United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory
Board (1400F)
Washington, DC
EPA-SAB-05-009
June 2005
www.epa.gov/sab
EPA's Contaminated Sites
and RCRA Multi-Year
Plans
An Advisory of the Contaminated Sites and
RCRA Multi-Year Plan Advisory Panel of the
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON B.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
May 23, 2005
EPA-SAB-05-009
The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Advisory on the Office of Research and Development's
Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans
Dear Administrator Johnson:
At the request of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), a panel of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) developed an
advisory on the ORD's Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans. These plans
will be merged in their next revision. ORD is developing a suite of multi-year plans that
will focus its research program on the highest priority issues and provide coordination for
achieving long-term research goals. The EPA Board of Scientific Counselors and the
SAB are reviewing a few plans each year.
In general, the Panel finds that the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year
Plans are programmatically and scientifically sound. We note in particular the remarkable
coordination of the program's research with that of the relevant program offices and other
institutions and are encouraged by the judicious use of leveraging opportunities to
significantly stretch limited resources to meet more of the Agency's needs.
The Panel's report contains suggestions for developing a merged plan that clearly
relates the research to the Agency's strategic goals and targets. By clearly linking
research priorities and the Agency's strategic objectives with defined long-term goals,
themes and work products, the Agency will be able to demonstrate the relevance, quality,
and contribution of the individual research activities to meeting the Agency's mission
within resource constraints.
-------
The two multi-year plans respond admirably to the short-term needs of the regions
and program offices, but lack a sufficient long-term research program focused on
emerging environmental issues. Programmatic support for addressing emerging
environmental issues is vital for ORD to continue to be a leader in environmental
research and to provide science and technical information needed by regional and
program office decision-makers. The Panel has identified a number of areas for the
Agency to explore the possibility of resource reallocation as well as some emerging
environmental issues for which reallocated resources may be directed. Because EPA
research on emerging issues is an issue that applies to many research programs, the
Science Advisory Board elected to address the appropriate balance between responding
to short-term needs and addressing emerging issues in its upcoming FY 2006 Science and
Research Advisory Report.
If the Agency accepts these recommendations and would like additional advice
regarding specific long-term goals and associated annual performance goals and
measures for a program addressing emerging longer-term issues, the Panel will make
itself available.
Sincerely,
Dr. Granger Morgan, Chair
EPA Science Advisory Board
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Chair
Environmental Engineering Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
11
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory
Board, a public advisory committee providing extramural scientific information and
advice to the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Board is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters
related to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval
by the Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the
Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute a recommendation for use. Reports of the EPA Science
Advisory Board are posted on the EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab.
in
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plan Advisory Panel
CHAIR
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, U'ah State University, Logan, UT
MEMBERS of the SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
Dr. John C. Crittenden, Professor and Richard Snell Presidential Chair, Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona
State University, Tempe, AZ
Dr. H. Barry Bellinger, Patrick F. Taylor Chair, Department of Chemistry, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge. LA
Dr. David Dzombak, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Research Professor and Director of the Recycled materials
Resource Center, Civil Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
Dr. Joseph B. Hughes, Professor and Chair, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, and Associate Director, Hazardous Substances Research Center S/SW,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Byung Kim, Technical Leader, Ford Research and Advanced Engineering, Ford
Motor Company, Dearborn, MI
Dr. Catherine Koshland, Professor, Department of Environmental Health Sciences,
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
Mr. Reid Lifset, Associate director, Industrial Environmental management Program,
School of Forestry and Envirojimental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Dr. Susan E. Powers, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
School of Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Dr. Mark Rood, Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering, Civil and
Environmental Engineering Program, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Dr. Bryan Shaw, Associate Professor, Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX
Dr. John H. Smith, Manager, EHS Science and Technology Center, Alcoa Technical
Center, Alcoa Center, PA
IV
-------
MEMBER of SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Mr. Timothy Thompson, Senior Environmental Scientist, Science, Engineering, and the
Environment, LLC, Seattle, WA
MEMBER of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
Dr. James R. Clark, Distinguished Scientific Associate, ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering Company, Fairfax, VA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Ms. Kathleen White, Designated Federal Officer, Science Advisory Board, Washington,
DC
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
CHAIR
Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
PAST CHAIR
Dr. William H. Glaze, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR
VICE CHAIR
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Smith College, Northampton, MA
MEMBERS
Dr. Gregory Biddinger, Exxon Mobil Refining and Supply Company, Fairfax, VA
Dr. James Bus, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI
Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Also Chair: COUNCIL
Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ
Dr. Maureen L. Cropper, The World Bank, Washington, DC
Dr. Kenneth Cummins, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA
Dr. Virginia Dale, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME
Dr. James Galloway, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Dr. Linda Greer, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC
Dr. Philip Hopke, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Also Past-Chair: CASAC
Dr. James H. Johnson, Howard University, Washington, DC
Dr. Meryl Karol, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Roger E. Kasperson, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm,
Dr. Catherine KJing, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
VI
-------
Dr. George Lambert, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School/ University of Medicine
and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ
Dr. Jill Lipoti, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Utah State University, River Heights, UT
Dr. Rebecca Parkin, The George Washington University, Washington, DC
Dr. David Rejeski, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC
Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Thomas Theis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Dr. R. Rhodes Trussell, Trussell Technologies, Inc., Pasadena, CA
Dr. Robert Twiss, University of California-Berkeley, Ross, CA
Dr. Lauren Zeise, California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, CA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Mr. Thomas Miller, Designated Federal Officer, Washington, DC
VI1
-------
Review of the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans
The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has developed multi-year
plans on selected topics to focus its research program on the highest priority issues and
provide coordination for achieving long-term research goals. The Science Advisory
Board (SAB) and the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) are reviewing the multi-
year plans. The review of the Contaminated Sites and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plans was conducted by a Panel formed from the
SAB's Environmental Engineering Committee, a member of the SAB's Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee, and a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors.
