
constructive comments that will
pttnd iy die Office of Hesmdi and
DcvdofsnEftt And dEsci8)cd In the
attachment, to
Based on panel recommendations,
EPA is revising the Guidance and is
implementing a number of sugges-
tions. Agency implementation
efforts include a more comprehen-
sive search of the scientific literature
to identify additional studies on
early-life exposure to carcinogens, a
more thorough discussion of data
available on the effects of early-life
exposures to carcinogens — with a
particular emphasis on estrogenic
agonists and antagonists— and a
revaluation of compiled data to
include all tumor endpoints for
chemicals previously included in
the analysis. This additional
research helps to create a more
complete representation of the pub-
lished literature on differential age
sensitivity to chemical carririogene-
sis. The Agency agreed that extend-
big the analysis to estrogenic agents
-------
Or, Henry Andenori
Chain SAB Supptemftntar Guidance fat
Aliening Cancer Susceptibility for
Early*/* Review Part*)
On Anderson hotdj positions me state
eowrgnrnentat and occupational tinfase epl- ,
*te»% artd acjiuntr. profuse*- At the Unwersry 0f WBrtmsin-Maaisorr,
{Iep3nrnenr of Population HesJm, ?nd #>$ UnJi^rsny of Wisconsin institute
puWrt hearth, pfeveriiws, enwonmsriej. a»id owujwtKWK fflftKtne, respira-
tory disease^ eiSdernkfegy, tiurnao he*»h rr* assessment, and risk «»nwm>.
nfcfltfon Artfve research interest; (ncluij*'. qnvncnmenral health Indicators
and <««9» twv«niric
mirte« (hat devstoped the wpont Injury in Amsnca and Nunong, HeaJrt £
H^sefw?! on the Prwidentiat Adwsjiy poart <>rv fi3dialxin
arid the Korty flais Afvtsory Committst for the^Ba^kim Program He
'sftvei on me Cwrteri fW flsease COnlrot and (WrtnHon (COC| and the
»• a Wfcw of tne Co««9lum SanwaW aiw ihe-Aflwicsii Assuctawti fa »h«
(VJy9W«h*n( trf St«r ein t^72 from th? Unwprsqr pf
Ptevefttiv* Meditifte with a 4ut>-spe
-------
rMng in New Ways
C&SAtf
Consistent with (he EPA SAB Staff
Office policy on term limits for
members and chairs of advisor/
* 8 committees, the EPA Administrator
appointed new chairs for the
CASAC and SAB in November
2004. Dr. Rogene Henderson is the
new chair of the CASAC and Dr. M.
Granger Morgan is the new chair of
the SAB. These two scientists will
work with their committees to pro-
vide the leadership necessary to
provide support for Agency efforts.
In November 2003 EPA announced
a reorganization of the Science
Advisory Board. The
Implementation Plan that accompa-
nied that announcement made
dear that the Board retained its his-
toric function to provide the EPA
Administrator with outside, inde-
pendent advice on the scientific and
technical aspects of environmental
issues. It also explained how the
SAB Staff Office would form new ad
hoc committees on specific advisory
topics, in addition to standing com-
miltees, to help the Board keep pace
' with complex environmental chal-
• lenges racing the Agency. These
, committees would provide the
Board with flexibility when address-
ing new topic areas. With this
scheme in place, the Board estab-
lished two ad hoc committees: the
Committee on Valuing the
Protection of Ecological Systems
and Services, in August 2O03. and
a new Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards Review Panel
i for PY Z003-200S. Based on the
; Implementation Plan, SAB de nova
\ review panels were also formed to
; address specific technical review
! issues. The SAB Staff Office
i announced the formation of seven
[ «i tesearch Cfluncj/Natiipnal teafcttyoi SdenMsf Scwi on eMwmefnarajjdies *id
To>)oaio^*KJ«,i<^«r*O>nc;.er$o^
*np«eitior» fcr isae*eh, (teggfctfop, and te^teoon." «««*« or the \terw
ft^Ass^ rtMJ> m4msecofthfrA<
mer*e<
i WO- W2|, and member rftf« &«& frwtanrnenta Health ConVnfeeeOWWW^,
DC M Granger Morgan
Chair; SAB
Dr M Granger Marc#n o unM-rsKy professor and head Of *e dffi(ii*penr of erigt-
neeong ao<} pobN; poficy at <>n«^e Me»0" yrwerjft/ w»ieV« tie a st,saLon3r> Bdysfes. ar* M S ,(r> astronomy WW sp»«s Defence' iron Gome«Ji96St, -
Cafifwrta ar San Dleg» ( J W), Dr Morgan $ rese«wh Addresses »robierfii m ssSerwft ttciwotoajf and puWfe rx*d en sewaf other «pr«
-------
• whether there were any technical
errors, omissions, or Issues inade-
quately dealt with in the draft
report;
• whether the draft report was clear
and logical; and
• whether the conclusions drawn or
recommendations provided were
supported by the body of report.
