United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
            Science Advisory
            Board
            (1400)
EPA120-R-94-001
January 1994
oEPA
Science Advisory Board
FY1993 Annual
Staff Report

Forging Partnerships
      Science Advisory Board

-------
                   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report was prepared by the Staff of the Science Advisory Board.  The
principal Editors were Edward Bender, Robert Flaak, and Samuel Rondberg.
   SINGLE COPIES OF THIS REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED
   FREE OF CHARGE BY WRITING TO:

        SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (1400)
        ATTN: PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
        AGENCY
        401 M STREET SW, WASHINGTON DC 20460

   PLEASE REQUEST THE FY93 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
   SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF, AND INCLUDE YOUR
   NAME AND COMPLETE MAILING ADDRESS

-------
                                        EPA120-R-94-001
 Science Advisory Board
 FY1993 Annual Staff Report
 "Forging Partnerships"
  This report is a Staff summary of activities for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Science Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 1993, with projections for Fiscal Year 1994. This report
has not been reviewed by the Board or the Agency and should hot be construed as representing
                  the views of either organization.

-------
                                DEDICATION

      This Annual Report is dedicated to Dr. Raymond C. Loehr who served as Chair
of the Executive Committee from 1988-1993. It was his visionary, yet accommodating,
leadership style that led the Board into new areas and higher levels of technical
advice, while maintaining  fruitful and productive relationships with the Agency and the
public. Of him it can be truthfully be said, "He is a gentleman and a scholar..."

    This Annual Report of the SAB Staff is also dedicated to the memory of Ms.
Darlene Sewell, who most recently served as secretary to the Staff Director prior to
her untimely and tragic death in January of this year.  We like to think that Darlene
would approve of our efforts; flashing us one of her winning smiles and giving us a
hearty "All right!;" thereby, providing light in the darkness. We all miss her.

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                               page i
             FOREWORD
       The  new  EPA Administrator Carol
Brownerhas adopted "forging partnerships"
as one of the guiding themes for her tenure
at EPA.  She calls upon all elements of the
Agency to imaginatively seek to expand our
influence, input, and impact by joining  forces
with other groups, both inside and outside the
Federal government.
       As a unique body that interfaces be-
tween the Agency and the public, the Science
Advisory Board is a good example of such a
fruitful  partnership, coupling the work  of the
outside technical community with the work of
technical experts within the Agency.  In addi-
tion to the fundamental partnership with the
Agency, the Board has taken the initiative in
exploring and  forging  additional partnerships
inside and outside EPA. Among the examples
that can be cited from
FY93 are the following:
 a)  The SAB  formed
partnerships among its
own committees to con-
duct coordinated reviews of complex  issues:
e.g., the interrelated work of five committees
which is producing six reports on the RCRA
Corrective Action RIA.
 b) The SAB formed partnerships with other
Agency scientific advisory committees: e.g., a
joint SAB/FIFRA Scientific Advisory  Panel
(SAP) review of the epidemiological evidence
on the carcinogenicity of 2,4-D.
 c) The SAB explored partnerships with other
Agency advisory committees: e.g., a joint effort
with  EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory
Board (EFAB).
 d) The SAB explored partnerships with scien-
tific advisory  committees  in other agencies:
e.g.,  an  agreement  between  the  scientific
advisory committee for the Agency  for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry  (ATSDR)
and SAB to review issues on lead  exposure
and toxicity.
 e) The SAB formed new partnerships with
program offices  and Regions to explore new
areas; e.g., pursuit of a request from Region 5
and OSWER for review of a highly  visible,
highly contentious Superfund site in Ohio.
 f) The SAB  broadened its partnerships with
women and minority technical  experts:  e.g.,
increasing  the number of women SAB mem-
bers by 2-fold and the number of minority SAB
members  by  11-fold, to  the point that  the
percentages of women and minorities on the
SAB mirror the percentages of women and
minorities among the holders of technical PhD
                      degrees in the US.
                        g) The SAB formed
                      partnerships   with
                      Congress: e.g., per-
                      forming Congressio-
                      nally  mandated re-
views of assessment of multi-media risk and
cost mitigation for radon.
 h) The  SAB  anticipates partnerships  with
advisory bodies  to other governmental groups
due to the fact that the Vice President's Nation-
al  Performance Review,  drawing  on EPA's
experience with the SAB,  has  called for  all
science-based agencies to establish  outside
scientific advisory boards.
      FY94 will see the Board forging addi-
tional  partnerships to respond  to continually
The Board has taken the initia-
tive in exploring  and forging
additional partnerships	
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page If
                     ANNUAL REPORT
changing  circumstances.   As  the Board's
membership rotational  policy becomes fully
effective, we anticipate major changes  in the
Board's leadership.  This change will be mir-
rored by major changes in the Agency as new
political appointees take up their positions in
the program offices.  Finally, FY94 will see the
Board  conduct its largest  study since  the
Reducing Risk report in 1990: the Environmen-
tal Futures Project. These changes and chal-
lenges will require unprecedented coordination
and partnerships with the Agency, among the
SAB Committees, and outside experts. In many
ways, these new partnerships could well lead
to a "reinventing  of the SAB" in FY94. It cer-
tainly won't be dull!
                                      Donald G. Barnes, Ph.D.
                                          Staff Director
                                          November 1993
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page Hi

                  THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD:
                      FORGING PARTNERSHIPS

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	   1
      1.1  Introduction to the Report	   1
      1.2  Introduction to the Board	   1
      1.3  Review of FY93 Activities 	   3
      1.4  Projections and Conclusions	   3

2.  INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT 	   4
      2.1  Purpose of the Report	   4
      2.2  Content of the Report	   5

3.  INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD 	   5
      3.1  SAB Formation, Authority and Function 	   5
      3.2  SAB Organization and Membership	   7
      3.3  SAB Activities	  12
           3.3.1 Overview	  12
           3.3.2 Criteria for Activities	  18
           3.3.3 Impacts of Activities	  19
           3.3.4 Responses and Reactions to SAB Activities	  20
      3.4  Examples of the SAB's "Forging Partnerships" 	  22
           3.4.1 Regulatory Impact Analysis for RCRA 	  22
           3.4.2 Multimedia Risks of Radon-Forging Partnerships within the
                 Board and with Congress	  22
           3.4.3 Industrial Excess Landfill (lEL)-Forging Partnerships with
                 Regions and Localities	  23
           3.4.4  Environmental Futures Project	23

4.  REVIEW OF FY93 ACTIVITIES	  24
      4.1  Introduction  	  24
                                 Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageiV	ANNUAL REPORT

      4.2  Overview of SAB Activities  	  25
            4.2.1  Executive Committee (EC)  	  25
            4.2.2  Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)	  26
            4.2.3  Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)	  26
            4.2.4  Drinking Water Committee (DWC)	  27
            4.2.5  Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)	  28
            4.2.6  Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)	  29
            4.2.7  Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)	  29
            4.2.8  Environmental Health Committee (EHC)	  31
            4.2.9 Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)  .  31
            4.2.10  Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) 	  32
            4.2.11  Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)  	  32
      4.3  Forging Partnerships in the  SAB Staff Office  	  33
      4.4  SAB Staff in Transition 	  34

5. CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECTIONS  	  35
TABLES

        I.   SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades	8
       II.   FY93 SAB Committee Chairs	9
       III.   SAB Expenses for FY89-93	12
       IV.   SAB Activities and Resources: FY80-93	13
       V.   SAB Activities by Committee: FY89-93	13
       VI.   Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports  	16

APPENDICES

   A. Charters of the Science Advisory Board, the Clean Air
       Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Clean Air Act
       Compliance Analysis Council.
   B. SAB Members and Consultants in FY93
   C. Organizational Chart of the SAB in FY93
   D. Guidelines for SAB membership
   E. Staff Support and Committee Leadership in FY93


Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page v

   F. SAB Committee Meetings in FY93
   G. SAB Reports and Abstracts in FY93
   H. Procedures for Public Disclosure at SAB Meetings
   I. Biographical Sketches of SAB Staff
                                 Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 1
     1.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1  Introduction to the Report

       This purpose of this Annual report is to:
(a) provide a succinct introduction to the  Sci-
ence Advisory Board (SAB); (b) Provide a sum-
mary of the SAB activities for Fiscal Year 1993;
and  (c) offer a near-term projection of future
SAB activities.
       Section 2 is  a brief introduction to the
Report. Section  3 provides background infor-
mation on the SAB, its organization,  history,
membership, and procedures, including specific
examples of the way the SAB is getting results.
Section 4 contains summaries of the activities
of each of the  SAB  Committees during FY93.
Examples of the ways that the SAB Staff Office
is forging partnerships are included.  Section 5
contains some projections for FY94.
       The Report also includes a number of
specialized appendices: charters, organization-
al charts, leadership information, membership
lists, guidelines on service on the SAB, lists of
meetings, abstracts of FY93 reports, and infor-
mation about the  SAB Staff.

1.2  Introduction to the Board

       The purpose  of the Board is to provide
qualified, independent technical advice to the
Administrator of EPA on scientific, engineering,
and  economic  underpinnings of Agency posi-
tions (See charters in Appendix A).  The SAB
often functions as a peer review panel, assess-
ing the technical  rationales underlying current
or proposed Agency positions. In recent years,
however, it has initiated a number of activities
on its own; e.g., the study of leachability of
hazardous wastes and a  commentary on the
relative  risks of  radon in drinking water vs
radon gas in homes.
      The  SAB was formally chartered in
1978 by the Environmental  Research, Devel-
opment, and Demonstration  Authorization Act,
although its roots extend  back to the  birth of
EPA in  1970 and beyond.   The Board is a
Federal  Advisory Committee, complying with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and is
composed  of non-governmental  scientists,
economists, and  engineers  appointed by the
EPA Administrator. The 95 current Members of
the Board  (see Appendix B) are appointed by
the Administrator and  conduct their business
through ten standing Committees, coordinated
through  an  Executive Committee  (See the
organizational chart  in Appendix C and Staff
Support and Committee Leadership in  Appen-
dix E). The members of the Board are some of
the most  qualified  technical  experts  in the
country, as evidenced by the credentials of the
FY93  Committee Chairs (See Table II). The
work of the Board  is supported by over 300
consultants to the  Board (see Appendix B),
who  are  also non-governmental  scientists,
engineers, and economists  appointed  by the
SAB Staff  Director.  Technical experts em-
ployed by  the Federal Government who have
special skill  or knowledge in particular areas
participate as Liaisons to several Committees,
as needed.
      The SAB is supported by a Staff Office
of 18 employees and an FY93 budget of some
$1.9 million.   These resources enabled the
Board to conduct 67 meetings (of which  12
were conference calls) and issue 16 full reports
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 2
                     ANNUAL REPORT
and 21 short reports  (generally less than  10
pages, including Letter Reports and Commen-
taries) and six Notifications of Consultations
(See Tables III and IV).
       The SAB  carries out projects at the
request of the Agency, at the request of Con-
gress, and on its own volition. In recent years,
the number of requests for SAB action  have
been 3-5 times the number that the Board can
address.  Therefore, the Board has adopted
criteria for use in establishing priorities among
the various requests, determining the degree to
which such requests:

 a) Impact overall environmental protection

 b) Address novel scientific problems or prin-
       ciples

 c) Integrate science into Agency actions in
       new ways

 d) Influence long-term technological devel-
       opment

 e) Respond to emergencies

 f) Deal with problems that transcend Fed-
       eral agency or other organizational
       boundaries.

 g) Strengthen the Agency's basic capabili-
       ties

 h) Serve Congressional and other leader-
       ship interests

       The reports produced by the SAB have
a  positive  impact  on  many  aspects of the
Agency's operations and policies, to wit:

 a) The rigor of the Agency's technical posi-
       tions

 b) The specific areas to which the Agency
       allocates resources for scientific and
       technical activities

 c) The directions taken by emerging science
       policy

 d) The directions taken by the Agency's
       planning

 e) The directions and form of public debate
       of scientific, engineering, and eco-
       nomic issues

       Of particular  note,  in terms  of  the
Board's "forging partnerships" and  affecting
major aspects of EPA's operations in FY93,
were:

 a) A review of the Regulatory Impact As-
       sessment for RCRA Corrective Action
       plans

 b) A reviews of a multi-media risk as-
       sessment and the mitigation costs of
       controlling radon

 c) A review of data collected  at the Indus-
       trial Excess Landfill in Uniontown, OH

       With all of these activities, attention
and impacts, the Board has maintained a
broad base of support both within and out-
side the Agency.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 3
1.3  Review of FY93 Activities

       During  FY93, the ten SAB Standing
Committees conducted 54 public meetings and
one  closed  meeting, all  of  which  were an-
nounced in the Federal Register.  In addition,
twelve public conference calls were held for
planning, writing, and discussion purposes.  A
wide variety of topics were covered: from the
health effects  of specific chemicals to  tech-
niques for assessing risks at Superfund  sites;
from aspects of the Agency's research program
to various reports to Congress. Appendices F
and G contain a full listing of FY93 SAB meet-
ings  and reports (with abstracts), respectively.
       In addition to its traditional activities  of
holding  SAB meetings and producing reports,
the Board and the  SAB  Staff took steps  to
develop ways of  "forging  partnerships" by
expanding and improving the infrastructure that
enables the Board  to  do its work.  These
include the following:

  a) Continued implementation of the recom-
       mendations  of the Mission and Func-
       tioning report that was received in Octo-
       ber, 1989.

  b) Expanding our communications networks,
       through our Local Area Network (LAN)
       and through INTERNET.

  c) Continued the use of Annual  Meetings  of
       the SAB to  involve Members in deter-
       mining the Board's long-range view that
       provides direction for the Staff.

  d) Continued development  of formal proce-
       dures  for setting the agenda for the
       SAB,  involving many of the  Board's
       constituencies, including the Executive
       Committee,  the Administrator's Office,
       the Assistant Administrators, Regional
       Administrators,  and the  EPA program
       offices-much of the activity coordinated
       through the SAB Consultative Group.

 e)  Increasing the number of professional
       staff.

       The Board  itself forged several new
partnerships in FY93.  First, the  SAB has been
engaged  and  briefed  by a new Administrator
with  particular visions for the Agency and the
role  of the SAB.   The  new  Environmental
Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) has
become a partner  for many of the  Standing
Committees in the  review of the RCRA-RIA.
The Executive Committee took an active role in
coordinating   these  partnerships  through  a
series  of ad  hoc Committees  established to
oversee reviews that drew on interdisciplinary
expertise from the Science Advisory Board.

1.4  Projections and Conclusions

       FY94 should be an exciting and busy
time  for the SAB. There will be several activi-
ties associated with completing tasks started in
FY93,  as well as a range of on-going efforts
related to the Environmental Futures project
and the arrival of a new management team in
the program offices with fresh perspectives on
the priorities for the Agency.
       The FY94  agenda-building exercise,
although not yet completed, has  surfaced many
important issues, some of which will  generate
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 4
                     ANNUAL REPORT
considerable  public interest; e.g., reviews  of
health risk assessment guidelines for cancer
and non-cancer effects, review of the Agency's
reassessment of the risks posed by "dioxin",
water quality criteria, assessing radon research
needs, and the Environmental Futures Project.
In addition, as in the past, FY94 is likely  to
bring a number of important topics that cannot
be anticipated at this time.
       FY94  promises to be a period of high
activity for the Staff Office.  As the new Admin-
istration fills its ranks and sets  its course, the
Staff Office will respond to new initiatives such
as the Environmental Futures project and more
time will be  committed  to  follow up on the
responses of the Agency to SAB recommenda-
tions.
       INTRODUCTION TO THE
              REPORT
2.1  Purpose of the Report

       The Science Advisory Board (SAB) is a
legislatively mandated  group  of  non-govern-
mental scientists,  engineers, and economists
charged with  providing  independent technical
advice on environmental issues to the Adminis-
trator of the  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and others; e.g., Congressional
committees. Generally, the SAB does not get
involved in or provide  advice on regulatory
policy  aspects  of problems  confronting the
Agency, since such matters are the province
and  responsibility  of the  EPA Administrator.
Additional details of the objectives, responsibili-
ties, composition, and activities of the SAB are
included in the charter of the organization (See
Appendix A).
       Informed  observers  acknowledge the
SAB's remarkable  history and its continuing
importance in  the protection of public health
and the environment.  However, some people
both within and  outside  of the Agency are
hard-pressed  to  describe the extent of the
Board's activities or the detailed nature of its
findings.  This is due, in part,  to the complex
structure of the Board and  the aperiodic issuing
of its reports.  To some, the SAB is viewed as
a hurdle which must be cleared on the way to
issuing regulations; much like having to defend
one's thesis on the way to  getting an advanced
degree. To others, the SAB is  seen as a court
of last resort  in  which competing  scientific
arguments are objectively  and  dispassionately
evaluated.
       For some puzzled observers of the
SAB, the biggest problem  is simply finding out
"What does the SAB do?"  A somewhat flip-
pant,  but accurate, answer to that question is:
"The SAB makes a difference." For example,
the SAB  makes a difference in the type  and
conduct of scientific and engineering research
at EPA.  The SAB makes a difference in the
way in which the  resulting  data are interpreted
and used to support regulatory positions.  The
SAB also makes a difference to SAB members
and consultants (M/Cs) and SAB staff by giving
them the satisfaction of seeing their information
and guidance used appropriately by the Agen-
cy to address environmental problems.
       This Report  is intended to reveal the
SAB to a  wide audience:  to those inside the
Agency, to those  outside the Agency, to those
who understand the  Board, to those who think
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 5
they understand the Board, and to those who
know enough to know that they don't under-
stand the Board. The intent is that each reader
gain a  broader perspective of the  SAB, its
activities, and its impact.
       Specifically, the purpose of the Annual
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff is
three-fold:

  a) To  provide a succinct introduction to the
       SAB.

  b) To provide  a summary of the SAB activi-
       ties for FY93.

  c) To  offer a  near-term projection  of future
       SAB activities.

       In  short, the   Report  is  designed to
provide  "a group photograph"  of the SAB-its
people,  its  products,  and its  prospects-in
sufficient detail  that the interested reader can
distinguish  the  major features  and identify
paths for investigating  the finer details.

2.2  Content of the Report

      The Report consists of five  principle
sections, plus appendices supplementing the
discussion in the main sections. Following the
Executive Summary (Section 1) and this Intro-
duction  (Section 2), Section 3 provides basic
background information on the  SAB.  Here the
reader will find brief discussions on the history
of the Board, its organization and membership,
and  its principal  activities and  procedures.
Specific examples are described that illustrate
the way in which the SAB impacts positively on
the functions and operations of the Agency.
       Section 4  focuses  on SAB  activities
during  FY93.  This   portion of the Report
contains descriptions of the activities of each of
the Board's Committees during the past year.
Specific examples are given of the way  in
which  FY93 was a year of "Forging Partner-
ships".  In addition,  changes  in  the  SAB
Staff assignments and operations of the Office
are highlighted. Section 5 provides  a glimpse
into what FY94 holds in store for the Board.
Significant topics have already been identified
some reviews are underway and others are
planned; and additional issues will arise during
the course of the year.
       The  Appendices   contain  important
information,  such  as organizational charts,
membership lists, abstracts  of SAB reports,
and the like.  These Appendices  provide a
source of  more  detailed  information  about
specific aspects of the SAB.
    3.  INTRODUCTION TO THE
                BOARD
3.1  SAB Formation, Authority
     and Function

       The SAB was established by Congress
to provide independent scientific and  engi-
neering advice to the EPA Administrator on the
technical basis for EPA regulations. Expressed
in terms of the current parlance of the risk
assessment/risk  management paradigm of
decision making (National  Research Council,
Managing Risk in  the  Federal  Government,
1983),  the SAB deals  with risk  assessment
issues  (hazard  identification,  dose-response
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 6
                     ANNUAL REPORT
assessment, exposure assessment and  risk
characterization) and only that portion of risk
management that  deals  strictly  with  the
technical issues associated with various control
options.  Issues of Agency and Administration
policy are generally beyond the scope of SAB
mandate and involvement.
       The  SAB, in its  present form, was
established  in  1978  by  the  Environmental
Research,  Development,  and  Demonstration
Authorization Act (ERDDAA) (42 U.S.C. 4365).
Predecessor bodies  date back to the early
1970s.    In  carrying out  the  mandate   of
ERDDAA, the SAB provides "such scientific
advice as may be requested by the  Admin-
istrator, the Committee on Environment  and
Public Works of the United States Senate,  or
the Committees on Science  and  Technology,
Interstate  and  Foreign Commerce, or Public
Works  and  Transportation  of  the  House  of
Representatives".  Because the Science Advi-
sory Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, it
must comply with the Federal Advisory Com-
mittee  Act (FACA)  (5  U.S.C. App.  C)  and
related regulations.  Consequently, the Board
has  an  approved  charter, which  must be re-
newed biennially,  announces its  meetings  in
the Federal Register, and provides opportuni-
ties for  public comment on issues before the
Board.
       As a practical matter, the function  of
providing credible technical advice to EPA and
Congress antedates ERDDAA and its nascent
SAB. The roots of the SAB can be traced back
through various predecessor committees within
EPA and-prior  to the creation  of EPA-into
other agencies, such as the Department  of
Health,  Education and Welfare.   Since 1978,
however, the SAB has  operated as  a Staff
Office, reporting directly to the Administrator.
       Members of and consultants to  the
Board constitute a distinguished body of scien-
tists,  engineers,  and  economists who  are
recognized, non-governmental experts in their
respective fields. These individuals are drawn
from academia,  industry, and environmental
communities throughout the United States and,
in some limited  cases,  other countries (See
Appendix B for a listing of Members and Con-
sultants).
       Increasingly, the Agency has  placed a
premium on basing its  regulations on a solid
technical foundation.   Therefore,  during  the
past 15 years the SAB  has assumed growing
importance and stature.  It has become formal
practice  that many  major  scientific  points
associated  with  environmental problems  are
reviewed by the SAB. For example, the Clean
Air Act (CAA) requires that decisions related to
the National Ambient  Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) be reviewed by the Clean Air Scien-
tific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which is  ad-
ministratively housed within the SAB.
       Generally, the  Board  functions  as a
technical peer  review panel.   The SAB con-
ducts its business in public view and benefits
from  public input during  its deliberations.
Through these proceedings Agency  positions
are subjected to critical examination by leading
experts in the field in order to test the  currency
and technical merit of those positions. At  the
same time, the  SAB  recognizes that EPA is
sometimes forced to take action to  avert  an
emerging environmental  risk before all of  the
rigors of scientific proof are met.  To  delay
action until the evidence amounts to  incontro-
vertible proof might court irreversible ecological
and health consequences. In such cases,  the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 7
Agency makes certain assumptions and extrap-
olations from what is known in order to reach
a rational science policy position regarding the
need (or lack thereof) for regulatory action.
Here, the SAB serves as a council of peers to
evaluate the soundness of the technical basis
of the science policy position adopted by the
Agency.

3.2  SAB Organization and
      Membership

       The SAB Charter (Appendix A) states
that  'The objective of the Board is to provide
advice to EPA's Administrator on the scientific
and  technical aspects of environmental prob-
lems and issues," that "The Board will consist
of a  body of independent scientists  and engi-
neers [and now economists] of sufficient size
and diversity to provide the range of expertise
required to assess the scientific and technical
aspects of environmental issues," and that "No
member of the Board shall be a full-time em-
ployee of  the  Federal  Government."  The
Charter requires  formation  of  an  Executive
Committee and  inclusion  of  the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (see separate
charter, also in Appendix A).  Otherwise the
Board may organize itself as needed to meet
its responsibilities.
       The  Board's  Executive  Committee
serves as the focal point for the coordination of
scientific reviews  by the Board's  standing
committees. Appendix C contains a chart of
the FY93  SAB organization.   The  Executive
Committee meets four times a year to act on
Agency requests for reviews, to hear briefings
on pertinent issues, to initiate actions/reviews
by the Board which it feels are appropriate, and
to approve final reports prior to transmittal to
the Administrator.  (Reports from CASAC and
the new separately chartered CAACAC are
submitted directly to the Administrator, without
need for prior Executive Committee approval.)
       Five  Committees  have   historically
conducted most Science Advisory Board re-
views:

  a) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
       (CASAC)

  b) Ecological Processes and Effects Com-
       mittee (EPEC)

  c) Environmental  Engineering Committee
       (EEC)

  d) Environmental Health Committee  (EHC)

  e) Radiation Advisory  Committee (RAC)

       In recent  years, five  additional  com-
mittees have been added:

  f) Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure
       Committee (IAQC): Mandated in the
       Superfund Amendments and
       Reauthorization Act in FY86

  g) Research Strategies Advisory Committee
       (RSAC): Requested by the Adminis-
       trator in response to SAB recommen-
       dations in FY88

  h. Drinking Water Committee (DWC):
       Evolved from the EHC in FY90
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 8
                         ANNUAL REPORT
  i) Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Coun-
       cil (CAACAC): Mandated in the 1990
       Clean Air Act Amendments

  j) Environmental Economics Advisory Com-
       mittee (EEAC): Requested by the Ad-
       ministrator in response to the Reduc-
       ing Risk report in FY90

       The activities of these committees are
supplemented by a variety of subcommittees,
as well as by ad hoc committees which are
created as required.
       The Board  has  been successful in
tapping a continuing vein of top technical talent
to fill its leadership positions. Those scientists
     and engineers who have  led the SAB (and
     predecessor  organizations) for  the  past  19
     years are listed in Table I.  Table II testifies to
     the caliber of individuals who have served as
     chairs  of  SAB   Committees  in   FY93.
           Although  the  number  of appointed
     members is flexible, the FY93 SAB consisted
     of nearly 100 members appointed by the Ad-
     ministrator, generally for two year terms,  re-
     newable for two more terms in  some cases.
     Service as Committee  Chair can lead to an
     additional four years of continuous service. A
     formal guideline on membership  service was
     adopted by the Executive Committee in making
     FY93 and FY94 appointments (See Appendix
     D).
TABLE I  SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades
Executive Committee
       Chairs
Affiliation
Dates
   Dr. Emil Mrak
   Dr. John Cantlon
   Dr. Earnest Gloyna
   Dr. Norton Nelson
   Dr. Raymond Loehr
University of California
Michigan State University
University of Texas
New York University
University of Texas
1974-1978
1979-1981
1981-1983
1983-1988
1988-1993*
                    SAB Staff Directors
                    Dr. Thomas Bath
                    Dr. Richard Dowd
                    Dr. Terry Yosie
                    Dr. Donald Barnes
                    Date
                   1975-1977
                   1978-1981
                   1981-1988
                   1988-present
*Dr. Loehr"s term was extended through October, 1993, since the selection of a new chair had not been completed
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                               page 9
       More than 300 additional technical ex-
perts, invited by the Staff Director, serve on an
"as needed" basis as consultants to the Board
on various issues where their expertise is rele-
vant   The number  of  consultants  is also
flexible, and their one-year terms can be re-
newed.  Consultants are required  to   meet
the same  standards  of technical expertise
as do the Members.  The term "Member or
Consultants "(M/C)" is used throughout this re-
port to refer to these outside technical experts.
Appendix B contains a list of the FY93 M/Cs on
the Board.  Nearly all of them  serve as "Spe-
cial Government Employees (SGEs),  subject
to all appropriate restrictions, including  conflict
of interest statutes  (18 U.S.C. Sections 202-
209)
      The SAB Staff consists of 18 EPA em-
ployees: a Staff Director, Assistant Staff Direc-
tor, seven scientist/engineer Designated Feder-
al Officers (DFOs), and nine support staff.
      The duties of the Staff include identify-
ing potential issues for SAB attention, focusing
questions for review by the Board, working with
the Board to identify and enlist  appropriate
Members and Consultants, interfacing between
the Board and the Agency and the public, coor-
dinating  logistics for reviews, and producing
minutes  and  reports for  submission  to  the
Administrator.
      Appendix  E contains information on the
Staff support within each of the Committees.
 TABLE II FY 1993 SAB Committee Chairs
Executive Committee (EC)
    Dr. Raymond Loehr
       H.M. Alharthy Centennial Chair and Professor, Civil Engineering at the University of
             Texas at Austin
       Member, National Academy of Engineering
       Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
       Member, Water Pollution Control Federation
       Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
       Former Chair, SAB Environmental Engineering Committee

Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)
    Dr. Richard Schmalensee
       Director,  Center for Energy and Environmental Policy  Research, Massachusetts In-
             stitute of Technology
       Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy
       Member, Board of Directors, Long Island Lighting Company
       Associate Editor, Journal of Economic Perspectives
       Fellow, Econometric Society
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 10	ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE II (Continued)	