The review was conducted using a face-to-face public meeting July 7-9 and four public
conference call meetings. Those who would like to learn more about the Panel's
deliberations in reaching this consensus may wish to read the minutes of the July 7-9
meeting.
The Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan describes ORD problem-solving
research supporting three Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response trust fund
programs for which research is authorized. These trust funds are Superfund, Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action, and the Oil Spills Program.
Contaminated Sites research is aligned along four long-term goals: three of the
goals based on the affected medium and one goal for cross-cutting issues:
• sediment;
• ground water;
* soil/land; and
• cross-cutting issues.
The RCRA Multi-Year Plan focuses primarily on:
• treatment processes for hard-to-treat chemicals;
• innovative containment technologies;
• resource conservation; and
• site-specific technical support and state-of-the-art methods, tools, and models for
addressing priority RCRA management issues.
Before providing summary answers to the charge questions, the Panel would like
to make some general observations and highlight certain important recommendations.
The plans were prepared by EPA staff from laboratories, headquarters, regional
and program offices. This group effort clarified the research needs of the program and
regional offices, organized and coordinated the research activities at the multiple EPA
laboratories involved, and provided the organizations involved with a working
relationship of mutual respect. The team approach evident in the preparation of these
documents may be of even greater importance than the documents themselves. ORD and
-------
OSWER jointly establish priorities1. For reasons presented in le below (some of which
are outside the Agency's control), priorities understandably emphasize meeting short-
term, immediate needs of the program office. There is some overlap in the issues
addressed in the two documents, and as a result the Agency intends to merge the
Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans.
Despite existing in a sea of change that makes portions of the multi-year plans
obsolete almost as soon as they are written—for example, the ongoing change in the
Agency's strategic goals—the documents are very useful and could be more useful yet.
Most of the Panel's recommendations focus on improvements to the documents to better
articulate the linkage between the goals of the research program and the work performed.
The Panel supports ORD's plan to merge the documents into a single plan that clearly
relates the research to the Agency's strategic goals and targets. By clearly linking
research priorities and the Agency's strategic objectives with defined long-term goals,
themes and work products, the Agency will be able to demonstrate the relevance, quality,
and contribution of the individual research activities to meeting the Agency's mission
within resource constraints. This linkage will further ensure and better document that
projects are selected and resources are distributed consistently to meet agency goals.
Given the importance of the work already in the program, the Panel recommends
that ORD establish a line item in its annual research budget that specifically supports
research that looks far ahead (10+ years) on emerging needs, ideally through new
resources, but by re-programming if necessary. This is primarily a matter of ensuring the
institutional health of ORD as a research organization and for EPA as a leader in
environmental research. Without this change, the program will not, five years from now,
be able to provide the quality of work and assistance that it currently provides to the
regional and program offices. The Panel has also identified some areas for the Agency in
which to explore the possibility of resource reallocation as well as some emerging
research areas for the Agency to consider.
1. What changes should be made to ensure that the long-term goals select and
articulate the high priority science, engineering, and technology needs of the Agency
to meet its strategic goal for preserving and restoring the land.
Charge question la — "Do the multi-year plans provide logical frameworks for
organizing the research programs? "
Together the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans provide a logical
framework for organizing Agency-funded research. The long-term goals and subsidiary
themes are appropriate based on: the 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan; research needs
1 One member of the Board wished to call the Agency's attention to the priority setting methodology used
in the National Research Council's report entitled Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of
Research (2004) which can be found at http://books.nap.ediL/books/0309092582/html/indexyhtml. Pages
10-12, 91-92, and 167-177 would be the most relevant in terms of establishing a uniform conceptual basis
for setting priorities.
-------
articulated by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and the Panel's
understanding natural and social science, engineering, and technology research needs
relating to wastes. The annual performance goals, themes, and long-term goals relate to
one another in an orderly way. Not all projects fit neatly into this structure and some
annual performance measures could be improved. However, on the whole, these two
multi-year plans succeed at organizing the research to meet the Agency's needs.
Since these multi-year plans were last revised, EPA revised its Strategic Plan,
reorganizing its goals and reducing their number from ten to five. Some work in the
current plans will be moved to other multi-year plans and some entirely new and relevant
multi-year plans are in preparation. Every project must fit under some multi-year plan and
not every project fits neatly within the current framework. Some projects complete work
that was undertaken to meet other research needs. While the Agency's grants and
intramural programs may provide research on areas of broad interest, including longer-
term and emerging issues, their contribution to specific goals may be less apparent than
the targeted research undertaken by the Agency. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect
that every project included in a multi-year plan will lead directly and logically to the
fulfillment of the current long-lerm goals for that plan. (Annual performance measures are
discussed in responses to charge questions 3 a and b)
The Agency's plan to combine the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year
Plans into a single plan is appropriate given the size of the research programs and their
content. The Panel recommends that the revised, integrated plan address the difficult
question of how short-term research, long-term research, core research, and problem-
driven research will be integrated to support the Strategic Plan's Goal 3 strategic targets.
The Panel also recommends that the revised plan show how the various research activities
connect to the Strategic Plan's Goal 3 targets (This is discussed further in the response to
charge question Ib).
Charge question Ib - 'Are the long-term goals supportive of meeting the Agency's
strategic targets and focused on important issues? "
The Panel used the discussion of Goal 3 - Land Preservation and Restoration in
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan to determine whether the long term goals in the
Contaminated Sites and RCRA. Multi-Year Plans address the Agency's strategic targets.
The relevant sub-objectives from the Strategic Plan are:
3.1.1 Reducing waste generation and increase recycling
3.1.2 Managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly
3.2.1 Response to releases of harmful substances
3.2.2 Cleanup and reuse contaminated land
3.3.1 Provide science to preserve and remediate land
3.3.2 Conduct research to support this goal
The current long-term goals (articulated before the Strategic Plan was written) and
the research supporting them generally support Agency's Goal 3. Most of the long-term
-------
goals address the research (3.3.1 and 3.3.2 in the Multi-Year Plan) necessary to support
targets in sub-objectives 3.1.2 and 3.2.2. of the Strategic Plan.