The Jmpiementatjon Plan also
introduced a new mechanism for
review of selected SAB reports. Alt
draft reports prepared by SAB com-
mittees and panels are, by Law,
reviewed by the chartered SAB. 1b
ensure that the SAB reports are of
the highest quality, the
Implementation Plan also requires
thai certain reports—drafts of origi-
nal studies, significant reports cre-
ated by ad hoc committees, and
peer reviews of major Agency tech-
nical worK products produced by
panels—be reviewed through a
new quality review mechanism.
For example, the quality review
process was used to review draft
reports for two major initiatives in
FY 2004, including reports of the
3MRA Modeling System Panel and
the Advisory Panel on EPA's draft
Report on the Environment.
In each case, a quality review com-
mittee was formed with the appro-
priate and relevant expertise for
that particular quality review. The
quality review committee Keld open
public teleconferences to determine:
• whether the original charge ques-
tions to the panel were adequately
addressed;
The Board took action in 2003 and
20O4 to reinvigorate its tradition of
providing strategic and forward-
looking advice to the Administrator
on complex technical and emerging
issues. The SAB Staff Office, work-
ing with the Board, held the first
SAB Workshop on Environmental
Protection on December II, 2003.
The workshop provided a forum for
SAB members to interact with EPA
and external scientific experts and to
discuss several emerging areas
important to EPA science and
research programs. At the work-
shop, particrpants discussed air pol-
lution, control of trans boundary air
pollutants, emerging contaminants,
invasive species, nanoteclinotogy,
andgenomics. The workshop
focused on challenges and opportu-
nities in environmental science for
the Agency^ mission to protect
human health and the environ-
ment. Discussions focused on the
underlying science in these areas
and also touched on social, ethical,
and legal implications. The work-
shop educated and informed the
participants about these topics, with
the goal of providing a basis for
future SAB advice and recommen-
dations to the Agency. The Board
planned a workshop on
"Nanotechnology, Biotechnology,
and Information Technology
Implications for Future Science" at
EPA for December 2004 with a simi-
lar goal of advancing SAB thinking
about these rapidly advancing fields.
In FY 2003 and FY 2004, the SAB
Staff Office worked to strengthen
i the infrastructure supporting the
) CASAC Council, and SAB. In
2004, EPA provided a conference
center designed for the advisory
committees' work. The SAB Staff
Office dedicated this space to the
memory of a past chair (J997-2OQO)
of the SAB Executive Committee,
Dr. Joan Daisey, in recognition of her
deep commit men! to science advice
of the highest quality, strong leader-
ship, steadfast integrity, and joy in
public service. The conference cen-
ter encompasses two conference
rooms and a reception space to pro-
vide a secure, comfortable, and well-
equipped venue for public meetings
of the advisory committees.
The Staff Office has devoted
much of the past two years to
strengthening science advice by
improving each step in the life cycle
of science advisory projects. The
multiple steps in the life cycle of
advisory projects are detailed in the
SABftnptementaUonP/an. Much of
the work of the SAB Staff Office
involves working with Agency lead-
ership and the leadership of the
CASAC, the Council, and the Board
on the development of projects,
the formation of panels to provide
-------
advice related to those projects.
The Staff Office also helps manage
advisory meetings during the report
development process. By law and
in practice, many of the steps entail
public involvement. Improving the
effectiveness of public involvement
in advisory committee activities has
been a high priority.
In the area of panel formation
and selection of members for the
CASAC, Council, andSAft the
Board has received independent
recognition for the improvements
introduced in FY 2002 and contin-
ued In PY ZOOS and FY 2004.
