United States
           \  Environmental Protection Agency
           I  OfHce of the Administrator
           r  Science Advisory Board


          Science  Advisory Board:
             Making a Difference
              Director's Report
              Fiscal Year  1988
              Issued March, 1989
    This report, is a staff suminary of • activities for  the u. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board for
Fiscal Year 1988 and projections for Fiscal Year 1989.

    The report has not been formally reviewed by the  Board or
the Agency-and sh<^ujtd not be construed as representing the views
of either organization.

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract	   i

Disclaimer 	  ii

Foreword	 iii

1.   Executive Summary  	   1

2.   -Introduction to the Report
    2.1  Purpose of the Report 	   6
    2.2  Content of the Report 	   7

3.   Introduction to the Board
    3.1  SAB Formation, Authority and Function 	   8
    3. 2  SAB Organization and Membership 	  10
    3.3  SAB Activities 	  15
         3.3.1 Overview
         3.3.2 Types of reports
         3.3.3 Responses and reactions to SAB Activities
    3.4  The SAB is Making a Difference	  20
         3.4.1 Conducting rigorous review of the science
         3.4.2 Impacting large expenditures
         3.4.3 Lending credibility to science policy
         3.4.4 Providing guidance for Agency planning
         3.4.5 Focusing public review of the science

4.   Review of FY88 Activities
    4.1  Introduction  	    ..  24
    4.2  Overview of SAB Activities  		  24
         4.2.1 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
         4.2.2 Executive Committee (EC)
         4.2.3 Environmental Engineering Committee  (EEC)
         4.2.4 Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate
                  Committee  (EET+FC)
         4.2.5 Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
         4.2.6 Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure
                  Committee  (IAQC)
         4.2.7 Radiation Advisory Committee
         4.2.8 Research in Progress Reviews
    4.3  Three Examples off the SAB's Making a Difference  	 28
         4.3.1 Executive Committee's Research Strategies
                  Committee  (RSAC) Report: "Future  Risk"
         4.3.2 Environmental Health Committee's Review
                  of a Report on  "Thyroid Follicular Cell
         4.3.3 Sediment Quality Criteria

    4.4  Operational Changes in the SAB Staff 	 33
         4.4.1 Personnel
         4.4.2 Operational changes

 5. Projections and Conclusions	 ... 35

    A.  Charters of the Science Advisory Board and of the
          Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
    B.  Organizational Chart of the SAB
    C.  Structure of SAB Committees
    D.  Members of the SAB
    E.  Consultants to the SAB
    F.  SAB Committee Meetings in FY88
    G.  Abstracts of SAB Reports in FY88
    H.  Biographical Sketches of SAB Staff

    I.  SAB Leadership During Past Two Decades	    12

   II.  FY88 SAB Chairmen 	    13

  III.  FY88 SAB Budget		i  16

   IV.  FY88 SAB Activities by Committee 	  17

    V.  SAB Resources and Activities 	  18


     This third Annual Report.of the Staff Director of the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) includes background information on
the Board: its origins, authorities and function.   Ways in which
the SAB "makes a difference" are described.  The report contains
the current committee/subcommittee structure of the Board,
together with a roster of all members and consultants as of
March, 1989.

     The focus of the Report is the activities of the SAB during
FY88.  The main text contains summary overviews of the principal
actions of each of the committees of the Board.  The appendices
contain listings of all SAB meetings held and SAB reports issued,
together with abstracts of each.  Three activities which typify
"making a difference" are described in greater detail: the SAB
report on Research Strategies for the 1990s, the review of the
Agency's report on thyroid follicular cell carcinogenesis, and
the Board's continuing examination of issues related to
developing sediment criteria.  SAB staff operations are also
described in terms of background of current personnel and changes
that have been introduced to increase efficiencies.

     The Report closes with a brief projection of FY89 activities

     This Annual Repo.rt of the Staff Director  is  a  product of the
support staff of the Science Advisory Board  of  the  U. .S.
Environmental Prc-ection Agency.  It describes  the  Fiscal  Year
1988 activities of the Board as viewed by the  staff.   The  content
of this report has not been formally reviewe.d  by  th:e -Board- or the
Agency and should not be construed as representing  the  views of
either organization.


     The last twelve months have seen significant changes at the
Science Advisory Board.

     First,, in February, 1988, Dr. Terry Yosie,  who served as
the Director the Board for the better part of a decade,  left the
SAB and the Agency to pursue challenges in the private sector„
Dr. Yosie shares the credit for what the SAB has become,  having
nurtured it through both exciting and difficult times with
enthusiasm and foresight.

     Second, in November, Dr. Norton Nelson stepped down as Chair
of the Executive Committee after four years of strong leadership,
marked by dedication, integrity and vision.   Fortunately for the
Board and the Agency, Dr. Nelson has agreed to continue serving
as a member of the Executive Committee.

     Third, Mr. Lee Thomas resigned as EPA Administrator,
effective January 20, 1989.  It would be difficult to overstate
Mr. Thomas's contribution to the success the Science Advisory
Board.  He has eagerly sought the advice of the SAB, creatively
sent the Board on new missions, and continually stressed that
the scientific and engineering foundations of proposed Agency
regulations must undergo external peer-review before the SAB.
His openness, candor, friendship and steadfast support will be

     But change also brings with it new opportunities.
Therefore, I look forward to working with the Board as we address
future challenges, with the same commitment to objective,
credible scientific review that has marked SAB activities in the
past.  With Dr. Raymond Loehr of the Engineering Department at
the University of Texas as the Chair of the Executive Committee,
the Board can anticipate a continuation of the high quality
leadership of the past, accented by innovations in new areas and
approaches.  Finally, we on the Staff commit ourselves to making
it possible for Mr. William K. Reilly, the new EPA Administrator,
to receive the best independent scientific advice upon which to
base the important, but extremely difficult, decisions facing
this country—and the world—in the area of protection of public
health and the environment.

     In the midst of change, I am confident that the  future will
share with the past the clear demonstration that, indeed, "the
SAB makes a difference".
                      Donald G. Barnes, Ph.D.
                         Director, Science Advisory Board
                         March, 1989

                    1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    This Annual Report of the Staff Director of the Science
Advisory Board  (SAB) has three purposes:

    a. To provide a basic introduction to the SAB.

    b. To provide a summary of the SAB activities for fiscal year

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

     The SAB was officially created in an Act of Congress in
1978 as a staff office in the Office of the Administrator.  Its
purpose is to provide independent peer review of the
scientific and engineering positions underpinning Agency actions.
This function can be traced back through previous committees to a
time antedating the creation of the Agency. During the past two
decades, the SAB and its related groups have had a demonstrable
impact on Agency actions and planning.  In its current form, the
Board functions as a scientific and engineering peer review
panel, conducting its business in public sessions, subject to the
regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  As FY88 drew
to a close and the Agency and the Board entered a time of
transition, it could still be said: "The SAB does make a

     The main functions of the SAB are organized through
(currently) seven standing committees:

     Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
     Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
     Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
     Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee  (EET+FC)
     Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee  (IAQC)
     Radiation Advisory Committee  (RAG)
     Research Strategies Advisory Committee  (RSAC)

     An Executive Committee (EC), composed of the Chairs  of the
standing committees, supplemented by additional members,
approves and oversees the activities of Board.  Many of the
actual review functions of the SAB are conducted by
subcommittees of the Executive Committee and the standing
committees.  The CASAC is an independently chartered advisory
committee which is administratively housed within the SAB.

     The SAB consists of more than 60 members and more than 250
consultants, drawn from the ranks of the top scientific and
engineering talent in the country and,  on occasion, from other

     In FY88 committees and subcommittees of the SAB held more
meetings  (58) and generated more reports (43) than any other
time in its history.  The staff has distributed more than 4000
and 7000 copies, respectively, of SAB reports on the combustion
of municipal waste and another on the research strategies for the
1990s.  During FY88 arrangements were made, to provide copies of
SAB reports to, all EPA libraries across the country and to the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for broader
distribution and availability.

     The requests for SAB reviews primarily come from the Agency
(the Administrator or the program offices), the Congress, or
from within the Board itself.  In recent years an increasing
number of subjects brought to and selected by the SAB have been
cross-cutting issues which affect several different programs and
different media; e.g., various combustion issues, and toxicity
and exposure of 2,3,7,8-TCDD  ("dioxin").  In addition, the EPA
has established a cross-Agency Risk Assessment Forum in which
senior scientists collegially address multi-media risk-related
topics, develop consensus positions, and submit the results to
the SAB for peer-review.

     Interest in SAB activities remains high.  Program offices
find that favorable SAB reviews add significant credibility to
their analysis of the scientific and engineering subjects upon
which their regulations are based.  The Congress specifically
requests SAB testimony on occasion.  Many elements of the public
support the concept of peer-review, in general, and the SAB, in

     The SAB makes difference in the following ways:

     a. By conducting rigorous reviews of the technical positions

     b. By impacting decisions that are associated with large

     c. By lending credibility to science policy positions;
            e.g., risk assessment guidelines and the use of
            "toxicity equivalency factors  (TEFs)"

     d. By providing guidance for Agency planning; e.g., research
            strategies for the 1990s.

     e. By focusing public review of scientific and engineering

     Some of the major activities of the principal committees  of
the Board during FY88 include the following:

 a.  The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee  (CASAC)
      reviewed the Agency's staff paper on ozone.   The
      publication of recent scientific data prompted  some
      members to personally express their views  to  the

 b.  The Executive Committee (EC)  conducted its four quarterly
      meetings, overseeing the work of other committees.
      In addition, through EC subcommittees,  the group  gave
      valuable advice on several  topics; e.g., the  ORD
      budget, the evaluation of scientific papers published
      by Agency scientists, and specific suggestions  for
      improving the research program during the coming

 c.  The Environmental_Enaineering_Committee_(EEC) examined a
      number of issues, among them being ORD's Land Disposal
      Research Program, ORD's Waste Minimization Strategy,
      the RCRA groundwater monitoring technical guidance
      document, and a groundwater transport model.   In
      addition, the EEC drafted a resolution which  addresses
      a number of generic issues uncovered in the course  of
      reviewing a series of computer-based transport  models.

 d.  The Environmental Effects. Transport and Fate Committee
      (EET&FC) completed an extensive review of municipal
      waste combustion.  More than 2000 copies of the report
      have been distributed in response to requests from the
      public.  The EET+FC also examined the Agency's
      development of "water quality advisories", the process
      followed to generate an estimate of the concentration
      of a given pollutant that is unlikely to result in harm
      to human health or the environment.  A subcommittee
      also began work on an extensive project to investigate
      how the Agency will set "sediment criteria";  i.e.,
      sediment pollutant levels in lakes, streams,  and
      rivers, below which the aquatic environment is likely
      to be free from harm.

e.  The Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Committee
      (IAQC) completed its review of the Agency's Report to
      Congress on the EPA Indoor Air Quality  Implementation

f.  The Radiation Advisory Committee  (RAC) reviewed a
      series of Agency reports on problems posed by radon  gas
      in American homes.  in addition,  the RAC examined
      Agency reports which will be used  to establish an air
      quality criterion for radionuclides.

    q   Research in Progress  Reviews  (RIPs)  are  reviews conducted
          at the request of the  Deputy Administrator who
          identifies particular  research programs  for in-depth
          SAB examination.  Of particular  note in  FY88 was the
          review of the neurotoxicology program  at the Health
          Effects Research Laboratory in Research  Triangle Park,
          NC.  While making some specific  recommendations for
          improvements and operations, the Board concluded that
          the overall program was the finest of  its kind in the
          Federal government.

     The fact that the SAB  "makes a difference"  is best
illustrated by specific examples.  First,  in FY88  the SAB
concluded a major report on environmental  research strategies
for the 1990s.  This effort,  chaired-  by Al Aim,  former Deputy
Administrator of EPA, enlisted the expertise of  more than 30
of the nation's top experts in environment research planning
and execution.  The report, Future_Risk. was issued in Sept.,
1988 and contains 10 specific recommendations.   Administrator Lee
Thomas immediately initiated  action to  implement the majority
of the recommendations.  The  impact of  these initiatives can
alrady be seen in structural  changes  within the  Office of
Research and Development (ORD),  in budget  requests by the Agency,
and even in the SAB itself, which has established  a standing
committee to assist the Agency  in following through on the
recommendations in Future Risk.

     Second, the SAB reviewed an Agency document which
carefully analyzed a particular  type  of cancer:  thyroid
follicular cell cancer.  The  document presented  a  case for
assessing the risks posed by  some such  cancers by  a procedure
different from the one traditionally  used  by the Agency.
Specifically, under a restricted set  of conditions, the
Agency is recommending assessing these  chemical-induced
thyroid cancers by a "threshold" approach.  This implies that
there is a level of exposure  to  the chemical, below which
there is no cause for concern.   This  contrasts with the
Agency's traditional "non-threshold"  approach which holds
that no matter how small the  exposure to  the chemical, there
will be some finite risk of contracting cancer.

     In this case, the SAB  was  very complimentary of the analysis
in the Agency's document.  While recommending inclusion of
additional details and examples  of how the new policy would
be used, the Board approved the  general departure from the
Agency's traditional approach.   Given the high level of interest
and controversy associated  with the topic, SAB involvement
and approval is likely to have  a great effect on the general
acceptability of the new approach within  the scientific community
and the public.

     Third, in FY88 the SAB began a series of meetings which
will examine different approaches that are being used to

determine "sediment criteria"; i.e., benchmark levels of
pollutants in sediments against which contamination at a
particular site might be measured and assessed.  This is an
example of the SAB's getting involved early in the process on
an issue that is attracting national and international attention.
Therefore, the Board's influence and impact are likely to be

     At the staff level which provides support for the Board,
FY88 saw a number of changes.  Dr. Terry Yosie, who had
been SAB Staff Director since 1981, left the Agency to take up
challenges in the private sector.  He was replaced by Dr.
Donald Barnes, who had served for nine years as Senior Science
Advisor to the Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.  Mr. Harry Torno, long-time
Executive Secretary of the Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC), retired and was replaced by Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian from
the Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
By the end of the year the ranks of the executive secretaries
and the staff secretaries were at their authorized levels.
These personnel changes were accompanied by improvements in
the equipment and technology, which permitted the SAB to
operate more efficiently and effectively.

                 2.  INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT

2.1  Purpose of the Report

     The Science Advisory Board (SAB) is more than 10 years old.
Its original charge was, and continues to be, to provide
independent scientific and engineering (collectively,
"technical") advice on environmental issues to the Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others; e.g.,
Congressional committees.  The SAB does not get involved in or
provide advice on regulatory policy aspects of problems
confronting the Agency, since the discussion of and decisions  on
such matters are the province and responsibility of the EPA
Administrator.  Additional details of the objectives,
responsibilities, composition, and activities of the SAB are
included in the charter of the organization  (See Appendix A).

     The function of providing credible technical advice to
EPA and Congress antedates ERDDAA and its nascent SAB. In fact,
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.

     Informed observers generally 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 dispassionately evaluated.

     For some puzzled observers of the SAB, the biggest problem
is simply finding out "What does the SAB do?"  A somewhat
flippant,  but accurate, ""answer to that question is: "The SAB
makes a difference."  Specifically, the SAB makes a difference
in the type and conduct of scientific and engineering research
at EPA.  The SAB also makes a difference in the way  in which the
resulting data are interpreted and used to support regulatory
positions.  Finally, the SAB also makes a difference to SAB
members and consultants  (M/Cs) and SAB staff by giving them the
satisfaction of seeing their information and guidance used
appropriately by the Agency to address environmental problems.

     This Report is directed at a wide audience: to  those  inside
the Agency and to those outside the Agency; to those who

understand the Board, to those who think they understand the
Board, and to those who know enough to know that they don't
understand the Board.  The intent is that each reader receive
something of value from reading this Report.

    Specifically, the purpose of the Staff Director's Annual
Report is three-fold:

    a. To provide a succinct introduction of the SAB.

    b. To provide a summary of the SAB activities  for fiscal
          year 1988.

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

In  summary, 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 arid identify paths  for
investigating the fine details, as desired.

2.2  Content  of the  Report

      The Report consists of five principle sections, plus
appendices which  supplement the discussion in the  main  sections.
Section  3,  immediately following this introductory section,
contains basic background information 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 which illustrate  the
way in which  the  SAB "makes a difference" to the  functions and
 operations  of the Agency.

      Section  4  focuses on SAB activities during FY88.   This
 portion  of  the  Report contains statistics on last  year's SAB
 meetings and  information  about the reports which were  issued
 during the  year.   In addition, three particular SAB reports which
 have broad  implications  for the Agency  and  the  larger  scientific
 community are discussed  in greater detail.