The separation of science and research objectives from the strategic targets for land
preservation and restoration in the Strategic Plan makes it more difficult to provide a
transparent mapping between Multi-Year Plan long-term goals and the research needs
required to meet strategic targets identified in objectives 3.1 and 3.2. To the extent that
the long-term goals of the relevant Multi-Year Plans are incorporated into the strategic
science/research objectives of the Strategic Plan, this relationship needs to be more fully
documented. While the Agency has indicated that in its strategic planning process each of
the five strategic goals would have a science/research objective to acknowledge the role of
science in the EPA mission, the Panel believes that a specific and transparent mapping of
the elements of the Multi-Year Plan to the substantive goals of the Strategic Plan will
improve the Multi-Year Plans and will optimize the use of scarce research dollars.
Based on their expert understanding of the science issues relating to waste
generation, reuse, treatment, and disposal, the Pane! agrees that the long-term goals
described in the multi-year plans are focused on important issues. However, the Panel
notes there is little research supporting the sub-objective 3.1.1 and none of the longer-term
research necessary to address emerging issues (see additional details under the response to
charge question 1 e).
The Panel suggests that, for clarity, the revised plan link the long-term goals
directly to the strategic targets in objectives 3.1 and 3.2 of the Strategic Plan. As required
for the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) used by the Office of Management and
Budget process, these long-term goals should be rewritten to be outcomes-oriented rather
than output-oriented. The distribution of science and technical research activities by
media, which is useful to OSWER, could be accomplished at the annual performance goal
level.
Charge Question Ic - "Based on changes incorporated in the last revision of the
multi-year plans, does multi-year planning lay out a balanced program
addressing short-term and longer-term research to meet current needs and
position the Agency to respond to emerging issues?"
The organizational framework outlined in these multi-year plans could support a
systematic approach for addressing both short-term and longer-term research. However,
the combined influences of authorizing legislation. Congressional directives, OMB
oversight, and limited budget push ORD efforts to focus on immediate needs of the
CERCLA and RCRA program offices.
For reasons of institutional health as a research organization and because the
Agency must be prepared to respond to emerging issues, the Panel recommends strongly
that the Agency conduct research that looks far ahead (10+ years) to OSWER and national
needs on these issues. This need is so compelling that additional funding would be ideal.
However, given the realities of flat or decreasing budgets, if necessary, the Agency should
-------
delay or reduce some research currently in the plans to provide funding for long-term
research. (Charge question 2c discusses some possibilities for resource allocation.)
The Panel also recommends that the Agency implement a clearly-defined
institutional process of continuous re-scoping to regularly identify and prioritize emerging
research topics, as discussed in the response to Charge Questions le and 2a.
Charge question Id- ' Recognizing that the trust fund resources have to be
accountable, how we might lay out long-term goals and complementary research
themes in a multi-year plan that merges the two existing plans? "
Ideally, research funded under the trust funds will complement research funded by
other mechanisms where appropriate, or be independent, but not duplicative. While those
who track resources may find it easier to read separately about the work supported by each
trust fund, science-focused readers will find it convenient to read about research on a
single topic in a single place in the revised plan. The discussion should acknowledge
which portions of the research are supported by trust funds as necessary to meet
accountability needs. This approach makes it easier to show that the research is
complementary rather than duplicative.
At the simplest level, the annual performance goals and annual performance
measures can be reorganized under the existing set of long-term goals to streamline the
revised document. For example, several annual performance goals and annual
performance measures associated with landfill covers could be grouped together.
Additionally, aspects of RCRA corrective action and multimedia modeling could be
organized with related annual performance goals under the Contaminated Sites Multi-Year
Plan.
The Agency, however, has an opportunity to complete a more substantial revision
of the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans as part of the process of
combining them to better meet the expectations of the PART process and the
organizational framework of the EPA's revised Strategic Plan. Therefore, the Panel
recommends that the Agency redefine and reorganize the long-term goals, some specific
themes, and some annual performance goals to better align with the sub-objectives and
strategic targets in the Goal 3 - Preserve and Restore the Land. (See related comments in
the response to charge question Ib)
Charge Question le - "In addition to emerging areas the Agency has identified,
does the Panel see other potential emerging research areas that should be
considered? If so, how might these areas be incorporated into a merged multi-year
plan?"
Both Multi-Year Plans described some forward looking projects (such as those
related to the EPA's white paper, Beyond RCRA) as potential future research projects that
could be pursued only if funds: are available. Unfortunately, the budgets allocated for the
two Multi-Year Plans appear to be barely sufficient to meet the shorter-term, immediate
-------
needs in support of existing EPA programs and to conduct specific Congressionally-
mandated research. The Agency has no difficulty identifying potential emerging research
areas. The difficulty lies in finding a way to fund the work. (See responses to 1 c, 2b and
2c)
From a scientific perspective, some examples of forward-looking research that
would be valuable if funding became available or through reallocation of scarce funds are
as follows:
1. Long-term management (1 Os to 1 OOs of years) of drainage from abandoned
mines as well as water and air emissions from large mining waste disposal
sites; mitigation of environmental impacts of mining operations.
2. Long-term management (1 Os to 1 OOs of years) of contaminated river and
coastal sediments.
3. Those emerging areas, identified in "Beyond RCRA", and other related
areas (e.g., innovative green labeling, product take-back, recycling,
environmental marketing incentives, etc.)
4. Management of wastes associated with future technologies (e.g.,
nanotechnologies, fuel-cell technologies, technologies for harnessing
various renewable and non-renewable energy sources, new battery
technologies, etc.)
5. Development of energy-efficient waste and contaminated site
remediation/treatment technologies
6. Development (further) of energy-recovery technologies from wastes, and
technologies for production of biofuels from biomass waste (renewable
energy).
7. Resource conservation issues associated with various industrial wastes in
addition to those related to electronics waste identified in the Multi-Year
Plan.