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
 Dr. George Wolff
       Principal Scientist, General Motors Environmental and Energy Staff
       Fellow, Air and Waste management Association
       Member, American Meteorology Association
       Vice Chairman, Editorial Review Board, Journal of the Air and Waste Management
            Association
       Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan, School of Public Health

Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
    Dr. Verne A. Ray
       Assistant Director of Safety Evaluation Department, Pfizer,  Inc.
       Member, Society of Toxicology
       Member, Environmental Mutagen Society
       Member, Genetic Toxicology Association

Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
    Dr. Allen V. Kneese (Co-Chair)
       Senior. Fellow, Quality of the Environment Division, Resources
             for the Future
       Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
       Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
       Member, American Economic Association
       Member, Association of Environmental and Resource Economics
       Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Ecological Economics

    Dr. V. Kerry Smith (Co-Chair)
       University Professor of Economics, North Carolina State University
       Member, American Economic Association
       Member, Association of Environmental and Resource Economics
       Editor, Advances in Applied Macroeconomics
       Associate Editor, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
       Associate Editor, Review of Economics and Statistics

Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
    Mr. Richard Conway
       Senior Corporate Fellow, Union Carbide Corporation
       Member, National Academy of Engineering
       Diplomate, American Academy of Environmental Engineering
       Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers
       Member, National Research Council Commission on Engineering and Technical
            Systems
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page 11

 TABLE II (Continued)	

Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
   Dr. Kenneth L. Dickson,
       Director, Institute of Applied Science and Dept. of Biological Science.,
           University of North Texas
       Member, American Fisheries Society
       Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
       Member, North American Benthological Society
       Member, J. K. G. Silvey Society

Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
    Dr. Arthur Upton
       Professor Emeritus, University of New Mexico
       Member, American Association for Cancer Research
       Member, Association of Pathologists and Bacteriologists
       Member, American College of Toxicology
       Member, American Society for Experimental Pathology
       Member, Radiation Research Society
       Member, Society for Experimental Biology & Medicine

Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)
    Dr. Morton Lippmann
       Professor, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University
       Director, Aerosol Inhalation Research Laboratory
       Member, American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists
       Member, American Academy of Industrial Hygiene
       Member, American Industrial Hygiene Association
       Member, American Thoracic Society

Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
    Dr. Genevieve Matanowski
       Professor of Epidemiology, John Hopkins University
       American Association for the Advancement of Science
       American Public Health Association
       Society for Epidemiological Research
       International Epidemiological Association

Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
    Dr. Roger McClellan
       President of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
       Member, National Institute of Medicine
       Member, American Veterinary Medical Association
       Member, Radiation Research Society


                                     Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 12
                                         ANNUAL REPORT
3.3  SAB Activities

   3.3.1 Overview

       The types of projects and the range of
subjects reviewed by SAB continue to grow.
The  Board takes on reviews at the request of
Congress,  the  Administrator  and  program
offices,  as  well  as  on its own initiative.  In
general, the trend over time has been for more
SAB reviews, addressing more varied subjects,
requested by a wider range of individuals and
organizations
       Most of the outputs of the Board are in
the form of full reports.
Such reports are gen-
erally the result of the
peer  review of some
Agency  document(s)
and go into the details
of the findings and recommendations, as  well
as answering specific questions in the Charge
to the Board.
       Increasingly,  the  SAB has  moved to-
ward  using shorter,  more timely communica-
tions to the Administrator. These communica-
The  magnitude  of SAB  activity
has increased dramatically during
the past 10 years.
tions are of two forms: letter reports and con-
sultations.  Letter reports are similar in origin,
content,  and  purpose to full  reports;  simply
shorter; commentaries are unsolicited SAB ad-
vice about technical issues that the Board feels
should be drawn to the  Administrators atten-
tion.
       In addition, in recent years the SAB has
introduced the "consultation" as a means of
conferring-in  public session-with the Agency
on a technical matter before the Agency has
begun  work on an  issue.  The goal  of the
consultation is to leaven  EPA's thinking on an
issue by brainstorming a variety of approaches
                     to the problem.  There
                     is no attempt or intent
                     to  express  an  SAB
                     consensus or gener-
                     ate  an SAB  report.
                     The Board simply noti-
fies the Administrator that such a consultation
has taken place.
       The magnitude of SAB activity has in-
creased dramatically during the past 10 years.
Tables III - VI provide summary information on
the Board's  activities and resources as  a
whole.
TABLE III  SAB Expenses for Fiscal Years 1989-1993
Fiscal
Year
1989
19901
1991
1992
19932
Compensation
Staff
710
750
778
894
1000
M/C
450
390
459
413
450
Total
1,160
1,140
1,237
1,307
1,450
Travel
Expenses
270
210
329
298
313
Other

140
320
162
54
151
TOTAL

1,570
1,670
1,728
1,659
1,914
  In FY 1990 there was considerable contract support for the development and production of Reducing Risk with consequent
  reduction in the need for SAB funds devoted to compensation and travel.
2 Estimated
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                                                       page 13
TABLE IV SAB Activities and Resources,  Fiscal Years 1980-1993
       Committee  Meetings
       Open'Closed3 Other*
                              Reports
                          Fuir  Ltr"  Total*
                                             Staff
                                       Members  FTEs
                                                     Operating
                                                       Costs'
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
42
12
20
38
29
60
61
57
58
67
60
47
47
54
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
 0
 0

 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 5
 7
 2
22h
269   7
16    6
26   35
16   21
 13
 10
 10
 11
 17
 41
 28
 36
 43
 38
 33
 22
 61
37
 81
72
37
44
48
60
59
74
74
61
55
62
80
95
15.8
13.2
10.5
 9.1
14.1
14.0
14.1
14.1
13.2
14.9
16.0
16.6
16.5
18.0
 900
 750
 600
 650
1,050
1,200
1,200
1,350
1,400
1,550
1,650
1,750
1,650
1,900
a Meetings announced in the Federal Register, per the Federal Advisory Committee Act
b Writing, planning, and administrative sessions do not normally require notice in the Federal Register.  Some
include conference calls. Data on such sessions prior to 1990 are not available.
c A full report on a topic is a more extensive discussion of the subject, e.g., greater than 10 pages. Separate data
on full vs. letter reports are not available prior to 1990.
d A letter report is a more focused discussion of a topic. Included in this category are Letter Reports, and
Commentaries to the Administrator on issues of concern to the SAB.
e Appendix G contains a list of all FY93 reports and abstracts.
f Operating costs in thousands ($000), rounded to nearest $50K.
g Includes three separate volumes of appendices to the Reducing Risk report.
h Includes 12 conference call meetings that were open to the public.

TABLE V  SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1989-1993
Committee
EC
Fiscal
Year
1989
# Meetings1
F.R. Other Total
4 4
# Reports2
Full Ltr
Total
0
              1990
              1991
              1992
              1993
                   4
                   4
                   4
                   4
                    0
                    1
                    1
                    1
                   4
                   5
                   5
                   5
                       0
                       1
                       0
                       0
                       0
                       0
                       0
                       0
                           0
                           1
                           0
                           0
                                         Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 14
ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE V

Committee
EC/
ad hoc



CAACAC

CASAC




DWC



EEAC

EEC




EHC




EPEC




SAB Activities
Fiscal
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1992
1993
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1990
1991
1992
1993
1992
1993
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
by Committee
#
F.R.

18
0
0
8
1
3

1
1
3
3
4
8
5
6
2
4

8
7
7
8

3
4
2
2

6
10
9
7
Meetings1
for Fiscal

Other Total

6
0
0
5
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0

0
1
1
1

0
0
0
1

0
0
1
1
20
243
0
0
13
1
3
8
1
1
3
4
4
8
5
7
2
4
11
8
8
8
9
9
3
4
2
3
7
6
10
10
8
Years

Full

7
0
0
0
0
0

1
2
0
0
3
2
4
45
0
0

4
2
3
4

5
3
2
3

3
4
8
25
1989-1992 (Continued)
# Reports2
Ur

0
0
1
2
1
3

2
0
4
3
2
0
8
2
1
1

0
1
4
3

0
4
1
0

0
0
3
2


Total
5
7
0
1
2
1
3
6
3
2
4
3
5
2
12
6
1
1
3
4
3
7
7
13
5
7
3
3
3
3
4
11
4
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 15
TABLE V SAB Activities

Fiscal
Committee Year
IAQC




RAG




RSAC




Where
EC
CAACAC
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
IAQC
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993

Executive Committee
by Committee for Fiscal Years 1989-1992 (Continued)
#
F.R.

0
2
3
1

12
8
7
7

2
3
4
1


Meetings1
Other

0
0
0
0

0
2
0
11

0
0
0
0


Total
2
0
2
3
1
2
12
10
7
18
4
2
1
4
1


Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Drinking Water Committee
Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Environmental Health Committee
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee
# Reports2
Full Ltr

0 1
1 0
2 2
1 2

0 1
0 1
4 10
2 3

3 0
2 0
3 0
1 1
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee

Total
1
1
1
4
3
3
1
1
14
5
4
3
1
3
2


1 For FY 90 and later indicates meetings requiring notice in
Federal Register and those not requiring notice.
1 In 1990 and later, reports are entered as Full reports, or
Letter reports (which include commentaries).
9 Includes 22 meetings of the Relative Risk Reduction
Strategies Committee (RRRSC)
4 Includes four planning sessions not listed in the
Federal
Register
5 Counts the same report (EPA-SAB-EPEC/DWC-93-005)
twice.
                             Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 16
ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE VI Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports
Document Title and
(Document Number)

REPORTS:
Superfund RAGS
EPA-SAB-EHC-93-007
HERL R&D Program
EPA-SAB-DWC-93-001
Carbon-14 (High Level Waste)
EPA-SAB-RAC-93-010
UST Research Program
EPA-SAB-EEC-93-008
Indoor Air Research Program
EPA-SAB-EEC-93-009
Ambient Water Quality
EPA-SAB-DWC-93-016
Great Lakes WQI
EPA-SAB-93-EPEC/DWC-005
Dermal Exposure Assessment
EPA-SAB-EHC-93-006
Cholinesterase Innibition
EPA-SAB-EHC-93-011
Hydrogen Flouride
EPA-SAB-EEC-93-004
Ground water Models
EPA-SAB-EEC-93-013
Sediment Criteria
EPA-SAB-EPEC-93-002
Radon Cost Engineering
EPA-SAB-DWC-93-015
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
EPA-SAB-IAQC-93-003
Achievement Awards
EPA-SAB-RSAC-93-012
Radon Uncertainty Study
EPA-SAB-RAC-93-014
Date of Last
Cmte


EHC

DWC

RAC

EEC

EEC

DWC

EPEC/DWC

EHC

EHC

EEC

EEC

EPEC

DWC

IAQC

RSAC

RAC

Meeting


Apr 1992

Dec 1991

Sep1992

Jun 1992

Jul 1992

Feb 1993

Jun 1992

Aug 1992

Nov 1992

Jul 1992

Jan 1993

Jun 1992

Feb 1993

Jul 1992

Mar 1993

Feb 1993

AVERAGE REPORT COMPLETION TIME: 198 DAYS,
Processing Time (days)
Review


297

316

259

247

227

162

144

165

170

106

99

133

64

92

51

64

Approval


25

1

33

32

32

76

53

17

1

57

59

17

77

31

3

76

Total
(days/months)

322/10.7

317/10.6

292/9.7

279/9.3

259/8.6

238/7.9

197/6.5

182/6.1

171/5.7

163/5.4

158/5.3

150/5.0

141/4.7

123/4.1

54/1.8

140/4.7

OR 6.6 MONTHS
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page 17
TABLE VI Time to Completion Analysis
Document Title and
(Document Number)

LETTER REPORTS:
Social Science Research Agenda
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-93-001
VOC Contaminents in Water
EPA-SAB-IAQC-LTR-93-002
Gasoline Vapors in Buildings
EPA-SAB-IAQC-LTR-93-003
Health-Health
EPA-SAB-EEAC-LTR-93-005
Biotechnology Research Plan
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-93-01 2
Superfund GW Remediation
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-009
Modeling Peer Review
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-008
Radiogenic Cancer Risk
EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-93-004
Clean Air Act Impacts
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-006
Alternative Fuels
EPA-S AB-CASAC-LTR-93-01 4
Oxides of Nitrogen
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-93-01 5
Global Climate Change
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-01 3
Clean Air Act Impacts Study
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-007
Prospective Study CAA
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-01 5
Radon Multimedia Risk
EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-93-01 0

Cmte


RSAC

IAQC

IAQC

EEAC

EPEC

EEC

EEC

RAG

CAACAC

CASAC

CASAC

EEC

CAACAC

CAACAC

EC

for Reports and Letter Reports (Continued)
Date of Last
Meeting


Jan 1992

Feb 1992

Feb 1992

Jul 1992

Feb 1993

Mar 1993

Mar 1993

Aug 1992

Dec 1992

Jun 1993

Jul 1993

May 1993

Mar 1993

Jun 1993

Jul 1993

Processing Time (days)
Review


273

240

240

199

153

141

51

77

38

93

91

56

30

56

1

Approval


1

9

9

36

21

2

76

50

56

1

1

22

21

1

8

Total
(days/months)

274/9.1

249/8.3

249/8.3

235/7.8

174/5.8

143/4.8

127/4.2

127/4.2

94/3.1

94/3.1

93/3.1

78/2.6

51/1.7

57/1.9

9/0.3

  AVERAGE LETTER REPORT COMPLETION TIME:  137 DAYS, OR 4.9 MONTHS
  AVERAGE COMPLETION TIME FOR ALL ADVISORY DOCUMENTS: 169 DAYS, OR 5.6 MONTHS

NB Reports listed in descending order of time to completion within category; "Review" = time between last meeting and Executive
Committee Approval; "Approval" = time between Executive Committee approval and transmission to the Administrator; "Month" defined
as 30 days.
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 18
                     ANNUAL REPORT
       From FY90 to  FY91 there was a de-
crease in the number of meetings and reports.
This  decline resulted  from several  factors
including an increase  in complexity  of  the
Board's review topics, and  in  the degree of
public interest, scrutiny and involvement. Also
during this  period  of increasing workload,
several staff members were lost to other worthy
activities.  In FY93, fewer reports were com-
pleted, but the number of meetings  and the
level  of funding increased slightly.    These
changes are the result of staff transitions, the
pursuit of  complex topics by several  commit-
tees (e.g.,  the RCRA-RIA and the Environmen-
tal  Futures Project), the increased number of
consultations with the Agency, and investments
in new partnerships within the Agency and with
the public.

  3.3.2 Criteria for Activities

As the volume of requests for SAB involvement
has increased, the Board has had to decide
how to set its priorities.  As a part of the "self-
study" initiated in  FY89, the Board's Mission
and Functioning Committee developed a list of
criteria which characterizes the more significant
projects of the past and which can guide in the
selection of projects in the future:

  a) Impact overall environmental protection;
      e.g., the Great Lakes Initiative (EPA-
      SAB-EPEC/DWC-93-005)

  b) Address novel scientific problems or
      principles;
      e.g., the Framework for Groundwater
      Model application (EPA-SAB-
      EEC-93-013).
 c) Integrate science into Agency actions in
      new ways;
      e.g.,  review of the Social Science Re-
      search agenda (EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-
      93-001) and Dermal Exposure As-
      sessment (EPA-SAB-EHC-93-006).

d) Influence long-term technological develop-
      ment;
      e.g.,  Indoor air engineering (EPA-
      SAB-EEC-93-009)

 e) Respond to emergencies; (None in
      FY93)

 f) Deal with problems that transcend federal
      agency or other organizational boun-
      daries;
      e.g., review of environmental tobacco
      smoke risk assessment (EPA-SAB-
      IAQC-93-003)

 g) Strengthen the Agency's basic capabili-
      ties;
      e.g., the review of the Superfund Site
      Health Risk Assessment guidelines
      (EPA-SAB-EHC-93-007)

 h) Serve Congressional and other leader-
      ship interests;
      e.g., reviews of radon multimedia risks
      and cost estimates for radon treat-
      ment of drinking water required by the
      Chafee-Lautenberg amendment to the
      drinking water appropriation (EPA-
      SAB-RAC-93-014, EPA-SAB-DWC-93-
      015, and EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-93-010).
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 19
  3.3.3  Impacts of Activities

       Each SAB activity has a unique set of
consequences which  can affect subsequent
activity by the Agency, and, by extension, the
rest of society.  The listing below provides ex-
amples of the impacts of some of these activi-
ties during FY93.

 a) Impacts on the rigor of the Agency's tech-
       nical positions

       Two  committees,  the  Ecological  Pro-
cesses and Effects Committee and the Drinking
Water Committee reviewed guidance for the
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (EPA-SAB-
EPEC/DWC-93-005).   The  initiative was a
combination of EPA regions, states, the private
sector and  the  scientific community  in  the
region.   The guidance included two tiers of
criteria to protect aquatic  life, wildlife,  and
human health.  The SAB recommended that
the program  consider using  the  biologically
active  form  and  the  total  contaminant  con-
centration when  establishing water  quality
criteria, that the focus  on wildlife be expanded
to  include protection  of sensitive species in
addition to human consumers of the wildlife,
and that  significant improvements be made in
the analysis and presentation of data for hu-
man health risk assessment.  The draft guid-
ance has been revised and will be presented to
the SAB  later in FY94.

 b) Impacts on expenditures of funds

       The SAB recommended that the Agen-
cy increase its funding for coastal and marine
protection  and   research  (EPA-SAB-EPEC-
COM-93-005),  reminding  the Agency  that
anthropogenic  activities  are  posing  major
threats to these ecological sensitive areas.  In
a commentary on Radon Science  Research,
the Radiation Advisory Committee (EPA-SAB-
RAC-COM-93-001)    noted  that  additional
research on mitigation of radon risk  was being
canceled in spite of its  high potential for  sub-
stantial  risk  reduction.   This commentary
prompted further dialogue and discussion such
that the Agency is reevaluating that decision.
Finally, the SAB noted that engineering mitiga-
tion for global climate change was a  useful and
productive program with very little funding.  The
initial response of the Agency was to eliminate
this as a small  program.  However, due  to a
new Administration initiative, the Agency will
increase its  emphasis on  Global  Climate
Change issue.  Therefore, it is possible that
this research program may be reinstated.

 c) Impacts on emerging science policy

       Although it is  the intent of the SAB  to
limit its advice  to scientific  issues,  there are
many  policy implications associated with  their
advice.  The SAB  completed a detailed review
of  "Respiratory  Health Effects  of Passive
Smoking:  Lung Cancer and  Other  Disorders"
(EPA-SAB-IAQC-93-003)  in  which  the  SAB
supported the Agency's designation  of ETS as
an  EPA Class  A carcinogen in the  face  of
strong  public comments  and  debate.   The
weight of the evidence and the care of the
analysis  will offer  strong   support  to  the
Agency's policy  initiatives to curb smoking.
       The SAB  and  the  FIFRA  Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP), meeting jointly, conduct-
ed  a  review of the risks  of  cholinesterase
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 20
                      ANNUAL REPORT
inhibitors (EPA-SAB-EHC-93-011). The com-
bined panel recommended that EPA's policy
continue to include the use of blood cholines-
terase data in the risk assessment process as
a  biomarker of exposure.   These measure-
ments required by certain pesticide manufactur-
er have long been criticized as  unnecessary
and  misleading.  The SAB  recommendations
clarify the relevance of the  data  and  identify
new paths for the Agency  to investigate its
correlations with effects.

d) Impacts on Agency planning

      The SAB  reviewed a variety of issues
related to the retrospective and  prospective
analysis of the Clean Air Act impact  studies
required by section 812 of  the CAA amend-
ments (EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-006  and
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-007).  The Council
urged EPA to develop methods to deal with a
broad range of important toxic emissions  that
are not carcinogens and to develop and apply
the methods necessary  for an analysis based
on measures  of central tendency, not 95%
upper bound limits. The Council also advised
the Agency to take full  advantage of existing
research on lead.  Such analyses could be
used to either corroborate or correct estimates
of the value of a statistical  life derived from
hedonic wage studies.  These and other com-
ments from the CAACAC helped the Agency to
set research priorities and improve its analysis
for Congress.
      The  SAB  also  commented  on  the
Agency's guidance for Peer Review of Environ-
mental Regulatory  Modeling  (EPA-SAB-EEC-
LTR-93-008), a process  which was formalized
in response to an earlier SAB  recommendation.
The major recommendation was  to add  a
discussion of how the Agency  would track,
respond to, and formally use comments from
peer reviewers in developing a  final Agency
model.

  e) Impacts  on the public debate of scientific
       and engineering issues

       The SAB has been a major contributor
to public debate on a number of issues during
FY93.  As noted elsewhere, reviews on ETS
and  Radon  have  included  vigorous  public
comments.   Another project which continues
into FY94 is  the review of the monitoring data
and quality control procedures used by EPA at
the Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund site in
Ohio. This site-specific review is  the first such
activity by the SAB.  It has  been  an important
source of new experience for the SAB mem-
bers and the staff.  Finally, the SAB has been
the focus of many discussion about the role of
advisory committees within the Agency and the
distinctions between science and  policy.

  3.3.4 Responses and Reactions to
         SAB Activities

       Since  1984, the  Board  has  formally
requested written Agency responses to  SAB
reviews.  The majority of the responses indi-
cate that the Agency  has acted  positively on
the advice given  by the  Board.  In many in-
stances, the Agency  initiated action  on the
basis of the  advice rendered at the public
meetings, prior to  receipt of the formal report
form the Board.  In some cases the Agency
and the Board "agree to disagree".
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                                   page 21
       Support for the SAB both inside and
outside the  Agency  remains strong.   The
Administrator and Deputy Administrator have
made it a practice to attend Executive Commit-
tee meetings to discuss topics of mutual inter-
est   Several Assistant Administrators  also
made presentations and requests at meetings
of the Executive  Committee in  FY93.  The
greater number  of  EPA requests for SAB
reviews speaks to the Agency's commitment to
the SAB.  However, resource constraints con-
tinue to limit the extent to which the Board can
respond fully to the needs of the Agency.
       Outside the Agency,  mention  of  the
meetings and reports of the SAB appear in the
trade press on a regular basis and in the public
press on selected topics; e.g., environmental
tobacco smoke, the national ambient air quality
standard  for ozone and  other photochemical
oxidants, and carcinogenicity of electromagnet-
ic fields.   SAB members, as recognized  ex-
perts, are sought out by representatives of the
media for comments on various environmental
problems.
       Congressional interest also  continues.
This year's  ETS review again drew close
scrutiny from  Capitol  Hill  as  Administrator
Browner and Dr.  Mort Lippmann, Chair of the
SAB  review  Committee, testified before a
house  committee.  In
addition, the Subcom-
mittee on Natural Re-
sources,   Agriculture
Research  and  Envi-
ronment,  which over-
sees the  EPA's research programs, regularly
invites  members of the SAB's ORD Budget
Review Subcommittee to testify at its hearings.
The Chair has  commented  favorably on  the
Support for the SAB both in-
side and outside the Agency
remains strong.
Board and on the utility of its report on  the
magnitude and distribution of the ORD budget.
Also, Congressman George Brown has indicat-
ed an  interest in reviewing the history and
current status of the  SAB. He wants to com-
pare what Congress had envisioned for  the
SAB when they formed it in 1978, with what it
has become.  He may  address  this issue in
hearings on science at EPA, tentatively sched-
uled for the spring of 1994.
      Vice President Gore undertook a critical
examination of the Federal Government opera-
tions in FY93,  issuing a formal  report of his
National Performance Review (NPR). One of
the recommendations in the NPR is that sci-
ence-related  agencies should have science
advisory  boards.    This  recommendation
stemmed, in part, from his review of the suc-
cess of the SAB in the context of EPA.
      SAB  reports  and commentaries  also
contributed to Congressional directives in  the
FY93 appropriations  bill for the Agency.  Spe-
cifically, EPA was required to conduct  multi-
media  risk  assessments  and  comparative
cost/benefit studies for radon gas and complete
a study of the cost/benefits of drinking water
regulations by mid-summer of 1993. These re-
ports were submitted to the SAB for  review
prior to submission  to  the Congress.   The
                     review prompted a US
                     Senator to  write  the
                     Board expressing con-
                     cern about the SAB's
                     apparent  movement
                     into the policy  arena.
Dr. Loehr responded on behalf  of the  SAB,
articulating the  Board's traditional position on
the separation  of risk assessment  and risk
management, and how it applied in this case.
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 22
                      ANNUAL REPORT
3.4  Examples of the SAB's "Forging
      Partnerships"

  3.4.1  Regulatory Impact Analysis for
          RCRA-Forging Partnerships
          within the Board

       The review of the  Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for Corrective Action plans
under the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRA) involved a major partnership
between four Standing Committees and an ad
hoc  Steering  Committee  of  the Executive
Committee.  The  initial request for review in
October 1992, was narrowly focused on the
review of a contingent valuation (CV) method
by EEAC  that  EPA had applied to quantify the
benefits of protecting groundwater resources
that were not currently used.  The SAB found
that many assumptions used in the application
of this method were imbedded in the model for
pollutant transfer and the health and ecological
risk assessments for the sites. Consequently,
the Board negotiated with  the Agency to ex-
pand the charge for the review to include these
concerns,  thereby calling the EEC, the EHC,
and the EPEC into the activity. The Steering
Committee was  formed  to  coordinate  the
different views.
       It is interesting to note that each year
EPA performs  a large number of RIAs on its
major legislation.  Yet this was the first time the
SAB has reviewed the technical approach to
estimating the benefits and risks for  an RIA.
       This review by the SAB provided many
insights to the Agency for improving the techni-
cal basis for the assessment of benefits  and
costs  here and in general.  A  fundamental
recommendation from the partners was that the
Agency should consider seeking advice early
on  when  it is contemplating innovative ap-
proaches which push the frontiers of science,
such as the contingent valuation method they
applied to establish non-use values for ground-
water.

  3.4.2  Multimedia Risks of Radon-
           Forging Partnerships within the
           Board and with Congress

       The risks and mitigation measures  for
radon have been a major theme for the Radia-
tion Advisory Committee in recent. In the past,
airborne radon has been the major focus. This
year,  a  Senate  amendment,  (the  Chafee-
Lautenberg Amendment) to an appropriations
bill explicitly directed the SAB to review EPA's
study of the costs and risks associated with
radon mitigation before EPA promulgated final
drinking water standards for radionuclides.
       The  Radiation  Advisory  Committee
reviewed  the  uncertainty  analysis  for  the
Agency's risk assessment and  the  Drinking
Water  Committee  reviewed  the mitigation
technologies and costs.  An Agency report to
Congress based  on these earlier studies was
reviewed by a steering committee which com-
pared the relative risk associated with radon in
indoor air and that from drinking water sources.
       In their view, the Agency was proposing
regulation that would cost hundreds of millions
of dollars to address a problem (radon in
drinking water) that constituted only about 1%
of the  total  radon  risk in the country.  The
Agency was not addressing  any of the  risk
from radon soil gas in homes which accounts
for  99% of the  estimated  risk.  In fact, the
radon risk in water was only about 10% of the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 23
radon risk posed by ambient air.
       The Steering Committee recommended
that EPA raise its standard for drinking water
and reassess the data on the risks and extent
of the population  exposed, in view of its level of
uncertainty,  and the  cost  for  mitigation,  in
comparison with  the higher levels  of risk and
exposure associated with radon gas.
       The implications of the  recommenda-
tions were discussed  extensively in debate on
Capitol  Hill, around EPA, and  in the press.
These discussions  highlighted concern for the
perennial question of the separation  of risk
assessment and  risk  management on a given
issue and the role  of the SAB.  In particular,
the SAB Chair received a letter from  a US
Senator raising concerns about the propriety of
the Board's report.  Dr. Loehr responded by
describing  the  guiding  principles  of Board
conduct and their application  to  this  case.
These events and the underlying question were
the subject of a news story in Science maga-
zine.