      Section  5  provides  a glimpse  into  what  FY89  holds in store
 for the  Board.   Some significant reviews have  already  been
 conducted and additional  reviews are planned.   These are
 described in varying levels  of detail.  Also,  there is a
 description of some of  the  initiatives—both inside and outside
 the SAB—which are being discussed.

      The Appendices contain  important  information, such as
 organizational charts,  membership  lists,  abstracts of reports,
 and the like.  They 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 Science Advisory Board (SAB)  was established in 1978 by
Congress to provide independent scientific and engineering
advice to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 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 (hazard
identification, dose-response assessment,  exposure assessment and
risk characterization) and only that portion of risk management
that deals strictly with the technical issues associated with
various control options.  See Figure I.  Issues of Agency and
Administration policy are beyond the scope of SAB mandate and

     Since 1978, 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
engineers and scientists who are recognized 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.

     Increasingly, the Agency has placed a premium on basing its
regulations on a solid technical foundation.  Therefore, during
the past 10 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 requires
that decisions related to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) be reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC), which is administratively housed
within the SAB.  Also, many of the standards being proposed under
the Safe Drinking Water Act are brought to the Board for review -
In addition, more selected reviews, such as an examination of the
hazard ranking system under the Superfund program, are becoming
more common.

     Generally, the Board functions as a scientific and
engineering peer review panel.  The SAB conducts 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.  In addition, 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
incontrovertible proof might court irreversible ecological and
health consequences.  In such cases, the Agency makes certain
assumptions and extrapolations from what is known in order to
reach a rational science policy position regarding the need (or
lack thereof) for regulatory action.  Here, the SAB serves as a
council of peers to evaluate the soundness of the technical
basis of the science policy position adopted by the Agency.

     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 Administrator, 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"
(42 U.S.C 4365).  Because the Science Advisory Board is a Federal
Advisory Committee, it must comply with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA)  (5 U.S.C. app.) and related regulations.
Consequently, the Board has an approved charter, which must be
renewed biannually, announces its meetings in the Federal
Register, and provides opportunities for public comment.

3.2  SAB Organization and Membership

     The SAB Charter  (Appendix A) states that "The objective of
the Board is to provide advice to EPA's Administrator on the
scientific and technical aspects of environmental problems and
issues," that "The Board will consist of a body of 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," and that "No
member of the Board shall be a full-time employee of the Federal
Government."  The Charter requires formation of an Executive
Committee and inclusion of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (see separate charter also in Appendix A).  Otherwise
the Board may organize itself as needed to meet its responsi-

    The Board's Executive Committee serves as the focal point
for the coordination of scientific reviews by the Board's
standing committees.  Appendix B contains a simplified chart o-f
the SAB organization.  The Executive Committee meets four times  a
year to act on Agency requests for reviews, hear briefings on
pertinent issues, initiate actions/reviews by the Board which  it
feels are appropriate, and approve final reports prior to
transmittal to the Administrator.   (Under the Clean Air Act,
reports from CASAC are submitted directly to the Administrator,
without need for prior Executive Committee approval.  The  Clean
Air Act also specifies in detail the CASAC membership.)  Five

committees have historically conducted most Science Advisory
Board reviews: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee  (CASAC);
Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee  (EET&FC);
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC), Environmental Health
Committee  (EHC), and the Radiation Advisory Committee  (RAC).

     The activities of these five committees are supplemented  by
their own  subcommittees and by subcommittees of the Executive
Committee.  In addition, the Indoor Air Quality/Total Human
Exposure Committee  (IAQC) and Research Strategies Advisory
Committee  (RSAC) were recently formed as standing committees of
the Board.  Appendix C contains the leadership of each  of the

     The Science Advisory Board currently consists of 69
members, appointed  by the Administrator for staggered terms of
one to  four years.  The term of service of an SAB member may be
extended for  an additional one to four years.  The number of
appointed  members is flexible.  Appendix D contains a list  of  the
current members of  the Board.  More than 250 additional
scientists and engineers, invited by the Director, serve on an
"as needed" basis as consultants to the Board on various issues
where their expertise is relevant.  The number of consultants  is
also flexible and their one year terms can be renewed.
Consultants are required to meet the same standards of  scientific
expertise  as  members.  Appendix E contains a list of the current
consultants to the  Board.  The term "member or consultants  (M/C)"
will be used  throughout this report to refer to these outside
technical  experts.

     The SAB  Staff  consists of 17 full-time EPA employees:
a staff director, six scientist/engineer executive secretaries,
a program  analyst,  and nine staff secretaries.  Their duties
include identifying and enlisting M/Cs, focusing questions  for
review  by  the Board,  interfacing between the Board and  program
offices of the Agency, coordinating logistics for reviews,  and
producing  minutes and reports for submission to the

     The Board has  been successful in tapping a continuing  vein
of technical  talent to  fill its leadership positions.   The
scientists and engineers who have led the SAB for the  past  15
years are  listed  in Table I.  The FY 88 chairs of the  SAB
standing committees are  found in Table II.

Executive Comm.

Dr. Emil Mrak
Dr. John Cantlon
Dr. Earnest Gloyna
Dr. Norton Nelson
Dr. Raymond Loehr
                 TABLE  I


              Affiliation                 Date
           University of California
           Michigan State University
           University of Texas at Austin
           New York University
           University of Texas
          SAB Staff Directors

          Dr. Thomas Bath
          Dr. Richard Dowd
          Dr. Terry Yosie
          Dr. Donald Barnes


                           TABLE II

                      FY88 SAB CHAIRMEN

Executive Committee (EC):
     Dr. Norton Nelson
        Former Director, Institute of Environmental Medicine,
             New York University Medical Center
        Former Chairman, Department of Environmental
             Medicine, New York University Medical Center
        Former Provost, New York University Heights Campus
        Trustee Rene Du Bos Center
        Trustee and Vice President John B. Pierce Foundation
        Member, Institute of Medicine

 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee  (CASAC):
     Dr. Roger McClellan
        President of the Chemical Industries Institute
             of Toxicology
        Member, American Veterinary Medical
        Member, Radiation Research Society
        Member, Society of Toxicology

Environmental Engineering Committee .(EEC):
     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
        Member, Water Pollution Control Federation,
        Member, American Society of Civil Engineers

 Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee
     Dr. Rolf Hartung
        Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the
             University of Michigan
        Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and
        Member, American Industrial Hygiene
        Member, Society of Toxicology
        Member, Wildlife Society

 Environmental Health Committee (EHC):
     Dr. Richard Griesemer
         Director, Division of Toxicology Research and Testing
            at the National Instutute of Environmental Health
            Health Sciences (NEIHS)  in RTF,  NC
         Former Deputy Director,  National Toxicology Program
         Former senior research scientist and Director of the
            Biology Division at the Oakridge National
            Laboratory, Oakridge, TN
         Diplomate of the American College of Veternary
         Associate Director of the National Division of Cancer
            Control and Prevention and the Director of the
            Bioassey Program at the National Cancer Institute,
            NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.

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

Radiation Advisory Committee  (RAC):
     Dr. William Schull
         Director and Professor of Population Genetics
            at the University of Texas Health Science
            Center at Houston
         Member, National Research Council
         Member, Society for Epidemiology Research
         Member, Society for Biology
         Member, Sigma Xi.

3.3  SAB Activities

     3.3.1  Overview

     The breadth of activities and the range of subjects
reviewed by SAB continue to grow.  Besides undertaking such
reviews at the request of Congress or the Administrator and
program offices, the Board also undertakes reviews 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.  In addition,
recent requests have been for more complex, inter-disciplinary,
multi-media reviews, such as multi-media aspects of municipal
waste combustion, the Agency's analysis of global climate issues,
and an in-depth examination of strategies to guide environmental
research during the 1990s.

     In addition, the magnitude of SAB activity has increased
dramatically during the past 10 years.  Tables III provides
information on the Board's activities as a whole and on a major
committee basis.

     The Board has already prepared over 200 reports in this
decade.  Each of these is sent to the Administrator, the
requesting office, and the relevant reviewers.  Single copies are
available free of charge to anyone requesting them.  Distribution
varies with interest in the topic.  Some are circulated to fewer
than 100 readers.  A "best seller" typically results in
distribution of 1000 copies in two years.  The recent Future Risk
report on strategies for the Agency's research in the coming
decade achieved a distribution of 6000 in  less than four months.
A rough estimate of total SAB report circulation in this decade
would be 50,000 to 100,000 copies.

     Starting in FY88, SAB reports have also been distributed
through the EPA headquarters library, EPA  regional libraries
system and the National Technical Information Service  (NTIS).
Also, on occasion entire SAB reports are printed in the trade

                            TABLE  III

                         FY89 SAB BUDGET

Compensation 	 $ 1,014.OK
   (Members, Consultants and Staff)

Travel 	     279.2 K

Other Miscellaneous Expenses 	      82 . 5 K
   (Court reporting services, equipment, training,
    maintenance for work processing equipment,
    copying machines, etc.)

Total 	   1,375.7K

                          TABLE IV

         FY88 SAB Activities by Committee for FY89


 Fiscal Year  No.  Mtgs

   EC/Ad HOC  1986
   Subcomm.   1987













No. Reports






Clear Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Executive Committee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee
Environmental Health Committee
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee
Radiation Advisory Committee
 * Includes 17 meetings for Research Strategies Committee  (RSC)

                           TABLE V
        Science Advisory Board Resources and Activities*
Open Closed
Number of Staff
Reports* Members FTE
(in thousands
to nearest $25
*  Appendix G contains an list of all of the reports for FY88,
including abstracts of each.

** 1989 figures come from the adjusted operating plan and
rosters, all others are based on the actual expenses obtained
from the Annual Report on Federal Advisory Committees. Figures
include member, consultants and staff salaries, in addition to
miscellaneous expenses such as court reporters, rental of
conference rooms, Federal Register notices, etc.

3.3.2  Types of reports

     Generally, requests for SAB reviews of the technical
foundations supporting the Agency's regulatory positions come
from three sources.  First, the Board responds to requests from
the Agency for reviews of specific documents and/or issues.
Roughly 90% of the Board's activities fall into this category.
Examples include requests from the Office of Air and Radiation
for CASAC reviews of positions associated with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and requests from the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) for review of the Agency's risk assessment guidelines.

     Second, the Board is sometimes requested by Congress to
conduct a review.  For example, for the past several years the
SAB has been requested by the House Subcommittee on Natural
Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment to review that
portion of the President's budget that supports the Office of
Research and Development.

     Third, on occasion the Board initiates its own examination
of an issue, working with various programs in the Agency to gain
a total perspective of the subject.  An example of this type of
review is a projected investigation of the Agency's development
and  use of mathematical modeling to estimate exposures in the

     In recent years, the subjects brought to and selected by
the  SAB have been more likely to be those cross-cutting issues
that affect several different programs and different media. The
media-oriented organizational structure of the Agency increases
the  likelihood that such "interstitial technical issues" do not
receive the comprehensive  examination that they deserve.   In  a
creative response  to this  problem, the Agency formed the Risk
Assessment  Forum to provide a mechanism by which senior
scientists  from  across the Agency can address these problems.
Most Forum  products are destined for SAB review.  Consequently,
the  Board plays  an important role in bringing these cross-cutting
issues into public, yet technical, focus.  An example of this
type of review is  the examination of the Agency's proposal  to
assess certain cases of thyroid cancer as a "threshold
phenomena", in contrast with the Agency's traditional approach  to
assessing the  risks posed  by chemical carcinogens.  (See Section

3.3.3  Responses and reactions to SAB Activities

     Since  1984, the Board has  formally  requested written  Agency
responses to SAB reviews.  For example,  as  of  December  1988
there were  21  written  responses available  for  the 43  SAB  reports
completed in FY88.  In  nine of these cases  the  Agency completely
accepted the SAB's advice;  in  11 cases  it  substantially accepted

the advice; and in only one case is the Agency likely to go
against the advice of the Board.  Generally, any areas of
disagreement are related to implementation feasibility rather
than scientific desirability-

     Support for the SAB both inside and outside the Agency seems
to be increasing.   The larger number of requests for reviews,
for example, and the increased level of resources to conduct
those reviews speak to the Agency's commitment to the SAB.
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., report on research strategies for the
1990s and the review of the Agency's re-assessment of the
carcinogenicity of "dioxin".  SAB members are sought out for
comments on issues before the Board; e.g., Dr. Morton Lippmann
(CASAC) has been interviewed on national TV regarding the ozone

     Congressional interest also continues to grow.  Congressman
Scheuer  (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources,
Agriculture Research and Environment, which oversees the EPA's
research programs) regularly invites members of the SAB's ORD
Budget Review Subcommittee to testify at hearings in the spring.
He has commented favorably on the Board and on the utility of its
report on the magnitude and distribution of the ORD budget.  In
addition, last fall be announced his intention to hold hearings
on the SAB report on strategies for environmental research for
the 1990s.  Also, the SAB is mentioned in two recently passed
laws: the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act  (SARA) of
1986 (P.L. 99-499) and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
(SDWAA) amendments of 1986.  SARA requires SAB review of the
Agency's Report to Congress on the Indoor Air Quality
Implementation Plan.  SDWAA states "The Administrator shall
request comments from the SAB ...prior to proposal of a maximum
contaminant level goal and national primary drinking water

     The SAB has also conducted a review at the request of
another agency.  Specifically, in 1986 the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) asked for and received a review of the
risks associated with exposure to emissions from indoor space
heaters and other appliances emitting nitrogen dioxide.

     At this particular time of change, it  is interesting to
note that the Board is featured favorably in the American
Industrial Health Council (AIHC) presidential transition paper
on the proper role of science in the regulatory arena. The
concept of even-handed peer review exemplified by the SAB  is
recommended for use throughout the regulatory community.

3.4  The SAB is Making a Difference

     3.4.1 Conducting rigorous review of the science

     The principal purpose of the SAB is to provide a rigorous,
independent review of the Agency's scientific positions.  The
non-technical issues associated with economic impacts and
feasibility are risk management issues and, therefore, generally
not within the purview of the SAB.  (CASAC is required to examine
some aspects of these issues in their review of secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAS).  The scientific
positions can be directly related to regulations  (e.g., drinking
water standards and associated treatment technologies), current
research activities (e.g., the SAB "research-in-progress" reviews
of selected EPA laboratory activities), or more generic activity
which will impact many programs (e.g., review of  risk assessment

      It is expected that a SAB review will be both thorough and
critical.  There are other means by which program offices seek
input and critical analysis of their positions; e.g., publication
in the  Federal Register, presentations at professional meetings,
and  convening of workshops.  However, in many circles, both
inside  and outside the Agency, an SAB review is viewed as a "gold
standard" of quality, only equaled or surpassed by a review by
the  National Academy of Sciences  (NAS) or the National Academy of
Engineering  (NAE).

      3.4.2   Impacting large expenditures

      The effect of SAB advice  is difficult to .quantify.
However, the Board's advice does  impact major Agency programs
and  the manner in which funds  are allocated within those
programs.  Given that SAB reports affect the regulatory
decisions made by the program  offices, the impact of the  Board's
advice  can be measured in the  millions of dollars.

      For example, the scientific  basis for National Ambient Air
Quality Standards  (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act are  reviewed by
CASAG.   The  subsequent regulations  can result  in large  expenses
 for  pollution control. Also, the  SAB's recent report  on
strategies  for environmental research in the  1990s contains
recommendations  for  a fundamental change in  the Agency's  approach
to environmental  protection. It  includes recommendations  for the
allocation  of hundreds of millions of dollars of  Agency
resources,  suggestions which have subsequently  been  reflected in
Agency  budget proposals.  Similar evidence of the impact of SAB
area-specific advice can  be  found in  the water  and  solid waste
programs. At an  even more  fundamental level,  the  SAB critique of
EPA  risk assessment  guidelines affects the basic  direction of
nearly  all  of EPA's  regulatory decisions that lead  to pollution
controls, whose  costs to  the nation have been estimated at $70
billion per  year.

   3.4.3   Lending credibility  to science policy

      As a  regulatory agency,  EPA is  sometimes forced to take

action on a particular matter before all aspects have been
"scientifically proven".  For example, a chemical may have been
shown to cause birth defects in several animal species,  but
studies on exposed humans have not been conducted.  In such
situations the Agency may take a position — e.g., assume that
humans are also susceptible to the developmental effects of the
chemical —• as a matter of science policy.