8. Fundamental industrial process changes and material substitutions to
reduce hazardous and solid waste generation
9. Ultra-fine particles emissions to air, from waste generation or management
operations (sources, characterization, health effects, and control)
2. For this update, what changes should be made to ensure that: the plans define
a pathway that tracks program progress toward achieving the long-term
-------
goals, consistent with the current state of the art, the role of ORD in the
research community, and available resources.
Charge question 2a - "Is the planned research complementary to other research
in this field? "
EPA's research complements work being done at other institutions. EPA's
research in the Contaminated Sites and RCRA areas is both responsive to its own needs
and takes advantage of opportunities where coordination, cooperation and partnering can
realize research objectives and leverage scarce funds. The Agency has clearly established
a range of official and substantive research collaborations with a number of government
and private interests. The financial leveraging and opportunities for enhanced diffusion of
scientific information afforded by these collaborative relationships have enabled ORD to
maintain technically viable research programs in an environment of declining budgets.
Charge question 2b - "Is the distribution of resources across long term goals and
themes appropriate? "
First, from the description of the work supporting the long-term goals within each
plan, the Panel acknowledges that substantive work is planned or underway in each of the
theme areas. However, the research funding framework and practices are significantly
different among federal agencies, private industries and academia. This makes it difficult
for SAB panels to understand the Agency's resource allocations. Without a detailed
description of how the multi-year plans facilitate the selection and ranking of specific
research activities, the Panel CEJinot document that the distribution of resources across
long-term goals and themes is appropriate. However, based on the work described, oral
presentations, and the Panel's general knowledge of waste research, there appear to be no
inconsistencies in aligning program resources to specific research activities.
The Panel recommends that the subsequent combined Multi-Year Plan be
organized very tightly with the Office of Management and Budget's PART process, and
that each individual research activity be critically reviewed based upon the specific
investment criteria for Relevance, Quality, and Performance in OMB Circular M-03-15
(dated June 5,2003). If those investment criteria were applied in a consistent and
transparent manner in the MuHi-Year Plan, then the Panel could have readily answered
this charge question. The Panel believes that ORD has gone through those processes and
simply needs to reorganize much of that information into transparent documentation that
provides a basis for accountabi lity. The most practical approach may be to use the format
required by OMB.
Second, within the bounds of the information provided, the Panel believes that the
modest budget is stretched very thin to cover a wide range of annual performance goal and
annual performance measures. This is commendable in terms of meeting the needs of the
program and regional offices and getting the most research for the available resources.
However, an exclusive focus on shorter-term science and technical needs will weaken the
-------
research program over the long run, leaving it less well positioned to provide support on
other needs as they emerge or to exercise scientific leadership.
Being a leader in the environmental research community is one of ORD's five
organizational goals and meeting that goal requires some capacity for longer-term work on
emerging issues. To be a leader implies recognizing issues and formulating approaches
to resolving them earlier than others in the field. It also implies establishing scientific
credibility, maintaining technical relevance and continuous improvement in generating,
interpreting and applying the results of environmental research. If ORD is to position
itself to assist the program office with new issues, ORD must achieve and maintain a
balance between its proactive and reactive roles. Therefore, the Panel strongly
recommends that a portion of the annual operating budget be allocated towards these
longer-term and emerging issues that may not have clear, discernible short-term goals.
Further, the Panel recommends that, to the extent that the Agency relies on its grants and
intramural programs to address these needs, the connection between those programs and
the long-term needs should be delineated—so that judgments about their adequacy can be
made.
Third, recognizing that additional funding is not likely, the Panel attempted to
identify possible sources of funding to be reprogrammed to support longer-term research
on emerging issues. The Panel reviewed the budget information supplied by the Agency,
and developed a simple cost-based ranking of the themes as a means of evaluating
resource allocations. While the Panel hopes the results of this modest analysis will be
helpful, these are opportunities only, not a substitute for the collective judgment of the
research, program and regional offices on science and technical priorities.
Within the portfolio of projects identified in the RCRA and Contaminated Sites
Multi-Year Plans, the Panel believed there were clear opportunities for efficiencies by
combining some programs, reducing expectations in other programs, and reducing or
eliminating other programs where clear leveraging opportunities with other government or
private agencies could be identified.
Within the RCRA long-term goal 1: Multi-media modeling, the Panel felt that
the EPA could identify and target project overlaps thereby improving science and cost
efficiencies within other Agency tasks and gpals.
There are some areas where the Panel would encourage the Agency to induce other
government or private agencies conducting related research to expand their programs
while still maintaining EPA access and presence. These areas include:
Contaminated Sites long-term goal 2:
DNAPLs In groundwater; and
Monitoring / measuring / screening contaminated sediments;
Contaminated Sites long-term goal 4
Exposure Assessment in a multi-media framework;
-------
Contaminated Sites long-term goal 1
Modeling contaminated sediment, and
RCRA long-term goal 2:
Landfill containment and landfill bioreactorsfor waste management.
Some research targets could possibly be re-evaluated and perhaps moved to other
programs or themes or even, in limited cases, be terminated to yield resources. For
Contaminated Sites long-term goal 3: Analytical methods for use in contaminated
soils/lands, the Panel recommends that EPA restrict the remaining methods development
to emerging contaminants, and/or investigate moving them into other Multi-Year Plans,
such as drinking water. Contaminated Sites long-term goal 3 Containment, remediation,
and reutilization of contaminated soil/lands is a largely mature area where more science
and technical work may be needed, but perhaps not as urgently as the need to establish a
funding mechanism specifically designed for addressing longer-term emerging
environmental issues.
Charge question 2c - "Given the resources available, is the program appropriately
focused on Agency priorities and emerging needs? "
The Panel felt that this charge question is similar to Question 2b, Is the distribution
of resources across long-term goals and themes appropriate, and thus the responses to
Question 2c should be considered in conjunction with Question 2b.