3.4.3  Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL)--
        Forging Partnerships with Re-
        gions and Localities

             In  response to a request from
the Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
gency Response  (OSWER), the Science Advi-
sory Board formed an ad hoc subcommittee of
the Executive Committee to conduct a review
of issues related  to screening procedures and
evaluation criteria for radioactive contamination
at Superfund sites. Although the Board does
not normally undertake reviews of site-specific
issues, in this case the Board agreed to exam-
ine the general issue in the context of a specif-
ic Superfund site where sub-surface radioactive
contamination  may be present:  the Industrial
Excess  Landfill  (IEL)  Superfund   site  in
Uniontown, Ohio.
       Citizens residing near the IEL site are
concerned that radioactive wastes had been
illegally discarded at the site.  Following citizen
complaints, an independent evaluation of the
Agency's investigation and cleanup lead to a
recommendation that the  SAB  become in-
volved.
       Although the project has not yet been
completed, the SAB has been working closely
with EPA Regional personnel who have had
primary responsibility of the site over the years.
In addition, the Board has been in communica-
tion with  a group of concerned citizens living
near the  site and their technical representa-
tives, in order to ensure that all of the  relevant
data and  questions are available during  the
review.
       To date, there has been an exploratory
visit to the site (by Subcommittee leadership),
a public meeting in  Ohio  (July 20-21, 1993),
and  a public  meeting  in  Washington, D.C.
(September 21-22, 1993).  A final public meet-
ing  will be conducted by the end of calendar
1993, probably in Ohio.  In addition, there have
been  numerous telephone contacts  between
the  SAB  Staff, concerned  citizens, and their
representatives in Congress.

3.4.4  Environmental Futures Project-
        Forging Partnerships with the
        Agency, within the Board,  and
        with the Future

       At the July, 1993 meeting of the Execu-
tive  Committee EPA  Administrator Carol
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 24
                       ANNUAL REPORT
Browner and David Gardiner, Assistant Admin-
istrator for the Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation (OPPE), asked the SAB to under-
take an  initiative on Environmental Futures.
The project is  considered  by EPA to be a
logical extension of the SAB report on "Reduc-
ing Risks", in which the SAB suggested that
the ability to anticipate and address the future
potential risks of emerging problems would be
a closely tied to  improving the data collection
and analytical procedures which are the basis
for assessment, comparison, and reduction of
different environmental risks.  EPA believes
that it needs to develop a procedure for con-
ducting a periodic scan of societal and environ-
mental trends and identifying those which may
cause  significant impacts  on environmental
quality or public health.
      The Environmental Futures Project is a
major undertaking for the SAB that will require
adjustments in the workloads of its  Standing
Committees and perhaps supplementation  of
the existing support staff resources. In order to
coordinate the  combined efforts of all the
committees, the  Executive Committee  has
established the Environmental Futures Commit-
tee as a steering group.  The EFC, composed
largely  of Executive Committee  members,
plans to meet regularly to develop a package
of background materials and premises  for the
Standing Committees, to coordinate and  inte-
grate  inputs from the Standing Committees,
and to develop the methodology for the de-
tailed evaluation of future problems.  As part of
its education on forecasting methods, the EFC
will  interview   professional  "futurists"  from
industry,   environmental  groups,  and  other
research foundations at its regular meetings.
The Board will obtain  background materials
and additional staff support for these meetings
from OPPE staff.
       Beginning with a kick-off at the Annual
SAB Membership Meeting in October,  1993,
each of the 10 Standing Committees is pursu-
ing its individual approach  to the  problem
during  the first two quarters of FY94.  Their
assignment is to identify a list of future devel-
opments within the social and physical spheres
that are likely to have large effects on environ-
mental quality and the nation's ability to protect
the environment. The list will be accompanied
by a discussion of the premises, methods, and
resources that the committee used to develop
its list.  In addition, a few Committees may
conduct detailed analysis of problems to illus-
trate the application of one or more methods of
forecasting future environmental conditions.
            REVIEW OF FY93
              ACTIVITIES
4.1  Introduction

       Even more than last year, FY93 was a
busy and varied year for the Science Advisory
Board. The number of meetings held and the
number of  issues addressed during the  year
continued at a high level.  The Board again
examined  several new topics  whose ramifi-
cations for  Agency planning, policy and prac-
tice are far-reaching.   The SAB Staff main-
tained its commitment to quality  service to the
Board, the Agency, and the public while under-
taking various actions to assess and enhance
its own institutional health.
      This section of the FY93 Annual Report
consists of a brief overview of SAB Committee
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 25
activities and  staff changes  in the Science
Advisory Board Office.  Additional details and
summaries are found in the appendices.

4.2. Overview of SAB Activities

       In FY93, the various  Committees and
Subcommittees  of  the SAB  conducted  54
public meetings, one closed  meeting, and 12
public conference calls and issued 16  full re-
ports and  21  letter-size   reports  (generally
under 10 pages) and six notifications of consul-
tations.  Some of these  reports reflected culmi-
nation of work  initiated in the previous fiscal
year, just as some of the FY93 meetings will
result in FY94 reports.
      The SAB  was involved in some way
with nearly every program office of the Agency.
The SAB both  responded to  requests  for re-
views from the Agency  and took the initiative
in delving into new areas and new approaches,
providing the  kind  of  technical  advice that
makes a difference in the Agency's operations.
      The activities of the individual Commit-
tees are summarized in the  sections  below.
More details are available in the Appendices;
specifically, Appendix F contains a  list of all
SAB meetings and Appendix G contains a list
of all FY93 SAB reports, together with their ab-
stracts.

  4.2.1   Executive Committee (EC)

    In FY93 the  Executive  Committee was
active well beyond its four quarterly meetings.
Much of the activity was directed at  exploring
new partnerships  and  new  interactions  to
address  additional  science-related  issues
facing the Agency.
       This broadened range of activity was
anticipated by the EC-coordinated FY93 Annual
Membership Meeting  which focused on  the
topic:  "The  Role  of  the Science  Advisory
Board". On the program for that meeting was
the Vice Chair of the Environmental  Financial
Advisory Board  (EFAB), who  announced a
collaborative effort between EFAB and SAB
leaders to explore  providing joint,  rather than
separate,  advice  on  topics that  have both
scientific and financial components. Specifical-
ly, the  groups examined the interface between
the selection  of  environmental  risk reduction
options and financing those options. While this
exploration in partnership building fell short of
generating  a  specific report, it did  develop
mutual understandings and relationships that
could serve the Board and the Agency in  the
future.
   As  noted below, four different SAB commit-
tees (EEAC,  EEC, EHC, and  EPEC)  were
active  in forming  a  partnership to  examine
aspects of the  Agency's  regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) of the RCRA Corrective Action
rule. Given the breadth and the complexity of
the issues involved,  the  EC  established a
RCRA-RIA Steering Committee to coordinate
the SAB's activities and response,  including
generation of  a synthesizing overview report-
all of which will be transmitted to the Agency in
early FY94. [See Section 3.4.1]
   In FY93 the Board was placed in a partner-
ship with  Congress when it  was  explicitly
charged, via legislation, to review and comment
on aspects of the Agency's multi-media  as-
sessment of risks posed  by  radon and associ-
ated remediation costs. The EC established a
Steering Committee to coordinate.aspects of
the review by two different committees and to
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 26
                      ANNUAL REPORT
prepare an overview report.  Under a signifi-
cant time constraint the Board met the sched-
ule and submitted a  report, which engendered
a cautionary letter from a US Senator (subse-
quently responded to by the EC Chair) and a
follow  up  article in  Science  magazine.  [See
Section 3.4.2]
    The EC continued its FY92 effort to provide
assistance to the Superfund Office by investi-
gating  site-specific  issues  at  the  Industrial
Excess Landfill  Site  in Uniontown, OH.  This
activity is part of the Board's attempt to deter-
mine whether and how it might form partner-
ships with the  Program  Offices,  Regional
Offices, and the public in resolving  technical
issues in site-specific situations.  [See Section
3.4.3]
    At the July EC quarterly meeting one of the
new Assistant Administrators asked the Board
to initiate a project to anticipate  environmental
problems of the futures.  Following an endorse-
ment from Administrator  Browner, the  EC
established an Environmental Futures Project
Steering Committee  (EFC)  to plan and guide
what promises to be a major effort throughout
FY94.   The EC issued one letter report and
one commentary, both addressing concerns
with radon [See  Section 3.4.4]:

 a)  Radon Overview letter report
       EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-93-010

 b)  Radon Commentary
       EPA-SAB-EC-COM-93-003
  4.2.2 Clean Air Act Compliance
         Analysis Council (CAACAC)

       The CAACAC is a statutory advisory
group (mandated by the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments  of 1990) under the administrative um-
brella of the SAB.  Like CASAC, it reports
directly to the Administrator and has a separate
charter (Appendix A).   The Council and  the
EEAC have complementary responsibilities and
some overlap in membership, but the Council's
primary mission is to  conduct  an  on-going
review of the Agency's retrospective and pro-
spective analyses of the cost/benefit impacts of
the Clean Air Act.
       The CAACAC met three  times during
FY93, and released three letter reports:

 a)  Review of the Agency's study to analyze
       impacts of the Clean Air Act
       (EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-006).
       [See section 3.3.3 d, Impacts on
       Agency Planning]

 b)  Review of the Agency's retrospective
       study to analyze benefits of the Clean
       Air Act  (EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-
       007)

 c)  Review of the Agency's prospective
       study to analyze benefits of the Clean
       Air Act  (EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-
       011)

  4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory
         Committee (CASAC)

       The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Com-
mittee  is a statutory advisory group (estab-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                               page 27
lished under section 109 of the Clean Air Act
as amended on August 7, 1977).  CASAC has
an independent charter (see Appendix A), but
it operates under the administrative umbrella of
the SAB and its Chair serves as a member of
the Executive Committee.  CASAC primarily
reviews documents relating to National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  By law, these
standards are to be re-evaluated by EPA every
5 years.   In practice,  however,  the process
often takes longer.  CASAC does not set the
review schedule; rather, it is  responsive to
Agency time tables.
       CASAC met three times on a number of
topics throughout FY93.  In addition to a De-
cember planning meeting, the Committee met
in June to review the draft air quality criteria
document for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and a
draft research  strategy for alternative fuels
developed by  the  Office of Research  and
Development.  The Committee members have
provided the Agency with written comments on
both issues  within  the  NOX review,  closure
being  reached in July, 1993. The Committee
also met  in August,  1993 to review the draft
criteria document  and  staff paper for Sox.
CASAC members made numerous suggestions
for the improvement  of  both  documents.
CASAC issued two letter reports  and  a com-
mentary:

  a) Alternative Fuels Research Strategy Re-
       view  (EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-93-014)
 b) NOX Closure  (EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-93-
      015)
 c) Ozone Criteria Document development
      Schedule (EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-
      93-004)

  4.2.4  Drinking Water Committee
          (DWC)

      The Drinking Water Committee was
formed from  a Subcommittee of the Environ-
mental Health Committee and it includes ex-
perts  in  the  effects and control of microbio-
logical agents and chemicals in drinking water.
In the past, the primary client for DWC was the
Office of Drinking Water.  This year they also
served the Office of Science and Technology in
a joint review with EPEC of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative and in further reviews of
water quality  criteria methods and the Office of
Radiation  Programs on  drinking water treat-
ment for radon.
      The DWC held six committee meetings
and issued four reports (one jointly with EPEC),
one commentary, and a notice of consultation.

 a) Review of the Methodology for Develop-
      ing Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
      the Protection of Human Health  (EPA-
      SAB-DWC-93-016)

 b) Review by the Drinking Water Commit-
      tee of the Water Research Program at
      the Health Effects Research Laborato-
      ry (HERL) (EPA-SAB-DWC-93-001).

 c) Review of Issues  Related to the Cost of
      Mitigating Indoor Radon Resulting
      from Drinking Water  (EPA-SAB-DWC-
      93-015) [See section 3.4.2 Multi-me-
      dia Risks of Radon].
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 28
                      ANNUAL REPORT
  d) Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality
       Initiative (EPA-SAB-EPEC/DWC-93-
       005)

  e)  Commentary on "Requirements for Na-
       tionwide Approval of New and Option-
       ally Revised Methods for Inorganic
       and Organic Analyses in National Pri-
       mary Drinking Water Regulations
       Monitoring" (EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-93-
       002)

  f) Notification of a Consultation on the Draft
       Drinking Water Criteria Documents for
       Chlorine and for Chloramines. (EPA-
       SAB-DWC-CON-93-001)

       In addition, the public meetings held in
FY93 will result in transmittals to the Adminis-
trator in FY94 on the following topics:

  a)  Review of the Draft Criteria Document
       for Arsenic in Drinking Water

  b)  Review of the Research Program on
       Disinfectants and Disinfection By-
       products in the Risk Reduction Re-
       search Laboratory

  c)  Commentary on the outcome of the reg-
       ulatory negotiations regarding  disin-
       fectants and disinfection by-products.

  4.2.5 Ecological Processes and
        Effects Committee (EPEC)

       The  Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (Formerly the Environmental Fate,
Transport, and Effects Committee) was reorga-
nized in 1990 to address a growing number of
ecological issues within the Agency.  EPEC
has identified five themes its will cover in its
reviews:  ecological risk assessment, EMAP,
environmental quality criteria, global climate
change, and habitat/biodiversity.
       In FY93, EPEC  held 7 meetings and
produced two reports (one jointly with DWC),
one letter report, and one commentary:

 a) Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality
       Initiative (EPA-SAB-EPEC/DWC-93-
       005). [See section 3.3.3 a.].

 b) Review of Sediment Criteria Develop-
       ment Methodology for Non-Ionic Or-
       ganic Contaminants (EPA-SAB-EPEC-
       93-002)
 c) Review of the Research Program for En-
       vironmental Release of Biotechnology
       Products (EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-93-
       012)
 d) Commentary on the Agency's Research
       and Management Programs for Coast-
       al Ecosystems (EPA-SAB-EPEC-
       COM-93-005) [See Section 3.3.3 d.
       Impacts on Agency Planning]

       In keeping with its commitment to long-
term involvement in  the five issue  (themes)
areas listed above, the Committee scheduled
regular briefings  on  key programs, and en-
gaged in consultations on the following issues:

 a) The Agency's draft Habitat Strategy
       (EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-93-003);

 b) Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
       ment Program (EMAP) Assessment
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 29
       Hierarchy (EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-93-
       005); and,

 c) Proposed Revisions to the Aquatic Life
       Water Quality Criteria Guidelines.
       (EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-93-006)

       The  Committee expects  to  conduct
formal  reviews on these topics in the future,
including a proposed methodology for develop-
ing sediment criteria for metals. Portions of the
GLWQI,   including   wildlife   criteria   and
bioaccumulation  methodology,  will  likely be
reexamined by the Committee as well.
       Other reviews begun in FY93 include:

 a) an evaluation of draft technical  guidance
       for biological criteria for streams

 b) a review of the ecological assessment in
       the RCRA Corrective Action Regulatory
       Impact Analysis (RIA)

 c) a review of the draft testing manual for dis-
       charge of dredged material into inland
       or near coastal waters

 d) a review of the EMAP Assessment Frame-
       work

 e) a review of portions of the  global climate
       change research program.
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory
       Committee (EEAC)

      The Committee was created  during
FY91 at the request from the Administrator who
was responding to a recommendation in the
Board's Reducing Risk report.  The EEAC is
constituted  to assist  and advise  the Admin-
istrator and the Agency in analyzing the eco-
nomic aspects of environmental decision-mak-
ing,  and in analyzing the long-term environ-
mental aspects of various approaches to valu-
ing and/or  discounting  ecological resources
and systems.
       During FY93, the Committee conducted
four meetings and released  one letter report:
Science Advisory Board's Comments  on the
Office   of  Management   and   Budget's
"Health-Health"  Concept. (EPA-SAB-EEAC-
LTR-93-005) [See Section 3.3.4]
       The above  report addresses a  con-
troversial theory  that regulations  imposed to
promote specific health  benefits  could  have
unintended  negative  general health  conse-
quences. The Committee (in concert with three
other SAB Committees) currently has  two
reports on the RCRA Regulatory Impact Analy-
sis in preparation for early FY94 release. [See
Section 3.4.1]

  4.2.7 Environmental Engineering
         Committee (EEC)

       The Environmental Engineering  Com-
mittee  is one of  the most productive and di-
versified committees of the Board, by virtue of
its agenda, its list of clients, and its collabo-
ration with other organizations and SAB com-
mittees. The EEC continues to be a focal point
for coordinating  reviews of  modeling  and
groundwater research, with a  heavy emphasis
on risk reduction techniques.
       The EEC conducted  eight meetings;
three of the full Committee, and five of various
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 30
                     ANNUAL REPORT
subcommittees, covering 10 topics, of which 4
were continuing from the previous fiscal year.
In addition to the four reports and three com-
mentaries  described  below, the Committee
conducted  a consultation  on  Groundwater
Modeling Pathways for Radioactive Wastes.
      The following reports were completed
by the EEC and its various Ad Hoc Subcommit-
tees during FY 1993:

  a) Review of the OSWER/CEPPO Draft
      Hydrogen Fluoride Study: Report to
      Congress. A report of the Hydrogen
      Fluoride Review Subcommittee of the
      Environmental Engineering Commit-
      tee. (EPA-SAB-EEC-93-004)

  b) SAB/EEC Consultation on Groundwater
      Modeling Pathways for Radioactive
      Wastes. (EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-93-
      004)

  c) Review of the Office of Research and
      Development Underground Storage
      Tank Research Program.  A report of
      the Underground Storage  Tank Re-
      search Subcommittee of the Environ-
      mental Engineering Committee.
      (EPA-SAB-EEC-93-008)

  d) Review of the Office of Research and
      Development Indoor Air Engineering
      Research and Development Program.
      A report of the Indoor Air Engineering
      Research Subcommittee of the Envi-
      ronmental Engineering Committee.
      (EPA-SAB-EEC-93-009)
  e) Review of the OSWER Assessment
       Framework for Ground-Water Model
       Applications. A report of the Modeling
       Project Subcommittee of the Environ-
       mental Engineering Committee.
       (EPA-SAB-EEC-93-013)

  f) Review of Draft Agency Guidance for
       Conducting External Peer Review of
       Environmental Regulatory Modeling.
       A letter report of the Modeling  peer
       Review Subcommittee of the Environ-
       mental Engineering Committee.
       (EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-008) [See
       Section 3.3.3 d.]

  g) Review of OSWER/Office of Emergency
       and Remedial Response's draft Stra-
       tegic Plan for Ground-Water
       Remediation at Superfund Sites (EPA-
       SAB-EEC-LTR-93-009)

  h) Review of the Global Climate Change
       Engineering Research and  Develop-
       ment (R&D) Program. A letter report
       of the Global Climate Change Engi-
       neering Research Subcommittee of
       the Environmental Engineering
       Committee. (EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-
       013)

       The  EEC continues  to develop two
additional reports  in progress, namely  the
MMSOILS review which deals with the Office of
Solid Waste's (OSWs) Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA), as well  as OSWs sponsored
research being conducted at the Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) at Las
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                               page 31
Vegas (LV), Nevada dealing with Quantitative
Data Quality Objectives (QDQO) for Monitoring
Well Network Design.

  4.2.8  Environmental Health
          Committee (EHC)

      The Environmental Health Committee
(EHC) shares responsibilities for health effects
reviews with several committees of the Board
(DWC, IAQC, RAG, and CASAC). The princi-
pal focus for EHC has been issues related to
development and use of guidelines for health
risk assessments.  This year, EHC has ex-
panded its list of clients through a partnership
with the Scientific Advisory Panel  (SAP) of the
Office of Pesticides and a review of Superfund
risk assessment guidance.
      The EHC  met twice  (both times in
conjunction with the Office of  Pesticides' Sci-
entific Advisory Panel),  and  conducted  one
public teleconference as part of the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) review.  The Committee
released three  reports during the past  year:

 a) Review of the draft Dermal Exposure As-
      sessment Guidelines (EPA-SAB-EHC-
      93-006)

 b) Review of the Superfund Health Risk As-
      sessment Guidance (EPA-SAB-EHC-
      93-007)

 c) Review of  the Draft Policy on Risk Ass-
      essment with Data on Cholinesterase
      Inhibition (EPA-SAB-EHC-93-011)
      The Committee's report on the health
benefit estimates incorporated in the RIA will
be released early in FY94.

  4.2.9 Indoor Air Quality/Total Human
        Exposure Committee (IAQC)

      The IAQC covers  a broad range of
health effects topics related to the integration of
risks from  individual  sources.  Most IAQC
reviews support the Agency's health effects
research and the indoor air programs.

      The IAQC held one committee meeting
during FY93. They issued one report and two
letter reports:

 a) Review of the Office of Research and
      Development's Draft Report: "Respira-
      tory Health Effects of Passive Smok-
      ing: Lung Cancer and Other Disor-
      ders" (EPA-SAB-IAQC-93-003). [See
      Section 3.3.4]

 b) Review of the Risk Assessment Forum's
      Draft Guidance Document on Shower-
      ing with VOC Contaminated Tap Wa-
      ter (EPA-SAB-IAQC-LTR-93-002)

 c) Review of the Risk Assessment Forum's
      Draft Guidance on Assessing Health
      Risks of Gasoline Vapors in Buildings
      (EPA-SAB-IAQC-LTR-93-003)

      The IAQC plans to take an active role
in the environmental futures project during the
coming year.
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 32
                      ANNUAL REPORT
  4.2.10 Radiation Advisory
         Committee (RAC)

       The Radiation Advisory  Committee is
most closely aligned with the Office of Radia-
tion Programs.   In  FY93 the RAC  activities
focused on advising the Administrator on the
uncertainties and risks presented by radon in
drinking water and  on the  preparation  of a
report,  to be issued in FY94, on radon research
needs  [See Section 3.3.4 and 3.4.1].  The
Committee  continued its long-term efforts to
persuade the Agency to  undertake more fre-
quent  and  more  state-of-the-art  uncertainty
analyses.
       During the year the RAC completed two
full reports,  one letter report, and two commen-
taries.  One of these reports, High-Level Radio-
active Waste, was largely the product of FY92
activity. In doing so, the RAC and its Radon
Science Initiative Subcommittee  conducted
seven public meetings and another eleven two-
hour conference call public meetings.   The
completed reports were:
 a) Review of High-Level Radioactive
      Waste/Carbon-14 Release (EPA-
      SAB-RAC-93-010)

 b) Review of Uncertainty Analysis of Risks
      Associated with Exposure to Radon
      (EPA-SAB-RAC-93-014)

 c) Evaluation of the Agency's Proposed
      Methodology for Estimating Radiogen-
      ic Cancer Risks (EPA-SAB-RAC-
      LTR-93-004)
 d) Radon Mitigation Research Preliminary
       Finding (EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-93-
       001)

  e) Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis for Ra-
       diological Assessments  (EPA-SAB-
       RAC-COM-93-006)

       The Committee  has also completed
work on a report that will be reviewed by the
Executive Committee in FY93:

  a) Radon Research Needs.

       The Committee continues to deal with
review of the Agency's  draft  scoping  study
entitled "Diffuse NORM - Waste Characteriza-
tion and  Preliminary Risk Assessment." The
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) draft
document  on  NORM   (Naturally-Occurring
Radioactive Material) is  not intended  to be a
technical  background document  to  support
regulations, but to be a scoping study to see if
and where regulation might be needed in the
future.

  4.2.11  Research Strategies Advisory
          Committee (RSAC)

       The   Research  Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC) was formed based on the
recommendation of the SAB's self-evaluation.
RSAC has focused on research  planning, ORD
organization and  management,  budgets, and
the  development  of Agency scientific  person-
nel. The  STAA review is an annual evens for
the SAB. This effort is an opportunity to review
the more  than 100 published technical articles
by EPA scientists and engineers and to make
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 33
recommendations for professional recognition
and cash awards from ORD.
       During FY93, the RSAC held one Sub-
committee meeting, and released one report
and one letter report:

 a) Social Science Research Review
       (EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-93-001)

 b) Recommendations on  Nominations for
       the 1993 Scientific and Technical
       Achievement Awards  (EPA-SAB-
       RSAC-93-012)

4.3 Forging Partnerships in the SAB
    Staff Office

       During FY93 the Staff is expanding its
network for  interacting with  the  public,  with
other federal agencies, and the  scientific com-
munity at large.  The Staff Office has connect-
ed to  INTERNET and Agency electronic mail.
Routine electronic communications  with the
members and the public are  increasing.  The
Staff Office  continues to provide  a  quarterly
newsletter describing  the activities of the com-
mittees and the staff.  In FY93 the Staff Office
distributed over two thousand copies of SAB
reviews,  commentaries, and special  reports.
Copies  are  also  distributed through  EPA's
Public Information Center,  Program  Office
hotlines and dockets, and through EPA's library
system.  The Staff Office  plans to put future
reports on a computer system  so  that our
reports are more widely available to the gener-
al public.
       In FY93  committee administration and
tracking required by FACA were consolidated
under the Committee Evaluation and Support
Staff. This organizational change has already
resulted in savings for Federal Register publi-
cation expenses and improved fiscal manage-
ment.  During the transition, staff secretaries
have provided invaluable efforts to track dis-
crepancies and maintain their customer-orient-
ed approach to the travel, pay, and personnel
needs of the members and consultants.
      We are continuing to prepare standard
operating  procedures,  setting-up  document
control procedures, creating mailing systems,
and highlighting training for all staff on adminis-
tration and computer systems.  We are refin-
ing  our standard format for SAB reports and
other advisory documents to  reflect newly
available computer equipment and software.
We revised and reprinted the SAB information-
al brochure in FY93 for further distribution.
      There is a great deal of interest on the
part of both the public and the  Agency con-
cerning the issue of conflict of interest (COI).
Particularly when contentious issues are dis-
cussed,  the audience at a meeting is often
curious as to the established point of view or
previous  pronouncements  made  by those
sitting on  an SAB Committee.   In order to
clarify  procedures  for  public  disclosure  of
potential conflicts of interest, the SAB Staff has
prepared guidelines  which  documents the
procedures that are  followed by  Committee
Members and Consultants at SAB meetings.
This procedure is voluntary and members and
consultants are not obligated to reveal confi-
dential information that is contained in their SF-
450 (Appendix H).
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 34
                      ANNUAL REPORT
  4.4 SAB Staff in Transition

       Dr. Edward Bender spent much of FY93
on a Department of Commerce fellowship with
the Department of Energy. He returned to the
SAB in July to help wrap up the Radon reviews
and initiate the Environmental Futures Project.

       Ms. LaShae Cardenas, a stay-in-school,
completed her undergraduate  curriculum, and
left the SAB in the  late winter for full  time
employment with the U.S. Marshalls Service.

       Mr. Reynaldo Daniels came to the SAB
in late winter replacing Ms. Cardenas.  He
provided important services to the immediate
office of the Staff Director. He left at the end
of the year for another stay-in-school appoint-
ment  at EPA.

       Ms. Frances Dolby, staff secretary  to
the Drinking  Water  Committee,  left federal
service.

       Ms. Joanna Foellmer is broadening her
horizons through her participation in the  GLO
(Greater  Leadership  Opportunities) program.
This includes trainning and rotational assign-
ments.

       Mr. Manuel Gomez joined the Staff  in
November as the  DFO for both the IAQTHEC
and DWC.  An Environmental Health Scientist
by training, he previously worked for the Na-
tional  Institutes  of  Health on occupational
health studies.

       Ms. Janice Jones, staff secretary for
CASAC and RSAC,  was promoted to a  Man-
agement Analyst and now works with the CES
staff.

       Ms. Stephanie Sanzone joined the staff
in at  the beginning of the year as  DFO   to
EPEC.   An oceanographer  by training,  Ms.
Sanzone previously worked  in the Agency's
Coastal Management Program.

       Ms. Dartene Sewell-Oliver, secretary to
the Staff Director,  tragically  died in  January,
1993, leaving a major gap in our offices and
our lives.

       Ms. Julie Silver, an  intern from the
University of Arizona, spent this summer com-
paring SAB procedures with other major scien-
tific Federal Advisory Committees.  Her report
should help us to improve our process and our
service to our clients.

       Ms. Priscilla Tillery joined the Office as
secretary to the Staff Director in January, 1993.
She has quickly taken charge of the job, insti-
tuting  improvements in office procedures that
she honed in nearly two decades of exception-
al service in the Office of Health Research prior
to coming to the SAB.

       Biographical sketches of the SAB senior
staff are located in Appendix I.