Major recognition came from the
US. Office of Government Ethics
(OGE), which completed a program
review of EPAJs ethics program in
February 2004. As part of that pro-
gram review, OGE reviewed the
financial disclosure records and pro-
cedures of the Science Advisory
Board. In its report, OGE compli-
mented EPAs work to improve com-
pliance and training at EPA. In par-
ticular, OGE stated that the "develop-
ment of an alternative, confidential
financial disclosure system and an
improved ethics training program for
special Government Employee (SGE)
members of EPAs Federal advisory
committees appear to lave corrected
previously identified deficiencies in
this program element.* As a result
of this program review, EPA was
presented with the Outstanding
Ethics Program Award at the 2003
OGE Conference in New YorK.
The General Accounting Office's
(GAD) report. Federal Advisory
Committees: Additional Guidance
Could Help Agencies Better Ensure
Independence and Balance (GAO-
04-528), includes a section devoted
to the best practices that might be
adopted throughout the federal gov-
ernment to better ensure independ-
ence and balance. In this section.
the GAO noted that the SAB uses its
Web site to solicit nominations from
the public for panel membership.
The report also commends the
National Academies of Sciences and
the Science Advisory Board for pro-
cedures that clearly and consistently
identify the information they deem
necessary to assess candidates for
independence and balance on the
committees, explain to the candi-
dates why the required information
is important to protect the integrity
of the committee's work, request
public comment on proposed com-
mittee membership, and require
evaluation of the overall balance of
committees before they are final-
ized. The National Academies of
Sciences also noted in the report
Science and Technology in the
National Interest; Ensuring the Best
Presidential and Federal Advisory
Committee Science and Technology
Appointments (ZOOS) that the SAB
Staff Office had introduced a suite of
best practices that provide models
for other federal agencies to follow.
In FY ZOOS and FY 2004, the
SAB Staff Office also implemented a
formal process for reaching out to
professional societies to seek nomi-
nations for membership to its advi-
sory committees in the interest of
bringing new expertise, energy, and
perspectives to EPA. Nominees rec-
ommended by two professional
societies were appointed by the
Administrator and now serve on
SAB committees.
Finally, the
Staff Office con-
tinued efforts to
inform the pub-
lic about the
work of the
CASAC,
Council, and
SAB and to
involve the public, as
appropriate, in advisory committee
work. The Staff Office has pub-
lished a brochure entitled Advisory
Committee Meetings and Report
Development: Process for Public
Involvement; A Report of the
Science Advisory Board Staff Office
(EPA-SABSO-04-OOI). TheSlaff
Office held public meetings to dis-
cuss the planned SAB reorganiza-
tion and has also included a wide
spectrum of individuals, both from
within and outside the Agency, in
focus groups to provide insights on
the redesign of the SAB Web site.
-------
2005 and FY 2006
In the upcoming fiscal years, the
Staff Office foresees a portfolio of
projects that reflect high-priority
peer reviews; consultations and
advisory reports on emerging sci-
ence needs for the Agency; contin-
ued refinement of the process for
providing advice for the Agencys
strategic investments in science and
research; and the results of several
important self-initiated projects,
including the work of the SAB
Committee on Valuing the
Protection of Ecological Systems
and Services. The Staff Office also
envisions formation of a new ad
hoc committee addressing home-
land security science issues. The
Staff Office will also seek opportuni-
ties to provide advice to the Agency
in partnership with other federal
advisory committees at EPA.
Improving the infrastructure for the
SAB is a continuing goal. It will be
a priority to develop administrative
procedures that make the best use
of information technology and
Agency's resources and ease the
paperwork burden on committee
and panel members. The vision for
the SAB Web site is for an attrac-
tive, easy-to-use site that delivers
up-to-date, consistent, and inte-
grated information about advisory
activities and products.
The SAB, established by
Congress in 1978, has now entered
its second quarter century better
equipped to address the science
issues posed by environmental pro-
tection challenges. There is an
increasing emphasis in its work
and in the work of the CASAC and
Council on providing a strategic
approach to science advice. This
strategic approach aims to deliver
advice that is multi-disciplinary,
that engages the Agency early in
the development of projects, and
that looks toward the environmen-
tal solutions necessary in the twen-
ty-rust century. This dedicated
focus on strategic advice and the
insistence on quality peer review of
Agency science point to a successful
path forward for the next two years
and beyond.