The research program responds credibly to the Agency's shorter-term problem-
driven science and technical priorities. However, there is no science or technical research
program specifically targeting emerging environmental needs. Research on emerging
environmental protection needs is so important that, in its response to charge question Ic,
the Panel recommended that, if necessary, resources be reallocated from the current
program to provide financial support for the science and technical research activities
necessary to address emerging environmental issues.
The question of resource reallocation is difficult. The Panel discussed the relative
merits of each long-term goal under both plans to identity possible areas from which such
funds could be diverted. This review is captured in the response to charge question 2b.
As a final note, if ORD accepts this recommended approach then the Panel would
be interested in assisting the Agency in identifying and defining the specific long-term
goals needed to address emerging longer-term issues and the associated annual
performance measures and annual performance goals. A possible mechanism for such
assistance would be an SAB consultation.
-------
3. For this update, what changes should be made to ensure that the diagrams
and Annual Performance Measure and Annual Performance Goal tables are
effective tools to communicate the work we plan to do and will be useful in
documenting accomplishments.
Charge question 3a - "Is it clear that the research products (annual performance
measures and annual performance goals) are supportive of the Agency's strategic
targets?"
By comparing the long-term goals to the Agency's strategic targets, the Panel
determined that each long-term goal related to one or more of the strategic targets.
Because the research products are organized by long-term goal, they also support the
strategic targets.
To make it easier to understand these relationships, the Panel recommends that the
revised plan map the annual performance measures and goals to specific long-term goals
and align the long-term goals to the Agency's new strategic targets, reformatting the
research outputs so that the reader can easily perform a simple cross-walk between Multi-
Year Plan outputs and specific components of the Agency strategic targets. Also, the
Panel recommends that the new long-term goals, annual performance goals and annual
performance measures be phrased to reflect the technical content or area of the projects
they encompass. Ideally, they will also be consistent with the assessment guidelines of the
Government Performance and Results Act and the Office of Management and Budget's
PART process.
The Panel recommends that the Agency continue to improve the annual
performance measures to better reflect the intended/expected outcomes of ORD's efforts
in supporting the Agency's strategic targets. Establishing appropriate metrics for research
programs is not an easy task, principally because the amount of time it takes for research
to go from publication to application is much longer than the time period for which
managers hold researchers accountable for progress. What can be readily measured in the
short-term is often only an indirect and imprecise indicator of what is to be accomplished
in the long-term - an output rather than an outcome. The Agency staff who briefed the
Panel are fully aware of the importance of establishing better metrics and the difficulties
of doing so. They should continue to work this problem.
Annual performance measures should be selected carefully in consultation with
technical personnel to ensure realistic numeric targets are selected. In the Panel's view, it
is acceptable for the annual performance measures to include outputs. However, where
possible, the annual performance goals should be designed and measured as outcomes.
Because presentations and discussions with ORD staff revealed extensive and successful
leveraging throughout many of the ORD activities, it would be helpful to capture this in
the annual performance goals and measures as well as to describe the philosophy for
optimizing use of ORD resources. (See also responses to charge questions Ib and 3b.)
10
-------
Charge question 3b - "Do the annual performance measures and annual
performance goals show a logical progression toward meeting the long-term
goals? "
Within the multi-year plans, achievement of a specific long-term goal depends on
the satisfactory completion of zinnual performance goals, which, in turn are characterized
by annual performance measures. In concept, the role and function of annual
performance goals and measures in the process of meeting long-term goals is logical, clear
and defensible. In practice, there are three problems. First, a few projects will fit well
(for the reasons given in la). Second, describing how the ORD research program is
coordinated with overall Agency goals, i.e., all the way from projects to strategic targets,
is challenging. Finally, finding meaningful quantitative annual performance measures is
difficult. The Panel's recommendations on this issue appear in the discussion under
question 3 a.
The description of prog;ram integration can be improved through refinements of the
Multi-Year Plan flow diagrams. These diagrams illustrate the overall delivery schedule of
the more detailed information contained in the annual performance goals and measures
description tables. The Panel recommends that the flow diagrams more clearly and
succinctly illustrate the connections between the Strategic Plan, long-term goals, annual
performance goals and annual performance measures.
The current Multi-Year Plans list and describe the projects covered. Project
presentations could be strengthened by including narrative summaries that address the
Agency's plans for dissemination of the research results to the appropriate stakeholders.
This aspect of the ORD program could be effectively achieved by mapping the linkages
from annual performance measure to annual performance goal to long-term goal and
ultimately to the Agency Strategic Goals. The Panel also recommends that the revised and
consolidated multi-year plan include a synthesized description of how each group of
research projects addresses particular outcomes and fills critical science and technical
research gaps
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
BIOSKETCHES FOR PANELISTS
Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plan Advisory Panel
Clark, James
James R. Clark: Dr. Clark is a Distinguished Scientific Associate who joined Exxon in
1992, after a twelve-year career as a research biologist with the US Environmental
Protection Agency. He earned a B.S. in Fisheries at the University of Michigan, and an M.S.
and Ph.D. in Zoology and Aquatic Ecology from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University (Virginia Tech). Dr. Clark has extensive experience in laboratory and field
assessments of petroleum industry products and activities, complex effluents, contaminated
soils and sediments as well as pesticides and industrial chemicals. He has developed and
applied ecological hazard and risk assessment approaches to address a wide variety of
environmental issues. Dr. Clark was responsible for environmental assessments of the
bioremediation technology developed and applied during the Alaskan Oil Spill clean-up
program. Currently, he heads ExxonMobil's Oil Spill Research Program and plays a
corporate and industry leadership role in the development and evaluation of environmentally
relevant techniques and strategies for oil and chemical spill response. Dr. Clark is active in
several professional/technical organizations involved with ecological risk assessment and
serves on a number of professional, academic, and governmental advisory panels. These
include serving as an appointed member of USEPA's ORD Board of Scientific Councilors
(since 2000); participation in the American Chemistry Council Long-Range Research
Program Technical Implementation Panel for Ecosystem Dynamics, Environmental
Exposure, Ecological Risk Assessment / Risk Management (Co-Chair 1996-2001); and
serving on the Science Advisory Committee for the University of MD Multiscale
Experimental Ecosystem Research Center, a USEPA-funded program (1992-2001). Dr.