       FY93 was one of the most productive
years  in the history of the SAB.  A record num-
ber of reports issued, and the backlog of  re-
ports  was essentially eliminated. Our quality
goal for FY93 is to transmit reports to the
Administrator no later than six months following
the final public meeting on the issue.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                page 35
         CONCLUSIONS AND
             PROJECTIONS
       FY94 promises to be a time of contin-
uing evolutionary change for the SAB.  Recent
years have seen more Board activity "at the
interface" between risk assessment and risk
management.  The release of Future  Risk in
1988,  Reducing Risk in   1990,  and  an in-
creasing number of commentaries has moved
the SAB beyond  its  traditional role of "peer
reviewer of last retort".  These initiatives have
been received with considerable enthusiasm by
top Agency management.  Administrator Reilly
and Deputy Administrator Habicht have actively
encouraged the SAB to, in the words of former
CASAC Chair Roger McClellan, "answer the
essay  question"; i.e.,  How important is  this
issue and why? For example, partly as a result
of these unsolicited efforts,  the Agency is:

 a) Paying additional attention to  microbial
       contamination of drinking water

 b) Examining the costs/benefits of regulat-
       ing different chemicals in drinking wa-
       ter

 c) Investigating the effectiveness and accu-
       racy of communication methods for
       radon

 d) Rethinking its conceptually different ap-
       proaches to assessing chemical vs.
       radiation risks.
       The coming  year will cast into  even
sharper relief the growing gap between  what
the SAB is asked (and would like) to and the
legitimate  resource  constraints  that  exist.
Consequently, a more conscious effort will be
made to involve the Executive Committee, the
Administrator, and the Agency in the establish-
ing priorities for the SAB  agenda.   The  re-
cently   formed  Council of Science Advisors
within the Agency will work as an Agency-wide
"consultative group" to the SAB Staff Director.
       It is the intention of the SAB in the com-
ing year to explore further partnerships with
other advisory groups.   For example,  initial
contacts in FY93 have resulted in plans  for
coordinated reviews with advisory groups at the
Agency for Toxic  Substances and  Disease
Registry, the DHHS unit charged with advising
EPA on health issues  at  such sites.  The
Environmental Futures Project will be a major
collaboration  for all the committees  of the
Board, requiring its members to expand its per-
spectives  in  both time and  space.   In the
process, the Board will undoubdtiby renew its
partnership with the Agency and  gain insight
for meeting its new challenges.
       The SAB Staff anticipates a busy  year,
augmented by new faces but constrained the
same limitations affecting the rest of the Agen-
cy.  Our intention is to  be in a position to
welcome FY94 with as much satisfaction and
enthusiasm as we welcomed FY93.
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page A-1

                           APPENDIX A

                           Charters of the:
                        Science Advisory Board
                 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
                Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council
                               Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page A-2	ANNUAL REPORT

      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER

                        SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1.    PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This Charter is reissued to renew the Science
Advisory Board in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, 5 U.S.C. App.  11 SS 9(c). The former Science Advisory Board, administratively
established by the Administrator of EPA on January 11, 1974, was terminated in 1978
when the Congress created the statutorily mandated Science Advisory Board by the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA)
of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 4365. The Science Advisory Board charter was renewed October 31,
1979; November 19,1981; November 3,1983; October 25,1985; November 6,1987; and
Novembers, 1989.

2.    SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The activities of the Board will include analyzing problems,
conducting meetings, presenting findings, making recommendations, and other activities
necessary for the attainment of  the  Board's  objectives.  Ad  hoc panels may  be
established to carry out these special activities in which consultants of special expertise
may be used who are not members of the Board.

3.    OBJECTIVES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The objective of the Board is to provide
independent advice to EPA's Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of
environmental problems and issues. While the Board reports to the Administrator, it may
also be requested to provide advice to the U.  S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works or the U. S. House Committees on Science and Technology, Energy and
Commerce, or Public Works and Transportation.  The Board will review scientific issues,
provide independent scientific and technical advice on EPA's  major programs, and
perform special assignments as requested by Agency officials and as required by the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 and
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Responsibilities include the following:

    Reviewing and advising on the adequacy  and scientific basis of any proposed criteria
document, standard, limitation, or regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Noise Control
Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or any other authority of the
Administrator;
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	.	page A-3

      Reviewing and advising on the scientific and technical adequacy of Agency
programs, guidelines, methodologies, protocols, and tests;

      Recommending, as appropriate, new or revised scientific criteria or standards
for protection of human health and the environment;

      Through the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, providing the technical
review and advice required under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990;

      Reviewing and advising on new information needs and the quality of Agency
plans and programs for research, development and demonstration;

      Advising on the relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic
pollution sources;

      As appropriate, consulting and coordinating with the Scientific Advisory Panel
established by the Administrator pursuant to section 21 (b) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended; and

      Consulting and coordinating with other Agency advisory groups, as requested by
the Administrator.

4.    COMPOSITION.  The Board will consist of a body of independent scientists and
engineers of sufficient size and diversity to provide the range of expertise required  to
assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues. The Board will be
organized into an executive committee and several specialized committees, all members
of which shall be drawn from the Board.

   The Board is authorized to constitute such  specialized  committees and ad hoc
investigative  panels  and subcommittees  as  the Administrator  and the Board find
necessary to carry out its responsibilities.  The Administrator will review the need for such
specialized committees and  investigative panels at least once a year to decide which
should be continued. These committees and panels will report through the Executive
Committee.

   The Administrator also shall appoint a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the
Board to  provide the scientific review  and advice  required by the  Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. This  group, established by separate charter, will be an integral
part of the Board, and its members will also be members of the Science Advisory Board.

5.    MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS. The Administrator appoints individuals to serve
on the Science Advisory  Board for two year terms and appoints from the membership a

                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page A-4	ANNUAL REPORT

Chair of the Board.  The Chair of the Board serves as Chair of the Executive Committee.
Chairs of standing committees or ad hoc specialized subcommittees serve as members
of the Executive Committee  during  the life of the specialized subcommittee.  Each
member of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate
scientific and technical information on matters referred to the Board. No member of the
Board shall be a full-time employee of the Federal Government.  Most members will serve
as special Government employees.

   There will be approximately 50-60 meetings of the  specialized committees per year.
A full-time salaried officer or employee of the Agency will be  present at all meetings and
is authorized to adjourn any such meeting whenever this official determines it to be in the
public interest.

   Support for the Board's activities will be provided by the  Office of the Administrator,
EPA.  The estimated total annual operating cost will be approximately $1,689,000 and the
estimated Federal permanent staff support will be 14.6 work years.

6.     DURATION.  The Board shall be needed on a continuing basis.  This charter will
be effective until November 8,1993, at which time the Board charter may be renewed for
another two-year period.

7.     SUPERSESSION.  The former charter for the Science Advisory Board,  signed by
the Deputy Administrator  on November 8,  1989 is hereby superseded.
October4. 1991                     F. Henry Habicht  II
Agency Approval Date              Deputy Administrator
November 8. 1991
Date Filed with Congress
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	                page A-S

      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER

                CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                         of the Science Advisory Board
1.    PURPOSE. This charter is reissued to renew the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee of the Science Advisory Board in accordance with the requirements of section
9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 11  SS 9(c).

2.    AUTHORITY The Committee was specifically directed by law on August 7,1977,
under section 109 of the Clean Air Act, as amended [ACT], (42 U.S.C. 7409), and the
charter was renewed on August 6, 1979; July 22, 1981; August 1, 1983; July 23, 1985;
August 5, 1987; August 7, 1989; and August 7, 1991.

3.    OBJECTIVE AND  SCOPE  OF  ACTIVITY.   The  Committee  shall  provide
independent advice on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria
for air quality standards, research related to air quality, source of air pollution, and the
strategies  to  attain  and maintain  air quality standards  and to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality.  The Committee shall hold meetings, perform studies, make
necessary site visits, and undertake other activities necessary to meet its responsibilities.
The Committee will coordinate its activities with other Committees of the Science Advisory
Board and may, as it deems appropriate, utilize the expertise of other committees and
members of the Science Advisory Board. Establishment of subcommittees is authorized
for any purpose consistent with this charter.    The Committee  will  report  to the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

4.    FUNCTIONS.   The Committee will  review criteria documents for air quality
standards  and will provide independent scientific advice in response to the Agency's
request and, as required by section 109 of the Act shall:

      Not later than January 1, 1980, and at five year intervals thereafter, complete a
review of the criteria published under section 108 of the  Clean Air Act and  the national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and recommend to the Administrator
any new national ambient air quality standards  or revision  of  existing  criteria and
standards  as may be appropriate,

      Advise the Administrator  of areas  where additional  knowledge  is required
concerning the adequacy and  basis of existing, new, or revised national  ambient air
quality standards,
                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page A-6	ANNUAL REPORT

      Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required  information,

      Advise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations
of natural as well as anthropogenic activity, and

      Advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic,
or  energy  effects which  may  result  from various strategies  for attainment  and
maintenance of such national ambient air quality standards.

5.    COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS. The Administrator will appoint a Chairperson
and six members including at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences,
one physician, and one person representing State air pollution control agencies for terms
up  to four years.  Members shall be persons who have demonstrated high levels of
competence, knowledge, and expertise in  the scientific/technical  fields relevant to air
pollution  and air quality issues.   Members  of the Committee  become members of the
Science Advisory Board, and the Chairperson of the Committee, or his designee, shall
serve as a member of the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board.  Most
members will serve as Special Government Employees.  The Committee will meet three
to six times per year.  A full time salaried officer or employee of the Agency will be
present at all meetings and is authorized to adjourn  any such meeting whenever this
official determines it to be in the public interest.  Support shall  be provided by EPA
through the Offices of the Science Advisory Board. The estimated annual operating cost
totals approximately  $185,000 and two work years of staff support.

6.    DURATION.  The Committee will  be needed  on a continuing basis.  This charter
will be effective until August 7,  1995, at which time the Committee charter may be
renewed  for another two-year period.
                                   Carol M. Browner
                                   Administrator
August 7. 1993
Date Filed with Congress

August 7. 1993
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page A-7

      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE  CHARTER

                Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
1.    PURPOSE.   This Charter establishes the Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,  5
U.S.C. App.11 SS 9(c).

2.    AUTHORITY.  The Council was specifically directed under section 812 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended on November 15, 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

3.    OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The Council shall provide independent
advice on technical and economic aspects of analyses and reports which the Agency
prepares concerning the impacts of the Clean Air Act on the public health, economy, and
the environment of the United States. The Council shall hold meetings, make necessary
site visits and undertake other activities, necessary to meet its responsibilities.  The
Council will coordinate its activities with other committees of the Science Advisory Board
and may, as it deems appropriate, utilize the expertise of other committees and members
of the Science Advisory Board. Use of consultants and establishment of subcommittees
is authorized for any purpose consistent with this charter providing subcommittees report
back to  the  full Council.   The Council will report to  the Administrator of the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

4.    FUNCTIONS. As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Council
shall:

      review the data to be used or any analysis required under section 812 and make
      recommendations on the use of such data,

      review the methodology used to analyze such data and make recommendations
      on the use of such methodology, and prior to the issuance of a report to Congress
      required under section 812,  review the findings of such report, and  make
      recommendations concerning the validity and utility of such findings.

At the Agency's request, the Council will:

      review other reports and studies prepared by the Agency relating to the benefits
      and costs of the Clean Air Act,  and
                                  Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page A-8                                                  ANNUAL REPORT
      provide advice on areas where additional knowledge is necessary to fully evaluate
      the impacts of the Clean Air Act and the research efforts necessary to provide
      such information.

5.    COMPOSITION AND  MEETINGS.   The Council shall consist  of  at least  9
members, appointed by the Administrator for terms of two years, after consultation with
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor. Most members will be appointed
as Special Government Employees  subject to the conflict-of-interest restrictions. The
Administrator shall appoint a chairperson. Members of the Council shall be recognized
experts in the fields of economics analysis, the health and environmental effects of air
pollution, environmental sciences, or such other fields that the Administrator determines
to be appropriate.  The chairperson of the Council  shall serve as a member  of the
Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board. Other members of the Council may
be members  of the Science Advisory Board and may also  serve on its various other
committees or study groups.  It is expected that the Council  will meet two to four times
per year. A full time employee of the Agency, who will serve  as the Designated Federal
Officer, will be present at all meetings and is authorized to adjourn any meeting whenever
it is determined to be in the public interest.   Support shall be provided by EPA through
the offices of the Science Advisory Board.  The estimated annual operating cost totals
approximately $150,000 and 1.5 work-years of staff support.

6.    DURATION. The Council  will be needed on a continuing  basis, and may be
renewed  beyond its  initial two-year  period  following the  date of enactment of the Act
establishing this Council, as authorized in  accordance with  section 14 of the Federal
Advisory  Committee Act.
                              F. Henry Habicht II
                              Deputy Administrator
March 31. 1992
Date Filed with Congress

March 13. 1992
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT                                      page B-f
                        APPENDIX B

                   SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
              MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS FOR FY92
                            Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 8-2
ANNUAL REPORT
MEMBERS
LAST
Abriola
Aim
Auerbach
Bailey
Bean
Bockstael
Brown
Bull
Bunn, Sr.
Cams
Carpenter
Cass
Clesceri
Conway
Cooper
Cooper
Crump
Cummings
Oalsey
Dale
Deisler
Dickson
Dudek
Fabryka-Martin
Ford
Freeman
FIRST
Linda
Alvin L.
Stanley
Paul
Judy
Nancy
Stephen
Richard
William
Keith E.
George F.
Glen
Lenore
Richard A.
Edwin
William E.
Kenny
Ronald
Joan M.
Virginia
Paul F.
Kenneth L.
Daniel
Joan
Jean
A. Myrick
COMM.
EEC
EC
RSAC
IAQC
owe
EEAC
RAC
owe
EHC
DWC
EEC
CASAC
DWC
EC/EEC
EPEC
EPEC
EHC
CAACAC
IAQC
EPEC
RSAC/EC
EPEC/EC
CAACAC
RAC
CASAC
EEAC/CAACAC
INSTITUTION
University of Michigan
Science Applications
International Corp.
Oak Ridge NAtional Labs
Mobil Oil
University of Miami
University of Maryland
ENSR Consulting and
Engineering
Washington State University
Mobil Corporation
East Bay Municipal Utility
District
Michigan Dept. of Natural
Resources
California Institute of
Technology
Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute
Union Carbide
University of California
Michigan State University
Clement Corporation
University of New Mexico
Lawrence Berkley Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Lab
Retired, Shell Oil
University of North Texas
Environmental Defense Fund
Los Alamos National Labs
Harlem Hospital
Bowdoin College
CITY/STATE
ANN ARBOR, Ml
MCLEAN, VA
OAK RIDGE, TN
PRINCETON, NJ
MIAMI, FLA
COLLEGE PARK.MD
BERKLEY, CA
PULLMAN, WA
PRINCETON, NJ
PINOLE, CA
LANSING, Ml
PASADENA, CA
TROY, NY
S. CHARLESTON, WV
LOS ANGELES, CA
EAST LANSING, Ml
RUSTON, LA
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
BERKLEY, CA
OAK RIDGE, TN
HOUSTON, TX
DENTON, TX
NEW YORK, NY
LOS ALAMOS, NM
NEW YORK, NY
BRUNSWICK, ME
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-3
LAST
Gallo
Gonzalez
Harwell
Hazen
Henderson
Hoffman
Huggett
Johnson
Johnson
Johnson
Kachel
Kim
Kneese
Kolstad
Krlpke
Larson
Leaderer
Lioy
Lippmann
Liu
Loehr
Makhijani
Maki
Matanoski
Mauderly
McClellan
McElroy
Mendelshon
RRST
Michael
Ricardo
Mark A.
Robert
Rogene
Owen
Robert J.
Charles
E.Marshall
James
Wayne M.
Nancy K.
Allan
Charles
Margaret
Timothy V.
Brian
Paul J.
Morton
Benjamin
Raymond C.
Arjun
Alan
Genevieve
Joseph
Roger O.
Anne
Robert
COMML
EHC
RAC
EPEC
IAQC
EHC
RAC
EPEC/EC
owe
EHC
EEC
EEC
EHC
EEAC/EC
EEAC
EC
IAQC
IAQC
IAQC
IAQC/RSAC/EC
CASAC
EC
RAC
EPEC
RAC/EC
CASAC
RSAC/EC
EPEC
EEAC/CAACAC
INSTITUTION
Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School
University of Puerto Rico
University of Miami
NJ Dept of Env. Protection and
Energy
Inhalation Toxicology Research
Institute
Oak Ridge National Labs
College of William and Mary
Malcom-Pirnie (Retired)
Jefferson Medical College
Howard University
Pilko and Associates
New York Dept of Health
Resources for the Future
University of California
MO Anderson Hospital
University of Washington
Pierce Lab, Yale Univ.
Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School
New York University
University of Minnesota
University of Texas at Austin
Energy and Environmental
Research
Exxon
Johns Hopkins University
Inhalation Toxicology Research
Institute
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
SUNY-Stony Brook
Yale School of Forestry
CITY/STATE
PISCATAWAY, NJ
SAN JUAN, PR
MIAMI, FL
TRENTON, NJ
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
OAK RIDGE, TN
GLOUCESTER, VA
BETHESDA, MD
PHILADELPHIA, PA
WASHINGTON, DC
HOUSTON, TX
ALBANY, NY
WASHINGTON. DC
BERKLEY, CA
HOUSTON, TX
SEATTLE, WA
NEW HAVEN, CT
PISCATAWAY, NJ
TUXEDO, NY
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
AUSTIN, TX
TAKOMA PARK, MD
HOUSTON, TX
BALTIMORE, MD
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
RTP, NC
STONY BROOK, NY
NEW HAVEN, CT
                              Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page B-4
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST
Monson
Morandi
Morse
Murarka
Nordhaus
Norton
Nygaard
Oates
Pelllzzari
Pfaender
Pilot
Portland
Pojasek
Portney
Radike
Ray
Reitz
Repetto
Samet
Schmalensee
Seeker
Sextro
Shaub
Smith
Smith
Snoeyink
Sobsey
Stav ins
Symons
RRST
Richard
Maria
Roger
Ishwar
William
Bryan
Oddvar
Wallace
EdoD.
Frederic
Henry C.
Frederick
Robert B.
Paul
Martha J.
Verne A.
Richard
Robert
Jonathan M
Richard
W. Randall
Richard
Walter
V.Kerry
William
Vernon L.
Mark O.
Robert
James M.
COMM.
EHC
IAQC
IAQC
EEC
CAACAC/EEAC
EEAC
RAG
EEAC/CAACAC
DWC
EPEC
EHC
EEC
EEC
EEAC/CAACAC
EHC
DWC/EC
owe
EEAC
IAQC
EEAC/CAACAC/EC
RSAC/EEC
RAC
EEC
EEAC/EC
EPEC
DWC
DWC
EEAC
DWC
INSTITUTION
Harvard University
University of Texas
Environ, and Tech. Services,
Inc.
Electric Power Research
Institute
Yale University
Georgia Tech.
Case Western Reserve
University
Michigan Dept of Natural Res.
Research Triangle Institute
University of North Carolina
University of Wisconsin
University of Pittsburgh
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Resources for the Future
University of Cincinnati
Pfizer, Inc.
DOW Chemical
World Resources Institute
New Mexico Tumor Registry
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Energy and Env. research
Corporation
Lawrence Berkley Laboratory
Solid Waste Ass'n. of North
America
North Carolina State University
Yale University
University of Illinois
University of North Carolina
Harvard University
University of Houston
CITY/STATE
CAMBRIDGE, MA
HOUSTON, TX
TROY, NY
PALO ALTO, CA
NEW HAVEN, CT
ATLANTA, GA
CLEVELAND, OH
COLLEGE PARK, MD
RTP, NC
CHAPEL HILL, NC
MADISON, Wl
PITTSBURGH, PA
WINCHESTER, MA
WASHINGTON, DC
CINCINNATI, OH
GROTON, CT
MIDLAND, Ml
WASHINGTON, DC
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
CAMBRIDGE, MA
IRVINE, CA
BERKLEY, CA
SILVER SPRING, MD
CHAPEL HILL, NC
HAVEN, CT
URBANA, IL
CHAPEL HILL, NC
CAMBRIDGE, MA
HOUSTON, TX
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-S
LAST
Tierney
Tietenberg
Upton
Utell
Viscusi
Vollleque
Ward
Watson
Wegman
White
Wolff
Young

LAST NAME
Abrahamson
Adams
Adams
Adelman
Ahmed
Alexander
Amdur
Anath
Ancker-Johnson
Andelman
Anderson
Anderson
Angle
Ayres
Barcelona
Bartell
FIRST
Susan
Thomas
Arthur
Mark
Kip
Paul G.
C. Herb
James E.
David
Ronald
George T.
Terry F.

FIRST NAME
Seymour
Barry J.
William
Ira R.
Abdul Karim
Martin
Mary
Chris
Betsy
Julian B.
Mary
Mel
Carol R.
Stephen M.
Michael J.
Steven
COMM. INSTITUTION
CASAC Mass. Dept of Env. Services
EEAC/CAACAC Colby College
EHC/EC NYU-Retlred
CASAC University of Rochester
EEAC/CAACAC Duke University
RAC MJP Risk Assessment Institute
EEC Rice University
RAC University of North Carolina
EHC University of Lowell
IAQC American Lung Association
CASAC/RSAC/EC General Motors Research Labs
EPEC Environmental Defense Fund
CONSULTANTS
AFFUATION
University of Wisconsin
University of Toronto
ABC Laboratories
University of Minnesota
Committee for NIE
Cornell University
New York University Medical Center
Battelle Memorial Institute
General Motors
University of Pittsburgh
University of Wisconsin
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
University of Nebraska
Medical College of VA
Western Michigan Universi
Oak Ridge National Labs
CITY/STATE
BOSTON. MA
WATERVILLE, ME
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
ROCHESTER, NY
DURHAM, NC
IDAHO FALLS, ID
HOUSTON, TX
CHAPEL HILL, NC
LOWELL, MA
WASHINGTON, DC
WARREN, Ml
WASHINGTON, DC

