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 Ł-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
------- |