Clark serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
(since 1992), and has served two, three-year terms on the editorial board for Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (1986-1989; 1991-1994). He is an active member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Ecological Society of America, and
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Dr. Clark has authored over 70 peer-
reviewed publications, and 90 presentations at national meetings and symposia.
Crittenden,
JohnC.
J
John C. Crittenden is Richard Snell Presidential Chair of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Department of Civil and at Arizona State University. He received a B.S. in
Chemical Engineering and was awarded M.S. and PhD in Civil and Environmental
Engineering by the University of Michigan. Dr. Crittenden's main research and teaching
interests have been in these areas: Sustainability, Pollution Prevention, Physical-Chemical
Treatment Processes (Ion Exchange, Oxidation processes, Catalytic Oxidation,
Photocatalytic Oxidation, Electrocatalysis, Adsorption, Electro-Adsorption, Air Stripping),
Transport of Organics in Saturated and Unsaturated Groundwater, Modeling of Fixed-Bed
Reactors and Adsorbers (Photocatalysis, Low Temperature Catalysis in Aqueous and Gas
Phases, Transport of Organics in Saturated and Unsaturated Groundwater), Sol-Gel
Chemistry for Preparation of Zeolites and Catalysts, Surface Chemistry and
Thermodynamics (Prediction of Adsorption Capacities and Surface Catalyzed Rate
Constants), Mass Transfer, Numerical Methods, Modeling of Wastewater and Water
-------
Treatment Processes. Dr. Crittenden has successfully directed over 36 research projects with
a total budget of over 20 million dollars. Some of the more notable projects he has been
responsible for include: I) Center for Clean Industry and Treatment Technologies (This is a
8 year project funded at z. level of 10 million dollars.); 2) the development of a process
which uses sunlight or artificial lights, photocatalysts and adsorbents to destroy aqueous and
gas phase organic contaminants; and 3) an evaluation of the water treatment system for the
space station Freedom. The research projects which he has directed or been involved with
over the past 20 years have resulted in over 100 publications including reports, journal
articles, 2 patents, contributions to colloquia and conferences, and a book. Dr. Crittenden
and his students have received 14 national awards including the ASCE Huber Research
Prize, two American Water Works Association best paper awards, two Water Environment
Federation best paper awards, and the ASCE Rudolph Hering medal. In recognition of Dr.
Crittenden's contributions to engineering, he was elected to the National Academy of
Engineering in 2002. Dr. Crittenden is Director of the Sustainable Technologies Program at
Arizona State and Associate Editor of Environmental Science and Technology.
Dellinger,
H.Barry
Dr. Barry Dellinger is the Patrick F. Taylor Chair of the Environmental Impact of Treatment
of Hazardous Wastes and Professor of Chemistry at Louisiana State University. He is the
Director of the LSU Intercollege Environmental Co-operative. He is a member of the US-
EPA Science Advisory Board Environmental Engineering Committee. From 1981 to 1998,
he was Group Leader of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of
Dayton where he also held ajoint faculty appointment. From 1978-1981he was a Senior
Project Scientist at Northrop Services Inc. He was a post-doctoral fellow at the University of
Pennsylvania from 1976-1978.He holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Florida State
University and B.S. in Chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His
research interests include origin and control of toxic combustion by-products, mechanisms
of formation and reactivity of combustion-generated nanoparticles, pathways of formation
of dioxins, gas-phase/surface catalyzed elementary reaction kinetics, and thermal treatment
of hazardous wastes,. He is a recipient of the Charles A. Lindberg Certificate of Merit, the
Engineering and Science Foundation Award for Outstanding Professional Achievement, the
Wohleben-Hochwald Researcher of the Year Award, the Ohio General Assembly Award for
Research Excellence, and co-recipient of numerous EPA STAR research awards. He
currently serves as the Chair of the Steering Committee of the International Congress on
Toxic Combustion By-Products and the Board of the Diagnostic Instrumentation and
Analysis Laboratory at Mississippi State University. Ongoing Grants and Contracts§
National Science Foundation (09/01/2003 - 08/31/2006)Project title: The Origin and Nature
of Persistent, Combustion-Generated Radicals§ National Science Foundation (09/01/2003 -
09/01/2004)Project title: Wide-Area 2D IR Tomography for Tracking and Neutralization of
Reactive Plumes§ EPA (09/04/2000 - 09/31/2004)Project title: Toward the Development of
a Detailed Mechanism of Transition Metal Catalyzed Formation of PCDD/F from
Combustion-Generated Hydrocarbons§ NIEHS (10/01/2002 - 12/31/2004)Project title:
International Congress on Toxic Combustion By-Products§ Phillip Morris, USA
(07/29/2002 - 06/20/2004)Project title: Investigation of Persistent Radicals in Tobacco
Smoke.