CITY. STATE
Madison, Wl
Toronto, Ontario CANADA
Columbia. MD
St. Paul, MN
Washington, DC
Ithaca, NY
Tuxedo, NY
Washington, DC
Warren, Ml
Pittsburgh, PA
Madison, Wl
Research Triangle Park, NC
Omaha, NE
Richmond, VA
Kalamazoo, Ml
Oak Ridge.TN
                              Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page B-6
ANNUAL  REPORT
  LAST NAME          FIRST NAME       AFFUATION
  Bates                David             Consultant
  Beck                Barbara           Gradient Corp.
  Bedford              Barbara           Cornell Univer.
  Benedetti             Robert             Natl. Rre Protection Assn.
  Benforado            David             3M Environmental Engineering
  Benowitz             Neal              Univ. California/San Francisco
  Berkowttz             Joan B.           Farkas, Berkowftz & Co.
  Black                Jeffery             EA Technologies
  Bond                James A.          Chemical Industry Inst. of Tox.
  Bostrom              Ann               Georgia Tech
  Bourdeau             Phillippe           European  Commission
  Bramble/             Michael R.         Battelle Pacific NW Labor
  Brennan              Eileen G.          Rutgers University
  Brieriey              Carole             Newmont Metallurgical Services
  Brown                Ken               Private Consultant
  Bryan                George T.          Univ. Wisconsin/Gen. Clin
  Buffler                Patricia            Univ of Texas
  Burke                Thomas A.         Johns  Hopkins Univ/Sch of Pub. Health
  Bums                David             University of CA/San Diego
  Burton                C.Shepherd        Systems Applications Inc.
  Butler                Janis C.           J. C. Butler & Associates, Inc.
  Byus                Craig              University of California
  Calvert               Jack G.            National Ctr for Atmospheric
  Capen                Charles            Ohio State Univ
  Cartwright             Keros             Illinois  State Geological Survey
  Chambers             Janice E.          Mississippi State University
  Chapman             Peter M.           EVA Consultants, Inc.
  Chisolm              J. Julian           Kennedy Institute
  Clark                C. Scott           Univ. of Cincinnati Med Ctr
  Clarkson              Thomas           Univ Of Rochester
  Cobum               Ronald             University of Pennsylvania
  Cohen                Yorum             UCLA
  Colwell               Rita R.             Maryland Biotech Institute
   CITY. STATE
   Vancouver, BC - CANADA
   Cambridge, MA
   Ithaca, NY
   Quincy, MA.
   St. Paul, MN
   San Francisco, CA
   Washington, DC
   Sparks, MD
   RTP, NC
   Atlanta, GA
   1049 Brussels, BELGIUM
   Richland, WA
   New Brunswick, NJ
   Salt Lake City, UT
   Chapel Hill, NC
   Madison, Wl
   Houston, TX
   Baltimore, MD
   San Diego, CA
   San Rafael, CA
   Salina, KS
   Riverside, CA
   Boulder, CO
   Columbus, OH
   Champaign, III
   Columbus, MS
   N. Vancouver, BC - CANADA
   Balftmore, MD
   Cincinnati,  OH
   Rochester, NY
   Philadelphia, PA
   Los Angeles, CA
   College Park, MD
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-7
LAST NAME
Corteee
Costa nza
Crandall
Crapo
Crummett
Curran-Smith
Cutshall
Cywin
Dabberdt
Dagirmanjian
Davidson
Dean
Oenison
Deutch
Diamond
Dickinson
DiGiovanni
DiGiulio
Dockery
Drew
Duan
Duke
Durkin
Dysart, III
Eatough
Enteriine
Epstein
En/in
Ewing
Fayva
Fechter
Feero
Renters
FIRST NAME
Anthony D.
Robert
Edward D.
James D.
Warren B.
AnitaS.
Norman
Allen
Walter
Rose
James M.
Robert G.
Richard
John M.
Gary L.
Robert E.
John
Richard
Douglas W.
Robert T.
Naihua
Thomas
Patrick R.
Benjamin C
Delbert
Philip
Lois
Christine
BenB.
James A
Laurence D.
William
James
AFFUATION
Tufts University
Univ of Maryland/Cheasapeake
University of Southern Cal
Duke University Medical Center
Dow Chemical Company - US
Robert Wood Johnson Medical Ctr
Oak Ridge National Lab
Private Cons.
National Ctr for Atmospheris Res
University of Louisville
University of Florida-IFA
University of Florida
Environmental Defense Fun
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Syracuse Reserach Corp.
Nat. Ctr. for Atmospheric Res.
Univ of Texas
Duke University
Harvard University/Sch. of Public Health
American Petroleum Institute
Rand Corporation
Technical Resources, Inc.
Syracuse Env. Res.
Waste Mgmt. Env. Services, Inc.
Brigham Young University
University of Pittsburgh
Environmental Defense Fund
Oregon Department of Energy
Private Consultant
Roy F Westin, Inc
Johns Hopkins Univ., School of Medicine
Electric Research and Management
ITT Research Institute
CITY, STATE
Medford, MA
Solomons Island, MD
Los Angeles, CA
Durham, NC
Midland, Ml
New Brunswick, NJ
Oak Ridge, TN
Savannah, GA
Boulder, CO
Louisville. KY
Gainesville, FL
Gainesville, FL
Washington, DC
Cambridge, MA
Syracuse, NY
Boulder, CO
Smithville, TX
Durham, NC
Boston, MA
Washington, DC
Santa Monica, CA
Gulf Breeze, FL
Fayetteville, NC
Washington, DC
Provo, UT
Pittsburgh, PA
Washington, DC
Portland, OR
Lummi Island, WA
West Chester, PA
Baltimore, MD
State College, PA
Chicago, IL
                              Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page B-8
ANNUAL  REPORT
  LAST NAME          FIRST NAME       AFFLJATION
  Rsher               Gerald             Sandoz Research Institute
  Rshoff               Baruch            Carnegie Mellon Univ.
  Ford                 Davis L.           Davis L. Ford & Associate
  Frank                Robert N.          Johns Hopkins Univ/Sch of Public Health
  Friedlander           Sheldon           University of California
  Gad                 Shayne C.         Testing Services
  Gallagher            John              University of Delaware
  Galloway             James N.          University of Virginia
  Gasiewicz            Thomas A.         Univeristy of Rochester
  Gentile               James M.          Hope College
  Gerba                Charles P.          University of Arizona
  Gibson               James E.          DOW BLANCO
  Gillett                James             Cornell University, ICET
  Ginevan              Michael            Private Cons.
  Glaze                William             Univ North Carolina/Sch of Pub Hlth
  Goldstein             Robert A.          Electric Power Research I
  Goldstein             Bernard            Robert Wood Johnson School
  Goodman            Daniel             Montana State University
  Gough               Michael            Office of Science and Technology Policy
  Coyer                Robert             University of Western Ontario
  Graham              Doyle G.           Duke University Medical Center
  Green                Gareth            Harvard Sen. of Public Health
  Green                George P          Public Service Company of Co.
  Greer                Linda              Natural Resources Defense Council
  Grelecki              Chester            Hazards Research Corporal
  Hackney              Jack D.            Rancho Los Amigos Medical
  Haimes               Yacov Y.           University of Virginia
  Hammond            Paul B.             Univ of Cincinnati/Ketter
  Hammond            Katharine          Univ Massachusetts
  Hansen               Larry G.            Univ of IL-Urbana/Coll of
  Hansen               Fred              Oregon Dept. Environmental Res.
  Harbison              Raymond          University of Florida
  Hardy                Ralph W.F.          Boyce Thompson Inst.
   CITY, STATE
   E. Hanover, NJ
   Pittsburgh, PA
   Austin, TX
   Baltimore, MD
   Los Angeles, CA
   Research Tr
   Lewes, DE
   Chartottesville, VA
   Rochester, NY
   Holland, Ml
   Tucson, AZ
   Indianapolis, IN
   Ithaca, NY
   Silver Spring, MD
   Chapel Hill, NC
   Palo Alto. CA
   Piscataway, NJ
   Bozeman, MT
   Washington, DC
   London, Ontario CANADA
   Durham, NC
   Boston, MA
   Denver, CO
   Washington, DC
   Mount Ariin, NJ
   Downey, CA
   Chariottesville, VA
   Cincinnati, OH
   Worcester, MA
   Urfaana, IL
   Portland, OR
   Gainesville, FL
   Ithaca, NY
Report of the  Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-9
LAST NAME
Hartey
Harris
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartung
Haun
Heath
Hedman
Henry
Hershkow'rtz
Hidy
Hirsch
Hites
Hobble
Hockman
Hood
Howard
Hulebak
Hunsaker
Jacobson
Jarman
Jenkins
Johnson
Johnson
Joy
Kabat
Kalton
Kaminsky
Kane
Kenaga
Kircher
Klaassen
Koenig
FIRST NAME
John H.
Judith C.
Robert
John
Rolf
William J.
Clark
Paul
Ronald C.
Allen
George
Allan A.
Ronald A.
John E.
Edwin
Ronald D.
Walter
Karen L.
Carolyn
Jay S.
Ronald
Kenneth
Warren
James D.
Robert M.
Geoffrey
Graham G.
Laurence S
David
Eugene E.
Thomas
Curtis D.
Jane Q.
AFFUATION
Retired
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
UNC-Chapel Hill
Smithsonian Institution
Univ of Michigan/ Env & 1
Private Cons.
American Cancer Society
Bringham Young University
University of Southern Ca
Natural Resources Defense Council
Electric Power Research Inst.
Midwest Research Institute
Indiana University
The Ecosystems Center
Amoco Production Co.
University of Alabama
EHC
Environ Corporation
Oak Ridge National Labs
Boyce Thompson Institute
ERT/Resource Engineering Co.
California State University
National Center for Atmos Res.
University of North Carolina
University of California
American Health Foundation
Univ of Michigan
NY State Dept. of Health
Health & Welfare Canada
Private Cons.
Colorado State University
University of Kansas Medical Ctr
Univer. of Washington
CITY, STATE
Hoboken, NJ
Cambridge, MA
Chapel Hill, NC
Washington, DC
Ann Arbor, Ml
Maple Grove, MN
Atlanta, GA
Provo, UT
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Palo Alto, CA
Falls Church, VA
Bloomington, IN
Woods Hole, ME
Inola, OK
Tuscaloosa, AL
St. Louis, MO
Arlington, VA
Oak Ridge, TN
Ithaca, NY
Dallas, TX
Long Beach, CA
Boulder, CO
Chapel Hill, NC
Davis, CA
New York, NY
Ann Arbor, Ml
Albany, NY
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA
Midland, Ml
Fort Collins, CO
Kansas City, KS
Seattle, WA
                              Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page B-10
ANNUAL REPORT
  LAST NAME          FIRST NAME       AFFUATION
  Kuschner            Marvin             State Unlver. of NY
  Laird                Nan M.            Harvard School of Public Health
  Lamb                Peter J.            University of Oklahoma
  Lamb                James C.          Jellinek, Schwartz, Connors.
  Landrigan            Philip J.            Mt. Sinai Hopsttal
  Lash                Jonathan          Vermont Law School
  Laties                Victor G.           University of Rochester Medical School
  Lave                Lester B.          Carnegie Mellon University
  Lebowftz             Michael            Univ of Arizona
  Leckie               James O.          Stanford University
  Lederman            Peter B.            Roy F. Weston, Inc.
  Lee                 Ramon, G.         AWWS Company
  Lee                 Richard            Skidaway Int of Oceanography
  Legge                Allan H.            Alberta Research Council
  Lehr                Jay H.             National Water Well Assoc
  Ling                 Joseph T.          Retired as VP/3 M Corp.
  Liu                  Chung             CA Southcoast Air Quality
  Logan                Jennifer A          Harvard University
  Longo                Lawrence D        Loma Linda Univ
  Losciuto              Leonard  A.         Temple University
  Lowndes             Herbert E.          Rutgers University
  Lue-Hing             Cecil              Water Reclam. Dist of Gtr
  Luthy                Richard G.         Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
  MacKay              Donald             University of Toronto
  Macrina              Francis L.          Virginia Commonwealth Uni
  Magat                Wesley A.          Duke University
  Mailman              Richard B.          Univer. North Carolina
  Marcus               Allan H.            Battelle Memorial Institute
  MaschwKz            David E.            Minnesota Pollution Control Board
  Mattison              Donald             University of Pittsburgh
  McConnell            Ernest E.          Private Cons.
  McCune              Delbert             Boyce Thompson Institute
  McDowell             Judith M.          Woods Hole Oceanographic
   CITY, STATE
   Stony Brook, NY
   Boston, MA
   Norman, OK
   Washington, DC
   New York, NY
   South Royal, VT
   Rochester, NY
   Pittsburgh, PA
   Tucson, AZ
   Stanford, CT
   Westchester, PA
   Voorhees, NJ
   Savannah, GA
   Calgary, Alberta CANADA
   Dublin, OH
   St. Paul, M
   El Monte, CA
   Cambridge, MA
   Loma Linda, CA
   Philadelphia, PA
   Piscataway, NJ
   Chicago, IL
   Pittsburgh, PA
   Toronto, Ontario CANADA
   Richmond, VA
   Durham, NC
   Chapel Hill. NC
   RTP. NC
   St., Paul, MN
   Pittsburgh, PA
   Raleigh, NC
   Ithaca, NY
   Woods Hole, ME
Report of the  Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-11
LAST NAME
McKee
McKinley
McMichael
McMurry
Mehlman
Menzel
Mercer
Meyer (Represn)
Michel
Miller
Miller
Molenar
Moomaw
Morey
Morgan
Morrison
Mossman
Mueller
Mushak
Nakles
Napier
Neal
Neilsen
Nerode
Neuhauser
Neuhold
Newell
Nierenberg
North
O'Connor
O'Connor
O'Keefe
O'Melia
FIRST NAME
Herbert
Marvin
Francis C.
Peter H.
Myron A.
Daniel B.
James W.
H. Robert
Jacqueline
David W.
Fred
John V.
William R
Rexford
M. Granger
Robert
Brooke T.
Peter K.
Paul
David
Bruce A.
Robert A
David
Anil
Edward
John M.
Gordon
William
Warner
Donald
Mary Ellen
Patrick
Charles
AFFUATION
Private Cons.
University of Alabama
Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
University of Minnesota
Private Cons.
Duke University Medical Center
GeoTrans, Incorporated
U.S. DOD
Research Planning Inc.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Duke University Medical Center
Air Resource Specialists,
Tufts University
Morey Res. Inc.
Carnegie Mellon University
R. Morrison & Associates
University of Vermont
Electric Power Research I
University of North Carolina
RETEC, Inc.
Battelle Pacific Northwest
Vanderbilt University
Neilsen Ground Water Sci-lnc.
Department of Mathematics
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp
Utah State University
Retired
Univ. of Calif
Decision Focus, Inc.
Manhattan College
University of Tulsa
NY State Department of Health
Johns Hopkins University
CITY. STATE
Houston, TX
Tuscaloosa, AL
Pittsburgh, PA
Minneapolis, MN
Princeton, NJ
Durham, NC
Sterling, VA
Fort Collins, CO
Columbia, SC
Syosset, NY
Durham, NC
Fort Collins, CO
Medford, MA
Hudson, NH
Pittsburgh, PA
Valley Center, CA
Burlington, VT
Palo Alto, CA
Durham, NC
Pittsburgh, PA
Richland, WA
Nashville, TN
Gelena, OH
Ithaca, NY
Syracuse, NY
Logan, UT
Palo Alto, CA
La Jolla, CA
Los Alto, CA
Bronx, NY
Tulsa, OK
Albany, NY
Baltimore, MD
                              Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page B-12
ANNUAL REPORT
  LAST NAME          FIRST NAME      AFFUATION
  Oberdoerster         Guenter           University of Rochester
  Omenn              Gilbert            Unlv of Washington/Sch of
  Oppenheimer         Michael           Environmental Defense Fun
  Orians               Gordon H.         University of Washington
  Overcash            Michael R.         North Carolina State Univ
  Page                Albert L.           University of California-Riverside
  Paustenbach         Dennis            McLaren/Hart
  Perera               Frederica          Columbia University
  Peterson             Richard            University of Wisconsin
  Pfaender             Frederic K         University of North Carolina
  Phalen               Robert F.          University of Califomia-
  Pielke                Roger A.           Colorado State University
  Pierce                Donald            Oregon State Univ
  Plaa                 Grab              Univ. of Montreal
  Poje                 Gerald            NIH
  Prince                Harold            Michigan State Univ
  Rabinowitz            Michael B.         Private Cons.
  Reinhardt            Charles            Du Pont Company
  Reuhl                Kenneth R.        Rutgers University
  Rockette             Howard            Univ of Pittsburgh
  Rodericks            Joseph V.          Environ Corporation
  Rodier               Patricia            University of Rochester
  Rose                Joan B.            Research Associates in Microbiology
  Rowe                Robert D.          RCG/Hagler, Bailly,  Inc.
  Rozman              Karl K.            University of Kansas Medical Center
  Russell               Milton             University of Tennessee
  Russell               Liane B.           Oak Ridge National Laboratory
  Ryan                Barry              Harvard School of Public Health
  Rychman             Devere            REACT
  Safe                 Stephen H.        Texas A&M University
  Sarofim              Adel F.            Massachusettss Institute of Technology
  Schecter             Harold             Ohio State University
  Schiager             Keith              University of Utah
   CITY. STATE
   Rochester, NY
   Seattle. WA
   New York. NY
   Seattle, WA
   Raleigh, NC
   Riverside, CA
   Alameda, CA
   New York, NY
   Madison, Wl
   Chapel Hill, NC
   Irvine, CA
   Fort Collins, CO
   Corvallis, OR
   Montreal, Quebec, CANADA
   Bethesda, MD
   East Lansing, Ml
   Falmouth, MA
   Newark, DE
   Piscataway, NJ
   Pittsburgh, PA
   Arlington, VA
   Rochester, NY
   Tucson, AZ
   Boulder, CO
   Kansas City, KS
   Knoxville, TN
   Oak Ridge, TN
   Boston, MA
   St. Louis, MO
   College Station, TX
   Cambridge, MA
   Columbus, OH
   Salt Lake City, UT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
        page B-13
 LAST NAME          FIRST NAME       AFFUATION
 Schnoor              Jerald             University of Iowa
 Schull               William            Univ of Texas
 Schutz               Donald F.          Teledyne Corporation
 Scialli                Anthony           Georgetown University Medical School
 Shugart              Herman H.         University of Virginia
 Shugart              Lee               Oak Ridge National Labs
 Silbergeld             Ellen              University of Maryland
 Simon               Steven L.          University of North Carolina
 Sinclair              Warren            Private Cons.
 Skelly               John              Penn State University
 Slovic                Paul              Decision Research
 Small                Mitchell            Carnegie Mellon Univ.
 Smith                Clifford V           GE  Foundation
 Speizer              Frank E.           Channing Laboratory
 Starr                 Thomas B.         Envrion Corporation
 Stegeman             John              Woods Hole Oceanographic
 Stein                 Michael            University of Chicago
 Stetter               Joseph R.          Transducer Research, Inc.
 Stolwijk              Jan               Yale University
 Stout                 Judy              Dauphin Island Sea Lab
 Strelow              Roger             Bechtel Environmental Institute
 Sunderman           Frederick           University of Connecticut
 Susskind              Charles            University of California
 Swenberg             James A.           Private Cons.
 Tarr                  Joel               Carnegie Mellon Universit
 Taub                 Frieda B.           Univ of Washington
 Taylor                George E.          Univer. of Nevada Reno/De
 Templeton             William L.          Battelle Pacific Northwest
 Tephly               Thomas R.         University of Iowa
 Thein                Myint              Oak Ridge NationalLab
 Thomas              Peter              IIT Research Inst
 Thomas              Duncan C.         Univ of Southern California
 Tikuisis               Peter              Defense Civil Inst of Env. Medicine
CITY, STATE
Iowa City. IA
Houston, TX
Westwood, NJ
Washington, DC
Chariottesville, VA
Oak Ridge, TN
Baltimore, MD
Chapel Hill,  NC
Olney, MD
University Park, PA
Eugene, OR
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairfield, CT
Boston, MA
Arlington, VA
Woods Hole, ME
Chicago, IL
Naperville, IL
New Haven, CT
Dauphin Island, AL
San Francisco, CA
Farmington,  CT
Berkeley, CA
Chapel Hill,  NC
Pittsburgh, PA
Seattle, WA
Reno, NV
Richland, WA
Iowa City, Iowa
Oak Ridge, TN
Chicago, IL
Los Angeles, CA
North York, Ontario CANADA
                                                 Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page B-14
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
TiB
Travis
Trijonis
TrusseO
Turner
Velzy
Vlachos
Von Lindem
Wade
Waller
Wallsten
Walton
Ware
Weiss
Weiss
Whicker
White
White
Wiersma
Williams
Wilson
Wilson
Wilson
Wilson
Winner
Witschi
Working
Wyzga
Zagraniski
Zimmerman
FIRST NAME
John E.
Cheryl
John C.
R. Rhodes
William A.
Charles O.
Evan C.
Ian
Dennis E.
William T
Thomas
Barbara
James H.
Bernard
Scott
Floyd W.
Warren H.
Irvin L.
G. Bruce
Robert H.
John
Barry
Richard
Barry
William
Hanspeter
Peter
Ronald
Rebecca
R. Eric
AFFUATION
Radiological Assessments
University of Tennessee
Santa Fe Research Corp.
James Mong Const. Eng,, Inc.
Private Cons.
Charles R. Velzy Assoclat
Colorado State University
Terragraphics Env Engineering
Monsanto Company
Univ. of N Texas
University of North Carolina
Oak Ridge National Labs
Harvard University
Univ of Rochester Medical
Harvard University
Colorado State Universtiy
Washington University
Batelle Pacific NW Lab
University of Maine
Center for Energy & Environment
NM Inst of Mining and Technology
University of California-
Harvard University
Battelle Pacific NW Labs
Oregon State University
University of California-Davis
Genetech, Inc.
Electric Power Research Inst.
New Jersey Department of
Escro Incorporated
CITY, STATE
Neeses, SC
Knoxville. TN
Bloomington, IL
Pasadena, CA
Auburn, MA
Armonk, NY
Fort Collins, CO
Moscow, ID
St. Louis, MO
Denton, TX
Chapel Hill, NC
Oak Ridge, TN
Boston, MA
Rochester, NY
Boston, MA
Fort Collins, CO
St. Louis, MO
Washington, DC
Orono, MA
Princeton, NJ
Socorro, NM
Davis, CA
Cambridge, MA
Richland, WA
Corvallis, OR
Davis, CA
San Francisco, CA
Palo Alto, CA
Trenton, NJ
Wilmette, IL
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT                                     page C-1
                       APPENDIX C

                 SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
                  ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
                           Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
•8
o

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	     page D-f


                               APPENDIX D
  GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE ON THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

Background

      The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the
Administrator and in 1978 given a Congressional mandate to provide an independent
source of scientific and engineering advice  to the EPA Administrator on the scientific
and technical underpinnings of Agency positions.

      The SAB consists of approximately 95 members, who are appointed by the
Administrator.  These members serve on specific standing committees. The Chairs of
the Committees also serve as members of  the Executive Committee, which oversees
all of the activities of the Board.

      In many of its activities, the members of the Board are supplemented by the
use of consultants, who are appointed by the SAB Staff Director after conferring with
the Chair of the Executive Committee and the Chair of the Committee on which the
consultant is to serve.  Also, on occasion, Panels will be supplemented by "liaison
members" from other governmental agencies. These people are invited by the Staff
Director to participate in an ad hoc manner in order to bring their particular expertise
to bear on a matter before the Board.

      Both the Executive Committee and the permanent Committees may choose to
conduct issue-specific business through Subcommittees that are chaired by SAB
members.  Reports from Subcommittees are  reviewed by the respective permanent
Committees. The Executive Committee reviews all reports, independent of their origin,
prior to formal transmission to the Administrator.  The sole exception is reports from
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which is a separately chartered FACA
committee.

Criteria for Selection of Members and Consultants

      The SAB is chartered as a Federal Advisory Committee, subject to the rules
and regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463).
                                  Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageD-2	ANNUAL REPORT

The charter provides guidance and restrictions on selection of SAB members. The
four most significant of which are:

      a)    Members must be qualified by education, training and experience to
            evaluate  scientific and technical information on matters referred to the
            Board.

      b)    The composition of Board committees, subcommittees and panels must
            be "balanced", representing a range of legitimate technical opinion on the
            matter.

      c)    No member of the Board may be a full-time government employee.

      d)    Members are subject to conflict-of-interest regulations.

    The scientific and technical quality and the credibility of those selected is
paramount  and is the balance of technical opinion achieved.  Secondary factors
considered  include  the geographic, ethnic, sex, and academic/private sector makeup
of committees. Other  factors that contribute to, but do not determine, the selection
include demonstrated ability to work well in a committee process, write well, and
complete assignments punctually.

      Nominations for membership/consultantship on the  Board are accepted at any
time.  On a biannual basis, the SAB Staff Office publishes  a notice in the Federal
Register formally soliciting the names of candidates for SAB activities.

Terms of Appointment

      Members serve at the pleasure and by appointment of the Administrator.  In
order to provide suitable terms of service and to insure the infusion of new talent, the
following guidelines are generally followed:

      Members are appointed for two-year terms which may be renewed for two
additional consecutive  terms.  Chairs  of the standing committees are  also appointed
for two-year terms which may be renewed for an additional term. If a member is
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page D-3

appointed as Chair, this term of service (2-4 years) is added to whatever term of
service he/she may accrue as a member.  For example,

 Years            Followed by years       Followed by years        Total
as member            as Chair                as member           years

   2                      002
   2                    2 or 4                  Oor2              4-6
   4                    2 or 4                  0                  6-8
   6                    2 or 4                  0                  8-10

Reappointment as a member is possible after a two-year hiatus from the SAB, during
which time the individual may be called upon to serve as a consultant for a specific
issue.

      Since consultants are appointed to provide the necessary expertise for specific
issues, their terms of appointment are for one year, renewable annually.  Their formal
appointments may be continued beyond completion of a given project so that their
expertise can be quickly assessed in future with a minimum of paperwork.

      In general, interagency liaisons participate for the term of issue resolution only.

Member and Consultant Selection Process

      Members are appointed by the Administrator based on nominations forwarded
by the SAB Staff Director and the Chair of the  Executive Committee. These
nominations in turn are  based on recommendations made by the Designated Federal
Official (DFO-the member of the SAB Staff with principal responsibility for servicing
standing Committees) and the Chairs of the  standing Committees.  The DFO has  the
responsibility for developing a list of candidates, utilizing all credible sources, including
members of the SAB, other DFO's, EPA staff, staff at the National Academy of
SciencesXNational Research Council, trade groups, environmental groups, professional
organizations, scientific  societies, regulated industries,  and the informed public.

      An ad hoc Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee has been
established to assist in the selection process. This group  is consulted about possible
names and used as a "sounding board" when decisions are being made about
appointments.  The Membership Subcommittee's principal role is to maintain the

                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageD-4  	ANNUAL REPORT

integrity of the process and to probe the extent to which objective selection criteria
and procedures are being followed. They also raise questions about adherence to the
Statement of Intent on Women and Minorities, adopted by the Executive Committee in
1990.

      Consultants are appointed by the Staff Director following much the same
procedure as for members with the exception that consultants are appointed to
address a specific issue. This is addressed in more detail in the following section.

Panel Selection Process

      In general, once the Board and the Agency have agreed upon a topic for SAB
review, the subject is assigned to one  of the standing Committees.  The Committee
Chair and the DFO have primary responsibility for forming a review Panel (the
Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be.)  The Panel will contain some or all
members of the Committee.  In many  instances, consultants may also be added to the
Panel in order to obtain specialized expertise on the particular issue under discussion.

      A key aspect in the Panel selection process is the "charge", the mutually
agreed upon description of what the Agency would like the review to accomplish
and/or what the SAB expects to focus upon. The most helpful charge is one that
prescribes specific areas/questions that need attention and/or answers.  At a
minimum, the elements of the charge should be sufficiently precise that the SAB can
determine what additional consultant expertise is needed to conduct the most helpful
review.

      Often the DFO will begin by soliciting ideas about potential members from the
Agency staff who are intimately acquainted with the issue and will often be aware  of
the most informed people.  A conscious effort is made to avoid selecting individuals
who have had a substantive hand in the development of the document to be reviewed.
At the same time, experience has shown the utility of having some representation  from
individuals/groups who may have been involved in prior review of the issue or the
document.  The goal is to minimize the appearance or practice of an individual's
reviewing his/her own work, while at the same time, maintaining an historical link to
earlier deliberations surrounding  the document/issue. Once the Agency staff has
suggested nominees and provided background information on the individuals, their
direct role in the panel selection process is complete.  Agency staff, the requesting

Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page D-S

office, and others, may be consulted at a later stage for information about nominees
received from other sources.

      The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an
independent assessment of the technical matters before the Board.  Discrete inquiries
about the nominees are made with a number of different sources.  This might include,
for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters, professional colleagues, and
experts who are on "the other side" of the issue. As time and resources permit and
controversy demands, names of nominees will be investigated via computer search  of
their publications and pronouncements in public meetings.

      Of course, a determining factor is often the availability of the individual to
participate in the public review. However, in the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the
SAB will enlist the assistance of a particularly skilled consultant who cannot attend all
meetings, but who is willing to do additional homework and/or participate via
conference call.

      In some cases, the Panel Chair consults with key members of the Panel for
their advice before completing the empaneling process.  The final selections for
consultants are compiled by the DFO in conjunction with the Chair of the Panel and
are submitted to the SAB Staff Director for discussion and appointment.

Conflict-of-interest and Public Disclosure

      The intent of FACA is to construct a panel of knowledgeable individuals who
are free of conflicts-of-interest. In this regard, each Panel member must complete a
confidential financial information form that is reviewed by the Deputy Ethics Officer to
determine whether there are any  obvious conflicts-of-interest. Legal conflict-of-interests
generally arise in connection with "particular party matters".

      In general, the SAB (in contrast with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP))
does not get involved in "particular party matters"; hence, legal conflicts-of-interest are
rare on the SAB. However, technical conflicts-of-interest can arise, particularly for
participants from academic institutions, in connection with Panel  recommendations for
additional research studies. In most such cases, the DFO's work with the Panel
members to apply for waivers from the conflict-of-interest concerns on this matter. The
requests for waivers are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by EPA's Office of the

                                    Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageD-6	ANNUAL REPORT

General Council.  (The Agency generally determines that the benefits to the country
derived from these experts' recommendations for additional research, outweigh any
technical conflict-of-interest that might be involved.)

      However, the Board is also concerned about "apparent conflicts-of-interest".
Consequently, consultants to the Panel are generally selected from the "broad middle"
spectrum of opinion on the technical issue under discussion. Experience has shown
that achieving balance through equal representation of extreme views reduces the
chance of achieving a workable consensus-pro or con-that the Agency needs to
more forward.

      The  "public disclosure" process is a mechanism aimed resolving the apparent
conflicts-of-interest issues.  This procedure involves  an oral statement (sometimes
Panel members supplement this with a written document) that lays out the individual's
connection with the issue under discussion; e.g., his/her  area of expertise, length of
experience with the issue, sources of research grants, previous appearance in public
forms where he/she might have expressed an opinion, etc.  This recitation of prior
and/or continuing contacts on the issue assists the public, the Agency, and fellow
Panel members in assessing the background from which particular individual's
comments spring, so that those comments can be evaluated accordingly.  Public
disclosure is a standard part of all SAB Panel meetings.