     The SAB plays an important role by reviewing the scientific
basis for the position and renders an opinion as to whether
that position is scientifically defensible, if not scientifically
proven.   A favorable review by the Board provides a measure of
credibility and support to the position, thereby strengthening
Agency's regulatory stance.  In addition, the SAB often suggests
additional research directions which will clarify outstanding
scientific questions.  Two examples illustrate this point.

Example 1:  Toxic Equivalency Factors  (TEFs)

     Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (CDDs/CDFs)
   constitute a family of 210 separate chemical compounds.  Some
   have been shown to be very toxic in animal systems.  The
   vast majority of the chemicals have not been subjected to
   detailed toxicological investigations, and yet many of them
   appear in many environmental samples; e.g., dumpsites,
   combustion sources, and human blood.

     Using an emerging general principle for estimating chemical
   and biological activity of related compounds, "structure-
   activity relationships  (SAR)", the Agency developed
   interim procedures for estimating the toxicity of the less
   well-studied CDDs/CDFs.  The SAB endorsed the approach as
   being scientifically defensible, calling attention to its
   interim nature and urging that additional research be
   conducted to replace the approach with a more direct measure
   of biological activity.  This action by the Board has enabled
   the Agency to reach judgments (e.g., about clean-up levels)
   and to design appropriate research activities.

Example 2:  Risk Assessment Guidelines

     The use of risk assessment  (RA) has become more pervasive
   in the regulatory arena in recent years.  The  fact that this
   controversial practice has become an established procedure
   is, in part, related to EPA's development of guidelines which
   describe the process and rationale by which the RAs will be
   conducted.  The guidelines contain a number of science policy
   positions which were subject to review by the  SAB and the
   public.  The Board's review allowed all points of view to be
   heard and resulted in specific recommendations for changes
   and an overall endorsement of the RA process as a
   scientifically defensible practice.

   3.4.4  Providing guidance  for Agency  planning

     The recent SAB report  on strategies for environmental
research for the 1990s is a prime  example of a report which has
had immediate and far-ranging impact.  Within a month after
receiving the report with its 10 substantive recommendations,
the Administrator initiated action to  implement most of the SAB's

     The report went beyond its original charge and recommended
fundamental changes in the  approach to pollution control; i.e.,
shifting attention from the "end-of-pipe" controls to the
elimination of pollution at the front  end.  This shift in Agency
"cultural thinking patterns"  is currently underway.

     The report called for  the Administrator's chairing a senior
research policy group, the  Research Strategy Council, to provide
greater direction for the Agency's research program, especially
the long-term component. The Council  will have a source of
independent advice from a new standing committee of the SAB, the
Research Strategies Advisory  Committee  (RSAC).

   3.4.5  Focusing public review of scientific and engineering

     The SAB process also provides an opportunity to obtain and
incorporate the views of the public.  On some reviews the public
has provided important, credible scientific analysis which was
carefully prepared and presented.   The  openness of the  SAB
review  process,  in which a.ll parties can be heard, adds credence
to the  SAB  product and, in most instances, wide acceptance of
the results.

     Members of  the public have expressed the view that the
Board provides  a  unique and  critically  important  forum  for
thorough, open,  and rigorous discussion of the  science
underlying  regulations.  The existing public comment process
which is part  of  the  regulatory process does not  provide the
same degree of  interaction and independent third-party
examination of  technical issues.

     While  no  quantitative analysis has been conducted of
possible trends in the  number  or  value  of public  commenters over
the years,  most observers  have noted  a  more  informed
participation  of public commenters in the Board's activities in
recent  years.  For example, one public commenter at a recent
meeting on  radiation  risks presented  bound  copies of relevant,
objective background  papers  for each  of the Committee members.
Thus, it appears that the  scope of the  Board's activities  is
better  understood and the  public  is learning how to contribute
constructively to the-Board's  discussions

                  4.  REVIEW OF FY88 ACTIVITIES

4.1  Introduction

     FY88 was a busy—and varied—year for the Science
Advisory Board.  The number of meetings held and the number of
reports issued during the year were the highest in the SAB's
history.  The Board examined several new topics whose
ramifications for Agency planning, policy and practice are
far-reaching.  The support staff for the Board expanded to its
authorized limit and a change was made in the position of Staff

     This review of FY88 consists of a brief overview of SAB
activities for the year, an examination of three particular SAB
reviews which are likely to make a significant difference to the
Agency, and a discussion of changes in the SAB staff operations.
Additional details and summaries are found in the appendices.

4.2  Overview of SAB Activities

     In FY88 the committees and subcommittees cf the SAB
conducted 59 meetings and issued 43 separate reports. (Some of
these reports reflected reviews conducted in the previous fiscal
year and some FY88 reviews will result in FY89 reports.)  Nearly
every program office of the Agency was affected by one or another
of the reviews.  The SAB both responded to requests for reviews
from the Agency and took the initiative in delving into new areas
and new approaches to providing the kind of scientific and
engineering advice that makes a difference in the Agency's

     These activities are summarized by committee in the
sections below.  Appendix F contains a list of all the meetings,
arranged by committee, and Appendix G contains a list of all
the SAB reports, including abstracts, issued during the year.

   4.2.1  Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

     CASAC activities were somewhat limited in FY88, although
preparations were made for a high level of activity in FY89.
The Committee did examine the Agency's Staff Paper on Ozone, in
which the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards  (OAQPS)
discussed their plans for generating a risk management policy
for ozone, based upon available risk assessment and technology
information.  The review was impacted by results presented at an
international meeting in The Netherlands in May, 1988 at which
new data were presented which suggested demonstrable human
health effects at levels lower than previously observed.  Some
current and former members of CASAC felt strongly enough about
these data to visit the Administrator in a private capacity  in
order to express their individual concerns.

     A subcommittee of CASAC  also  reviewed the Agency's Staff
Paoer on Acid Aerosols,  in which OAQPS  presented their views on
the neeS to Us? acid aerosols  (acidic  "mist" emitted by
combustion sources such as coal-fired power plants) under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) .   The effect of  such a listing would be to '
put the Agency on an prescribed time schedule for deciding
whether and how to control such emissions.  The subcommittee
agreed with the Agency that additional  research was needed.  In
addition, the subcommittee went on to recommend to the full CASAC
that, in light of the information  already available, the Agency
should also list the pollutant  for development of an ambient air
quality standard under the CAA.

   4.2.2  Executive Committee (EC)

     The EC conducted its four  quarterly meetings in which  it
acted on reports prepared by the  Committees and on requests for
SAB  reviews.  The EC was the parent  committee of the Research
Strategies Committee  (RSC) which  completed its investigation
into the agenda for environmental  research in the 1990s.  The
RSC  report, issued in September,  is  one of the most far-reaching
reports ever  issued by the SAB and is discussed in greater
detail in Section  4.3 below.

     In addition,  two regular subcommittees of the EC  issued
their reports. The first was a report to Congress on the  SAB's
reaction to the ORD budget for FY89.  Dr. Morton Lippmann
presented the report  in written and oral  form at a Congressional
hearing  in April,  1988.  The second was a report to the Agency on
the  Board's evaluation of technical papers published by EPA
authors. This report  was used by ORD in making decisions  about
awards  for excellence in science and engineering.

   4.2.3  Environmental Engineering Committee  (EEC)

     In  recent years,  the SAB has conducted  an  increasing number
of studies which  are  particularly relevant to the  Superfund and
Office  of Solid Waste (OSW) programs.   For example,  in FY88 the
EEC  examined  ORD's Land Disposal  Research Program  (LDRP)  which  is
investigating options for the  land  disposal  of  ash,  residues from
small quantity generator wastes,  proper design  for municipal
landfills and surface impoundments,  closure  and post-closure care
of landfills, and the like.  In addition, the  EEC  reviewed ORD's
Waste Minimization Strategy which looks toward  implementing many
of the  recommendations found in the Research Strategies report,
to which members  of  the  EEC  also  contributed.

     The Committee,  responding to a request  from the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement,  also  reviewed the RCRA groundwater
monitoring Technical  Guidance  Document.   This document provides
technical  information on siting,  well  construction,- sampling
SrS*yS12', ane ass^ssment matters  associated with groundwater near
RCRA and/or  Superfund sites.

     The EEC examined the question of the environmental risks
posed by large volume, low toxicity wastes; specifically,  wastes
from mining operations.  This study has implications for the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR);  i.e., the
Superfund program, as well as OSW.  In addition,  the EEC
investigated underground storage tanks and a method for
mathematically modeling the transport of pollutants through
"the unsaturated zone"; i.e., the underground region between the
earth's surface and the water table.  This information is
relevant to several parts of the Agency; e.g., OERR, OSW,  the
Office of Groundwater Protection, and the Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research.

     The EEC affected the Agency on an even more general level
by drafting a resolution (a "sense of the SAB" declaration) on
the use of mathematical techniques to anticipate/predict
processes, transformations and effects that are likely to occur
as a consequence of -pollutants in the environment.  Nearly every
program in the Agency utilizes such models in one form or
another.  The motivation for the resolution came from the EEC
itself, which in the recent past has examined a number of
mathematical models used by Agency offices and felt compelled to
provide more generalized reaction and guidance.

  4.2.4  Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee

     In FY88 the EET+FC submitted an extensive report on
municipal waste combustion.  This review addresses a problem
faced by scores of communities across the country: "Is
incineration of a municipal waste a scientifically valid option
for addressing an increasing stream of urban waste and a
decreasing capacity of the traditional waste handling
alternatives; e.g., landfilling?"  The distribution of more than
2000 copies of the report to date attests to its relevance and

    In addition, the EET+FC two subcommittees were actively
examining issues which are likely to be equally topical in FY89.
In the first of these, a subcommittee was formed to examine
the use of standardized "water quality advisories".  These
advisories provide an estimate of the concentration of
particular pollutants that is unlikely to rest in harm to
human health or the environment.  The advisories are meant to
provide State regulators with guidance as they make decisions on
the significance to effluents  (both short-term and long-term)
entering sources of drinking water for communities downstream.  A
second EET+FC subcommittee created in FY88 was the Sediment
Criteria Subcommittee.   The charge to the subcommittee was to
examine the need for and possible form of criteria by which the
significance of various levels of pollutants  in sediments  of
aquatic and marine ecosystems can be evaluated.  The work  of
this group is discussed in greater detail in  Section 4.3.

   4.2.5  Environmental  Health  Committee  (EHC)

     The EHC and its various  subcommittees (Drinking Water
Subcommittee, Halogenated Organic  Solvents Subcommittee, and
Metals subcommittee)  reviewed Agency  documents which examined
the health effects of more than a  dozen different chemicals.
The impacts of these reviews  are felt in  all program areas which
are contemplating or are taking action on these substances as  a
consequence of their effects  on human health.  These program
areas include OSW, OERR, the  Office of Drinking Water (ODW),
OAQPS, and the Office of Toxic  Substances (OTS).

     In addition, members of  the EHC  reached out to the broader
community by participating in a meeting convened in San
Francisco, CA, and sharing how the Board deals with risk
assessment, scientific knowledge,  and uncertainty.  These topics
are of particular interest at this time sine California  (and
other States) are implementing the intent behind "Proposition
65", a voter initiated program to  reduce the environmental  and
health risks associated with the use  of manmade chemicals.

   4.2.6  Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Committee

     The  IAQC is a new  committee which held  its first meeting in
FY88 to review the Agency's Indoor Air Quality Implementation
Plan which was submitted to Congress.

   4.2.7  Radiation Advisory Committee (RAG)

     In FY88 the  issue  of  radon gas  in homes became  a major
story in  newspapers across the country.  The RAC was directly
involved  in  the  issue by  reviewing three Agency positions on  the
matter.   In  the  first,  the Board  examined the  Agency's  overall
plans for mitigating the  radon gas problem.   In the  second, the
Agency's  research to address radon gas contamination was
reviewed.  And  finally, the  RAC investigated the approach taken
by the  Agency to  assure that measurements of radon levels in
homes are performed with  competence,  proficiency  and accuracy.

      In addition, the RAC was  active in  providing  advice to the
Office  of Radiation Programs (ORP) as ORP proceeded with its
effort  to issue  regulations  on the emission of radionuclides
into the  air.   Specifically, the  RAC examined models used by ORP
to relate measured  emissions of radionuclides from various
sources to  anticipated  levels  of  radionuclides in locations
where people might  be exposed,  in addition, they investigated  '
the dose-response models  used  by  ORP to  relate the levels  of
radionuclides to which  people  are exposed to the potential risks
of cancer imposed on those people.

     4.2.8  Research in Progress Reviews

     Each year, the Deputy Administrator of the Agency selects
particular areas of ongoing EPA research for an in-depth
investigation by the Science Advisory Board.  The intent is to
call attention to certain portions of the Agency's research
program and to assure that they are being conducted effectively
and efficiently-

     As part of these reviews, in FY88 a subcommittee of the SAB
travelled to Research Triangle Park to review the program in
neurotoxicology conducted at the Health Effects Research
Laboratory (HERL).  While making some specific recommendations
for improvements and operations, the Board concluded that the
overall program was the finest of its kind in the Federal

4.3  Three Examples of the SAB's Making a Difference

     It would probably be impossible, and certainly imprudent,
to discuss all of the SAB's activities in detail in this Report.
Therefore, from all of the reviews and reports of the SAB in
FY88 three have been singled out for additional discussion.  The
selection has been based primarily on their current and/or
likely impact on Agency programs.  That is, these reports are
exemplary in showing how the SAB does make a difference.

   4.3.1  Executive Committee's Research Strategies Committee
          (RSC) Report: "Future Risk:Research Strategies for
          the 1990s"

    In the spring of 1986, EPA Administrator Lee Thomas asked
the SAB to form a special committee to define an environmental
research program that could guide the Agency's scientific and
engineering activities throughout the remainder of the 20th
century.  His experience had taught him that too often the
Agency was "coming from behind" in dealing with environmental
problems, instead of "being ahead on the learning curve".  He
felt that, properly conceived and conducted, scientific and
engineering research can anticipate, identify, and react to new
and emerging problems before they become crises.  The nature of
the new environmental problems we face today  (e.g., global
climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion) demand this
type of foresight, since these problems are more global in their
extent and more irreversible in their consequence.  In
addition, Mr. Thomas saw that, even with the best of intentions,
today's planning and budgeting of environmental research is
inherently biased in favor of near-term technical support
activity  (which responds to currently perceived needs) compared
to fundamental long-term research  (which helps to anticipate  —
and avoid — what may be even bigger problems in the future).

     The SAB called upon Mr. Al Aim, former Deputy Administrator
of EPA, to lead an effort which involved about three dozen of

the nation's top experts in environmental research planning and
execution.  Five subgroups were formed to address each of five
areas: Sources, Transport and Fate; Exposure; Human Health
Effects; Ecological Effects; and Risk Reduction.

      In September, 1988 the RSC's report (the "Aim report") was
released, which consisted of an overall report entitled "Future
Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990s", supplemented by five
appendices,  one from each of the subgroups.   The report
contained ten specific recommendations, which covered the
original charge of devising an environmental research program
for the next decade, but went further by recommending some
fundamental  changes in the way the Agency goes about conducting
its business:

   a. EPA should shift the focus of its environmental protection
        strategy from end-of-pipe controls to preventing the
        generation of pollution.

   b. To support this new strategy,  EPA should plan, implement,
        and  sustain a long-term research program.

   c. EPA needs to establish better mechanisms to ensure that a
        coherent, balanced R+D strategy is planned and

   d. EPA must improve its capability to anticipate
        environmental problems.

   e. EPA should provide Federal leadership for a national
        program of ecological research by establishing and
        funding an Environmental Research Institute.

   f. EPA should expand its efforts to understand how and to
        what extent humans are exposed to pollutants in the
        real world.

   g. EPA should initiate a strong program of epidemiological

   h. EPA should expand its efforts to assist all those parts of
        society that must act to prevent/reduce environmental
   i. EPA needs to increase  the  numbers  and sharpen the skills of

        research       ^ engineers  who conduct environmental

        vearQ+D budget snoul<* be doubled over the next five
        jr CdiS •

     The  reaction to the report was immediate and widespread.
Even before the report was formally delivered, it was the
subject an editorial in the Boston Globe, which generally
supported the conclusions and recommendations of the RSC.  This
was followed by coverage in national media and technical
publications.  To date, more than 6000 copies of the report have
been distributed, by far the best "best seller" in the history
of the SAB.  Congressional staff and leaders in the academic,
business, and environmental communities have been briefed and
have expressed support for the basic thrust of the report.  A
Congressional hearing on the subject is being planned for early

     Of even greater significance, perhaps, has been the
reaction  inside the Agency.  Immediately upon receiving the
report, Administrator Thomas directed ORD to begin
implementation of the recommendations that are currently within
the Agency's control.  In addition, he directed that many of the
recommendations be reflected in the Agency's future budget
requests.  And, finally, he asked the SAB to establish a
permanent committee to advise the Administrator in his role as
the chair of the Research Strategy Council, the high level
Agency group formed to oversee the total research program in the

     In sum, through the activities of the RSC.the SAB has
broken new ground in substance and process.  The RSC report has
made a big difference already and holds the promise of having an
even bigger impact in the future.