-------
Dzombak,
David
David A. Dzombak is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie
Mellon University, a registered Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania, and a Diplomate of
the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. He holds a Ph.D. in Civil-
Environmental Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.S. in
Civil-Environmental Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, a B.S. in Civil
Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, and a B.A. in Mathematics from Saint
Vincent College. Dr. Dzombak's expertise is in water and soil/sediment quality engineering,
especially the fate and transport of chemicals in subsurface systems and sediments,
wastewater treatment, in situ and ex situ soil/sediment treatment, hazardous waste site
remediation, and abandoned mine drainage remediation. Dr. Dzombak has served on the
National Research Council Committee on Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and
Sediments, and on various research review panels for the Department of Defense,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and
National Science Foundation. He has also served on the Board of Directors and as an
Officer of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors; as chair of
committees for the American Academy of Environmental Engineers, American Society of
Civil Engineers, and Water Environment Federation; and on advisory committees for
various community and local government organizations, and for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Dr. Dzombak was elected a Fellow of the American Society of Civil
Engineers in 2002. Other recent awards and honors include an Aldo Leopold Leadership
Program Fellowship from the Ecological Society of America and The David and Lucile
Packard Foundation in 2000, the Professional Research Award from the Water Environment
Association of Pennsylvania in 2002, and the Jack Edward McKee Medal from the Water
Environment Foundation in 2000. Dr. Dzombak's research support over the past two years
has come from Alcoa, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Gas Technology Institute,
National Science Foundation, Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Water Environment Research Foundation
Eighmy,
T. Taylor
Taylor Eighmy is a Research Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of New
Hampshire (UNH). He received his B.S. in Biology from Tufts University in 1980, his M.S.
in Civil Engineering from UNH in 1983, and his Ph.D. in Engineering (Civil) from UNH in
1986. Dr. Eighmy directs the Environmental Research Group (ERG), an applied
environmental engineering and environmental science research center at UNH. He also
directs the Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC), a partnership with the Federal
Highway Administration, to promote the wise use of recycled materials in highway
construction. He presently serves on the Advisory Board of the New Hampshire Estuaries
Project, a partnership between the New Hampshire Office of State Planning and the U.S.
EPA's National Estuaries Program. He also serves on the National Steering Committee of
the U.S. DOE's Combustion Byproduct Recycling Consortium. Formerly, he was appointed
to and served on the New Hampshire Waste Management Council (1988-1995); the Council
has solid and hazardous waste adjudicatory and rule making authority. He was a member of
the International Ash Working Group (IAWG), sponsored by the International Energy
Agency, and coauthored the treatise "Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues" with his
IAWG colleagues. He received the UNH Excellence in Research Award in 1997. He has
research interests in recycled materials characterization and beneficial use, chemical
speciation, environmental chemistry of leaching behavior, spectroscopic surface analysis,
-------
applied geochemistry, reactive barriers, and environmental microbiology. Dr. Eighmy's
present research focus is on contaminant leaching and leaching modeling, use of surface
spectroscopy to characterize surfaces where leaching first occurs, contaminant fate and
transport in beneficial use scenarios within the highway environment, phosphate
stabilization of wastes, use of phosphate-based reactive barriers (both permeable and
impermeable) for waste containment, and geochemical and microbia! characterization of
micro fracture surfaces in TCE-contaminated bedrock. His present research is supported by
FHWA, NOAA, U.S. EPA, the European Union, and the private sector.
Hughes,
Joseph B.
Joseph B. Hughes is Professor and Chair in the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. After earning a B.A. in Chemistry from
Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, he was awarded and M.S. and Ph.D. in Civil and
Environmental Engineering from The University of Iowa. Dr, Hughes is a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Texas. His research interests lie in the area of
biological treatment of wastes and the bioremediation of contaminated sites, soil, and
groundwater, especially anaerobic processes. He is Member and Chair, West Coast
Hazardous Substances Research Center Science Advisory Board, 2002-present, member of
the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP) Strategic
Planning Committee, 2002 and of the National Research Council Committee on
Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments, 2000 to present.
Kim,
Byung
Byung R. Kim is Technical Leader in the Physical and Environmental Sciences Department
of Ford Research and Advanced Engineering, Dearborn, MI and is a professional engineer.
He received the B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from Seoul National University in Korea
in 1971 and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Environmental Engineering from the University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL in 1974 and 1977, respectively. Before joining Ford, he worked as an
environmental engineer for Tennessee Valley Authority, taught at the Georgia Institute of
Technology, and was a researcher at General Motors Research Laboratories. His current
research interest is in understanding various manufacturing emission issues
(physical/chemical/biological waste treatment processes and the overall environmental
impact of manufacturing processes). He also has worked on the adsorption of organics on
activated carbon and water quality modeling. He has served on EPA SAB Environmental
Engineering Committee and was Editor of the Journal of Environmental Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). He served on the advisory board for the
National Institute of Environmental Health Superfund Basic Research Program at the
University of Cincinnati. He received a Richard R. Torrens Award for editorial leadership
from ASCE and two Wiillem Rudolfs Medals from Water Environment Federation on his
publications in industrial! wastes. He has not received any external research funding in the
last few years.
Lifset,
Reid
Reid J. Lifset is the Associate Director of the Industrial Environmental Management
Program and a member of the faculty at the Yale University School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies. He did his graduate work in political science at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and in management at Yaie University. His research focuses on the
application of industrial ecology to novel problems and research areas, and the evolution of
extended producer responsibility. He is currently principle investigator on the Luce
Foundation-funded project "Collaborative Industrial Ecology in Asia", a co-principal
investigator in the Stocks and Flows (STAF) project at the Yale Center for Industrial
-------
Ecology, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Nickel Development
Institute (NiDI). He is a co-principal investigator on National Institute of Standards &
Technology (NIST) and NSF-funded projects on the environmental assessment of bio-based
materials. Other recent sources of support include the Garfield Foundation, the U.N.
Environment Program and the Hixon Center for Urban Ecology at Yale. He is the editor-in-
chief of the Journal of Industrial Ecology, an international quarterly on industry and the
environment, headquartered at and owned by Yale University and published by MIT Press.
He has served as a consultant to the Science Advisory Board of the U.S. EPA, and is a
member of the governing council of the International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE),
and the Science Advisory Board of Material Flow Analysis for Sustainable Resource
Management (MFAStorM) of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
(SCOPE),
McFarland,
Michael J.