Conclusion

      These Guidelines are intended to assist the SAB in adhering to the mandates
and spirit of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  By following these Guidelines the
Board should be well-positioned to provide technically-sound, independent, balanced
advice to the Agency.  At  the same time, they provide assurance that there will be
adequate participation by  and renewal with well-qualified experts from the various
communities served by the Board.
Prepared: Oct 14, 1991
Revised:  Nov 26.1991
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                                   page E-1
                                 APPENDIX E
       STAFF SUPPORT AND COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP IN FY93

       Many of the following positions were filled by two (or more) people during the
year as changes in personnel or staff alignments were made.  Where two persons
occupied a position during the year, both are listed. The latter name is the incumbent
at the  close of FY93.
                        I - SUPPORT STAFF ALIGNMENT
                             STAFF DIRECTOR'S OFFICE

                   Staff Director:              Dr. Donald G. Barnes
                   Secretary to the Staff Director: Ms. Darlene Sewell
                                           Mrs. Priscilla Tillery
                   Stay-in-School             Ms. LaShae Cardenas
                                           Mr. Raynaldo Daniels
                            ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR
                   Assistant Staff Director:
                         Mr. Robert Flaak
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
                         Committee Operations Staff
Acting Chief:
Program Analyst:
Project Coordinator:
Program Assistant:
Secretary:
Stay-in-School:
Mr. Randall Bond
Ms. Janice Jones
Ms. Joanna Foellmer
Ms. Carolyn Osborne
Ms. Lori Gross
Mr. Rasheed Tahir
Designated Federal Officers:
                                     Staff Secretaries/
                                      Meeting Planners:
Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Dr. Edward Bender
Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Mr. Manuel Gomez
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone

Mrs. Dorothy Clark
Mrs. Marcia Jolly
Mrs. Diana Pozun
Mrs. Mary Winston
                                     Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page £-2                                                         ANNUAL REPORT
                               II - COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP
                                      Executive Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr.  Raymond C. Loehr
                    Designated Federal Official:           Dr.  Donald G. Barnes
                    Staff Secretary:                     Ms. Darlene Sewell
                                                      Mrs. Pricilla Tillery
                             Clean Air Act Compliance Advisory Council

                    Chair:                            Dr. Richard Schmalensee
                    Designated Federal Official:          Mr. Samuel Rondberg
                                                     Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
                    Staff Secretary:                    Mrs.  Mary Winston
                                                     Mrs.  Diana Pozun
                              Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr. George Wolff
                    Designated Federal Official:           Mr. Randall Bond
                    Staff Secretary:                     Ms. Lori Gross
                                    Drinking Water Committee

                    Chair:                            Dr. Verne Ray
                    Designated Federal Official:          Mr. Robert Flaak
                                                     Mr. Manuel Gomez
                    Staff Secretary:                    Mrs. Frances Dolby
                                                     Mrs. Dorothy Clark
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page E-3

                             Ecological Processes and Effects Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr. Kenneth Dickson
                    Designated Federal Official:          Dr. Edward Bender
                                                      Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
                    Staff Secretary:                     Mrs. Marcia Jolly
                            Environmental Economics Advisory Committee

                    Co-Chair:                          Dr. Allen Kneese
                    Co-Chair:                          Dr. Kerry Smith
                    Designated Federal Official:          Mr. Samuel Rondberg
                    Staff Secretary:                     Mrs. Mary Winston
                                                      Mrs. Diana Pozun
                               Environmental Engineering Committee

                    Chair:                              Mr. Richard Conway
                    Designated Federal Official:           Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
                                                       Mrs. Kathleen Conway
                    Staff Secretary:                      Mrs. Diana Pozun
                                                       Mrs. Dorothy Clark
                                  Environmental Health Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr. Arthur Upton
                    Designated Federal Official:          Mr. Samuel Rondberg
                    Staff Secretary:                    Mrs.  Mary Winston
                         Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr. Morton Lippmann
                    Designated Federal Official:          Mr. Robert Flaak
                                                      Mr. Manuel Gomez
                    Staff Secretary:                     Ms. Carolyn Osborne
                                                      Mrs.  Frances Dolby
                                                      Mrs.  Mary Winston
                                        Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageE-4  	ANNUAL REPORT

                                   Radiation Advisory Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr. Geneviev Matanowski
                    Designated Federal Official:          Mrs. Kathleen Conway
                                                      Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
                    Staff Secretary:                     Mrs. Dorothy Clark
                                                      Ms. Diana Pozun
                              Research Strategies Advisory Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr. Roger McClellan
                    Designated Federal Official:           Mr. Randall Bond
                                                      Dr. Ed Bender
                    Staff Secretary:                     Ms. Janice Jones
                                                      Mrs. Marcia Jolly
                               ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill Panel

                    Chair:                             Dr. Robert Huggett
                    Designated Federal Official:           Mr. Robert Flaak
                    Staff Secretary:                     Ms. Janice Jones
                                                      Ms. Lori Gross
                              ad hoc Environmental Futures Committee

                    Chair:                             Dr. Raymond Loehr
                    Designated Federal Officials:          Mr. Robert Flaak and
                                                      Dr. Edward Bender
                    Staff Secretary:                     Mrs. Joanna Foellmer
                                        Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT                                                    page F-1
                  APPENDIX F - SAB MEETINGS FOR FY93
Key to Committees of the Science Advisory Board

CAACAC   Clean Air Act Compliance Advisory Council
CASAC     Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
DWC       Drinking Water Committee
EC        Executive Committee
EEAC      Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
EEC       Environmental Engineering  Committee
EFAB       Environmental Financial Advisory Board (not an SAB Committee)
EHC       Environmental Health Committee
EPEC      Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
EFC       ad hoc Environmental Futures Committee
JAQC       Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Committee
1EL        ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill Panel
RAC       Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC      Research Strategies Advisory Committee
SAP       Scientific Advisory Panel (for FIFRA, not an SAB Panel)

Note: Meetings listed in italics and with an asterisk (*) are public conference calls

Dates                 Issues/Projects                         Committee

Oct 27-28         Quarterly Meeting                        EC

Oct 28            SAB Annual Meeting                      EC/Annual
                  Role of the SAB

Oct 28-29         Planning/Coordination for FY93             EEC
                 UST Report
                 IAQ Engineering Research Report
                 Hydrogen  Fluoride Report

Oct 29-30         Planning for FY93                        DWC
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page F-2
                                             ANNUAL REPORT
Oct 29-30
Oct 29-30
Nov 5-6


*Nov 30

*Dec2

*Dec3

Dec 7-8
Dec 15-16
Dec 16
*Dec 17

Dec 18
Planning for FY93
HLW/C-14 report
Radon Sci Initiative
Commentary on Quant.
 Uncertainty Analysis
Planning for FY93

Cholinesterase Guidance
RfD for Aldicarb/A.Sulfone

Chaffee radon conf. call

Chaffee radon conf. call

Chaffee radon conf. call

Disinfectant/Disinfectant
 Products Research Review
 RREL, Cincinnati

Consultations on Habitat cluster
Briefings:
 Landscape component of EMAP
 ORD Climate Change Research
 Pesticide eco-risk decisions

Briefings on Criteria Documents
 for PM, Ozone, Carbon Monoxide,
 and Sulfur Oxides

Chaffee radon conf. call

RCRA RIA CV Methodology - I
EPEC
RAC
EHC/SAP


RAC

RAC

RAC

DWC
EPEC
CASAC
RAC

EEAC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                                      page F-3
Dec 22
Jan 14-15
Jan 27
Jan 28-29

Feb 8-9

Feb 9-10
*Feb 10

Feb 16-17

Feb 17-19
Feb 18-19
Retrospective Study
Cost data and uncertainty
 analysis
Alternative methodologies
 for projecting emissions
Emissions projections
Air quality modeling methodology
Valuation methodology
Review process for scientific issues

OSWER Models

SAB/EFAB - I
Exploration of rendering
 Science & Finance advice

Quarterly meeting

Chaffee: Radon cost options study

Review WQ Criteria for Human Health
Consultations:
 Chemistry Testing Protocol
 Risk Characterization for Arsenic

Chaffee: Radon RA planning

Radon Science Initiative

Chaffee: Radon RA
Radon Science Initiative
Source Term Initiative
NORM/Residual

Biotech Research Review
CAACAC
EEC

EC/Sub
EC

DWC/Sub

DWC
RAC

RAC/Sub

RAC
EPEC/Sub
                                        Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page F-4
                                              ANNUAL REPORT
*Feb 25

Mar 2-4
Mar 3-4


*Mar 24

Mar 25
Apr 1-2

Apr 19-20
Apr 22-23

Apr 22-23
Multi-Media Radon Risk Conf Call           RAC

Planning/Coordination                     EEC
Consultations:
  ORP: Aqueous Pathway Modeling
  OSWER: Leaking mountain
Follow up:
  DWC's Chaffee radon cost options
  HF Report to Congress:  Update
Review:
  Draft guidance for peer review
   of model development  and application
   (Agencywide Task Force)
  Superfund GW Strategic Plan

Scientific and Technological Achievement     RSAC/Subc
  Awards (STAA - Closed  meeting)

Radon Science Initiative                   RAC

Air quality monitoring results                CAACAC
Estimation of physical effects
Valuation of physical effects
Uncertainty analyses

2,4-D Review                             EHC/SAP

Review: Arsenic                          DWG
Briefings:
  Fluoride
  Chemical Testing Protocol

Quarterly meeting                         EC

RCRA RIA - MM Soils Model Review        EEC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
                                                    page F-5
Apr 23



Apr 27-28



Apr 30

May 13-14

May 20-21

May 26-27

Jun 8

*Jun 14

*Jun 21

Jun 21-23
Jun 29 -
 Jul 1

Jun 29
SAB/EFAB -- II                           EC/Sub
Exploration of rendering
 Science & Finance advice

NORM/Residuals                         RAC
Retro/Risk Reduction
EMF Status Briefing

CV Methodology -- II                      EEAC

Review: Biocriteria - Streams               EPEC/Sub

Radon Science  Initiative                   RAC

Global Climate Change Engr Res.           EEC

Review Prospective Study                 CAACAC

ORIA Radiation Issues                    RAC

OR IA Radiation Issues                    RAC

EPEC Planning  Meeting                   EPEC
Reviews:
 EMAP Integration and Assessment
 RCRA RIA Ecological Impact Assessment
Consultations:
 Ecorisk
 WQC

Alternative Fuels Research                 CASAC
Nitrogen Oxides NAAQS (RTP, NC)

Consultation: MMSoils Data                EEC/Subc
                                      Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page F-6
                                             ANNUAL REPORT
Jun 29 -
  JuM
Jul 7-9

Jul13

Jul 19


Jul 19-21


Jul 20-21


Jul 20-21

Jul 29-30

Aug 16-17
Planning/Coordination                     EEC
Hazardous Waste ID Rule
Review: Oily Waste
Briefing: HF Report to Congress: Findings
 and Recommendations

Dredged materials guide (Goldbook)         EPEC/Sub

RCRA RIA                              EEAC

Radon Chafee-Lautenberg Steering         EC/Sub
 Committee

NORM                                  RAC
Radon Science Initiative

Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) -1            EC/IEL
 (Uniontown, OH)

Quarterly meeting                        EC

RCRA GW Monitoring: QDQOs             EEC
 (in EMSL-LV)
Consultations:                           DWC
 Phase IV b
 Microbial  Risk Assessment
Briefing/Review:
 Fluoride
 RegNeg
FY94 Planning
Aug 19
Aug 30
Aug 30
Sep 7-8
Sep 8-9
Sulfur Oxides NAAQS
Futures Steering Committee
RCRA RIA Steering Committee
Radon Science Initiative
IAQ Research (RTP, NC)
CASAC
EC/Subc/Futures
EC/Subc/RCRA
RAC
IAQC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
             page F-7
*Sep 10          NORM/Residuals - Conf. Call
                 Overview/Retrospective

*Sep 17          NORM/Residuals - Conf. Call
                 Overview/Retrospective

Sep 14-15        Global Climate

Sep 21-22        Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) - II

Sep 23           Contingent Valuation Methodology
                 RIA Approach

*Sep 24          RCRA-RIA - Conf. Call

Sep 30           Futures Steering Group

           Total:  54 Open Meetings
                  1 Closed Meeting
                 12 Open Conference Call Meetings
RAC


RAC


EPEC

EC/Subc/IEL

EEAC


EHC

EC/Subc/Futures
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-1

                               APPENDIX G


       SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD FY93 REPORT ABSTRACTS

        G-1.  LIST OF SAB REPORTS, LETTERS, COMMENTARIES, AND
                         CONSULTATIONS FOR FY93

                              FY 1993 REPORTS

EPA-SAB-DWC-93-001 Review by the Drinking Water Committee of the Water Research
      Program at the Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL).

EPA-SAB-EPEC-93-002 Review of Sediment Criteria Development Methodology for Non-Ionic
      Organic Contaminants.

EPA-SAB-IAQC-93-003 Review of the Office of Research and Development's Draft Report:
      "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders"

EPA-SAB-EEC-93-004  Review of the OSWER/CEPPO Draft Hydrogen Fluoride Study: Report
      to Congress.

EPA-SAB-EPEC/DWC-93-005 Evaluation of the Guidance for the Great Lakes Water Quality
      Initiative prepared jointly by the Great Lakes Water Quality Subcommittee of the
      Ecological Processes and Effects Committee and the Drinking Water Committee.

EPA-SAB-EHC-93-006  Review of the Office of Research and Development's draft report
      Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications.

EPA-SAB-EHC-93-007  Review of Superfund Site Health Risk Assessment Guidelines

EPA-SAB-EEC-93-008  Review of the Underground Storage Tank Research Program

EPA-SAB-EEC-93-009  Review of the Indoor Air Engineering Research Program

EPA-SAB-RAC-93-010  Review of Gaseous Release of Carbon-14

EPA-SAB-EHC-93-011  Review of Cholinesterase Inhibition and Risk Assessment

EPA-SAB-RSAC-93-012 Recommendations on the 1992 Scientific and Technological
      Achievement Award Nominations

EPA-SAB-EEC-93-013  Review of the Assessment Framework for Ground-Water Model
      Applications
                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageG-2 	ANNUAL REPORT

EPA-SAB-RAC-93-014 Review of Uncertainty Analysis of Risks Associated with Exposure to
       Radon—"Chafee-Lautenberg Multi-media Risk Study"

EPA-SAB-DWC-93-015 Review of Issues Related to the Cost of Mitigating Indoor Radon
       Resulting from Drinking Water

EPA-SAB-DWC-93-016 SAB Review of the ongoing revision of the methodology for deriving
       National Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the protection of human health

                           FY 1993 LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-93-001 Research Strategies Advisory Committee Review of the EPA
       draft "Stimulating Environmental Progress: A Social Science Research Agenda".

EPA-SAB-IAQC-LTR-93-002  SAB Review of the Risk Assessment Forum's Draft Guidance
       Document on Showering with VOC Contaminated Tap Water.

EPA-SAB-lAQC-LTR-93-003  SAB Review of the Risk Assessment Forum's Draft Guidance on
       Assessing Health Risks of Gasoline Vapors in Buildings.

EPA-SAB-RAC-LTR-93-004   Evaluation of EPA's Proposed Methodology for Estimating
       Radiogenic Cancer Risks.

EPA-SAB-EEAC-LTR-93-005 SAB's Comments on the Office of Management and Budget's
       "Health-Health" Concept.

EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-006 SAB's review of the Office of Policy, Planning, and
       Evaluation's (OPPE) and the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR) progress on the
       retrospective study of the impacts of the Clean Air Act.

EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-007 SAB's review of the Office of Policy, Planning, and
       Evaluation's (OPPE) and the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR) progress on the
       retrospective and prospective studies of the impacts of the Clean Air Act.

EPA-SAB-EEC-LJR-93-008   Review of Draft Agency Guidance for conducting External Peer
       Review of Environmental Regulatory Modeling.

EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-009   SAB  Review of OSWER/Office of Emergency and  Remedial
       Response's draft Strategic Plan for Ground-Water Remediation at Superfund Sites.

EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-93-010 SAB Review of Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon in
       Drinking Water.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page 6-3

EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-011 SAB's review of the Office of Policy, Planning, and
      Evaluation's (OPPE) and the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR) progress on the
      prospective study of the impacts of the Clean Air Act.

EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-93-012  Review of the Research Program for Environmental Release of
      Biotechnology Products.

EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-013   Review of the Global Climate Change Engineering  Research
      and Development (R&D) Program.

EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-93-014 Alternative Fuels Research Strategy Review

EPA-SAB-CASAC-LJR-93-015 NOX Closure

                            FY 1993 COMMENTARIES

EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-93-001   Radon Mitigation Research Preliminary Finding

EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-93-002   SAB's Commentary on "Requirements for Nationwide Approval
      of New and Optionally  Revised Methods for Inorganic and Organic Analyses in
      National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Monitoring"

EPA-SAB-EC-COM-93-003   Interim response on  the SAB review of Agency's Chafee-
      Lautenberg study of the risks from  radon exposure and the costs of mitigating such
      risks

EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-93-004 Ozone Criteria Document Development Schedule

EPA-SAB-EPEC-COM-93-005 SAB's concern over the Agency's decreasing research  and
      management activity in the coastal environment

EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-93-006  Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis for Radiological Assessments.

                            FY 1993 CONSULTATIONS

EPA-SAB-DWC-CON-93-001  Notification  of a Consultation on the Draft Drinking Water
      Criteria Documents for Chlorine and for Chloramines in water.

EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-93-002   Notification of a Consultation on a Congressionally Mandated
      Study of Radon in Water.

EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-93-003 Notification  of a Consultation with the Habitat Cluster on EPA's
      Habitat Strategy.
                                     Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageG-4  	ANNUAL REPORT

EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-93-004 SAB's Consultation on Groundwater Modeling Pathways for
      Radioactive Wastes.

EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-93-005 Notification of a Consultation on the Environmental Monitoring
      and Assessment Program's Assessment Hierarchy.

EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-93-006 Notification of a Consultation on Revisions to the Aquatic Life
      Water Quality Criteria Guidelines.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-5

G-2.  Abstracts of SAB Reports and Commentaries for FY93

                                     REPORTS

EPA-SAB-DWC-93-001     Review of the Water Research Program at the Health Effects
                          Research Laboratory (HERL)

       On December 17-19, 1991, the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB)  met in Research Triangle Park, NC to review the scope and direction of
the Agency's drinking water health research program of the HERL of the Office of Research
and Development (ORD). DWC received overview briefings and resource related
presentations from laboratory managers, and presentations on specific research initiatives
from researchers.

       In general, DWC found that research was being conducted on appropriate issues and
in a sound manner. The laboratory is to be commended for providing cooperation among
scientists from different divisions.  Nevertheless, the Committee expressed concern over the
fragmentation of the program, the dwindling research funds, and the need  for focused
leadership.

       The Committee recommends that HERL effectively use its existing resources and
leverage others to address key research needs in drinking water, microbiology, and health.
The Committee suggests that this  can be done by putting greater emphasis on drinking water
microbiology and health effects research activities within existing HERL divisions, by creating
stronger and more effective linkages with other EPA labs that have resources and expertise in
this area, and by creating and  utilizing extramural funds as  needed.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-93-002     SAB Review of Sediment Criteria Development Methodology for
                          Non-ionic Organic Contaminants

       The report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding EPA's Sediment Criteria Development
Methodology. The Review was held June 10-11,  1992 in Arlington, VA by the Sediment
Quality Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.  The report
commends EPA for its progress toward reducing the uncertainties associated with estimates
of safe levels of non-ionic  organic contaminants in sediments using the Equilibrium Partitioning
(EqP) approach.  The report supports the EqP  concept to develop sediment criteria where the
conditions of equilibrium among the various phases of sediments are likely.  The Agency is
cautioned that there are still uncertainties associated with application of the criteria due to
limited field validation data currently available.  It  is  recommended that EPA use defined
ranges of sediment contaminant concentrations based on the EqP approach that indicate
whether or not sediments are acceptable, unacceptable, or require further evaluation.  The
Subcommittee also recommends further testing to improve the method and reduce
uncertainty.  It is also recommended that the criteria boundaries be revised periodically to


                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageG-6  	ANNUAL REPORT

reflect recent knowledge and experience, and that a document be developed to explain the
derivation, application, and monitoring procedures for the Sediment Quality Criteria.
EPA-SAB-IAQC-93-003     Review of the Office of Research and Development's Draft
                          Report: Respiratory Health Effects of Smoking: Lung Cancer and
                          Other Disorders

       The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Indoor Air and Total Human Exposure Committee
(IAQTHEC) met on July 21-22, 1992 to review the draft EPA document Respiratory Health
Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders (EPA/600/6-90/006B, May
1992 SAB Review Draft).  The Committee provided responses to fifteen specific questions and
provided commentary on chapters of the draft document.  The Committee noted the great
improvement in the discussion and analysis of effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)
on the health of children. The coverage of the pertinent literature is much more complete in
this draft than in the previous draft, and the specification and quantitation of the identifiable
health risks is presented in a clear and defensible manner.  This new material provides a
basis for the Agency to issue an overall risk assessment on ETS that gives an appropriate
emphasis to non-cancer health effects. The Committee also noted that the revised draft has
an improved presentation, discussion, and analysis of ETS as a lung carcinogen, providing a
firmer basis for the designation of ETS as an EPA Class A Carcinogen.  The Committee was
unanimous in endorsing this classification.
EPA-SAB-EEC-93-004      Review of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                          (OSWER), Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
                          Office (CEPPO) draft Report to Congress entitled "Hydrogen
                          Fluoride Study: Report to Congress" (May 1992 draft)

       The Hydrogen Fluoride Review Subcommittee (HFRS) of the Environmental
Engineering Committee (EEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board has reviewed the draft
Report to Congress entitled "Hydrogen Fluoride Study:  Report to Congress," and offered a
number of recommendations.

       The HFRS agrees that Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)  production and use is important to a
wide range of stakeholders. Increased regulation of HF could potentially have far-reaching
impacts if extended with regard to other chemicals.  The Subcommittee suggested that a
study using life cycle analysis concepts of health, environment and safety could be undertaken
concerning both the use of HF and alternatives to the use of HF, noting that Congress should
be advised whether alternatives to HF have substantial risk.  The Report to Congress should
indicate the implications of the findings of this study on the evaluation of hazards associated
with other industrial chemicals.

       The HFRS recommended that the Agency employ a more rigorous definition of the
concepts of hazards, consequences and worst-case scenarios, and that a credible worst-case


Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	       page G-7

accidental release scenario be developed.  The HFRS made substantial recommendations on
the use of dispersion models as they apply to various accident scenarios, and a number of
other specific recommendations intended to improve the draft report to Congress.
EPA-SAB-EPEC/DWC-93-005      SAB Review of Guidance for the Great Lakes Water
                                 Quality Initiative

       The report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding a EPA guidance  for the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI). The SAB commends the Agency for the interactions among
the states, EPA, the private sector and the scientific community which have lead to the
development of this initiative. The SAB recommended that the introduction to the guidance be
revised to explain the unique characteristics of the Great Lakes and the rationale for an
initiative. The SAB endorsed the ecosystems approach of the initiative and recommended
that it also address non-point sources, atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediments.
The Subcommittee agreed with the concept  of Tier 1  and Tier 2 criteria but was concerned
that the minimal data base currently required in Tier 2 water quality criterion - a single acute
toxicity test - is inadequate.  They were also concerned that the risk management apparatus
currently in place; cf., the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Water Act, may prevent
adjustments in Tier 2 numbers when more data become available.  The Subcommittee
recommends that the approach to protect wildlife be expanded to consider ecologically
representative species and species sensitivities and to focus on populations. The current
wildlife criteria concepts were formulated around the perceived requirements of the human
health risk assessment paradigm and they are inadequate for wildlife. The Subcommittee
recommends that the program also consider both the biologically active form and the total
contaminants concentrations when establishing water quality criteria.  The GLWQI should
provide some specific guidance on how to handle  monitoring compliance for criteria which are
below the detection limits of analytical methods. The Subcommittee recommends that the
GLWQI add procedures to predict the persistence of chemicals.

       The SAB  is concerned that the human health  risk assessment methodology being
advanced by the  GLWQI is not using updated approaches for exposure assessment and
carcinogen classification that are being used by EPA  and others. Tier 1 should be limited to
chemicals with good data on carcinogenesis, reproductive and developmental/teratogenic
effects. The linear multistage model is a reasonable default methodology for chemicals which
lack more detailed information on their modes of action. Ideally, multiple carcinogens should
be considered on a case by case basis.  The SAB encouraged EPA to use a variety of broad
criteria to classify chemicals as Tier 2 to encourage improvements in the data base. The SAB
recommended that the draft human health criteria, documents and guidance for their
development be revised to reflect SAB comments and improve the analysis and presentation
of data and rationale for the development of the criteria.
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageG-8  	ANNUAL REPORT

EPA-SAB-EHC-93-006      Review of the Office of Research and Development's draft report
                          Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications

       The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) met in Washington, DC on August 17-18.
1992 to review the EPA draft report Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications
(EPA/600/8-91/011B, January 1992). The Committee addressed the scientific support for
document's general guidance on dermal exposure assessment and considered specific issues
relating to skin composition and dermal absorption processes; skin models for evaluation of
dermal absorbed dose; and the applicability of measured absorption constants  for chemicals
in air, water, and soil.

       The Committee commended the Agency on the document's quality and general rigor,
but also noted areas in which improvements were possible.  The EHC recommended that the
document state more clearly when experimental data, rather than values estimated from
models, should be used for assessment, and stated its preference for in vivo data, and for
experimentally-derived data when available.

       The Committee would like to see further examination of model performance before the
models are widely applied.  Although the models appear to fit many compounds well, there is
an important subset of compounds where the fit is poor, however. The document needs to
clearly  state the limitations of the models. Additional data should be sought to both expand
and strengthen the models. The Committee also feels that it is important to have the model
validation and estimation efforts undergo a rigorous statistical analysis.  Full validation of the
model will require also the input of toxicologists with expertise in  skin absorption and metabo-
lism and analytical chemists, in order to deal with the important issues of metabolic activa-
tion\detoxification by the skin itself.

       Finally, although a model to estimate the dermally absorbed dose per-event is useful, it
would be best if the model could use measured, rather than predicted, dermal permeability
values  when possible.  When  measured absorption data of good quality are available, they
should  have precedence over model estimates.
EPA-SAB-EHC-93-007      Review of Superfund Site Health Risk Assessment Guidelines

       The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) developed the Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM), Part
A—Baseline Risk Assessment (December 1989), supplemented in March 1991 with Standard
Default Exposure Factors guidance, and  Part B-Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals, and Part C~Risk Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives in December 1991
(as interim documents) to guide Agency staff performing site-specific assessments  of human
and environmental risk to determine the need for remedial action.  At the request of OSWER,
the Science Advisory Board's  Environmental Health Committee (EHC) met on April 7-8, 1992
to review four broad issue areas relating to Superfund human health risk assessment: a)
Defining and calculating  the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME); b) Assessing  and


Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-9

dealing with exposures to multiple chemicals and using the Hazard index (HI)/Hazard Quotient
(HQ) to assess risk; c) reference doses in remediation goal-setting; and d) Use of appropriate
defaults for characterizing less-than-lifetime exposure to toxicants.  The Committee found
OSWER's attempts to improve the consistency of its risk assessment methodology to be
praiseworthy and a good start, but noted areas where  a revised approach is recommended.

       The Committee is of the opinion that there are some serious conceptual and practical
problems with the proposal to calculate an RME based on an upper confidence limit (UCL) on
the average concentration at a site. The EHC recommends that the EPA move to a
distributional approach to calculating the RME, i.e., developing distributions for each of the
terms or variables needed to calculate individual exposures and their distributions.  Given the
difficulty in interpreting the RME as presently calculated,  the Committee recommends that
some type of 'most reasonable' estimate of exposure also be calculated and made available to
risk managers along with the RME. The Committee agrees with OSWER that, as long as
some type of mean concentration is to be employed to estimate human exposure, an
arithmetic mean is more  appropriate than a geometric mean.

       The Committee is concerned about the approach of using RfD-derived Hazard Quo-
tients/Hazard Indices as  a basis for adding "risks" from exposure to complex mixtures.
Quantitative applications using dose-response  data (not the "point" data represented by
LOAEL/NOAEL-derived RfDs)  would be preferable, as would the use of alternatives to the
current default approaches that assume risk additivity.  The use of the HI itself can be
misleading, and it should be used as a "fallback," with full  recognition of its possible inapplica-
bility, only when more refined toxicological data are not available. Interpretation of an  HI
greater than 1 can vary depending on several toxicological factors. Although it is likely that
risk increases as the  HI exceeds 1, we can not state (without a  more complete understanding
of interaction mechanisms) how rapidly this increase occurs, nor can we rely on Hl-based
comparisons of risks when the His are greater than 1.

       Three approaches for using RfDs to develop risk-based remediation goals for contami-
nated soil were presented. The most supportable of these uses a 30-year time-weighted
average with a chronic RfD; differences between the three approaches are not dramatic
however, and OSWER should study all three approaches to verify its ultimate choice (or range
of choices).

       The Committee sees no particular problems in the  existing approach for dealing with
short-term toxicity estimates.  OSWER should take cognizance of the EPA-sponsored work at
the National Academy of Science on Community Emergency  Exposure Levels, and of the
work on Emergency Response Planning Guidelines by the American Conference of  Govern-
mental Industrial Hygienists.
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page G-10	ANNUAL REPORT

EPA-SAB-EEC-93-008      Review of the Underground Storage Tank Research Program

       The Underground Storage Tank Research Subcommittee (USTRS) of the Environmen-
tal Engineering Subcommittee (EEC) of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science
Advisory Board (SAB) has prepared a report on the Agency's underground storage tank (UST)
research program. The USTRS met on June 29 and 30, 1992 and reviewed the Agency's
UST research-in-progress, as well as plans for future UST-related research.

       The USTRS found that the Risk Reduction Engineering Research Laboratory (RREL)
at Edison, NJ and the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) at Las
Vegas, NV prepared and presented thorough and well-conceived documents. The USTRS
commented on broad research topics, as well as specific projects, pointing out other areas of
promise, such as bioremediation and ground-penetrating radar, and cited the need for more
research on the basic concepts of contaminant dynamics and other factors affecting fate and
transport in the subsurface environment, the properties of petroleum products, and the
behavior of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). The USTRS commended the development
and use of the LOCI conceptual model as a teaching or demonstration tool, and recommend-
ed its wider application, especially in state and local government and other agency programs.

       The USTRS cited, among a number of other recommendations, the need for coordina-
tion and more systematic technology transfer activities between the laboratories, development
of more non-invasive real-time site assessment techniques, emphasis on corrosion retrofit
research and leak prevention, and identification and evaluation of currently practiced as well
as new and improved cleanup technologies. These recommendations were made toward the
entire UST research effort, in an effort to improve an already well-designed program in an
important research area.
EPA-SAB-EEC-93-009      Review of the Indoor Air Engineering Research Program

      The Indoor Air Engineering Research Subcommittee (IAERS) of the Environmental
Engineering Committee (EEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has prepared a
report on the Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD), Air and Energy Engineer-
ing Research Laboratory's (AEERL) indoor air engineering research and development (R&D)
program. The IAERS met on July 20 and 21, 1992.

      The review focused on four specific program areas: two of the areas (emission
measurements and source-exposure modeling) are well established; the other two areas
(microbial contaminant control and new strategic directions) are emerging research areas.
The IAERS found the AEERL approach to indoor air research to be appropriate and the
program very successful in terms of peer-reviewed publications and participation in profession-
al organizations as well as focused specialty conferences related to indoor air engineering
research issues, and the research program's overall impact on the research field.  These
accomplishments are particularly noteworthy, especially considering the modest budget and
in-house personnel resources devoted to this activity.


Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-11

       The IAERS encouraged the AEERL staff to explore how their research should rely on
and interact with other government and private research programs. The IAERS also recom-
mended that a unified conceptual model should be developed to effectively inventory sources
and sinks.  A number of broad-ranging recommendations were made, with focus on improving
an excellent existing research program, to address prevention of microbial contaminants and
to improve technical outreach to particular target groups, such as allergy specialists, building
designers, building operators and managers, homeowners, indoor air quality model users, and
university researchers.
EPA-SAB-RAC-93-010      High-Level Radioactive Waste/Carbon-14 Release

       At the request of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs, the High-Level Waste/Carbon-14
Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory Committee met June 16-
17, August 3-4, and September 9-10, 1992 to review, "Issues Associated with Gaseous
Releases of Radionuclides for a Repository in the Unsaturated Zone".

       The Subcommittee's findings and recommendations address the inventory of carbon-
14, the characterization of the mechanisms and release rates for gaseous carbon-14 from the
wastes and waste containers, the description of the effectiveness of engineered barriers
designed to reduce or impede releases, the description of the physical and chemical retarda-
tion and transport of carbon-14 from the waste repository to the surface, quantitative uncer-
tainty analysis, the dichotomy of small individual doses and large population doses, and the
need to consider the release of all radionuclides when seeking to optimize site selection
EPA-SAB-EHC-93-011      SAB/SAP Review of Cholinesterase Inhibition and Risk Assess-
                          ment

       In August, 1992, the EPA Risk Assessment Forum prepared a new draft policy docu-
ment addressing key issues in assessing the risks from Cholinesterase inhibitors.  A Joint Co-
mmittee of the Science Advisory Board and the Scientific Advisory Panel reviewed the
document on November 5,  1992 in Washington, DC.

       The Committee found that the draft document is generally supported by the underlying
scientific data.  Improvements could be made in the material addressing red blood cell (RBC)
inhibition and the document revised to stress the need for better studies on the relevance of
Cholinesterase inhibition (erythrocyte, plasma and brain) measurements; methods to compare
measurement results methods among laboratories; and the use of these measurements as
biomarkers of exposure and correlates to data on clinical signs and symptoms. The document
should consider the peripheral effects of anticholinesterases.

       The Committee agrees that clinical effects associated with exposure to Cholinesterase
inhibitors can be used to establish benchmark doses and reference doses (RfD), but only in
conjunction with other relevant toxicological information.  The Committee also recommends


                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageG-12	ANNUAL REPORT

that the Agency's policy continue to include the use of blood cholinesterase data in the risk
assessment process, and agrees that blood cholinesterase inhibition is a biomarker of
exposure which offers crucial supporting data for confirming exposures and clinical signs.

       EPA should evaluate the possibility that an RfD could  be set based on clinical signs
and symptoms associated with a significant inhibition of cholinesterase occurring at a specified
dose. EPA should continue research to examine the correlation of clinical signs and erythro-
cyte cholinesterase inhibition.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-93-012     Recommendations on the 1992 Scientific and Technological
                          Achievement Award Nominations

       This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding the 1992 EPA Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) program. The STAA Subcommittee of the
Science Advisory Board reviewed and evaluated the 137 papers nominated in eight scientific
and technical categories for the 1992 STAA awards. The Subcommittee recommended 39
papers (28 percent of the nominations) for awards at three levels and also recommended to
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) that six additional papers be recognized with
honorable mention. The Subcommittee recommended awards for papers from ten EPA
research laboratories and two offices within the ORD.  The Subcommittee encouraged the
Agency to continue support for the STAA program as a mechanism for recognizing and
promoting high quality research in support  of the Agency's mission.
EPA-SAB-EEC-93-013      Review of the Assessment Framework for Ground-Water Model
                          Applications

      The Modeling Project Subcommittee (MPS) of the Environmental Engineering Commit-
tee (EEC) of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)  Science Advisory Board (SAB)
reviewed the Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) draft
guidance entitled "Assessment Framework for Ground-Water Model Applications," dated
October,  1992. (hereafter cited as the Framework). The MPS met on January 14 and 15,
1993 and reviewed the Framework.

      In accordance with its charge, the MPS review focused on the scientific correctness
and completeness of the substance of the Framework; whether the Framework provides
guidance to OSWER for managing model applications; and whether there is additional
information or direction which should be added to improve the Framework.

      The MPS strongly supports this effort and encourages the extension of this Frame-
work, or the development of other frameworks, for additional types of model applications. The
Framework represents a significant advance in OSWER's approach to the management and
use of mathematical models in Superfund remediation planning.


Report of the Science Advisory Board  Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-13

       In order to improve the usefulness and flexibility of the Framework and to reduce the
likelihood that the Framework be used inappropriately, the MRS suggests the following: that
the introduction be expanded to clarify intended users and uses; that graphic illustrations be
added to emphasize feedback involved in the modeling process; that the Framework be
distributed as a separate document; and that additional references be consulted in its revision.
Particular language revisions are also recommended to improve clarity and comprehensive-
ness.

       With revision, the MRS believes that the Framework will be a useful guidance
document for OSWER management of ground-water model applications.
EPA-SAB-RAC-93-014      Review of Uncertainty Analysis of Risks Associated with Expo-
                           sure to Radon-"Chafee-Lautenberg Multi-media Risk Study"

       The Radiation Advisory Committee's reviewed the ERA'S, "Uncertainty Analysis of
Risks Associated with Exposure the Radon in Drinking Water" (January 29,  1993),  related
documents and public comment. The Committee reviewed the adequacy of the ERA'S
revisions of the risk assessment for both the  ingestion and inhalation exposure pathways and
the adequacy of the associated uncertainty analysis. The Committee also reviewed the ERA'S
estimates of risks associated with radon exposures due to releases from drinking water
treatment facilities.  In its review, the Committee was mindful of its previously expressed
concerns regarding a) the lack of quantitative uncertainty analyses, b) failure to consider direct
exposure to radon and its progeny  released by showers, c) lack of an assessment of risks
associated with drinking water treatment, and d) no consideration of potential occupational
exposures and risk.

       Overall the review finds that EPA has adequately addressed most of the issues raised
in earlier reports from the Committee. The quantitative uncertainty analysis developed by the
EPA represents a methodology that is state-of-the-art and significantly improves the scientific
basis for the EPA's decision-making. The  Committee also finds that the revised estimates for
ingestion and inhalation risks due to radon in drinking water are scientifically  acceptable. The
Committee is concerned, however,  that the uncertainties in the estimate of ingestion risk may
be larger than suggested by the quantitative uncertainty analysis. The Committee recom-
mends that the EPA incorporate a qualitative discussion of known but not quantified uncertain-
ties in its analyses  and that given the larger uncertainty bounds associated with the ingestion
risk, that consideration be given to  keeping the ingestion and inhalation risks separate in the
EPA's deliberations on standards for radon in drinking water. The Committee also reiterated
its previously stated concerns that the overall risks associated with radon in drinking water are
small compared with the average radon exposures due to indoor air and that the drinking
water risks be placed in context in the summary documents developed by the EPA.

       In its review, the Committee also provided comments and recommendations regarding
the adequacy of the analysis and the approaches taken. Among these was the recommenda-
tion that the EPA look at a range of water treatment technologies and include in the analyses


                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page G-14	ANNUAL REPORT

risks due to occupational radiation exposures and potential waste disposal issues.  Finally, the
Committee also recommends that particular attention be given the uncertainties associated
with the variance and shape of the probability density functions used by the EPA to represent
variability of exposures among individuals.
EPA-SAB-DWC-93-015      Review of issues related to the cost of mitigating indoor radon
                           resulting from drinking water.

       The Radon Engineering Cost Subcommittee (REGS) of the Drinking Water Committee
(DWC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has reviewed the Agency's approach to the
costs of radon control or mitigation experienced by households or communities. On February
8 and 9,  1993, the Radon Engineering Cost Subcommittee (REGS) of the SAB's Drinking
Water Committee (DWC) conducted a focused review of the cost issues.

       As part of its charge RECS evaluated EPA's approach for estimating the costs of
mitigating indoor radon from drinking water in residences, assessed EPA's judgement on Best
Available Technology (BAT) for central or well-head treatment for each size water treatment-
facility category are appropriate, and reviewed cost estimates for design, operation, installation
and maintenance of these technologies.  The SAB also compared the cost-effectiveness of
controlling radon exposure from drinking water with the costs of controlling other sources of
indoor radon. "Effective," in this context, means the extent to which radon exposure is
reduced by the treatment applied to produce significant improvements in health. These
results can be normalized using calculated dose-effect values.

       The Subcommittee determined that the EPA offices are employing a reasonable
framework for estimating the cost-effectiveness of mitigating airborne indoor radon in residenc-
es. The approach for soil gases embodies standard Agency  and industry methodology, and
the cost data for testing and mitigation are based on a substantial body  of data from actual
practice and represent the consensus of industry experts.

      The Subcommittee recommends  that EPA invite more direct interaction with various
water industry commenters regarding radon removal from drinking water in order to obtain
better data on actual construction, operation, and cost estimating practice before making its
independent judgements.  Of particular concern were the representativeness of the data base
on occurrence of radon in groundwater, the elements used to calculate costs of treatment unit
operations,  the effect of system size on unit costs, and the incidence and cost of disinfection
after air stripping.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-15

EPA-SAB-DWC-93-016     Review of the Agency's Revised Methodology for deriving Nation-
                          al Water Quality Criteria (AWAC) for the protection of human
                          health

       On February 9-10, 1993, the Drinking Water Committee of the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) reviewed the Agency's revision of the methodology for deriving National Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the protection of human  health.

       The Committee was pleased to learn of the Agency's systematic effort to revise this
methodology. They were critical of the emphasis given to point source discharges in the
ongoing revision. They commented on the Agency's  revision of its 1986 Cancer Risk Guide-
lines, on the need to incorporate mechanistic information in them, and on the Agency's
treatment of Group C chemicals and uncertainty. They addressed issues of severity scales
for non-cancer effects, the development and allocation of RfD values, the use of short-term
study data, Health Advisory Doses, and the  benchmark dose. They reviewed the Agency's
use of Bioaccumulation Factors (BAFs)  and  Bio-concentration Factors (BCFs), the use of
MCLGs (Maximum Contaminant Level Goals) in AWQC methods, and the use of separate
criteria for drinking water and fish intake.

       The Committee urged EPA to priority-rank the needs related to microbiologic expo-
sures in and supported the use of new structures to assist EPA.  They recommended
exposure potential as the basis for microbiological criteria, and supported a risk-based
approach to the regulation of microbes.  They commented on the relationship of indicator
organisms to non-GI illnesses, the efficacy of indicators in tropical waters, and research needs
on determinants of virulence, injured pathogens, and molecular techniques for pathogen
identification.

       The Committee also reviewed the proposed use of a tiered approach to categorize
data availability, and addressed issues concerning the categorization of Group C chemicals
under this scheme.

                                 LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-93-001       A Social Science Research Agenda

       The Research Strategies Advisory Committee met on January 20, 1992 to review the
draft document "Stimulating Environmental Progress: A Social Science Research Agenda".
The Committee applauded the Agency for taking this first step to integrate the social sciences
into environmental decision making.  The members of the group felt that the document
presented a useful framework for considering social science issues in environmental protec-
tion.  The Committee recommended  the further integration of such activities with other
environmental research and the establishment of a lead organization for its coordination.
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageG-16	ANNUAL REPORT

EPA-SAB-IAQC-LTR-93-002        SAB Review of the Risk Assessment Forum's Draft Sho-
                                 wering with VOC Contaminated Tap Water

       On February 24-25, 1992, the Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Commit-
tee (IAQTHEC) of the Science Advisory Board met to review the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) proposed guidance on showering with tap water which may have been
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOC) (the document was entitled: Project
Summary - Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOC's During Showering).  Although the
Committee believes that the draft document  represents a good start towards developing
guidance to be used by Regional EPA risk assessors in responding to public concerns, the
Committee believes the draft will still need significant improvement before being used as a
final document.  The Committee noted that the scientific basis for anything but general advice
in this case is extremely limited. As with many public health concerns, vague generic advice
may be misleading and inappropriate for many specific situations that arise.  Nevertheless, the
Committee was pleased to note that the Agency seeks to include non-ingestion exposure
pathways when assessing risk to VOC, which, under certain circumstances, can dominate
total human exposure.  Guidance to help identify the circumstances where, for example, the
inhalation hazard from  volatilized agents can exceed the ingestion hazard is clearly needed by
risk assessors.  In addition, there are many factors that affect the total dose of VOC received
from showering, including water temperature, droplet size, room size, shower duration, and
number of showers per day.  The latter could be important considerations for teenagers, and
other segments of the population.  The Committee also suggested that there is also a need to
provide easily accessible information to other public officials and the public who are also
concerned about such instances. It is not only important that the various EPA regions give
consistent advice, but that the advice by EPA in a given region is consistent with that given by
the local health departments.
EPA-SAB-IAQC-LTR-93-003        SAB Review of the Risk Assessment Forum's Draft Guid-
                                 ance on Assessing Health Risks of Gasoline Vapors in
                                 Buildings

       On February 24-25, 1992, the Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Commit-
tee (IAQTHEC) of the Science Advisory Board met to review the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) proposed guidance on assessing health risks of gasoline vapors in
buildings (entitled: Regional Guidance on Assessment of Health Risks Associated with
Gasoline Vapors in Buildings).  Although the Committee believes that the draft document
represents a good start towards developing guidance to be used by Regional EPA risk
assessors in responding to public concerns, the Committee believes the draft still needs
significant improvement.  The Committee notes that the scientific basis for anything but
general advice in this case is extremely limited. As with many public health concerns, vague
generic advice may be misleading and inappropriate for many specific situations that arise.
The Committee also suggested that there is also a need to provide easily accessible informa-
tion to other public officials and the public who are also concerned about such  instances.  It is
not only important that the various EPA regions give consistent advice, but that the advice by


Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-17

EPA in a given region is consistent with that given by the local health departments.  The
Committee also provided some specific advice in their report.
EPA-SAB-RAC-93-LTR-004        Evaluation of EPA's Proposed Methodology for Estimating
                                 Radiogenic Cancer Risk

       In a memorandum dated January 13, 1992, Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation
Programs, asked the Science Advisory Board to review EPA's revised methodology for
estimating human cancer risks from exposures to ionizing radiation.  The charge for this
review requested the SAB to respond to the following four questions:

       1.     Has the Agency analysis considered the most relevant risk estimates of low-
             LET radiation?

       2.     Does  the Agency analysis accurately compare the most relevant features and
             assumptions of the various models?

       3.     Is the Agency's analysis technically sound?

       4.     Are the recommended methods for estimating the cancer risks appropriate and
             supportable in light of the current scientific evidence?

       In addition to the charge, the ORP initially provided the SAB with extensive background
material.  On May 1, 1992, ORP provided the SAB with a follow-up document titled "Proposed
Methodology for Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risk."

       In the opinion of the Radiation Advisory Committee EPA has reviewed  and considered
all major new data sets and current risk estimates of low-LET ionizing  radiation.  Although no
single data set and model for predicting radiogenic cancer risk is ideal, the method of analysis
chosen by EPA is adequately supported by present scientific evidence. A few areas of
uncertainty exist that eventually may require modification of the Agency's analysis when
further data become  available. Among these is the method for utilizing ("transporting") risk
estimates from the atomic bomb survivor study in Japan where the base-line risks for several
cancers differ significantly from those in the U.S. Another is the  question of whether to apply
a "Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor" (DREF) for solid tumors at low dose rates or at low doses
of low-LET radiation; the Agency's choice of a DREF of 2 is in accord with the current choice
of other radiation protection groups world-wide.  An additional concern is the continuing
uncertainty in the dosimetry for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors including the magnitudes
of the neutron components.  Further discussion of these and other issues is contained in the
subsequent parts of this Letter Report.
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page G-18	ANNUAL REPORT

EPA-SAB-EEAC-LTR-93-005       SAB Comments on the Office of Management and Budg-
                                 et's  "HEALTH-HEALTH" Concept

       On July 14-15, 1992, the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) meet
in Arlington, Virginia and discussed the central premises of the health-health (sometimes
referred to as risk-risk) concept, and the analyses and evidence supporting the tradeoff
suggested by the concept.  In its simplest form, health-health postulates that, under certain
conditions, the cost of health and safety regulations reduce individual income/wealth, and thus
reduce resources available to individuals for expenditures on a wide range of goods and
services that contribute to the individual's health,  including the purchase of health care. If the
postulated relationship is valid, it is conceivable that a health/safety regulation could have a
net negative effect on aggregate measures  of the nation's health by reducing the income
available to people to meet  other needs.  The Charge for the meeting posed four questions:
a) How should these issues be addressed to support reviews and reauthorizations of laws
covering Superfund, other hazardous waste cleanups and  clean water;  b) Is the conceptual
argument  appropriate for decisions that require the government to protect health, regardless of
costs (e.g., Primary National Ambient Air Quality  Standards)?;  c) Is research quantifying  the
health-health tradeoff worth  pursuing? Which aspects of this issue should receive priority?;
and d) Is the current research using the best methodology?

       The Committee found that the first question (a) posed is so all-encompassing as to be
outside the scope of this review. Regarding (b),  the logic underlying a  health-health analysis
is sound, although  as currently envisioned it would only have narrow applications; furthermore,
there is not presently a sufficient basis, even for such narrow applications, for determining
whether the effect of income changes on health is significant or for estimating its magnitude.
VJs-a-vis (c),  additional exploration and analysis is warranted, ideally  utilizing a longitudinal
data set so that changes in  health  status (morbidity and mortality) could be measured and
related to  changes in income while controlling for other important factors.  The research
question (d) poses problems.  It would be inappropriate to describe the  published efforts to
date as "research," hence this question can not really be answered.
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-006    CAACAC Review of the retrospective study of the impacts
                                 of the Clean Air Act.

       On December 22, 1992, the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC)
met to address a variety of issues related to the retrospective and prospective Clean Air Act
(CAA) impact studies required by Section 812 of the CAA amendments of 1990.

       Major topics addressed and the Council's findings were:  1) Estimation of Costs and
Macromodeling-the basic approach being followed is sound. The data on direct costs and
the use of those data in the modelling process appear to be generally sensible. The main
exception is the treatment of mobile source pollution control costs. 2)  Emissions Modeling-in
general, the Council believes that it is appropriate to estimate emissions by linking an
integrated model set of sectoral models to a general equilibrium macro model. We urge the


Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-19

Agency to seek ways to use existing data sets to improve the credibility and likely perfor-
mance of the Trends methodology in this study.   The Council strongly prefers the assump-
tions and approach (including, in particular, the treatment of State Implementation Plans (SIP)
and state-by-state calibration) underlying the ICF, Inc. Coal and Electric Utilities Model
(CEUM) analysis to those that shaped the Argonne Argus Model work on electric utilities. The
Council is particularly concerned that emissions of air toxics be treated carefully. 3) Uncer-
tainty Analysis-We commend the Agency for its intention to produce a report that includes
quantitative measures of uncertainty associated with each major component of the analysis,
identification of key policy-relevant uncertainties, and implications for the aggregate level of
uncertainty associated with the final net benefit levels.  The Council urges the Agency not to
neglect in its analysis or presentation those elements of uncertainty that cannot easily be
quantified. We recommend that the Agency not rely heavily on the hierarchically partitioned
assessment (HPA) model in this study.  4)  Estimating Economic Benefits & Damages-the
Council reviewed three  draft studies constituting surveys of the main areas pertinent to benefit
assessment for the Clean Air Act. The three studies together review estimates of the values
of reduced mortality, reduced morbidity,  improved visibility, improved surface waiter quality,
improved crop yields, reductions in forest decline, and reductions in materials damage.
Overall, the Council  believes that these reports performed a useful function in providing an
overview of the literature in the benefits  area.  To be of greater assistance to EPA, the most
important additions to these studies would be more refined assessments of the merits of the
past benefit studies and increased discussion of the open issues that  have not yet been
resolved in a manner that would provide EPA with a sound basis for benefit assessment.
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-007    CAACAC review of the retrospective and prospective
                                 studies of the impacts of the Clean Air Act

       On March 25, 1993, the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC) met to
address a variety of issues related to the retrospective and prospective Clean Air Act (CAA)
impact studies required by Section 812 of the CAA amendments of 1990.

       The Council addressed three major topics: a) Estimation of Costs and Macromodeling-
the Council was very impressed by the progress made in addressing concerns raised in
earlier reviews, particularly in modifying the use of the Gross Domestic Product as a measure
of economic cost; the treatment and presentation of direct and indirect costs;  the clearer
distinction between endogenous technical change (ETC) and factor substitution (FS); the
introduction of alternative assumptions about net capital flows from abroad); and the analysis
of the use of alternative cost estimates produced by other U.S. government agencies, b)
Health Effects of Lead and Other Air Toxics-the Council urged the EPA to develop methods
to deal with a range of important toxics that are not carcinogens, and to develop and  apply the
methods necessary for an analysis based on measures of central tendency, not 95%  upper
bound limits.  Further, risk estimates for cost/benefit analysis should be based on estimates of
actual exposures, rather than the worst case scenarios often employed in regulatory contexts.
The Agency is advised to take full advantage of the large amount of research that has been
done on lead.  The lessons from these analyses that can be applied to evaluations of the


                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
 page G-20	ANNUAL REPORT

 exposures and effects of other pollutants. The Council believes it was appropriate to review
 contingent valuation (CV) studies eliciting willingness-to-pay for avoiding exposures to
 carcinogens; such studies might serve either to corroborate or to correct estimates of the
 value of a statistical life (VSL) derived from hedonic wage studies. In view of the state of the
 CV literature, however, the CAACAC recommends that statistical lives saved as a result of air
 toxics control be valued using hedonic techniques, c) Design of the Prospective Assessment-
 the Council  recommends that the Agency should learn from the retrospective study that as a
 rule, resources are better spent on developing sound, comprehensive data relevant to key
 issues than on elaborate modeling  or literature review efforts.
 EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-008  Review of Draft Agency Guidance for Conducting External Peer
                           Review of Environmental Regulatory Modeling

       The Modeling Peer Review Subcommittee (MPRS), along with its parent Environmental
 Engineering Committee (EEC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) has prepared a letter
 report on its March 3 and 4, 1993 review of the draft, entitled "Agency Guidance for Conduct-
 ing External Peer Review of Environmental Regulatory Modeling." This draft guidance was
 prepared by an ad hoc Agency Task Force on Environmental Regulatory Modeling (ATFERM),
 which was created under the Agency's Risk Assessment Council.

       The MPRS was asked to determine how well the guidance addresses its goal of being
 a resource for Agency managers implementing external peer review of environmental
 regulatory modeling, as well as if the guidance provides the proper balance between being too
 restrictive versus not providing enough detail.  The MPRS found that, in general the guidance
 provides an appropriate level of detail in the guidelines for specific elements to be addressed
 by the reviewer, but that more detailed guidance is needed on the mechanics of the review
 process.

       With regard to the general peer review process, the MPRS cited an omission on what
 should happen after the external peer review process is completed, in order to rectify issues
 raised in the peer review. With regard to the model peer review process, the MPRS cautioned
 that while there is a good balance between being over and under prescriptive, the Agency was
 urged not to become overly prescriptive, where the guidance could become de facto regula-
 tion.

       The MPRS stressed the importance of documenting the entire peer review process.
Among the  recommendations made, the MPRS also stressed that specific guidance was
 needed on what constitutes a "qualified" peer reviewer, that the model should be verified
 against available data in the range of conditions of interest, that there is a role for peer review
 to insure that model  results are not misused, and that the decision is consistent with the
 modeling effort. The MPRS also recommended that some  form of the ATFERM should
 continue to  exist, a model-coordinating activity within the Agency is needed on a continuing
basis, and the Agency should consider making the peer-review guidance into policy.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-21

EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-009 Review of Superfund's Strategic Plan for Groundwater
                          Remediation

       The EPA Science Advisory Board's Environmental Engineering Committee reviewed
the OSWER/Office of Emergency and  Remedial Response's draft Strategic Plan for Ground-
Water Remediation at Superfund Sites through the Superfund Ground Water Remediation
Subcommittee.

       While the Subcommittee commends OERR for undertaking this critical effort, it noted
that the document does not contain all the elements commonly contained in a strategic plan:
a vision, an assessment of the current state of knowledge, and a pathway for moving from the
current state to realization of the vision.
The EPA should focus on why it developed the strategic plan and tailor the goal and objec-
tives accordingly.  It appeared to the Committee that the EPA collapsed issues and projects
currently being acted on into the plan, and the Committee questions whether the plan is
responsive to changes in the Superfund program,  particularly SACM. There is a need to
identify problems and their  solutions within the program and it is suitable that this be an
internal  EPA action or planning process.

      The Committee notes one additional difficulty with the strategy-the coupling of
technology and policy in attempting to set priorities may frustrate the effort and weaken its
credibility.  While technical decisions may be altered by policy, it would seem prudent to
separate these two issues to allow development of independent decisions, compare the
outcomes, and then attempt some resolution.

      The Subcommittee does agree  with what it believes to be the main thrust of the docu-
ment—that of encouraging development of methods suitable to a variety of clean-up scenarios.
The plan recognizes that clean-up goals depend upon the human health and ecological risks
included, technical treatability, costs, and values of various resources affected. The
Subcommittee's response to the three questions of the charge follows.

       In summary, the Subcommittee is pleased  that the EPA has attempted to develop a
strategic plan for a critical national program with great economic impact.  The Subcommittee
is also pleased that the draft document incorporated many suggestions made in the October
1992 consultation and that the overall technical thrust of the document is appropriate to the
complex situation of site cleanup. While the draft  document was not yet a true strategic plan,
the problems seen here are very common ones, and further clarification and refinement are
needed. The Subcommittee has suggested some refinements and improvements which it
hopes OSWER will incorporate into the revised document.
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page G-22	  ANNUAL REPORT

EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-93-010   SAB Review of Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon
                           in Drinking Water

       The Chafee-Lautenberg Study Review Committee of the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) reviewed and EPA report to Congress entitled "Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment
of Radon in Drinking Water". This review complemented two other Committee reviews of
uncertainty for radon risk assessments and the costs of mitigation of radon risks in water.
This Committee identified four areas of concern: a) the estimates of the exposed populations
were uncertain; b) the risk estimation procedures were valid, but the estimates of risk from
ingested radon were indirect; c) the estimated costs of mitigation were also uncertain; and d)
the regulatory assessment did not compare the relative costs associated with options for
reducing radon risks from indoor air.  The SAB recommended that EPA undertake additional
research on radon mitigation measures and enhance its data base on the occurrence of radon
in groundwater to reduce the primary sources of uncertainty and reduce the costs associated
with reducing the overall risks of exposure to radon.
EPA-SAB-CAACAC-LTR-93-011    Prospective study of the impacts of the Clean Air Act.

       On June 8, 1993, the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council (CAACAC) met to
address a variety of issues related to the design of the prospective Clean Air Act (CAA)
benefit/cost studies required by Section 812 of the CAA amendments of 1990. As a general
point, the Council  urged the Agency to continue to reflect on the ultimate purpose of this
activity. The number of objectives the study is to satisfy should be minimized to reduce the
uncertainty and cost of the effort.

       The meeting addressed : a) Baseline Definition-The Council feels that it would be
undesirable to  employ in the prospective study the "no CAA" baseline used in the retrospec-
tive study. Rather, the counter factual world used as a baseline should be one in which the
1990 CAA Amendments were not enacted.  In any  case, baseline emissions should vary over
time in response to economic changes consistent with those employed in predicting actual
future emissions; we do not believe it would be plausible to hold emissions constant at 1990
(or any other) levels, b) Benefit and Cost Analysis-The Agency staff is grappling with this
problem seriously  and effectively.  In assessing changes in risk for benefit analysis purposes,
attention should center on mean or median values, not on the 95th percentile or similar
extreme values that are generally employed for regulatory purposes.  Thus meta-analysis
techniques are more appropriate for combining the results of multiple studies in this context
than methods that concentrate on studies with extreme results. In terms of cost analysis, we
are comfortable with the staffs proposal  to stress detailed analysis of a relatively few critical
sectors rather than analysis of economy-wide general equilibrium effects. We also believe it is
likely to be critically important to analyze carefully the positive and negative impacts of the
1990 CAA Amendments on technology, and this  can best be done at the industry  level,  c)
Uncertainty—the Council believes that the prospective study must make clear how scientific,
economic, and other uncertainties translate into uncertainty regarding  costs and benefits. We
are pleased that the staff is sensitive to this issue and strongly support their view that the


Report of the Science Advisory Board  Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-23

management and analysis of uncertainty must be a central focus of the entire research effort.
We agree that because uncertainties regarding the effects of emissions are particularly
important, a good deal of the analysis of uncertainty can be done through post-emissions-
model sensitivity analyses to alternative assumptions regarding such things as alternative
emissions-exposure and exposure-response functions and alternative valuation approaches.
But we would urge  the Staff not to lose sight of the potentially important uncertain variables
affecting emissions and costs - including economic growth, relative prices of natural gas and
gasoline, and costs of air toxics control.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-93-012       Review of the Research Program for Environmental Re-
                                 lease of Biotechnology Products

       The Biotechnology Research Review Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's
(SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee met on February 18-19, 1993, at the Gulf
Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory to review the Agency's biotechnology research
program. The Subcommittee reviewed the draft "Environmental Release of Biotechnology
Products Research Plan" (dated May 29, 1992) and other supporting documentation to
evaluate both the ongoing research and the proposed future direction for the biotechnology
research program.