   4.3.2  Environmental Health Committee's Review of a Report on
          "Thyroid Follicular Cell Carcinogenesis"

     For  many years the Agency has regulated chemical
carcinogens under risk assessment procedures that date back to
1976.  In practice, the Agency has interpreted that guidance in
terms of  a "non-threshold" view of chemical carcinogenesis which
adopts an a priori assumption that any level of exposure to a
chemical  carcinogen is associated with a finite level of risk.
This position is in contrast to the "threshold" view generally
taken in  regard for non-cancer effects; i.e., there is some
finite level of exposure to the chemical below which there is
essentially no risk of being adversely affected.

     In 1986 the Agency issued updated guidelines concerning how
it would  assess the risks posed by chemical carcinogens.  The
new guidelines more explicitly admitted the possibility that, in
cases in  which a convincing scientific case could be made based
upon mechanism-of-action arguments, the Agency would entertain
views other than a straightforward non-threshold model.

     In FY88, after two years of work in the Office of Pesticide
Programs  and the Risk Assessment Forum, the Agency brought to
the SAB just such an argument, related to a specific type of

cancer of the thyroid gland.   The  thyroid  gland  ^P^t of the
endocrine system and plays an important  role  in  establishing the
body's level of metabolic activity.   This  "set point
phenomenon involves a complex interaction  of  chemical messages
(hormones) sent between the pituitary gland nestled  just beneath
the brain and the thyroid gland located  at the front of the

     The so-called pituitary-thyroid axis  forms  a feedback
communication system that normally maintains  a comfortable
steady state of metabolic activity in the  body.   When the
communication between the pituitary and  the thyroid  is
disrupted, however, things can go  awry.  One  obvious
manifestation of such an event is  the appearance of  a goiter
(i.e., an enlarged thyroid gland).  The  hypothesis is that after
long-term disruption of the pituitary-thyroid axis,  tumors may

     The Agency position paper describes a plausible set of
restricted circumstances under which a sufficient dose of
chemical could disrupt pituitary-thyroid feedback system which
would ultimately result in the appearance  of  a thyroid tumor.
The paper goes on to describe how such tumors could  be evaluated
in terms of a "threshold" approach to risk assessment.
that is, if the level of the chemical is sufficiently low that
the pituitary-thyroid axis is not disturbed,  then there is no
risk of contracting cancer.

    Through the work of a special subcommittee  of the
Environmental Health Committee, the SAB  conducted an in-depth
review of the paper.  Further review was conducted at the
Committee level and, eventually, at the  level of the Executive
Committee.  In sum, the SAB found great  merit in the work to
date.  While they recommended additional analysis and explicit
illustrations of how the policy would be implemented, the Board
endorsed the notion that enough knowledge  had been amassed about
these carcinogens that they should be treated in a manner
different from the traditional non-threshold approach.

     The implication of this work is that  the Agency
should not view "a cancer is a cancer is a cancer".   Rather,  the
work underscores that the Agency should implement its 1986
Guidelines and examine the different mechanisms by which
different chemicals lead to different cancers and, where
appropriate, to adopt alternative methods  for assessing the
cancer risks associated with these chemicals.  In some cases,
the effect of this more detailed consideration is likely to  be  a
greater tolerance for higher concentrations of some carcinogens
than would otherwise have been the case.  The goal  is not
to allow higher concentrations of carcinogens in the
environment, but rather to stop expending scarce resources  to
control chemicals at levels below which they cease  to pose  any
risk.  The SAB will review the augmented version of the position

paper when it becomes available.  Its final advice to the
Administrator is likely to make a significant difference as to
how he and the Agency's constituencies react to the proposal.

   4.3.3  Sediment Quality Criteria

     Over the past two decades the country has taken significant
strides toward the announced goal of having "fishable,
swimmable" waters.  Rivers that once literally caught on fire
now support plant and fish communities; regions of the Great
Lakes from which public bathing was banned are now scenes of a
thriving vacation industry.

     More recently, the nation has become aware that even if the
waters have been cleaned up to a remarkable degree, the
sediments below those waters may still contain large amounts of
contaminants.  The chemicals buried in these sediments bear
witness to past contamination and serve as a current source of
continuous release of pollutants to the water, even after the
original anthropogenic sources of the contamination have been
drastically reduced or eliminated.

     The problems posed by these contaminated sediments are, in
many ways, more difficult to address that than the relatively
straightforward, land-based point sources of the past:

     a. Contaminated sediments serve as areawide, rather than
          point, sources.
     b. Benthic organisms  (those than live in or on the sediment)
          are particularly vulnerable and are less
          well-understood than aquatic species.
     c. The sampling, analysis and general characterization of
          sediment contamination are, in general, more difficult
          in comparison to similar problems in water
     d. The chemical and physical properties of contaminated
          sediments are more variable than the comparable values
          in contaminated water.  Further, the properties of
          different sediments are more variable  (e.g.,
          physio-chemical properties) than are properties of
          different waters.
     e. The process of cleaning contaminated sediments may pose
          a greater risk of additional damage  (e.g., through
          resuspension of covered material) than a simple "no
          action" decision.
     f. Contamination of sediments is often due to mixtures of
          substances for which little information  is available to
          predict effects accurately.

     A number of programs within ad outside of the Agency are
trying to develop criteria for contaminated sediments against
which contamination at a particular site might be  measured and
assessed.  Depending upon the method used to develop  these

criteria, widely different advice  could  be  obtained on what, if
any, action is needed.    Therefore,  the  decision of which
sediment criteria are selected has the financial implications
that run into the tens of millions of dollars.

     In FY88 for the first time the  Board received and accepted
a request to provide technical advice from  a Regional office.
Specifically, the Regional Administrator in Seattle (Russell
Robie) asked that the Board examine  the  issue of sediment
quality criteria, with a particular  emphasize on an approach
developed in his office.  The EET+FC formed a Sediment Quality
Subcommittee to deal with the topic   The first of a series of
four meetings was held in late FY  88.  At meetings in FY 89 the
SCS will examine other sediment quality  criteria methods and the
technical issues underlying those  approaches.

     Agency interest is high both  in the Regions and head-
quarters, as demonstrated by the formation  of an Agencywide
Task Force on Sediments.  Interest outside  the Agency is also
high, as evidenced by a National Academy of Sciences study,
programs of professional societies (e.g., the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry  (SETAC)), and activities
of other agencies (e.g., the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers).
Consequently, the action of the SAB  in this volatile area is
likely to make even greater difference in the coming months.

4.4  Operational Changes in the SAB  Staff

     4.4.1 Personnel

     In February, 1988 Dr. Terry Yosie,  Staff Director of the
SAB, left the Agency to accept an  opportunity in the private
sector.  During his tenure as head of the staff, the SAB grew in
size, number of reviews and reports, impact on the Agency, and
reputation outside the Agency.  The  Board will continue to
benefit from his contributions for many  years.

     In March, Dr. Donald Barnes assumed the responsibilities of
the Staff Director.  He came to the  SAB  after 9 years of
service as Science Advisor to the  Assistant Administrator  for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.  In that former capacity  he had
ample opportunity to experience the  SAB  "from the other side of
the table".  He looks forward to carrying on in the fine
tradition established in the past and introducing additional
procedures and approaches designed to maximize the Board's

     In June, Mr. Harry Torno, who served as the Executive
Secretary of the Environmental Engineering Committee  left  the
Agency to pursue opportunities outside  the Federal government.
During his tenure with the SAB Mr. Torno established  a  level of
activity, organization and quality which will  challenge those  of
us who carry on in his absence,  in July, Dr.  K. Jack Kooyoomjian

joined the staff to assume the responsibilities of Executive
Secretary of the EEC.  He brings welcomed experience from service
in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), as
well as distinguished professional activity outside of EPA.

     FY88 saw the SAB staff grow to its authorized level.  The
addition of Ms. Mary Winston and Ms. Germaine Kargbo to the ranks
of our staff secretaries eases the burden of others and maintains
the quality of all.

     With the assistance of a capable, creative staff, the
functions of the Board continued unabated during this time of
transition.  In fact, by the end of FY88 the staff had reached
authorized strength in both executive and staff secretarial
positions, thereby easing what remains a most challenging work
load.  Appendix H contains background information on the
Director, Deputy Director, Executive Secretaries and Program

     4.4.2. Operational changes

     As a part of upgrading operations of the Board, an
increased emphasis has been placed on electronic communication
technology.  For example, staff productivity has been increased
through recent acquisitions of an office copies, computers and
word processing equipment.  To take advantage of the increased
number of M/Cs who are a part of the electronic communications
revolution, an electronic mailbox has been established for the
use of M/Cs.  Also, increasing use is being made of
telefacsimilie ("FAX") transmission by both M/Cs and SAB staff.

     A renewed emphasis is being placed on planning and
communicating future SAB activities.  A projected calendar of
FY89 activities (updated monthly) is made available to M/Cs, as
well as Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators in
the Agency.

     In order to stretch the finite budget of the SAB, various
attempts have been made to economize without reducing, but
possibly enhancing, quality.  In addition to the E-mailing and
telefaxing mentioned above, more use is being made of conference
calls for planning meetings, prior to holding public meetings
to discuss an issue.      v

     The staff secretaries continue to perform  admirably.  As  a
group they have processed more travel vouchers  and made  more
arrangements for meetings than any other office in the Agency.

                  5.  Projections and Conclusion

     FY89 is a time of transition.  President George Bush has
signaled a renewed emphasis on environmental problems within the
context of continued economic growth.  Therefore the desirability
of independent review of the issues is likely to increase.  The
new Administrator, Mr. William K. Reilly, comes to EPA with a
fresh approach and outlook on dealing with environmental
problems.  The SAB is ready to provide the kind of independent
advice that should help him establish his policies on a solid
technical footing.  The chairmanship of the SAB has transferred
from Dr. Norton Nelson, who has served the Board with
incomparable skill, insight, and integrity, to Dr. Raymond Loehr,
who brings to his new position a broad range of experiences in
the academic and engineering worlds, including working in an EPA

     FY89 will also be an active year in regard to the internal
operations of the SAB, with more than 60 meetings currently
projected.  At the request of the Administrator a new standing
committee—the Research Strategies Advisory Committee—has been
established to assist the Agency as it implements the
recommendations contained in the Research Strategies Committee
report.  An additional executive secretary, Mr. Samuel Rondberg,
has joined the staff to assist with the increased level of SAB
activity.  Additional computer equipment, a telefax machine, and
updated office furniture are being installed to improve the
staff's working environment and to expand our capabilities to
produce high quality reports.  Uniform office procedures are
being established to improve communications between the staff,
the Agency, and the Board, with the goal of producing more
timely, more targeted, more widely disseminated advice, thereby
increasing the utility of SAB products to its various
constituencies.  Also, the structure of the SAB will be examined
to determine whether, in light of the expanded SAB's activities
in recent years, changes can be made which will improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the operations of the Board.

     FY89 will also see expanded SAB contacts with groups beyond
EPA.  In response to growing interest in external review of
scientific positions at cither governmental agencies, the SAB  is
being looked to as an organization which has a comparatively  long
history and a valuable set of experiences which can help to guide
similar efforts elsewhere.  As more complex environmental
problems are uncovered; e.g., global warming, the need  for the
Agency to interact with other groups nationally and
internationally increases.  In a parallel manner, the SAB needs
to be actively aware of the manner and means by which these other
groups are obtaining independent advice on important
environmental issues of mutual interest.  To the  extent possible
and appropriate, steps should be taken so that the agencies
receive outside advice which is fully informed, articulate  and
timely, if not necessarily consistent in the every detail.

     On the basis of the contents  of this Report,  it can be
fairly concluded that the SAB has  made a difference in FY88.  On
the same basis,  one can confidently anticipate that the SAB will
continue to make a difference in FY89.

                                                    APPENDIX A


                      SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

1.  PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This Charter is reissued for the Science
Advisory Board in accordance with the requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 O.S.C. (App.I)~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; and October 25, 1985.

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 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 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
     - 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 of 1976, 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;

                       ADVISORY  COMMITTEE  CHARTER
     - 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  scientific review and advice required
       under the Clean Air Act, as  amended;

     - Reviewing and  advising  on  new  information needs and
       the quality of Agency plans  and programs for research,
       and the five-year plan  for environmental 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 2Kb)  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 standing
member 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 Deputy 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 1977.
This Committee, established  by a separate charter, will be an integral
part of the Board, and its members  will  also be members of the Science
Advisory Board.

                       ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
?•  MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS.  The Deputy Administrator appoints
individuals to serve on the Science Advisory Board for staggered
terms of one to four years and appoints from the membership a 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.

     There will be approximately 60-75 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 annual operating
cost will be approximately $1,416,700 and 14.6 work years to carry
out Federal permanent staff support duties and related assignments.

6.  DURATION.  The Board shall be needed on a continuing basis.
This charter will be effective until November 8, 1989, 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 Administrator on October 2, 1985, is
hereby superseded.
     // / z/?7
     Approval Date                    Deputy Administrator

        NOV -61987
Date Filed with Congress


                        AIVTSOPY CCMMITI t,L CHAPTEK


                       OF THF SCIENCE ALVISOPY BOARD
1.  PURPOSE.  This charter is reissued for the Clean Air Scientific
Aavisory Committee (of the Science Aavisory board) in accordance with
the requirements of section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, 5 U.S.C. (App. I) 9(c).

2.  AUTHORITY.  The Committee is authorized under section 109 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended on August 7, 1977, (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
ana the charter was renewed on August 6, 1979; July 22, 1981;
August 1, 1983; and July 23, 1985.

3.  OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITY.  The Committee shall provide
independent advice on the scientific and technical aspects of issues
related tc the criteria for air quality standards, research related
to air quality, sources of air pollution, ana the strategies to
attain ana maintain air quality standards ana 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 subconmittees 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 tor air
quality standards and will provide independent scientific advice in
response to the Agency's request and, as required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, it 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 anc
    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,

                        ADVISORY COMMITTED CHAPTER
  - Advise, the Aananistrator of areas where additional knowledge is
    required concerning the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or
    revised national ambient air quality standards,

  - Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required

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

  - Acvise the Adndnistrator of any adverse public healtn, 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 ot
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 scientific/technical fields relevant to air pollution and air quality
issues.  Members of the Committee becone 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.  The
Committee will meet three to six times per year.  A full-tire 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 $250,000 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, 1989, at which time the Committee
charter may be renewed for another two-year period.
    Approval Date                             Deputy Administrator

     AJG  -5B87
Date Filed with Congress

                   Science  Advisory Board
                          FY 1989 Organization
                         Deputy Administrator
                             Advisory Board
                          Exec. Comm, & Subc,
 & Subc,
& Subc,
& Subc.
& Subc,
& Subc,
CASAC-Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee    EET&FC-Environmental Effects, Transport & Fate Committee
EEC-Environmental Engineering Committee        lAQC-Indoor Air Quality Committee
EHC-Environmental Health Committee            RAC-Radiation Advisory Committee
              RSAC-Research Strategies Advisory Committee

                           APPENDIX C


Staff Director:          Dr. Terry F. Yosie   (10/88 - 3/88)
                         Dr. Donald G. Barnes (3/88 — Present)

Deputy Staff Director:   Mrs. Kathleen W. Conway

Program Analyst:         MS. Cheryl B. Bentley

Secretary:               Ms. Joanna A. Foellmer

Clerk Typist:            Ms. Annette Duncan


     Dr. Norton Nelson, Chairman
               For FY 1989: Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Chairman
     Executive Secretary: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Joanna Foellmer


     Dr. Roger McClellan, Chairman
     Executive Secretary: Mr. Robert Flaak
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Carolyn Osborne


     Dr. Rolf Hartung, Chairman
                For FY 1989: Dr. Kenneth Dickson
     Executive Secretary: Ms. Jan Kurtz
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Lutithia Barbee


     Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman
               For FY 1989: Mr. Richard Conway
     Executive Secretary: Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Marie Miller


     Dr. Richard Griesemer, Chairman
               For FY 1989: Dr. Arthur Upton
     Executive Secretary: Dr. C. Richard Cothern
               For FY 1989: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston/Germaine  Kargbo


     Dr. Morton Lippmann, Chairman
     Executive Secretary: Mr. Robert Flaak
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Carolyn Osborne


     Dr. William Schull, Chairman
     Executive Secretary: Mrs. Kathleen Conway
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Dorothy Clark


     Mr. Alvin Aim, Chairman
     Executive Secretary: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
     Staff Secretary: Ms. Joanna Foellmer

                                                     (FISCAL YEAR 1988)
1-  Dr. Seymour Abrahamson
2.  Dr. Martin Alexander
3.  Mr. Alvin L- Aim
A.  Dr. Stanley I. Auerbach
5.  Dr. Joan Berkowitz
6.  Dr. C. Shepherd Burton
7.  Dr. Gary P. Carlson
8.  Dr. Keros Cartwright
Professor of Zoology &
Geneti cs

Professor, Department of

Pres. & Chief Executive Officer
Director, Environmental Sciences

Vice President & Director
Environmental & Information
Management Services Division

Professor of Toxicology
Illinois State Geological Survey
 University of Wisconsin
 Madison  Wisconsin

 Cornell University
 Ithaca, New York

 Alliance Technologies  Corp.
 Bedford,  Massachusetts

 Oak Ridge National  Laboratory
 Oak Ridge,  Tennessee

 Risk Science  International
 Washington, D.C.