Dr. Michael J. McFarland received his bachelors' degree in Engineering and Applied
Science from Yale University, his masters' degree in Chemical Engineering from Cornell
University, his Ph.D. in Agricultural Engineering from Cornell University and completed
his postdoctoral research program in the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. McFarland is currently an associate professor in the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Utah State University where his
research interests are focused in the areas of air quality management, biosolids engineering,
industrial waste management and pollution prevention. Dr. McFarland has served on
numerous federal, state and local environmental engineering and public health advisory
committees for the US Dept. of Defense, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Dept. of
Energy, National Science Foundation, Utah Dept. of Environmental Quality and Cache
County, Utah. Dr. McFarland has authored or coauthored over fifty publications in the field
of environmental engineering including the recent textbook "Biosolids Engineering"
(McGraw-Hill, 2001)as well as numerous research journal articles, conference proceedings
and professional engineering (PE) licensing workbooks. Dr. McFarland is a registered
professional engineer in the State of Utah and currently holds Grade IV operator
certifications for both wastewater and water treatment. Dr. McFarland is a Diplomate of the
American Academy of Environmental Engineers (AAEE) as well as a member of several
professional environmental science and engineering organizations including the Water
Environment Federation (WEF), Society for Risk Analysis, National Biosolids Partnership
and the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP).
Powers,
Susan E.
Susan E. Powers is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
at Clarkson University. She received her PhD in Environmental Engineering from the
University of Michigan in 1992. Dr. Powers' research has focused on understanding the
physical and chemical phenomena associated with contaminant transport in subsurface
systems, with specific emphasis on organic non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) in complex
systems. Her research on NAPL dissolution, the wettability of NAPL-water-mineral systems
and the fate of ethanol-blended gasoline in the subsurface is widely cited and considered at
the leading edge in her field. Experimental and mathematical modeling techniques are
utilized in all research activities. Research that has provided a solid understanding of the
environmental fate of oxygenated gasoline has lead to an interest in the application of this
science to aid in regulatory and policy decisions. Current projects in this area include life
cycle management issues for gasoline, other transportation fuels and energy systems in
-------
general. Funding for her research projects has been received from the EPA STAR program,
NSF, DOE's Environmental Science Management Program and the State of California
through LLNL. Dr. Powers has been an invited participant at many workshops and
symposia related to the environmental impacts of reformulated gasoline. She has served on
the Board of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors and the
editorial boards for the Journal of Environmental Engineering, Advances in Water
Resources and the Journal of Contaminant Hydrology.
Shaw,
Bryan
Bryan W. Shaw, PhD, is ;an Associate Professor and member of the Center for Agricultural
Air Quality Engineering and Science in the Biological &Agricultural Engineering
Department, Texas A&M University. He received his Bachelor of Science and Master of
Science degrees in Agricultural Engineering from Texas A&M University and his Ph.D. in
Agricultural Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Shaw
teaches and conducts air quality research on topics including development of accurate
emission factors for feed and grain handling, emissions from cattle feed yards, development
of air pollution dispersion models, and fugitive dust emissions from field operations. Dr.
Shaw recently spent one year working with USDA-NRCS as Special Assistant to the Chief
under an Interagency Personnel Agreement. In this role he provided national leadership in
the development of policies and programs to address agricultural air quality concerns.
Smith,
JohnR.
John R. Smith has over 2 5 years experience in the environmental sciences and engineering
field where he has dealt with numerous aspects of site remediation, treatment of plant
process waters and wastewaters, and sustainable development technology initiatives. He has
a Ph.D. in Civil/Environmental Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University and is a
registered professional engineer in Pennsylvania. Dr. Smith is recipient of the Best Research
Paper Award from the American Society of Civil Engineers Practice Periodical in 2001, the
Jack Edward McKee Medal from the Water Environment Foundation in 2000, and the Linn
H. Enslow Memorial Award from the New York State Water Association in 1994. He is
currently employed with Alcoa Inc. and is also an Adjunct Professor in the
Civil/Environmental Engineering Department at Carnegie-Mellon University. At Alcoa Inc.,
Dr. Smith manages the EHS Sciences & Technology Section. Presently, his main focus is to
establish sustainable development initiatives within Alcoa via the innovative integration of
EHS (environment, health, safety) into all new and existing products and production
processes. Such work specifically relates to developing, evaluating and implementing
technically viable and cost-efficient ways to treat, minimize and/or eliminate water and
wastewater discharges, solid waste generation, and air pollutant discharges by addressing
such issues via innovative modifications to production process and/or operations, rather than
the more conventional end-of-pipe treatment approaches. Focus is also given to
implementing energy efficiency, safe work practices and providing a healthy work
environment associated with production operations. Here, the ultimate goal is to first
address, and then move beyond, EHS compliance in a cost-efficient manner while at the
same time moving towards more efficient production and more sustainable products, thus
providing Alcoa, their employees and the communities in which they operate with a safe
and sustainable future. Dr. Smith also provides remediation consulting within Alcoa on
strategically significant issues.
-------
Thompson,
Timothy
Mr. Thompson is a senior environmental scientist with SEE, LLC, and is a nationally
recognized leader in the field of characterization and management of contaminated
sediments. He received his B.Sc. in Agricultural Sciences from the University of Arizona,
his M.Sc. in Ocean Sciences from the University of British Columbia, and was a Monbusho
Fellow, at the University of Nagasaki and Tokyo Fisheries University, Japan. In his 17 years
of experience, Mr. Thompson has served as program manager and principal scientist for
several large contaminated sediment programs under CERCLA and RCRA, and has
particular expertise in sediment capping design and implementation. His current work in
sediments also includes habitat evaluations and integration of field data with spatial
modeling tools, spatial characterization and statistical analysis of bedded sediment data,
bedded sediment characterization, water quality monitoring, and ecological risk assessment.
He is a member of EPA's Science Advisory Board Environmental Processes and Effects
Committee, and sits on request with the Environmental Engineering Committee. He is a
peer reviewer for the Hudson River CERCLA Ecological Risk Assessment and for the
Engineering Performance Standards. He also recently completed peer review for the
Housatonic River Ecological Risk Assessment. His recent contract experience includes both
industry and federal/state agencies, ranging from large multi-national oil firms to the U.S.
Navy and the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Thompson has numerous publications on ecological
risk assessment, contaminated sediment management, and sediment capping techniques.
-------
------- |