Provides independent advice to the
EPA administrator on the technical
bases for EPA's national ambient air
quality standards program.
The CASAC was established in 1977
under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1977 (see 42 U.S.C
§ 7409(dX2)) to provide advice,
information and recommendations
to the Administrator on the scientific
and technical aspects of issues relat-
ed to the criteria for air quality stan-
dards, research related to air quality.
sources of air pollution, and the
strategies to attain and maintain air
quality standards and to prevent sig-
nificant deterioration of air quality.
The CASAC has one standing subcom-
mittee: the Ambient Air Monitoring
and Methods Subcommittee.
f-asTftbefshtj^ss flf (fcwemtxr 2004:
CHAIR- Dr. Rogene Henderson,
Scientist Emeritus, Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute,
Albuquerque, NM
PAST CHAIR: DC. Philip Hopke,
Bayard D. Darkson Distinguished
Professor, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Clarkson University.
Polsdam, NY
| MEMBERS:
I Dr. Ellis B. Cowling, University
| Distinguished Professor At-Large,
I Colleges of Natural Resources and
| Agriculture and Ufe Sciences, North
\ Carolina State University, Raleigh,
I NC
! Dr. James Crapo, Executive Vice
' President for Academic Affairs and
Chairman, Department of Medicine,
National Jewish Hospital and
Medical Research Center, Denver, CO
Dr. Frederick). Miller, Vice President
for Research, Centers for Health
Research, Chemical Industry
Institute of Toxicology, Research
Triangle Park, NC
Mr. Richard L. Poirot,
Environmental Analyst, Air
Pollution Control Division,
Department of Environmental
Conservation, Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources, Waterbury, VT
Dr. Prank Speizer, Edward Kass
> Professor of Medicine, Channing
i Laboratory. Harvard Medical School,
i Boston, MA
I
Dr. Barbara Zielinska, Research
Professor, Division of Atmospheric
Sciences, Desert Research Institute,
Reno, NV
Adtnowtedgmenl of Members
Who Completed Membership
Terms in FY 2004
Dr. Philip Hopke, for valued service
as member and chair of CASAC
Acknowledgmenl of Members
Who Completed Membership
Terms/n FT 2003
Dr. George E. Taylor, for valued
service on CASAC
Dr. Sverre Vedal, for valued service
on CASAC
AOWSQSY CQSJiOL OK OBAK
The Council was established in 199O
pursuant to the CAA Amendments
of 1990 (see 42 U.S.C. §7612] to pro-
vide advice, information and recom-
mendations on technical and eco-
nomic aspects of analyses and
reports EPA prepares concerning the
impacts of the CAA on the public
health, economy, and environment
of the United States.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
November IS, 1990 require the
Council to:
• Review data to be used for any
analysis required under section
312 of the CAA and make recom-
mendations on its use.
• Review the methodology used to
analyze such data and make rec-
ommendations on the use of such
methodology.
• Prior to the issuance of a report to
Congress required under section
312 of the CAA, review the findings
of the report and make recommen-
dations concerning the validity and
utility of such findings.
-------
The Council has three Standing
Subcommittees: the Air Quality
Modeling Subcommittee, Ecological
Effects Subcommittee, and Health
Effects Subcommittee.
CHAIR: Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron,
Raymond P. Mikesell Professor of
Environmental and Resource
Economics, Department of
Economics, University of Oregon,
Eugene, OR
MEMBERS:
Dr. David T. Allen, The Gertz
Regents Professor in Chemical
Engineering, Department of
Chemical Engineering. University of
Texas, Austin, TX
Dr. Dallas Burtraw. Senior Fellow,
Resources for the Future,
Washington, DC
Ms. Lauraine Chestnut, Managing
Economist, Stratus Consulting Inc.,
Boulder, CO
Dr. Charles T. Driscoll, Jr.,
Distinguished Professor and Chair,
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, College
of Engineering and Computer
Science, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, NY
Dt. Wayne Gray, Professor,
Department of Economics, Clark
University, Worcester, MA
Dr. James K. Hammitt, Professor of
Economics and Decision Sciences,
Colter for Risk Analysis, School of
Public Health, Harvard University,
Boston, MA
Dr. P. Reed Johnson, Principal
Economist and RTJ Fellow, RTI
Health Solutions, Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
Dr. Katherine Kiel, Associate
Professor, Department of
Economics, College of the Holy
Cross, Worcester, MA
Dr. Kino Kiienzli, Professor,
Department of Preventive Medicine,
Keck School of Medicine. University
of Southern California, Los Angeles.