 Systems  Applications Inc.
 San Rafael, California
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Champaign, Illinois
9.  Dr. Yoram Cohen

10. Mr. Richard A. Conway

11. Dr. Anthony D. Cortese

12. Dr. Paul F. Deisler

13. Dr. Kenneth L. Dickson

14. Dr. John Doull
Associate Professor
School of Engineering & Applied

Corporate Development Fellow
Director, Center for Environmental

Private Consultant

Director, Institute of Applied

Professor of Pharmacology
University of California
Los Angeles, California
Union Carbide Corporation
South Charleston  West Virginia

Tufts University
Bedford, Massachusetts

Houston, Texas

North Texas State University
Denton, Texas

University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City,  Kansas

 15. Dr. Philip E. Enterline
 16. Dr. Ben B. Ewing
 17. Dr. Robert Frank
 18. Dr. Sheldon K. Friedlander
 Professor of Biostatistics &
 Environmental Epidemiology

 Director, Institute for
 Environmental Studies
Professor of Environmental
Health Services
Parsons Professor of
Chemical Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania

University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana,  Illinois

Johns Hopkins School
Of Hygiene & Public
Baltimore, Maryland

University of California
Los Angeles, California
 19.  Dr.  William Glaze
 20.  Dr.  Earnest  F.  Gloyna
21. Dr. George  P.  Green
22. Dr. Richard A. Griesemer
23. Dr. Rolf Hartung
24. Dr. J. William Haun
25. Dr. George M. Hidy
Director, School of Public Health
Department of Civil Engineering
Manager, Production Services
Director, Biology Division
Professor of Environmental

Vice President
Engineering Policy

University of California
Los Angeles, California

University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas

Public Service Company
of Colorado
Littleton, Colorado

Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

General Mills, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Desert Research Institute
Reno,  Nevada

    26. Dr. Robert J. Huggett
    27. Dr. Kenneth D. Jenkins
    28. Dr. E. Marshall Johnson
     29. Dr. Nancy Kim
    30. Dr. Richard A. Kimerle
V   31. Dr. Margaret L. Kripke
    32. Dr. Timothy V. Larson
    33   Dr. Joseph Ling
    34. Dr. Morton Lippmann
       . Dr. Raymond Loehr
Senior Marine Scientist
Virginia Institute of Marine

Professor of Biology
Professor and Chairman
Department of Anatomy

Director, New York
Department of Health

Senior Science Fellow
Professor & Chairman
Dept. of Immunology
Research Associate
Environmental Engineering &
Science Program

3 M Company
Professor of Env. Medicine
Institute of Environmental

Civil Engineering Department
 College  of  William & Mary
 Gloucester  Point,  West  Virginia
 California  State University
 at  Long  Beach
 Long  Beach,  California

 Jefferson Medical  College
 Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania

 Bureau of Toxic  Substance Assessmi
 Albany,  New  York

 Monsanto Company
 St. Louis, Missouri

 M.D. Anderson Hospital
 and Tumor Institute
 Houston, Texas

 University of Washington
 SeatLi^, Washington
3 M Communi ty Services
Executive Program
St. Paul, Minnesota

New York University Medical
New York, New York

University of Texas
Austin, Texas

      36.  Dr.  William Lowrance
                                               Senior Fellow &  Director
 37. Dr. Francis L. Macrina

 38. Dr. Roger 0. McClellan

 39. Dr. Francis C. McMichael

 40. Dr. Robert A. Neal

 41   Dr. James V. Neel

 42.  D.r. Norton Nelson

 43.  Dr.  John  M.  Neuhold

44. Dr.  D. Warner  North

45. Dr.  Oddvar Nygaard

46. Dr.  Donald J.  O'Connor
                                                   Department of Microbiology &

                                                   Professor of Civil Engineering
                                                   Center on Molecular Toxicology
                                                   Lee R. Dice University Professor
                                                   of Human Genetics
                                                   Professor of Environmental

                                                   Dept. of Wildlife Sciences
                                                   Principal, Decision Focus, Inc.

                                                   Professor of Radiology
                                                   Director of the Division of
                                                   Radiation Biology

                                                   Professor of Environmental
Life Sciences & Public
Policy Program
Rockefeller University
New York, New York

Virginia Commonwealth University
Chemical Industry Institute
of Toxicology
RTF, North Carolina

Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee

University of Michigan Medical
Ann Arbor, Michigan

New York University
New York, New York

Utah State University
Logan,  Utah

Los Altos, California

Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
Manhattan  College
Bronx, New York

47. Dr. Charles R. O'Melia
48. Dr. Gilbert S. Omenn
49. Dr. Charles F. Reinhardt
50. Dr. Paul V. Roberts
51. Dr. Marc B. Schenker
52. Dr. Keith J. Schiager
53. Dr. William J. Schull
54. Dr. Thomas T. Shen
Professor, Dept. of Geography
and Environmental Engineering

Professor and Dean
School of Public Health and
Community Medicine

Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology
and Industrial Medicine

Professor of Environmental

Director, Occupational & Environ-
mental Health Unit

Director, Radiological Health Dept.
Director and Professor of
Population Genetics

New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland

University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
E. I. de Pont de Nemours & Company
Newark, Delaware

Stanford University
Stanford, California

University of California
Davis, California

University of Utah
Salt Lake City,  Utah

Science Center at Houston
Houston, Texas

Albany, New York
55. Dr. Ellen K. Silbergeld
56. Dr. Warren Sinclair
Senior Scientist
Toxic Chemicals Program

Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.

National Council on
Radiation Protection and
Bethesda, Maryland

 57. Dr. Mitchell Small

 58. Dr. Charles Susskind

 59. Dr. Jan A. J. Stolwijk

 60. Dr. Robert Tardiff

 61. Dr. John Till

 62. Dr. Arthur C. Upton

 63.  Dr.  Mark J.  Utell

64. Dr.  C. Herb  Ward

65. Dr.  Bernard  Weiss
Assistant: Professor
Department of Civil

Professor, Electrical
Engineering & Computer Sciences

Chair, Department of Epidemiology
and Public Health


Private Consultant

Professor and Director
Institute of Environmental

Professor of Medicine & Toxicology
Department of Medicine
Professor & Chairman
Department of Environmental
Science & Engineering

Professor, Division of Toxicology
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania
University of California
Berkeley, California
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Connecticut

Washington, D.C.

Neeses, South Carolina

New York University Medical Center
New York, New York
University of Rochester
School of Medicine
Rochester, New York

 Rice University
Houston, Texas
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York

     66.  Dr.  Jerome J.  Wesolowski
     67.  Dr.  G.  Bruce Wiersma
     68.  Dr.  George T.  Wolff
     69.  Dr.  Ronald E.  Wyzga
Chief, Air and Industrial Hygiene

Manager, Earth and Life Sciences
Principal Scientist
Environmental Science Department

Program Manager
California Department of Health
Berkeley, California

EG&F Idaho Inc.
Idaho Falls , Idaho

General Motors Research Labs
Warren, Michigan

Electric Power Research Institute
Palo Alto, California

                           SAB CONSULTANTS
                         (As of January 1989)
                                                 APPENDIX E
Dr.  Barry J. Adams

Dr.  William Adams

Dr.  Ira Adelman

Dr.  Abdul K. Ahmed

Dr.  Richard Allen

Dr.  Martin Alexander

Dr.  Mary 0. Amdur

Dr.  Julian B.  Andelman

Dr.  David Andow
Monsanto Company
Dept of Fisheries &

Natural Resources Defense
St. Louis, Missouri

Monsanto Company
St. Louis, Missouri

University of Minnesota
St. Paul Minnesota

New York, New York
Environnmental Engineering Commitee
Professor, Department of

Senior Research Scientist
Energy Laboratory
Graduate School of Public

Department of Entomology
Dr.  Anders  W.  Andren   Water Chemistry Laboratory
Dr.  Larry Andrews
Dr.  Carol R.  Angle
Dr.  Bernard  D.  Astill
Senior Principal Research

Professor of Pediatrics
Health and Environmental
Dr. Stephen M.  Ayres   Dean,  School of Medicine
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts

University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Virginia Polytechnic
St. Paul, Minnesota

University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

American Cynamid Company
Princeton, New Jersey

University of Nebraska
Omaha, Nebraska

Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, New York

Virginia Commonwealth
Richmond, Virginia

15 Dr.  Robert Baboian
Head, Electrochemical
& Corrosion Lab.
16 Dr.  Richard E.  Balzhiser Senior Vice President
                            for Research and

17 Dr.  Michael J.  Barcelona
18 Dr.  Alfred M.  Beeton   Private Consultant

19 Dr.  Eugene Bentley     Vice President
20 Dr.  Irwin Billick
21 Dr.  Eula Bingham
22 Dr.  Jeffery Black
23 Dr.  James Bond
Principal Scientist
Environment & Safety

Vice President for
Graduate & Research

School of Biological

24 Dr.  Phillippe Bourdeau Director, Environment
                          Nuclear Energy Research
25 Dr.  Michael Brambley
26 Dr.  Eileen Brennan
27 Dr.  Kenneth Brown
Professor Emerita
Plant '"Pathology Dept,

28 Dr.  Stephen Brown
Project Manager
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Attleboro, Massachusetts

Electric Power Institute
Palo Alto, California
Illinois State Water Sun
Champaign, Illnois

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Polytechnical Institute
Cleveland, Ohio

Gas Research Institute
Chicago, Illinois

University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

Research Institute
Lovelace Foundation
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Research & Development
of the  Cmmission of  the
European Communities
Brussels, Belgium

Pacific Northwest
Richland, Washington

Rutgers University
New Brunswick,  New Jerse

National  Institute of
Environmental Health
Research  Triangle  Park,
North Carolina

Environ Corporation
Washington,  DC

Dr.  George  T.  Bryan    Department of Onconolgy
Dr.  Thomas  A.  Burke    Deputy Commissioner
Dr.  Janis  Butler
Dr.  Martyn  M.  Caldwell Professor, Department
                       Range Science
Dr.  Clayton  Callis
Dr.  Jack  Calvert
Dr.  Larry  w.  Cantor
Mr.  Keith  E.  Cams
Dr.  Keros  Cartwright
Dr.  Glenn  R.  Cass
Dr.  Peter  Chapman
Director, Environmental
Operations & Technology

Senior Scientist
School of Civil
Engineering & Environ-
mental Science

Director of Water Quality
Associate Professor
Environmental Engineering

Dr.  j. Julian Chisolm  Associate Professor
Dr.  Leo Chylack
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

New Jersey Department of
Health, Trenton,  New

J.C. Butler & Associates
Salina, Kansas

Utah State University
Logan, Utah

Monsanto Company
St. Louis, Missouri
National Center for
Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado

University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma
East  Bay Municipal Utility
Oakland, California

Illinois State  Geological
Champaign,  Illinois

California  Institute  of
Pasadena, California

E.V.S.  Consultants
B.C.  Canada

Johns Hopkins School
of Medicine,  Francis  Scott
Key Medical Center
Baltimore,  Maryland
Center for  Clinical
Cataract Research
Boston, Massachusetts

       C.  Scott Clark     Professor" of Environmental University of Cincinnati
                          Health                     Cincinnati,  Ohio

43 Dr.  Thomas Clarkson    Division of Toxicology     University of Rochester
                                                     Rochester, New York

44 Dr.  Ronald Coburn      School of Medicine         University of Pennsylva
                                                     Philadelphia, Pennsylva

45 Dr.  Rita Colwell       Professor of Microbiology  University of Maryland
                                                     College Park, Maryland

45 Dr.  William E.  Cooper  Chairman, Zoology          Michigan State Universi
                          Department                 East Lansing, Michigan

47 Dr.  Herbert H.  Cornish Retired                    Ypsilanti, Michigan

48 Dr.  Edward D.  Crandall Chief,Division of Pul-     Cornell University
                          monary & Critical Care     Medical College
                          Medicine                   Los Angeles, California

49 Dr.  James D. Crapo     Professor of Medicine      Duke University
                          Chief, Division of Allergy Durham, North Carolina

50 Dr.  Kenny S. Crump                                K. S. Crump  and  Companj
                                                     Ruston, Louisiana

51 Dr.  Anita Curran       Commissioner of Health     Westchester  County
                                                     Department of Health
                                                     White Plains, New  York

52 Mr.  Allen Cywin        Private Consultant         Alexandria,  Virginia
53 Dr.  Walter F.  Dabberdt                            National  Center for
                                                     Atmospheric  Research
                                                     Boulder,  Colorado

54 Dr.  Rose Dagirmanjian  Department of Pharmacology University of  Louisvill
                          & Toxicology               Louisville,  Kentucky

55 Dr.  Juan M. Daisey     Indoor Environment Program Lawrence  Berkeley
                                                     Berkeley, California

56 Dr.  James M. Davidson                             University  of Florida
                                                     Gainsville,  Florida

Dr. Robert  Dean

Dr. Richard Denison   Staff Scientist
Graduate Research
Dr. Gary  L.  Diamond   Director,  Toxicology
Dr.  Douglas  W.  Dockery Assistant Professor
                       Harvard School of
                       Public Health
Dr. John  Deutch
 Dr.  Naihua  Duan
 Dean of Science
Dr.  Patrick  R.  Durkin  Director,  Center for
                       Chemical Hazardous Waste
Dr.  Benjamin  C.  Dysart,  Environmental Systems
 III                    Engineering Department

Dr.  Lawrence  Fechter   Kresege Hearing Institute
Dr. Mary Ellen  Fise    Product Safety Director
Dr.  Davis  L.  Ford

Dr.  James  Fox

Dr.  Robert Frank
 Director, Laboratory
 Animal Medicine
 Professor of Environmental
 Health Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.

Syracuse Research
New  York, New York

Environmental Science
& Physiology
Boston, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 Rand Corporation
Santa Monica, California

Syracuse Research
Syracuse, New York

Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Consumer Federation of
Washington, D.C.

Davis L. Ford & Associates
Austin, Texas

Massachusets Institute  of
Cambridge, Massachusetts

The Johns Hopkins School
of Hygiene  and  Public
Baltimore, Maryland

70 Dr.  James Friend
Department of Chemistry
71 Dr.  A.  Myrick Freeman  Resources for the Future

72 Mr.  John S.  Fryberger
73 Dr.  Shayne C.  Gad
Director of Toxicology
74 Dr.  James N.  Galloway  Department of
                          Environmental Sciences
Drexel University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvani

Washington, D.C.