       The Subcommittee concluded that the Agency has done an excellent job of defining
the major issues surrounding the release of genetically engineered microorganisms (GEM)
into the environment, and has formulated a comprehensive research plan to address these
issues. The panel felt, however, that the plan was overly ambitious and lacked priorities.  The
Subcommittee recommended that future research focus primarily on identifying new, more
sensitive, ecological endpoints for effects, and understanding the fate of specific introduced
organisms or genes.  In addition, the group felt that the research program should take greater
advantage of relevant non-GEM models for assessing health and environmental effects,
explore opportunities for collaborative research and data-sharing with industry  and other
federal agencies, and assess the potential human health risks from transgenic crop plants.
Areas of research deemed by the Subcommittee to be low  priority included biological
containment via introduction of lethal genes (which the panel felt was ineffective and potential-
ly riskier than the organism to be controlled), evaluation of toxic intermediates  from
bioremediation (already under study by NIEHS), and engineering risk control technologies for
large scale manufacturing use of GEMs.
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-013  Review of the Global Climate Change Engineering Research and
                          Development (R&D) Program

       The Global Climate Change Engineering Research Subcommittee of the Environmental
Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board has prepared this letter report on its
May 26 and 27, 1993 discussions and  review of the draft document entitled "Global Climate
Change Engineering Research and Development (R&D) Program," dated April 1993.


                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
pageG-24  	ANNUAL REPORT

       The Subcommittee was charged to evaluate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory (AEERL) present and proposed future approach to global climate change engineer-
ing research in terms of their rationality, scientific soundness, rigor and practicality.

       The Subcommittee found the existing Global Climate Change Engineering R&D
Program to be rational, scientifically sound, practical and supportive of EPA's role, and that
the individual projects were appropriate to the capabilities of the laboratory and the qualifica-
tions of its personnel. The existing focus on increasing point sources of methane emissions,
and on sources controllable by engineering solutions is recommended for expanded emphasis
and development.

       The Subcommittee also made recommendations for further development of the Global
Emissions Data Base (GloED), inventories on methane emissions from natural gas and coal
industries, efforts toward coal bed methane recovery, demonstration of fuel cells for control of
waste methane emissions, studies on conversion of biomass to energy, production of
transportation fuel, and a systematic prioritization of risks in developing research opportunities
for any expanded future program.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-93-014      Review of the Alternative Fuels Research Strategy

       The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee *(CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) met on June 29 and 30, 1993, to review the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD's) draft strategy for research on alternative fuels.  The Committee was
pleased with this attempt to capture the mix of research and development activities necessary
to assess alternative fuels. The Committee made a number of substantive comments on the
technical content of the document, emphasizing its major comment on the overall concept —
the allocation of adequate resources for such an effort will determine its success or failure
prior to its implementation.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-93-015      Review of the Agency's Action for NOX Closure

       The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) at a meeting on July 1, 1993, completed its review of the draft document entitled
"National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)".  The Committee noted
with satisfaction the improvements made in the scientific quality and completeness of the
criteria document, and that it had been modified in accordance with the recommendations
made by the Committee in April, 1993.  The Committee noted that the document had
organized the relevant information in a logical fashion and the Committee believes that it
provides a scientifically adequate basis for regulatory decisions on oxides of nitrogen based
on present scientific data on health effects of such exposure.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-25

                                  COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-RAC-93-COM-001        Radon Mitigation Research Preliminary Findings

       The Radon Science Initiative Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
Radiation Advisory Committee identified three broad areas of concern in the radon field for
which additional research appears to be needed:

       1.     Radon exposure and risk assessment
       2.     Radon risk control/reduction/mitigation strategies
       3.     Radon risk communication

       The Subcommittee strongly believes that a credible radon research program requires
that all three of these areas be addressed by EPA or other agencies. The Subcommittee
believes this is particularly true because of the recommendations set out in the SAB document
Reducing Risk:  Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, which argues
that resources be allocated on the basis of opportunities for the greatest risk reduction.  In this
regard, the Subcommittee is concerned that funding within the Office of Research and
Development for additional research on mitigation of radon risk appears to have been reduced
to zero. This would create a void in further radon mitigation research that would not be not
easily filled by current or planned research activities in other agencies.

       Although the Radon Science Initiative Subcommittee will not develop an initial report
until later in 1993, it is clear at this  point that the report will include a strong recommendation
that research is needed in all three of these major radon research areas.  The decision to
discontinue funding by the Agency for radon control research would, in addition to terminating
efforts with substantial risk reduction potential, effectively disperse the expertise developed
within the Agency of the course of a ten-year period.
EPA-SAB-DWC-93-COM-002       Commentary on "Requirements for Nationwide Approval
                                 of New and Optimally Revised Methods for Inorganic and
                                 Organic Analyses in National Primary Drinking Water
                                 Regulations Monitoring"

   On April 19, 1993, the Drinking Water Committee of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)
received a briefing concerning the "Requirements for Nationwide Approval of New and
Optionally Revised Methods for Inorganic and Organic Analyses in National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Monitoring" (Revision  1.1, dated 4/14/93).

       The Committee found the number of drinking water sources in the revised methods too
small to adequately represent the nation's diversity in water quality and treatment conditions
and recommended that certain water quality variables be included in the criteria for choosing
sources to sample.  They recommended  that methods be tested at concentration levels that


                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page G-26        	ANNUAL REPORT

take into account the dynamic range of possible concentrations on a case-by-case basis.
They expressed concern about approving methods with detection capabilities very near the
MCL, because of possible loss of valuable monitoring data. They also recommended that the
scientific merits of a performance-based standard approach be provided to the Committee with
appropriate time for a detailed review of the approach and its potential impact on the industry.
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-93-003  Interim response on the SAB review of Agency's Chafee-
                          Lautenberg study of the risks from radon exposure and the costs
                          of mitigating such risks

       The Science Advisory Board agreed to review the Agency's study ["Chafee-Lautenberg
(C-L) Study"] and submit a recommendation to the Administrator on its findings not later than
July 31, 1993.  The SAB will transmit three reports to the Administrator that deal with the
Congressional request:  a) The SAB's Review of the Uncertainty Analysis of Radon Risk.
b)The SAB's Review of Costs of Mitigating Indoor Radon c)The SAB's Review of the
Agency's C-L Study

EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-93-004     Ozone Criteria Document Development Schedule

       CASAC advised the Agency to provide high quality documents to the SAB in order
maintain their schedule for proposing an ozone criteria.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-COM-93-005      Decreasing Research and Management Activity in the
                                 Coastal Environment
       In July 1993, the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the Science Advisory
Board wrote to the Administrator to express serious concern over the Agency's apparent
decreasing research and management activity in the coastal environment.  The Committee
cited decreases in the funding requested in the FY94 budget for coastal programs, and the
fragmentation of coastal research and management among several offices within the Agency.
The Committee felt that coastal ecosystems deserve priority attention from the Agency, in part
because of the increasing pollutant loads from growing urban/suburban population centers in
coastal areas, as well as the ecological linkages between coastal and upland ecosystems.
The Committee urged the Administrator to take a leadership role in the protection of coastal
and marine ecosystems, utilizing the Agency's extensive regulatory authority over point and  .
nonpoint sources of pollution, and ensure that these regulatory programs are supported by a
strong scientific research effort. The Committee recommended that research focus on better
understanding the sources,  stress regimes, and transport, fate, and effects of anthropogenic
substances, bacteria and viruses in estuarine  and marine systems. Such research will provide
the fundamental understanding of the various  stressors to support environmental risk
assessments for coastal areas.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page G-27

EPA-SAB-RAC-93-COM-006       Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis for Radiological Assess-
                                 ments

       The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) has on numerous occasions expressed its
strongly held view that the EPA should incorporate uncertainty analysis as a routine part of its
scientific work.  Incorporating uncertainty analysis in its scientific work is a necessary element
of the scientific support for policy actions undertaken by the EPA.

       Quantitative uncertainty analysis should be  an integral part of performing human health
and ecological risk assessments for toxic chemicals,  radionuclides, physical stressors, and
biotic stressors. Uncertainties associated with both exposure and effects must be accounted
for in risk assessments and subsequent risk management decisions and communications.
Approaches developed and used by the offices identified above in their analysis of quantitative
uncertainties associated with radon risks have application to risk assessment activities in  a
variety of EPA program offices.

       The commentary highlights a few elements  that will aid the EPA to perform the
quantitative aspects of uncertainty analysis:  databases, computer software, and
general guides to quantitative uncertainty analysis that are applicable to exposure, dose, and
risk assessment.

       The SAB strongly encourages the  increased use of uncertainty analysis as exemplified
by its recent use in analyzing the cancer risks of radon in drinking water.  In approximately
one year the Science Advisory Board would like to receive an update on how uncertainty
analysis has been used by the Agency across its programs.
                                       Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page H -1

                                APPENDIX H
    PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AT SAB MEETINGS
Background

    Conflict-of-interest (COI) statutes and regulations are aimed at preventing individu-
als from (knowingly or unknowingly) bringing inappropriate influence to bear on
Agency decisions which might affect the financial interests of those individuals. The
SAB contributes to the decision-making process of the Agency by evaluating the
technical underpinnings  upon  which rules and regulations are built.   SAB members
and consultants (M/Cs) carry our their duties as Special Government Employees
(SGE's) and are subject to the COI regulations.

    Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the SAB process itself and the
reputations of those involved,  procedures have  been established to prevent actual COI
and minimize the  possibility of perceived COI.  These procedures include the follow-
ing:

      a.     Having SAB M/C's regularly file SF-450, Confidential Financial Disclosure
            Report. This form  is a legal requirement and is maintained by the Agen-
            cy as a confidential document.

      b.     Providing SAB M/C's with written material; e.g., "Ethics in a Nutshell" and
            various EPA Ethics Advisories

      c.     Delivering briefings to M/C's on COI issues on a regular basis.

      The following is a description of an additional voluntary1 procedure that is
designed to allow both fellow SAB M/Cs and the observing public to learn more about
the backgrounds that SAB M/C's bring to a discussion of a particular issue.  In this
way, all parties will gain  a broader understanding of "where people are coming from"
and provide additional insights to help observers and participants evaluate comments
made during the discussion.
  1  Note: The disclosure procedure is voluntary, and members/consultants are not obligated to reveal information contained in
their Form 450 that would overwise remain confidential.
                                    Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page H -2	ANNUAL REPORT

Procedure

    When an agenda item is introduced that has the potential for COI-actual or
perceived--the Designated Federal Official (DFO) will ask each M/C on the panel to
speak for the record on his/her background, experience, and interests that relate to
the issue at hand.  The following items are examples of the type of material that is
appropriate to mention in such a disclosure:

      a.     Research conducted on the matter.

      b.     Previous pronouncements made on the matter.

      c.      Interests of employer in the matter.

      d.    A general description of any other financial interests in the matter: e.g.,
            having investments that might be directly affected by the matter.

      e.    Other links: e.g., research  grants from parties-including EPA--that would
            be affected by the  matter.

    The DFO will also publicly refer to any waivers from the COI regulations which
have been granted for the purposes  of the meeting.

    The DFO will assure that the minutes of the meeting reflect that fact such disclo-
sures were made and, if possible, the nature of the disclosures.  In  addition, the
minutes should describe any situations in which, in the opinion of the DFO, an actual
or perceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT
            page I -1
                            APPENDIX I

 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE SCIENTIFIC STAFF MEMBERS
                Staff Director:
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
                Assistant Staff Director:
Mr. A. Robert Flaak
                Designated Federal Officials:
                                               Dr. Ed Bender
                                               Mr. Randall Bond
                                               Mrs. Kathleen Conway
                                               Mr. Manuel Gomez
                                               Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
                                               Mr. Samuel Rondberg
                                               Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
                               Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page I-2	ANNUAL REPORT

                           DR. DONALD G. BARNES

     Staff Director and Designated Federal Official for the Executive Committee

       DR. DONALD G. BARNES assumed his position as Staff Director in March,
1988.  His vision is that the SAB will draw upon the nation's rich resources of techni-
cal talent to provide high-quality, independent, practical advice on technical issues
confronting the Agency, the country and the world.  He sees the SAB as an operating
example of how government can benefit from technical advisory committees.  To this
end, he is actively establishing linkages to advisory  groups in other agencies and in
other countries.

    Dr. Barnes came to the SAB from ten years' service as Senior Science Advisor to
the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic  Substances.  In that role he
became involved with a number of controversial issues; e.g.,  pesticide re-registrations
and the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA. His claim to infamy, however, is his
long association with "dioxin"; i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD.  For many years, he served as the
Agency's principal technical point of contact on "dioxin" issues; e.g., 2,4,5-T cancella-
tion hearings, Agent Orange resolution, and emissions from municipal waste combus-
tors. His national and international (WHO and NATO) contributions, while  not stilling
the controversy, have generally not exacerbated it-reason enough, one might say, to
justify his receiving two EPA Gold Medals for  Superior Service for these activities.

      Dr. Barnes has also been active in the  area of risk assessment for more than a
decade as pracitioner, reviewer and instructor. For example,  he participated in the
White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy-led effort to produce a
consensus view of cancer in the Federal government; i.e., Cancer Principles.   He has
been was active in the writing of a number of the Agency's risk assessment guide-
lines; e.g., for cancer and for mixtures. As a  member of the EPA Risk Assessment
Forum, he joins with other senior scientists in addressing  complex risk issues that
affect different program offices.  He is former  Coordinator for and currently a Member
of the EPA Risk Assessment Council, the group charged with reviewing  the policy
aspects of scientific positions on risk. He also serves on the  Council of Science
Advisors in the Agency.  In a tangential activity with  the Office of International Affairs,
he is working with the government of Bulgaria to inculcate risk-based decision  making
in their emerging environmental protection program, both  at the ministry and regional
levels.

      Prior to coming to EPA, Dr. Barnes was Associate Professor and  Science
Division Chair at the innovative St. Andrews Presbyterian College in North Carolina.
Today,  his teaching itch gets scratched through stints as "risk assessment trainer" in
EPA's Training Institute.

Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page / -3

   His formal education includes a BA (chemistry) from the College of Wooster, a
PhD (physical chemistry, with a minor in physics) from the Institute of Molecular
Biophysics at Florida State University, and subsequent graduate courses in several
health-related areas; i.e., pharmacology, toxicology, immunology and epidemiology.
His real world education continues to be provided by Dr.  Karen K. Barnes and their
two sons.
                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page 1-4	ANNUAL REPORT

                            MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK

                            Assistant Staff Director
Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Panel
                    and the Environmental Futures Committee

      MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK has served as the Assistant Staff Director since
January 1991, overseeing the committee operations of the Board. He has been a
Designated Federal Official (DFO) at  the SAB for over ten years,  serving as DFO for
the following: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) (1978-1979; 1984-
1991); Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC) 1986-1993;
Drinking Water Committee (DWC) (1991-1993); ad hoc IEL Panel (1992-present);
Environmental Futures Committee (1993-present); and a host of SAB subcommittees
and working groups involved with issues such  as global climate and biotechnology.

      Mr. Flaak serves as an Instructor for the General Services  Administration
Course on Federal Advisory Committee Management. During the past four years, he
has helped design and organize the course, including a complete course revision in
1993. Along the way, he has taught several hundred Federal workers how to run
Federal Advisory Committees.  Mr.  Flaak's academic background and training is in the
field of biological oceanography.  He graduated from Stuyvesant High School in New
York City, the City College of New York (BS in  zoology), the University of Delaware
(MA in marine studies), and Central Michigan University (MA in public administration).
He has taken other graduate level environmental and management courses and has
over 12 years of experience as a trainer.

      Mr. Flaak served (as a civilian) for five years with the U.S.  Coast Guard
Headquarters Office of Marine Environment and Systems as Senior Environmental
Specialist developing and implementing environmental policy and guidance for the
preparation of environmental impact statements for bridge construction  throughout the
United States and its territories.  His non-government professional positions include
service as Staff Marine  Biologist with  an engineering consulting company where he
assisted in the design and coordination of sampling and data analysis for oceano-
graphic surveys.  He has also worked as a consulting marine taxonomist for clients in-
cluding the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the du Pont Co., Roy F.
Weston Inc., and the University of Delaware's College of Marine Studies. These
activities reflect his research interests in estuarine and coastal ecology,  phytoplankton
dynamics, bivalve  nutrition, and invertebrate mariculture.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page / -5

      His 27 years of military service (US Army) includes over three years of active
duty with a tour in South Vietnam in 1968-69, and service during 1991 in Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.  He is currently the Assistant
Deputy Chief of Staff-Logistics for the 352d Civil Affairs Command in Maryland, an
Army Reserve  Component of the 1st Special Operations Command  at Ft. Bragg, NC.
He lives with his wife, Dottie, and their eight-year old son, Chris in Fairfax, Virginia.
                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page f -6                                                   ANNUAL REPORT

                             DR. EDWARD BENDER
     Designated Federal Official for the Research Strategies Advisory Committee.

       DR. EDWARD S. BENDER is the newly Designated Federal Official for the Re-
search Strategies Advisory Committee, having previously worked with the Ecologial
Processes and Effects Committee.

       Prior to joining the  SAB, Dr. Bender spent ten years working in EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System enforcement program as an expert in biologi-
cal monitoring of effluents.  In this position, he helped develop and/or revise the
program policies and guidance for self-monitoring by permit holders,  compliance
inspections and reporting, and civil and administrative penalties. He  reviewed over
100 litigation reports that alleged violations of permit conditions and he also provided
technical support, including  expert testimony in two trials.  In one case, the US vs Olin
Corp. he helped negotiate the clean-up and restoration of a National  Wildlife Refuge
that was contaminated with  DDT.  Prior to his work with EPA, he conducted ecological
assessments and research for the Army at ammunition plants, arsenals, and depots
throughout the United States.  He also joined an expedition to Greenland, where  he
backpacked through the tundra to band nestlings and to collect from  eggshells from
the aeries of peregrine falcons.

       Dr. Bender received a B.S. from Westminster College, New Wilmington, PA, an
M.S. (Zoology) from the University of Florida,  Gainesville,  FL, and a PhD. from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.  His dissertation research
focused on the process of recovery of a stream macroinvertebrate community from
chronic DDT contamination.

       Dr. Bender and his wife, June, share their interests and labors in horticulture
and home improvement projects and in raising their three daughters.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page / -7

                            MR. RANDALL BOND
     Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

            MR. RANDALL BOND joined the Science Advisory Board staff in
December 1990. Randy started with EPA as a student assistant to the Medical
Science Advisor in 1976 while working on his undergraduate degrees in chemistry and
biology. After finishing his undergraduate work at George Washington University, he
accepted a position with ORD's Office of Research Program Management where he
served as Executive Secretary to the newly formed Pesticides Research Committee
and the Chemical Testing and Assessment Research Committee. Randy has also
served as a participant in the LEGIS (Congressional Fellowship) program, and served
as EPA coordinator for animal welfare issues.  He has also chaired a number of
international committees related to biological environmental specimen banking.  His
most recent position was in ORD's Office of Health Research where he coordinated
pesticides and toxic substances health research issues and served as the Chairman
for the committee responsible for planning all TSCA related research and development
activities.
                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page I-8	ANNUAL REPORT

                          MRS. KATHLEEN CONWAY
          Designated Federal Official for the Radiation Advisory Committee

      MRS. KATHLEEN CONWAY received her BS and MS from Tufts University
where she studied biology, public health, and sanitary engineering.  Between degrees
she wrote for the Hartford Courant.  Mrs. Conway was a sanitary engineer for the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health and later for the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Region I  in 1974 where she worked in the wastewater treatment
plant operations and maintenance program.  During this  time she chaired the Boston
Section of the Society of Women Engineers.

      In 1977 she joined the Office of Research and Development.  Her subsequent
service as acting Director for  two divisions in the Office of Health Research lead to her
selection, in 1982, as a participant in the President's Executive Exchange Program.
During her exchange  year she worked with an occupational health and safety unit at
IBM.  She served the Science Advisory Board as Deputy Director from 1984 to 1989
when she resigned the position to work part-time.

      She continues  as Designated Federal Official to the Radiation Advisory
Committee.  She volunteers with the Society of Women Engineers on the University of
California (Davis) SERIES project.  SERIES is a science education program devel-
oped for use in informal educational settings.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page f -9

                             MR. MANUEL GOMEZ
           Designated Federal Official for the Drinking Water Committee
          Designated Federal Official for the Indoor Air Quality Committee

MR. MANUEL GOMEZ joined the Science  Advisory Board (SAB) in late 1992 as the
Designated Federal Officer of the Drinking  Water Committee and the Indoor Air
Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee. He brought to the SAB a very diverse
previous experience in the environmental and occupational health arenas, most
recently with the National Cancer Institute  (NCI), where he was active in exposure
assessment research activities  as part of an occupational epidemiology research
group.

      Prior to the NCI, Mr. Gomez served  as Assistant Professor in the School of
Health Sciences of Hunter College of the City University of New York, as an industrial
hygienist with both state  and federal agencies, as well as a consulting firm, and as a
research leader with a public interest organization in New York. He is the author of a
study of health and safety issues in the copper smelting industries, along with other
publications in the scientific  literature.  In the mid-1980's, Mr. Gomez also served as
the Executive Director of a civic organization engaged in a variety of public education
and policy analysis activities on Capitol Hill.

      Mr. Gomez has an undergraduate degree in Biochemistry from Harvard, a
master's degree in Environmental Health Sciences from  Hunter College of the City
University of New York, and  is now completing his dissertation for a Doctor of Public
Health degree from the Johns  Hopkins  University School of Hygiene and Public
Health.  In the recent year, Mr.  Gomez  has been  very active in the  planning for an
international conference on  occupational exposure databases, sponsored  by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial  Hygienists, one of the professional
organizations in which he is active.
                                    Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page I -10	ANNUAL REPORT

                          DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
      Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Engineering Committee
          Designated Federal Official for the Radiation Advisory Committee
      DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July,
1988 as Designated Federal Official of the Environmental Engineering Committee.  He
brings to his work at the SAB over 23 years of experience with environmental issues,
including over 18 years of diverse experience within EPA Headquarters.

      In the mid-1970's he worked in the Office of Solid Waste, documenting cases
involving the improper disposal of hazardous wastes which contributed to the passage
of the landmark legislation known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) in 1976.  He also gained experience with saturated and unsaturated zone
modeling and ground-water model assessment during this time. He has over four
years experience in the Office of Water developing guidelines and regulations for
industrial wastewater sources. From 1979 through 1988, Jack was very involved with
the Superfund's Emergency Response program.  He  developed the multi-media
hazardous substance reportable  quantity regulations, and was also responsible for oil
and hazardous substance pollution prevention regulations, oil spill reporting, the
emergency response data base known as OHMTADS (Oil and Hazardous Materials
Technical Assistance  Data System),  as well as the oil and dispersant testing and
registration program (old Subpart H, now Subpart J) of the  National Contingency Plan.

      Dr. Kooyoomjian received  a BS (Mechanical Engineering) from the University of
Massachusetts,  and a MS (Management Science) and a Ph.D. (Environmental
Engineering, with a minor in Economics) from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.  His
academic career included his induction into a number of honorary societies: e.g.,
Sigma Xi (research), Chi-Epsilon (civil engineering),0micron Delta Epsilon (econom-
ics). His professional activities continue apace. He served as a member of the Board
of Control of the Water Pollution  Control Federation (WPCF) [now known as the Water
Environment Federation (WEF)] from 1986 to 1989, and was a member of its Policy
Advisory Committee in 1988/1989.  In 1988 he received the Arthur Sidney Bedell
Award from WEF for extraordinary personal service in the water pollution control field.
He served as Local Arrangements Co-Chair of WEF's 63rd  Conference and Exposi-
tion, which was  held October  6-11, 1990 in Washington, D.C. and hosted nearly
13,000 registrants. He is also active in the Federal Water Quality Association (FWQA),
the local member association  of WEF, where he has served in numerous capacities,
including President.

     This year, Jack was invited to participate in a trip to Armenia from April 12
through April 26, 1992.  He received an honorary professorship for his work as  part of

Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page I -11

a five-person team from the United States to develop an environmental engineering
bachelors program and to outline a master's curricula for the State Engineering
University of Armenia (SEUA), which has over 23,000 students, as well as to assist in
addressing the newly-independent republic of Armenia's environmental problems.

      Closer to home, which he shares with his wife Gerry, and their three daughters,
Jennifer (18), Melissa (13) and Jessica (11), Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous
civic activities which focus on development and land-use issues in his area. He
received both an EPA Public Service Recognition Award in 1988 and several County
Recognition Awards.  Most recently he was recognized  as a candidate for the Govern-
or's Award for volunteerism for the state of Virginia in 1991, and as a Federal  Employ-
ee Point-of-Light in May of 1992.
                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
page I-12	ANNUAL REPORT

                           MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
         Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Health Committee
  Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
    Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council

      MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG retired from the Senior Executive Service (SES) in
August, 1988 and re-entered federal service in November 1988, when he joined the
SAB staff. During his previous full and fruitful career at EPA, he served as an Office
Director and Associate Office Director in EPA's Office of Research  Development
(ORD) and the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM).

      Before joining EPA in 1974, Mr. Rondberg held research management, analyti-
cal, and policy formulation positions with the Department of Transportation and the
Veterans Administration's Department of Medicine Surgery.  He also served in the US
Army for two years, with the rank of Captain.  Most of his federal career has been
devoted to advancing the use of analytic methodologies to address public policy is-
sues, and to improving the management of federal research activities.  At EPA, he has
directed particular efforts to the complex problems and issues engendered by operat-
ing a research program within the context of a regulatory agency—coordination
between legal and scientific "cultures"; maintaining a stable long-term program  in the
face of urgent and frequently changing needs for short-term support; and maintaining
an adequate resource base in the face of competition from regulatory programs
struggling to meet court or Congressionally mandated deadlines.

      Mr. Rondberg pursued undergraduate (AB, 1959) and graduate studies at
Washington University, where he also served  as a Teaching Assistant in the Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences and as a Public  Health Service Fellow and Research
Associate in  the Medical School. In 1967, he was awarded a  National  Institute of
Public Administration Fellowship in Systematic Analysis at Stanford university and
completed a special interdisciplinary curriculum  in the Schools of Engineering,
Graduate Business, and the Departments of Economics  and Computer Science.

      Mr. Rondberg has authored publications in clinical psychology, research
management, and the applications of electronic systems and telemetry  to urban
transportation.

      Sam is married, the father of one graduate student daughter, and attempts to
find time to pursue interests in modern history, the impacts of technology on society
and culture, amateur radio, marine aquaria keeping, and antique art (posters and
advertising graphics) as a reflection of our social history.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------
ANNUAL REPORT	page I -13

                         MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE
   Designated Federal Official for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee

      MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE has served as the Designated Federal Official for
the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee since December 1992. Prior to
joining the SAB staff, Ms. Sanzone  spent 4 years with EPA's coastal programs in the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.  In her role as coordinator for coastal
programs in the Southeast, she  provided oversight and assistance to National Estuary
Program sites in the development of management plans for estuarine watersheds.
Ms. Sanzone has also served as a  legislative aide for environment issues in the U.S.
Senate and South Carolina House of Representatives, and as a coastal resource'
specialist with the Coastal States Organization in Washington, D.C.

Ms. Sanzone received a B.A.  in  Biology, with a minor in chemistry, from the University
of Virginia, and a M.S. in Marine Science from the University of South Carolina.  Her
thesis research examined the role of amino acids and hemolymph proteins in a
crustacean's response to changing  environmental salinity.
                                   Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff

-------