CA
Dr. Virginia McConnell, Senior
Fellow and Professor of Economics,
Resources for the Future,
Washington, DC
Dr. Bart Ostro, Chief, Air Pollution
Epidemiology Unit, California Office
of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, Oakland, CA
Dr. V. Kerry Smith. University
Distinguished Professor.
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences,
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC
Dr. Chris Watek, Senior Research
Scientist, Atmospheric Sciences
Research Center, State University of
New York, Albany, NY
Acknowledgment at Members
Who Completed Membership
Terms in FY2004;
Dr. Charles Kolslad, for valued
service on the Council
Dr. Lester Lave, for valued service
on the Council
Acknowledgment of Members
Who Completed Membership
Terms in FY ZOOS
Dr. Lawrence Goulder, for valued
service on the Council
Scjeroc AfkiK*y Seard ®*&;
Provides independent advice to the
EPA Administrator on broad scien-
tific and technical matters in sci-
ence, technology, social, and eco-
nomic issues that underlie EPA reg-
ulations, environmental policies
and programs, and the supporting
science and research programs.
The SAB was established in 1978
under the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act (ERDDAA) [42
U.S.C. S 4365] to provide independ-
ent advice and peer review on the
scientific and technical aspects of
environmental problems and issues
as requested by the Administrator,
or by the Congress through the
Administrator. Most (though not
all) preliminary work of the SAB is
done by Subcommittees or Panels
focused on various environmental
science topics. These groups are
chaired by Board members.
Recommendations of
Subcommittees and Panels are
transmitted to the Board for
discussion and deliberation
Recommendations are forwarded to
EPA onty if the Board determines
that it is appropriate.
The SAB has seven standing com-
mittees: Drinking Water
Committee, Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee, EnvirDnmemal
Economics Advisory Committee,
Environmental Engineering
Committee, Environmental Health
Committee, Integrated Human
Exposure Committee, and Radiation
Advisory Committee. The SAB has
two ad hoc committees: Committee
on valuing the Protection of Ecological
Systems and Services and the
Scientific and Technical Achievement
Awards Advisory Committee.
M
-------
Dr. Catherine Kling, Professor,
Department of Economics, Iowa
State University, Ames, IA
Dr. George Lambert, Associate
Professor and Center Director,
Center (or Child and Reproductive
Environmental Health,
Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences Institute, Robert
Wood Johnson Medical School/
University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ
Dr. Jill LJpoti. Assistant Director,
Division of Environmental Safety
and Health, Radiation Protection
and Release Prevention Element,
Radiation Protection Programs, New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Trenton, NJ
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Professor,
Department of Epidemiology, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Dr. Michael j. McParland. Associate
Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Utah
Stale University, River Heights, UT
Dr. Rebecca Parkin, Associate
Professor, Environmental and
Occupational Health. Public Health
and Health Services, The George
Washington University,
Washington, DC
Dr. David Rejeski, Foresight and
Governance Project Director!
Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, Washington, DC
Dr. Joan B. Rose, Professor, Homer
Nowlin Chair in Water Research,
Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Michigan Stale University,
E. Lansing, Ml
Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechelle,
O'Neill, Professor of Philosophy and
Professor of Biological Sciences,
Department of Philosophy, College
of Arts and Sciences, University of
Notre Dame. Notre Dame, IN
Dr. Robert Slavins, Albert Pratt
Professor of Business and
Government, Environment and
Natural Resources Program, John P.
Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Dr. Deborah Swackhamer,
Professor, Division of
Environmental and Occupational
Health. School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN
Dr, Thomas L. Theis, Professor,
Civil and Materials Engineering,
Director, Institute for Environmental
Science and Policy, University of
Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Dr. R. Rhodes Trussed, President,
Tmsselt Technologies, Inc.,
Pasadena, CA
Dr. Robert Twiss, Professor. The
Graduate School, University of
California-Berkeley, Ross. CA
Dr. Terry R Young, Consultant,
Environmental Defense, Oakland, CA
Dr. Lauren Zeise, Chief, Reproductive
and Cancer Hazard Assessment
Section, California Environmental
Protection Agency, Oakland, CA
Acknowledgment of Members
Who Completed Membership
TennsinFYZOM
Dr. Dallas Burtraw, for valued serv-
ice on the SAB Environmental
Economics Advisory Committee
Dr. Kenneth Cummins, for valued
service on the SAB
Dr. Mary Davis, for valued service
on the SAB Drinking Water
Committee
Dr. William H. Glaze, for valued
service as chair and member of the
SAB
Dr. Annette Guiseppe Elie, for val-
ued service on the SAB Integrated
Human Exposure Committee
Dr. Philip Hopke, for valued service
on the SAB
Dr. Thomas Louis, for valued service
on the SAB Drinking Water
Committee
Dr, Charles Pillinger, for valued
service on the SAB Environmental
Processes and Effects Committee
Dr. Hilary Sigman, for valued serv-
ice on the SAB Environmental
Economics Advisory Committee
Dr. William H. Smith, for valued
service on the SAB
Dr. R. Rhodes Trussell, for valued
service on the SAB and as member
and chair of the SAB Drinking
Water Committee
Dr. David Wallinga, for valued serv-
ice on the SAB's Integrated Human
Exposure Committee
Acknowledgment of Members
Who Completed Membership
TeimsmFYZOOS
Dr. Henry Anderson, for valued
service on the SAB and as chair and
member of SAB's Environmental
Health Committee
Dr. Steven Bartell for valued service
on SAB's Research Strategies
Advisory Committee
Dr. Robin Cantor for valued service
on SAB's Research Strategies
Advisory Committee
Dr, David Hoel, for valued service on
SAB's Environmental Health
Committee
Dr. Janet A. Johnson, for valued
service on the SAB and as chair and
member of the Radiation Advisory
Committee
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, for valued
service on the SAB
Dr. Bruce Rittmann, for valued serv-
ice on SAB's Environmental
Engineering Committee
Dr. Genevieve Roessler, for valued
service on SAB's Radiation Advisory
Committee
Dr. Ken Sexton, for valued service
on SABs Integrated Human
Exposure Committee
Dr. OaryToranzos, for valued serv-
ice on SABs Drinking Water
Committee
Dr. Mark Utell, for valued service on
SAB's Research Strategies Advisory
Committee
Dr. James Watson, for valued serv-
ice on SABS Research Strategies
Advisory Committee
-------
y fJsspwrts for ?
of Key Science Advice Goaf and AdvSsuwy Committee ar
Rqnt N8mE Bnd c&Httcn
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ambient Air Monitoring
and Methods (AAMM) Subcommittee Consultation on Methods for
Measuring Coarse-Fraction Paniculate Matter (PMc) in Ambient Air
(July 2004) (EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-04-OOS)
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Review of the Agencys National
Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy (EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-04-001)
Advtaoty Coonnttttc at P&nd
Auvbory Qjuvilltac.
-------
AilvJsuiy CuuiuiUtR v PoiicL
Report Name and Citation
AdviVOty GCBClflnltttt Of P&In
SAB Drinking Water Committee
Stage 2 Disinfection/Disinfectant By
Product Rule Panel
Rcpurt Maroc 8nd Ouitkm
Disinfection Byproducts and Surface Water Treatment: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Review of Certain Elements of the Stage 2 Regulatory
Proposals (EPA-SAB-DWC-03-005)
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee Panel on Suspended and
Bedded Sediments
EPA's Strategy on Suspended and Bedded Sediments: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Notification of a Consultation (EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-04-
002)
SAB Environmental
Engineering Committee
Improving Leach Testing of Waste: An EPA Science Advisory Board
Notification of a Consultation (EPA-SAfl-ESC-CON-03-006)
SAB Multimedia Mullipathway
MuUireceptor Risk Assessment
(3MRA) Modeling System Panel
EPA's Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multireceplor Risk Assessment
(3MRA) Modeling System; A Review by the IMRA Review Panel of the
EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-05-003)
«
------- |