Engineering Enterprises
Norman. Oklahoma

G. D. Searle & Company
Skokie, Illinois

University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginii
75 Dr.  Thomas A.  Gasiewicz Associate Professor
                           Department of Radiation

76 Dr.  James M.  Gentile   Professor, Biology
                           University of Rochester
                           Rochester, New York
77 Dr.  Charles Gerba
78 Dr.  James E.  Gibson
Department of Microbiology
79 Dr.  Bruno Gilletti
Department of Geological
80 Dr.  Robert A. Goldstein Program Manager
 ;l Dr.  Bernard Goldstein  Professor/Chairman
                          Department of Environment
                          & Community Medicine
82 Dr.  Dan Golomb
83 Dr.  Dan Goodman
Research Associate
Environmental Program
Energy Laboratory

Department of Biology
Hope College
Holland, Michigan

University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

Chemical Industry of
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina

Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island

Palo Alto, California

Robert  Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, New  Jersey

Massachusetts  Institute
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Montana State  Universit;
Bozeman, Montana

Dr. Robert  Goyer

Dr. Doyle G.  Graham

Mr. George  P.  Green

Dr. David T.  Grimsrud

Dr. James Gruhl

Dr. Jack D.  Hackney

Dr. Yacov Haimes

Dr. Ronald  J.  Hall

Dr. Paul E.  Hammond

Dr. Larry Hansen

Dr. Ralph W.  F. Hardy

Dr. Judith  C.  Harris

Dr. Mark A.  Harwell
Department of Pathology
Dean, Medical Education
Mgr.  of Electric Operations
Program Leader
Indoor Environment

Independent Consultant

Professor of Medicine
Environmental Health
Professor, Systems

Research Scientist
Professor of Environmental

College of Veterinarian
Vice President
Center for Environmental
University of Western
London, Canada

Duke University Medical
Durham, North Carolina

Public Service Company of
Littleton, Colorado

Lawrence Berkeley
Berkeley, California

Tucson, Arizona

Rancho Los Amigos Medical
Center, University
of Southern California
Downey, California

University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia

Ontario Ministry of the
Dorset, Ontario

University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois

Biotechnica International
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Arthur D. Little,  Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

97 Dr.  John H .  Harley

98 Dr.  Paul Hedman

99 Dr.  Ronald C. Henry

100 Dr.  Ian T.  Higgins

101 Dr.  Allan Hirsch
102 Dr,

103 Dr,

104 Dr,

105 Mr.

106 Dr,

107 Dr.

108 Mr,

109 Dr,
Ronald A. Kites

John E. Hobble

Ronald D. Hood

Harry Hovey
Chemical Engineering

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil

Professor, Emeritus
Department of Epidemiology

Director, Hazard
Assessment Division

School of Public &
Environmental Affairs

Marine Biological

Department of Biology
Director, Division of Air
Lloyd G. Humphreys Professor Emeritus
Rudolph Husar

Seymour Jablon

Jay S. Jacobson
Director, Center for Air
Pollution Impact
Plant Physiologist
110 Dr.  Ronald L. Jarman
111 Mr.  Alfred Joensen
                  Associate Professor
Hoboken, New Jersey

Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah

University of Southern
Los Angeles, California

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Dynamac Corporation
Rockville, Maryland

Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana

Ecosystems Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, Alabama

State Department of
Environmental Conservatia
Albany, New York

University of Illinois
Champaign, Illinois

Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri

Bethesda, Maryland

Boyce Thompson  Institute
Ithaca, New York

Oklahoma  Air Resources
Oklahoma  City,  Oklahoma

Iowa  State University
Ames, Iowa

.12  Dr. James Johnson     Department of              University of North
                         Environmental Sciences     Carolina
                         & Engineering              Chapel Hill, North

.13  Dr. Warren  B.  Johnson Manager, Research          National Center for
                         Aviation Facility          Atmospheric Research
                                                    Boulder, Colorado

L14  Dr. Robert  Joy        Department of Veterinary   University of California
                         Pharmacology & Toxicology  at Davis
                                                    Davis, California

115  Dr. Wayne   Kachel     Senior Staff                 Exxon Refinery
                         Water Quality Engineer         Benicia, California

.16  Dr. Graham  Kalton     Institute for Social       University of Michigan
                         Research                   Ann Arbor, Michigan

.17  Dr. Laurence  S.  Kaminsky Biochemical &           New York State Department
                            Genotoxicology          of Health
                            Laboratory              Albany, New York

,18  Dr. David Kaufman     University of Pathology    University of North
                                                    Chapel Hill, North

.19  Dr. Eugene  E.  Kanaga  Consultant                 Midland, Michigan

.20  Dr. Lawrence  Keith                               Chemistry Development
                                                    Austin, Texas

.21  Dr. Curtis  D.  Klaassen Professor of Pharmacology University of Kansas
                          & Toxicology              Kansas City, Kansas

-22  Mr. Raymond K.  Klicius Program Engineer          Environment Canada
                                                    Hull Quebec, Canada

•23  Dr. Jane Q. Koenig     Research Associate         Department of
                          Professor                  Environmental Health
                                                     University of Washington
                                                     Seattle, Washington

[24  Dr. Joseph  Koonce      Department of Biology      Case Western Research
                                                     Cleveland, Ohio

125 Thomas J.  Kulle
126 Marvin Kuschner
127 Nan M.  Laird
128 Dr.  Peter J.  Lamb
Dean, School of Medicine
Department of
Climate & Meteorology
129 Dr.  Philip Landrigan  Director,  Division of
                          Environment & Occu-
                          pational Medicine

130 Dr.  Victor G.  Laties  Professor of Toxicology
                          Environmental Health
                          Science Center

131 Dr.  Lester B.  Lave    Professor of Economics
132 Dr.  Brian B.  Leaderer Associate Fellow &
                          & Professor,  John
                          B. Pierce Foundation

133 Dr.  Michael Lebowitz  Professor of Internal

134 Dr.  James 0.  Leckie   Department of Civil

135 Dr.  Peter B.  Lederman Vice president
136 Mr.  Raymond G.  Lee    System Director
                           Water Quality Resources
University of Maryland
Edgewood, Maryland

State University of New
Stony Brook, New York

Harvard School of Publi
Boston, Massachusetts

Illinois State Water
Champaign, Illinois

Mt. Sinai School of
New York, New York

University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
                           Carnegie-Mellon Univers
                           Pittsburgh, Pennsylvani

                           Yale University
                           New Haven, Connecticut
                           University of Arizona
                           Tucson, Arizona

                           Stanford University
                           Stanford, California

                           Weston, Managers
                           West Chester,

                           American Water Works
                           Company, Inc.
                           Voorhees, New Jersey

137 Dr. Jay H.  Lehr

138 Dr. Allan H.  Legge

139 Dr. Steven  Lewis

1140 Dr. Joseph  Ling

141 Dr. Paul J.  Lioy
                   Executive  Director
                   Senior  Professional
                   3  M Company (Retired)
                   Associate Professor
                   Department of Environ-
                   mental  &  Community
142 Dr.  Lawrence D.  Longo Professor of Physiology
                         & Obstetrics & Gynecology

143 Dr.  William Lowrance  Senior Fellow & Director
                         Life Sciences & Public
                         Policy Program

144 Dr.  Leonard A.  Losciuto Institute for Survey
145 Dr.  Cecil  Lue-Hing    Director for Research
                         & Development
146 Dr. Richard Luthy     Assistant Professor
              Department of Engineering   University
147 Dr. Ernest  McConnell  Veterinary Director

148 Dr. Delbert C.  McCune Plant Physiologist
149 Dr.

150 Dr.
Donald McKay
Donald E. McMillan  Department of Pharmacology
                    &  Toxicology
                            National Water Well
                            Worthington, Ohio

                            The University of Calgary
                            Calgary, Alberta

                            Exxon Corporation
                            E. Millstone, New Jersey

                            3 M Community Service
                            Executive Program
                            St. Paul, Minnesota

                            University of Medicine
                            & Dentistry of New Jersey
                            Piscataway, New Jersey
                                               Loma Linda University
                                               Loma Linda,  California

                                               Rockefeller University
                                               New York,  New  York
Temple University

Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater
Chicago, Illinois


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Raleigh, North Carolina

Boyce Thompson Institute
Ithaca, New York

Ontario, Canada

University of Arkansas
Little Rock, Arkansas

151 Dr.  Peter McMurry     Department of Mechanical

152 Dr.  Richard B.  Mailman Professor, Psychiatry &
153 Dr.  Wesley A.  Magat   Professor,  Fugua
                          School of Business
                            University of Minnesota;
                            Minneapolis, Minnesota

                            University of North
                            Chapel Hill, North

                            Duke University
                            Durham, North Carolina
154 Dr. Kathryn Mahaffey  National Institute of
                          Environmental Health

155 Dr. Allan Marcus
156 Dr. James E. Martin   School of Public Health
157 Dr.  David Maschwitz
158 Dr. Donald Mattison   Division of Human Risk
159 Dr.  Myron Mehlman     Director,  Environmental
                          Health & Science Lab
160 Dr.  Daniel Menzel
161 Dr.  Robert H. Meyer
Director & Professor
University of Cincinnat
Medical Center
Cincinnati, Ohio

Battelle Applied
Statistic Section
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Roseville, Minnesota

Department of Health &
Human Services

Mobil Oil
Princeton, New Jersey

Duke University Medica]
Durham, North Carolina

Chem-Nuclear System
Albuquerque, New Mexicc
162 Dr.  James Mercer
163 Dr.  Jacqueline Michel
Geotrans,  Inc.
Herndon, Virginia

Research Planning
Columbia,  South Carolii

164 Dr.  David  Miller
165 Dr.  Irving Mintzer    Director, Energy & Climate
166 Mr. John  V.  Molenar   Vice President
167 -Dr.  Harold Mooney     Department of Biological

168 Dr.  William Moomaw    World Resources Institute
169 Dr.  Granger W.  Morgan Head, Department of
                         Engineering & Public
170 Dr.  Paul  Mushak
Consultant & Adjunct
171 Dr.  Brooke T.  Mossman Department of Pathology
Geraghty & Miller Inc
Syosset, New York

World Resources Institute
Washington, D.C.

Air Resource Specialists,
Fort Collins, Colorado

Stanford University
Stanford, California

1735 New York Avenue,NW
Washington, D.C.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina

University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
172 Dr.  Peter Mueller
173  Dr. ishwar   Murarka
174 Mr.  Bruce  Napier
175 Dr. James  Neel
176 Dr. Anil  Nerode
Program Manager
Air Quality Studies

Environmental Science
Department of Human

Department of Mathematics
177 Dr. Scott  W.  Nixon    Professor of Oceanography
Electric Power Research
Palo Alto, California

Electric Power Research
Palto Alto, California

Battelle Northwest
Richland, Washington

Lee R. Dice University
Ann Arbor Michigan

Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

University of Rhode
Narragansett, Rhode

178 Dr.  Guenter Oberdoerster Radiation Biology &
                             Biophysics Division
179 Dr.- Allan 0 ' Key
Professor, Hospital for
Sick Children
180 Dr.  Patrick O'Keefe   Division of Environmental
181 Dr. Betty H. Olsen    Program in Social Ecology
182 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer Senior Scientist
183 Dr. Gordon H. Orians  Director
184 Dr. Michael Overcash  Professor, Chemical
185 Dr. Haluk Ozkaynuk    Project Manager
                           Energy & Environmental
                          Policy Program

186 Dr. Albert L. Page    Department of Soil &
                           Environmental Science

187 Dr. Norberto J. Palleroni
188 Dr. Edo D. Pellizzari Vice President
189 Dr.  Frederica Perera  Schooi- of Public Health
190 Dr.  Richard Peterson  Professor of Toxicology
                           & Pharmacology

191 Dr.  Frederick K. Pfaender Department of Environ-
                               mental Sciences &
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York

Toronto, Ontario

New York State Departme1
of Health
Albany, New York

University of Californi
Irvine, California

Environmental Defense F
New York, New York

University of Washingto
Seattle, Washington

North Carolina State
Raleigh, North Carolina

Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusett
                            University of Californi
                            Riverside California

                            New York School of
                            New York, New York

                            Research Triangle
                            Research Triangle Park
                            North Carolina

                            Columbia University
                            New York, New York

                            University of Wisconsir
                            Madison, Wisconsin

                            University of North
                            Chapel Hill, North

192 Dr.  Robert F.  Phalen  Professor
                         Community & Environmental
193 Dr.

194 Dr.

195 Dr.

196 Mr.

197 Dr.

!198 Dr.

199 Dr.

200 Dr.

201 Dr.

202 Dr.

203 Dr.

204 Dr.
                   Professor,  Atmospheric
                   Science  Department

                   Vice  Dean for Medical
                   Research & Graduate
Roger A. Pielke

Henry Pitot

Gabriel L. Plaa

John Quarles

Michael B. Rabinowitz  Investigator
Martha J. Radike   Department of Environmen-
                   mental  Health
                                               University of California
                                               Irvine,  California
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado

McArdle Laboratory
Madison, Wisconsin

University of Montreal
Montreal, Quebec Canada

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
Washington, D.C.

Marine Biological
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Stephen M. Rappaport  Department of Biomedical University of California
                       &  Environmental Health   Berkeley,  California
Verne A. Ray

Kenneth Reuhl

William Richards

Paul Risser

Patricia Rodier
                  Medical  Research Labor-
Pfitzer Inc.
Groton, Connecticut
                   Department of Pharmacology  Rutgers University
                   &  Toxicology
                   Vice President for

                   Department OBGYN
•205 Dr.  Joseph V.  Rodricks

,206 Dr.

207 Dr.  Robert Rowe
Joan Rose
                   Research Associate/

                   Senior Vice President
                   RCG/Hager,Bailly Inc.
Piscataway, New Jersey

Roy F. Weston, Inc.
West Chester, Pennsylvani

University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico

University of Rochester
Medical School
Rochester, New York

Environ Corporation
Washington, D.C.

University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

Boulder,  Colorado

208 Dr. Richard Royall    Professor, Department
                          of Biostatistics
209 Dr. Karl K. Rozman    Department of Pharmacology
210 Dr. Liane Russell

211 Dr. Milton Russell

212 Dr. Stephen N. Safe

213 Dr. Jonathan Samet
                  Professor of Economics
                   & Senior Fellow
                  College of Veterinary
214 Dr. Adel F. Sarofim   Department of Chemical
215 Dr. Walter Schaub
                  Technical Director
216 Dr. Harold Schecter   Professor, Chemistry

217 Dr. Dennis Schuetzle  Principle Research
                          Scientist & Manager
218 Dr. Donald F. Schutz
219 Dr. Richard Sextro
220 Dr.

221 Dr.

222 Dr.

223 Dr.
Jack Shannon

Thomas T. Shen
Bed Ventilation &
Indoor Air Quality Program


Senior Research
Herman H. Shugart W. W. Corcoran Professor
                  of Environmental Sciences

Steven L. Simon   Department of
                   Environmental Sciences
 The Johns Hopkins
 Baltimore, Maryland

 University of Kansas
 Kansas City, Kansas

 Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Oak Ridge National
 Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Texas A&M University
 College Station, Texas

 New Mexico Tumor Regist
 Albuquerque, New Mexico

 Massachusetts Institute-
 of Technology
 Cambridge, Massachusett

 Coalition on Resource
 Recovery & the
 Washington, D. C.

 Ohio State University
 Columbia, Ohio

 Ford Motor Company
 Dearborn, Michigan

 Teledyne Isotopes
 Westwood, New Jersey

 Lawrence Berkeley
 Berkeley, California

 Bolingbrook, Illinois

 Department of Environ-
 mental Conservation
 Albany, New York

The University of Virgir
Charlottesville, Virgini;

 University  of North
 Carolina, Chapel Hill,
 North  Carolina

224 Dr. Milagros  Simmons  School of Public Health
{25 Dr. Paul  Slovic
Research Associate
126 Dr. Clifford V.  Smith Chancellor
1121 Dr. V.  Kerry Smith    Centennial Professor of
                         Economics, Department of

J28 Dr. William H.  Smith  Professor of Forest
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Decision Research
Eugene, Oregon

University of Wisconsin
At Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee
                            Yale University
                            New Haven, Connecticut
|29 Dr.  Michael  D.  Smolen
   Dr. Mark  D.  Sobsey    Department of Environ-
                         mental Sciences &
;I31 Dr.  Frank Speizer

132 Dr.  John  Spengler

233 Dr.  Peter Y.  Sheng
Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School

Professor, Environmental

Professor, Department of
Coastal & Oceanographic
234 Dr. Robert  A.  Squire  Private Consultant

!35 Dr. Thomas  B.  Starr

236 Dr. Andrew  F.  Stehney
|37 Dr. Joseph  Stetter    President, Transducer
     Research Inc.       Naperville,Illinois
North Carolina State
Raleigh, North Carolina

University of North
Chapel Hill, North

Channing Laboratory
Boston, Massachusetts

Harvard University
Boston, Massachusetts

University of Florida
Gainsville, Florida
                            Ruxton, Maryland

                            Research  Triangle Park,
                            North  Carolina

                            Argonne National Lab-203
                            Argonne,  Illinois

238 Mr. Roger Strelow
Vice President
239 Dr. Frederick W. Sunderman Department of
                                Laboratory Medicine

240 Dr. Charles Susskind  Professor,  Electrical
                          Engineering & Computer
                          Science Department

241 Dr. James A. Swenberg Department of Biochemical
                          Toxicology & Pathology
242 Dr. James M. Symons   Department of Civil
243 Dr. Nien Dak Sze
244 Dr. Joel Tarr
245 Dr. Freida Taub
Professor of Forest
246 Dr. George E. Taylor  Group Leader, Physio-
                          logical Ecology
                          Environmental Sciences

247 Dr. William L. Templeton
248 Dr.  Hugh Taylor
249 Dr.  Thomas Tephly
250 Dr.  Ducan C.  Thomas
Associate Director
International Center for
Epidemology &
Preventive Ophthamology

Professor Department of

Associate Professor and
Director of Biostatistics
 General Electric Company
 Fairfield, Connecticut

 University of Connecticu
 Farmington, Connecticut

 University of California
Berkeley, California
 Chemical Industry
 of Toxicology

 University of Houston
 Houston, Texas

 Atmospheric &
 Research Inc.
 Cambridge, Massachusetts

Carnegie-Mellon Universit
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 Yale University
 New Haven, Connecticut

 Oak Ridge National
 Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Battelle Pacific Northwes
Richland, Washington

 John Hopkins Hospital
 Baltimore, Maryland
 University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

 University of Southern
 Los Angeles, California

251 Dr.  Peter F.  Thomas   Environmental Health Committee

;252 Dr.  John C.  Trijonis  President

253 Dr.  R.  Rhodes Trussell Vice President, JMM

254 Mr.  William A. Turner

255 Mr.  Charles Velzy
256 Dr.  W.  Kip Viscusi

257 Dr.  Evan Vlachos

$58 Alan P.  Waggoner

259 Dr.  William Waller

260 Dr.  Barbara Walton

261 Dr.  James Ware

Professor of Economics
Department of Economics

Department of Sociology

Principal Engineer

Department of Natural
Environmental Sciences
Santa Fe Research
Bloomington, Minnesota

Consulting & Engineers,
Pasadena, California

Harriman Associates
Auburn, Maine


Armonk, New York

Duke University
Durham, North Carolina

Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado

Boeing Aerospace
Seattle, Washington

University of Texas
Richardson, Texas

Oak Ridge National
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Professor of Biostatistics  Harvard School  of  Public
                            Boston, Massachussetts
262 Dr.  Leonard Weinstein Boyce Thompson Institute

263 Dr.  Ward  Whicker      Department of Radiology
                         & Radiation Biology
                            Cornell University
                            Ithaca, New  York

                            Colorado  State University
                            Fort  Collins,  Colorado
264 Dr. Warren H.  White   Senior Research Associate   Washington University
                         Atmospheric Mathematician   St.  Louis,  Missouri
265 Dr. James  Whittenberger
                            University of Southern
                            Irvine,  California

266 Dr.  Richard G.  Wiegert Professor of Zoology       University of Georgia
                                                      Athens,  Georgia

267 Dr.  Richard Wilson     Department of Physics      Harvard University
                                                      Cambridge, Massachusetts

268 Dr.  James E. Woods    Senior Engineering Manager  Honeywell Building
                                                      Controls Division
                                                      Golden Valley, Minnesot

269 Dr.  Gary L. Young     Project Manager             Electric Power Research
                          Health Studies Program      Institute
                          Environmental Assessment    Palo Alto, California

                                                        APPENDIX  F
                   SAB MEETINGS—FISCAL YEAR 1988
 1.   CASAC O2one
 2-         Acid Aerosols

 3.   EHC—Drinking Water Subc.
 4.        Hal.Org.Subc.
 5-        Drinking Water Subc.
 6.        Metals Subc.
 7.   EHC
 8.     Drinking Water Subc.
 9.   EHC  Workshop
 10.    Drinking Water Subc.
 11.  EHC

 12.  EEC—Mine Waste Screening
 13.       Unsaturated Zone Code
 14-15.EEC (2  mtgs)
 16.  EEC

 17.  Exec.  Comm.
 18.  ••    '• -
 19.  "    '•
 20.  "    "

     Exec.  Comm.  Subc.

 21.  Long-Range Ecol.  Res.  Needs
 22.  Sclent.&  Tech.  Achiev.  Awards
 23.  ORD  Budget Subc.
 24.  Neurotox.
 25.  Thyroid Panel
                                    December  i^-lS,  1987
                                    June  14-15, 1988

                                    October 8-9, 1987
                                    November  19-20, 1987
                                    December  3-4, 1987
                                    January 14-15, 1988
                                    January 28-29, 1988
                                    February  4-5, 1988
                                    April 8-9, 1988
                                    June  2-3, 1988
                                    July  14-15, 1988

                                    October 22-23, 1987
                                    December  10, 1987
                                    January 19-20, 1988
                                    April 14-15, 1988

                                    October 8, 1987
                                    January 14-15, 1988
                                    April 26-27, 1988
                                    July  19,  1988
                                   October 6-7, 1987
                                   February 11-12, 1988
                                   February 11-12, 1988
                                   February 29-Mar 1, 1988
                                   July 1, 1988
29. Water Quality Advisory
30. Sediment Criteria  Subc.
November 9, 1987
February 15, 1988
August 10, 1988
October 22-23, 1987
August 8, 1988
31. Indoor Air Qual. Comm.(IAQC)    November  19-20,  1987
    Research Strategies  Subcommittee
    Risk Reduction
    Exposure Assessment
    Trans. & Fate
35. Health Effects
October 12, 1987
October 15, 1987
October 15, 1987
October 28, 1987

36. Ecol. Effects
37. Risk Reduction
38. Health Effects
39. Expos. Assess.
40. Trans. & Fate
41. Ecol. Effects
42. Res. Strat.
43. Steering Conun
44. Trans. & Fate
45. Ecol. Effects
46. Risk Reduction
47. Steering Comm.
48. Steering Comm.
49. Steering Comm.

50-51. RAC-Miticr. & RAG (2 mtgs)
52.        Radon Measurements
53.        Radon Measurements
54.    RAG
55.       Dose & Risk Subc.
56.    RAG
57.       Radon Measurements
                         March 17
                         March 16
                         April 25
                         May 16,
                         July 18,
 5-6,  1987
 24,  1987
 30-Dec 1, 1987
 3,  1987
 8,  1987
 15-16, 1987
 17,  1987
 18,  1987
 19-20, 1988
, 1988
, 1988
, 1988
                         October 13-16, 1987
                         January 26-27, 1988
                         February 16-17, 1988
                         February 25, 1988
                         June 20, 1988
                         June 27-28, 1988
                         July 7, 1988
Sources Transport & Fate July 13-14-15, 1988

                                            APPENDIX G

SAB-RAC-88-001—10/09/87—Idaho Radionuclide Exposure Study

   The Committee found the current version of the study
   plan of sufficient quality and detail to achieve the
   study's objective.  This conclusion is due primarily
   to changes in approaches to sampling and measurement
   of radionuclides, enhanced use of existing data, and
   improved use of meteorological information.

SAB-RAC-88-002—10/09/87—Survey Design for the National
                          Radon Survey

   In general, the Committee found that the document
   presented a valid approach to designing a national
   radon survey.  In addition, the Committee felt that
   the study is important from a national health point
   of view and that all efforts must be made to insure
   that a survey of high quality is conducted.  Major
   conclusions and recommendations are summarized in
   the report.

SAB-EEC-88-003—10/09/87—Review of ORD Land Disposal
                          Research Program

   The Committee concluded that, while it is not widely
   acknowledged, land disposal must continue to be an
   integral part of the national waste management,
   options exist and will be used, land disposal has a
   continuing, inevitable, and important waste management
   role for EPA and for the nation.  The EPA needs a strong
   and continuing land disposal research program to address
   important issues including:  a) the land disposal of ash
   from the incineration of hazardous and municipal solid
   wastes, small quantity generator wastes, very small
   quantity generator wastes, residues produced by best
   demonstrated available technology (BOAT), treatment of
   hazardous wastes and large volume wastes; b) the proper
   design of Subtitle D facilities, including municipal
   landfills and industrial non-hazardous waste landfills
   and surface impoundments and c) appropriate methods for
   closure and post-closure care of hazardous and non-hazardous
   landfills, surface impoundments and waste piles.

   There is a need to evaluate, understand and provide adequate
   support for research on the long-term performance of what

   are now considered environmentally  sound  land  disposal
   practices and the associated monitoring methods  to assure
   that those practices are environmentally  sound over many

SAB-EEC-88-004—10/09/87—ORD Waste Minimization  Strategy

   The Committee viewed the ORD Waste  Minimization  Strategy
   as a modest,  yet promising attempt  at  responding to
   several aspects of the Agency's 1986 Report  to Congress:
   Minimization of Hazardous Wastes.   The ORD  Strategy is
   not an Agency-wide effort,  and the  Committee views it
   as a more narrowly conceived program plan for  a  subset to
   topics.  Although the Report to Congress  is  somewhat more
   comprehensive, it does not contain  a clear approach for
   action, nor does it provide any concrete  program plans.

   In order to develop a more comprehensive  waste minimization
   strategy, ORD, OSW and other offices within  the  Agency
   should work cooperatively to develop a more  comprehensive
   waste minimization strategy.  In addition, the Committee
   believes that the Agency should develop an EPA-wide waste
   minimization strategy while development of the ORD waste
   minimization program progresses.

SAB-EHC-88-005—10/23/87—Drinking Water  Disinfection and
                          Disinfection By-Products  Research

   The Subcommittee concluded that current research efforts
   are well focused in view that they  appropriately address a
   number of scientific issues that currently confront the Office
   of Drinking Water.  The caliber of  the research  personnel
   and the quality of the individual research projects was
   generally high.  Current research focused almost exclusively
   in the area of chlorination and the by-products  resulting
   from this treatment process.  The Subcommittee's major
   recommendation is that more attention  should be  devoted to
   the potential toxicity problems that could arise from
   alternatives and/or adjuncts to chlorination such a
   chloramination, and tiie use of ozone,  chlorine dioxide and
   2 other disinfectant processes.

SAB-EET&FC-88-006--12/01/88--A Framework  for Change

   The Subcommittee concludes that the study provided a strong
   conceptual framework for a sound monitoring  program, but
   recommends certain refinements to further strengthen both
   the recognition of the need for change and the underlying

   concept to create that change.  In addition,  the planning
   and development approach used in the study solicits input from
   diverse sources and assesses that input, identifying both
   obstacles and challenges, to provide a useful framework for
   action.  A major weakness results from the study's relatively
   narrow base of information.  The Subcommittee identified
   several areas in the study that need further consideration or
   additional emphasis.  Details are summarized in the report.

SAB—88-0-07—12/01/87—SAB Director's Report

   This is the second Annual Report of the Director of the
   Science Advisory Board.  The Board maintained a very active
   program of independent reviews of EPA research programs and
   the scientific bases of a number of the Agency's major
   regulatory and policy decisions.  These activities as well as
   others were designed to increase the scientific community's
   ability to present high quality and timely advice to policy
   makers and the Congress, and to promote technical consensus as
   a means of achieving consensus on environmental policies.

SAB-EC-88-008—01/14/88—Hazard Ranking System

   The Subcommittee suggested changes that will allow the HRS
   to provide a more accurate and scientifically based estimate
   of the relative risk of candidate uncontrolled waste sites.
   Ideally the HRS scores should accurately assess the  relative
   degree of risk at a site, however, we recognize that is not
   always feasible due to scientific and data limitation and to
   value and policy decisions implicit when considering and
   balancing human health and environmental impacts. A revised
   HRS, better designed to evaluate sites by relative risks,
   will provide an improved mechanism for determining which sites
   should be included on the National Priorities List (NPL), and
   can potentially provide useful input to the subsequent
   prioritization of NPS sites.  Most of the changes needed to
   improve the current HRS are changes in the risk variables
   assessed and in the overall algorithm, not changes with vast
   new data requirements.

SAB-RAC-88-009	01/14/88—Radon Mitigation Research Program

   The Radon Mitigation Research Program of EPA's Office of
   Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration  (OEETD)
   is very strong in terms of both quality and quantity.  The SAB
   made several recommendations concerning data collection,
   presentation, and analysis including the use of time-series
   data to determine the optimum time for pre- and post-
   mitigation measurements and the consolidation of cells  in the

  radon mitigation matrix which have common physical
  characteristics so that results can be analyzed within the
  context of broad physical chracteristics.   The SAB  supports
  OEETD's goal of developing cost-effective mitigation
  techniques rather than low cost techniques because  both cost
  and performance are important for decisions concerning
  mitigation.  The SAB recommends that the differing  needs of
  mitigators, homeowners, and policy makers be addressed and
  that total lifetime costs of each mitigation technique be
  estimated as accurately as possible,  and reported as concisely
  as possible.

SAB-EET&FC-010—01/29/88—Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research

  The Subcommittee commends the program and its researchers for
  the number of significant accomplishments achieved  in a short
  period of time.  Preliminary areas of concentration on
  development of methods were appropriate and now all.ow the
  program to shift to application of methods.   Specifically, new
  emphasis should be placed on microcosm and field testing,
  investigating and analyzing environmental effects,  and
  developing control strategies for containment and mitigation.
  The Subcommittee was concerned with the limited scope and lack
  of strategy for the health effects component,  while supporting
  the strategy underlying the engineerng component. Additional
  recommendations were made concerning training,  proposal
  solicitation, cooperation with industry and need for
  additional peer review.


  The Environmental Health Committee and the Halogenated
  Organics Subcommittee of the EPA Science Advisory Board met
  August 12, 1987 to explore issues related to the weight of
  evidence classification for perchloroethylene.   The
  Committees concluded that the alpha-2u-globulin mechanism
  appears to be unique in male rats.  The Committee's also
  concluded that the significance of mouse liver tumors is
  that mechanistic explanations are not sufficiently
  well-developed and validated at this time to change EPA's
  present approach expressed in its risk assessment guidelines
  for carcinogenicity.  For perchloroethylene, as with
  trichloroethylene, the Science Advisory Board concluded that
  the overall weight of evidence lies on a continuum  between the
  category B2 and C of EPA risk assessment guidelines for

SAB-EHC-88-012—03/09/88—Draft Addendum to HAD for

  The Halogenated Organics Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
  Board's Environmental Health Committee met on August 13-14,
  1987 to evaluate the scientific adequacy of the Office of
  Research and Development's July 1987 Draft Addendum to the
  Health Assessment Document for Trichloroethylene.  The
  Subcommittee's conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
  the document presented the strength and weaknesses in a
  balanced manner, the Addendum should place greater emphasis  on
  such issues as the inconsistency among many experiments
  because of the number of apparent negative as well as the
  possibility of an apparent compound is a tumor inducing agent
  and the genotoxic information.  The overall weight of evidence
  lies on the continuum between the categories B2 and C of EPA's
  risk assessment guidelines for cancer.  The Subcommittee's
  major concerns with the Addendum, is that the relatively
  moderate tumor responses and the uncer- tainties regarding
  most of the assumed endpoints are not adequately presented.
  The committee concluded that trichlororoethylene has the
  potential to cause cancer in humans, but its potency is low.

SAB-EHC-88-013—03/09/88—Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)

  On August 13-14, 1987 the Halogenated Organics Subcommittee
  of the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Health Committee
  met in Washington,D.C. to review two documents prepared by
  EPA's Office of Research and Development to assess health
  effects associated with dichloromethane (methylene chloride).
  The documents included: a June 1987 Draft Technical Analysis
  of New Methods and Data Regarding Dichloromethane:
  Pharmacokinetics, Mechanism of Action and Epidemiology, a July
  1987 Draft Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for
  Dichloromethane: Pharmacokinetcs, Mechanism of Action and
  Epidemiology.  The Subcommittee concluded that the Addendum
  was one of the best documents it has received in terms of its
  clarity, coverage of the data and analysis of scientific
  issues.  This document clearly demonstrates the potential
  utility of pharmacokinetcs data in risk assessment.  The
  Subcommittee also concluded that the level of uncertainty is
  greater and the hazard posed by dichloromethane may be less
  than expressed by the categories of EPA's cancer risk
  assessment guidelines.

SAB-EHC-88-014—03/09/88—Drinking Water Criteria Document  for

  The Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
  Board's Environmental Health Committee has completed  its

  independent scientific review of the  Draft  Drinking WateJ
  Criteria Document for Xylenes developed by  the ECAO for the
  Office of Drinking Water dated for June 1987.   The review was
  conducted in a public meeting in Washington,  D.C.  October 8-9,
  1987.  The primary issue in the review concerns the selection
  of studies used in determining the Drinking Water  Equivalent
  Level (DWEL) .   The DWEL is based upon the experimental level
  below which a health effect is not observed and provides a
  non-carcinogenic basis for establishing a drinking water
  standard.  The Subcommittee concluded that  the Office of
  Drinking Water has selected the appropriate studies to
  calculate the DWEL, and that the calculation  was developed in
  a scientifically supportable manner.

  The Subcommittee recommends that taste and  odor should be a
  scientific basis for a secondary maximum Contaminant Level
  because most of the public will not drink water that smells.

SAB-EHC-88-015—03/09/88—Drinking Water Treatment Technologies

  On October 8-9, 1987 the Drinking Water Subcomittee of the
  Science Advisory Board's Environmental Health Committee met to
  independently review the Office of Drinking Water  report to
  Congress entitled "Comparative Health Effects Assessment of
  Drinking Water Treatment Technologies.  The objective of the
  report is. to compare the health effects resulting  from the use
  of different drinking water treatment technologies with those
  prevented by biological treatment. The Subcommittee concludes
  that the constraint of time and available budget,  the report
  adequately surveys the available information  on health effects
  of chemicals involved in water treatment, including cost
  estimates.  The Subcommittee strongly recommended  that the
  document begin with an introduction that describe  more
  completely the approach taken to satisfy the  Congressional
  mandate to prepare the report. In particular,  the  rational for
  the specific approach used in examining water treatment
  processes should be articulated.  The introduction should also
  clearly state that there is a disparity in  knowledge for the
  various treatment techniques.

  The Halogenated Organics Subcommittee of the  Science Advisory
  Board's Environmental Health Committee completed its review of
  the Office of Drinking Water's Draft  Final  Criteria Document
  for Ortho-Meta-Para-Dichlorobenzene.   The U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency had used the  weight of evidence approach
  and recommended on that basis a classification of B2 for

   drinking water based on existing animal studies.   The
   Committee concluded that the reasoning offered for this
   conclusion is scientifically defensible,  but it is not the
   only defensible conclusion.  In assessing the issue of
   carcinogenicity, a key question is the weight that should be
   signed to the rat data for purposes of extrapolating risk to
   humans. ^  The assessment of this and other  issues led most
   Subcommittee members to conclude that this compound should
   more appropriately be classified as Category C of the U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines.

SAB-EHC-88-017 — 03/09/88--1, 2 , Dichloropropane

  On November 19-20, 1987 the Halogenated Organics Subcommittee
  of the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Health Committee
  met in Washington, D.C. to conduct an independent scientific
  review of the Office of Drinking Water's Draft Criteria
  Document for 1,2 Dichloropropane.  The Halogenated  Organics
  Subcommittee unanimously concluded that the drinking water
  equivalent level should not be based on the non-carcinogenic
  endpoints of the National Toxicology Programs' 1986 bioassay
  in male rats.  It offered five reasons for this conclusion: 1)
  the dose of 62 mg/kg bw/day represents a no-observed-effect-
  level (NOEL) for cancer in male rats; 2) the endpoints of
  survival,  body weight organs and tissues are not sufficiently
  sensitive; and 3) histological lesions were observed in the
  testes of some male rats given the 62 mg dose; and 4) the male
  reproductive toxin 1,2 dibromo-3-chloropropane are sufficient
  evidence that the chemical may be a male reproductive toxic;
  and 5) the NTP bioassay was not designed to supply data for
  derivation of a drinking water equivalent level.


  The Halogenated Organics Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
  Board's Environmental Health Committee met in Washington,D.C.
  on November 19-20, 1987 to independently review the Office of
  Drinking Water's Draft Final Criteria Document for Dichloro-
  ethylenes. The Subcommittee concluded that, in general, the
  draft document has evaluated that relevant scientific studies
  are presented and interpreted their strengths and weaknesses in
  a balanced  manner.  The major issue addressed by the
  Subcommittee in its review was whether chronic toxicity data
  for 1,1 Dichloroethylene should be used to calculate lifetime
  drinking water health advisory values for both cis- and
  trans-1,2  Dichloroethylene.  The committee concluded that  there
  is no truly scientific basis for this proposal at this time.

SAB-EHC-88-019—03/09/88—Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

  The Halogenated Organics Subcommittee  of the  Science Advisory
  Board's Environmental Health Committee completed its
  independent scientific review of  the Draft  Drinking Water
  Criteria Document for Polychlorinated  Biphenyls  (PCBs).  The
  review was conducted in Washington,D.C.  November 19-20,  1987.
  The major recommendation of the Subcommittee  was that the U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency explore whether  the available
  data on PCB congeners can be developed on a scale of toxicity
  similar to the toxicity equivalency factor  that  the Agency had
  already prepared for dioxins.  This effort  could potentially
  yield some scientifically interesting  insights relating  to
  uncertainties in the PCB data base even if  it represents only
  an approximation in which data analysis and scientific
  judgment are combined.  In general the Subcommittee concluded
  that the document suffers from a  failure to clearly identify
  its scientific objectives.

SAB-EHC-88-020—03/09/88—Drinking  Water Distribution System
                     Research Program

  The Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
  Board's Environmental Health Committee completed its
  independent scientific review of  the Office of Research  and
  Development's Drinking Water Distribution System Research
  Program.  The review  was conducted in Cincinnati,  Ohio  on
  December 3-4, 1987.  The Subcommittee's major conclusion and
  recommendations are:  the research program  needs greater
  cohesiveness both in terms of scientific integration and
  research planning, the assimilable organic  carbon studies
  merit additional support to establish  whether or not
  microbiological contaminants are  growing within  the
  distribution system, the declining support  for research  on
  corrosion is short-sighted, the cost modeling studies should
  be terminated and the water quality modeling  study should be
  continued but with refinement in  the research objectives and
  appropriate verification measures.

SAB-EHC-88-021—03/09/88-^Surface Water  Treatment  & Coliforms

  The Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
  Board's Environmental Health Committee completed its review  of
  the scientific information supporting  the U.S.  Environmental
  Protection Agency's efforts to develop rules  for filtration
  (surface and surface water treatment)  and coliforms.  The
  Subcommittee made the following recommendations  to the Agency:
  using total coliforms as the primary  standard is responsible,

   EPA should be more specific regarding the disinfection
   requirements to be used following filtration,  a guidance
   document should be developed to accompany the  proposed surface
   water treatment rules that would stress raising the
   concentration of chlorine to meet the need for contact time
   which may affect the future ability of water suppliers to
   comply with new disinfectant regulations, the  tracer approach
   for contact time is generally scientifically supportable,
   insufficient data exist to demonstrate the implementation  of
   the proposed filtration rule for legionellosis,  and some
   additional research is needed such as that dealing with
   treatment techniques for legionellosis.

SAB-EC-88-022—02/10/88—Research In Progress Reviews

   SAB has conducted a series of scientific reviews of Agency
   research programs that have proven to be a highly useful means
   of assessing the quality and relevance of existing research,
   identifying research needs and involving the scientific
   community in the research planning process.  In FY 1987
   SAB reviewed research programs on land disposal, waste
   minimization, the mitigation of radon in houses, drinking
   water disinfectants and their by-products, municipal waste
   combustion, and extrapolation modeling.

SAB-EET&FC-88-023—04/11/88—Review of the Municipal
                             Waste Combustion Research Plan

   The Municipal Waste Combustion Subcommittee of EPA's Science
   Advisory Board reviewed a research plan for municipal waste
   combustion at the request of the Administrator.  This plan,
   developed by the Office of Research and Development, was
   considered by the Subcommittee to reflect considerable thought
   and appropriate definition.  However, the proposed level of
   funding for the program appears to be grossly  inadequate.

   The Subcommittee believes that emissions should be
   characterized as a first priority through analytical chemistry
   projects, methods development, and field testing.  Following
   such characterizaton, environmental transport, fate and
   bioavailability should be determined, since they are key to
   assessing both risk and exposure to humans and the
   environment.  Monitoring is also considered to be an important
   research priority for development of regulatory tools and for
   validating models.

   ORD's proposed plan emphasizes avenues with short-term goals
   which may be necessary to meet the needs for technical
   guidance in permitting the many MWCs that are being planned or

   are already in  operation.  However,  budgetary constraints
   shed doubt on EPA's ability to reach  these objectives, let
   alone longer-term investigations.   Considerations of priority
   might be revisited to  allow identification of research areas
   with high priority and attainable  objectives.

SAB-EC-88-Q24—03/30/88—ORD FY 1989  Budget Review

   SAB completed its third annual review of the ORD Budget Review
   for Fisal Year 1989 President's proposed budget for ORD.  The
   Subcommittee examined four general issues:   1)  trends in
   research budget; 2) human resources issues; 3)  the need for
   early problem  identification; and 4)  18 specific research
   programs, serving six separate areas  in the Agency.

   The Subcommittee and the SAB Executive Committee believe that
   the report adds to the range of points of view that the
   Administration and Congress should consider in reaching
   budgetary decisions.

SAB-EET&FC-88-025—04/26/88—Municipal Waste Combustion

   The Municipal Waste Combustion Subcommittee of the Science
   Advisory Board was charged by the  Administrator with
   evaluating the state-of-the-art of municipal waste combustion.
   The recommendations and conclusions promulgated in this report
   summarize the scientific issues that  surround current
   technology for incinerating municipal solid waste.  In
   particular, such issues as combustor  feedstocks, the design
   and operation of municipal waste incinerators,  performance
   with various degrees of pollution  control equipment, stack
   emissions, ash disposal, operator  training and certification,
   environmental transport and  fate  of  residues,  pathways to and
   potential for exposures of humans  and ecosystems, and
   potential public health and environmental effects are
   discussed.  Regardless of the technology employed by a society
   for reduction of waste, a degree of residual risk will always
   be posed to the public and the environment.  In the
   Subcommittee's judgement two critical needs for reducing risk
   are expanded operator training requirements and data
   collection and analyses aims at generating better estimates of
   health and environmental exposure  from this technology.
   Increased knowledge will allow reduction of risks and
   uncertainties and  will guide decision makers in choosing
   between  waste management options.

SAB-RAC-88-026—04/27/88—Effective Dose Equivalent Concept

  The Science Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory Committee has
  repeatedly recommended that EPA use the effective dose

   equivalent concept of the International Commission on
   Radiological Protection (ICRP)  in developing risk estimates
   and establishing regulations related to the exposure of  humans
   to radionuclides in the environment.  The EPA has not  been
   consistent in its use of the effective dose equivalent concept
   or the weighting factors applied in quantifying dose.  The
   Committee believes that effective dose equivalent, rather than
   dose equivalent to specific organs, should be applied  as the
   basis for regulations dealing with radiation exposure.   The
   Committee strongly encourages EPA to examine carefully its
   position on' the effective dose equivalent concept, the
   numerical value of organ-specific weighting factors, and the
   application of effective dose equivalent in establishing
   regulations, with particular emphasis on insuring consistency
   within EPA and between EPA and other government,  national, and
   international recommendations.    Weighting factors recommended
   by ICRP should be applied.  This recommendation is consistent
   with EPA's Memorandum for the President entitled "Federal
   Radiation Protection Guidance for Occupational Exposure" of
   January 27, 1987.

SAB-EC-88-027—04/27/88—Scientific & Technological Achievement

  The Science Advisory Board reviewed 130 papers by
  Environmental Protection Agency scientists and recommended
  that 21 receive Scientific and Technological Achievement
  Awards and that authors of three other papers of notable
  quality be recognized through some other mechanism.  The  SAB
  was pleased that the call for papers was Agency-wide this year
  and hopes that other award programs are used to recognize
  those papers and scientists of notable quality which do not
  otherwise meet the requirements of the STAAP.  Such awards
  would be for excellence in reviews, data bases, special
  projects, and interlaboratory comparisons.

SAB-EEC-88-028—04/28/88—Risk Screening Analysis of Mining Waste

  The Mine Waste Risk Screen Subcommittee of the Science
  Advisory Board's Environmental Engineering Committee concluded
  that the general risk screen approach for analysis of mining
  waste is appropriate and the risk screen methodology can  be
  used for setting priorities for collection of additional  data
  when all appropriate pathways and component models are
  implemented.  The Subcommittee recommended that while the
  model may be appropriate should not, in its current state, be
  used to provide a context for performing analyses which  lay
  out options for the scope of the regulatory approaches for

   managing mining wastes.   The  Subcommittee  identified
   additional pathway receptor combinations.  The  approach is
   conceptually sound and the air  emission  factors    are
   appropriate for the present state  of  development  of  the risk
   screen analysis.

SAB-EEC-88-029—04/15/88—Underground Storage Tank  (UST)  Release
                          Simulation  Model

   The Committee concluded that  the overall structure and
   design of the Underground Storage  Tank  (UST) Release
   Simulation Model developed by the  Office of Underground
   Storage Tanks for the purpose of developing a  Regulatory
   Impact Analysis of the requirements proposed to regulate
   underground gasoline storage  tanks is sound, but  only in the
   context of substantiating regulatory  decisions on underground
   gasoline tanks that have been made by other means.   The
   Committee recommends that the model results should be compared
   to simpler order-of-magnitude estimates  of tank failures and
   impacts based on a first-order  characterization of tank ages
   and failure probabilities.  The simplified and full  models
   should each be compared to data bases on tank  failure that are
   currently becoming available.   The Committee also observed
   that documentation of the model is not clear,  and that many of
   the Model's assumptions are not explicit.   The committee
   therefore recommended that the  model  code  should  be  documented
   to facilitate wider use.

SAB-EEC-88-030—06/12/88—Unsaturated Zone  Code  (FECTUZ)

  The Science Advisory Board has reviewed the Unsaturated Zone
  Code (FECTUZ) for the Office of  Solid  Waste's Fate and
  Transport Model.  The Unsaturated Zone Code Subcommittee of
  the Science Advisory Board's Environmental  Engineering
  Committee reviewed the documentation of the code and  concluded
  that the dimensionality of the code (one-dimensional  transport
  in the vertical dimension) is  probably adequate for situations
  in which the porous medium can be considered relatively
  homogeneous, without substantial stratification and that
  the one-dimensional limitation may  not be a serious one from
  the standpoint of asymptotic,  steady state  analysis of
  groundwater protection, since  the primary effect
  of lateral spreading would be  to retard downward mobility and
  hence to increase the time available for  transformation of the
  contaminant, thus reducing the amount  that  reaches the water
  table.   The Subcommittee believes that there are  no serious
  problems associated with treating the  fluid as  incompressible,
  isothermal and homogeneous. The acceptability  of  all the
  other assumptions hinges on the  application of  the model.

SAB-RAC-88-031—07/19/88—Non-ionizing Radiation Research

  The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Radiation Advisory
  Committee believes EPA must continue to  monitor research in
  the field of non-ionizing radiation research and provide
  technical support and assistance to other government agencies.
  In its January 31, 1984 report, the SAB recommended periodic
  review and evaluation of new research, a strengthening of
  in-house and extramural research, and a continuation of the
  Agency's monitoring of ambient levels and its technical
  support to other government agencies  to assure compliance
  with its guidance.  Apart from one periodic review, EPA has
  carried out none of these recommendations and is unlikely to
  implement them now despite renewed nationwide interest in the
  effects of non-ionizing radiation as a possible cancer
  promoter and the imminent issuance of a Guidance that is to be
  implemented by other Federal agencies.

SAB-EET&FC-88-032—Water Quality Advisories

  Public pressure for control of pollutants, and the lack of
  resources to support the traditional water quality
  criteria-setting process have lead EPA to propose the water
  quality advisory concept for the protection of both ambient
  aquatic and human health.  These guideline documents:
  "Guidelines for Deriving Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory
  Concentrations", and "Guidelines for the Preparation of Office
  of Water Health Advisories", respectively, describe procedures
  for developing numeric recommendations based on toxicological
  effects. In the Subcommittee's opinion, the primary issue
  regarding ambient aquatic life protection involves defining a
  minimum data base, since data describing toxic interactions
  are not well developed.  In contrast, data are more prevalent
  for characterizing human health risks, and the primary issue
  becomes the appropriate depth of review for the existing data
  base.  In   general, the Subcommittee has more support for the
  concept as it applies to ambient aquatic life protection than
  for application to human health protection.  Other issues
  addressed by the Subcommittee include the necessity of
  including a peer reviewvprocess and public comment mechanism,
  specifying modifications to address site-specific variations,
  documenting uncertainty factors, and use of sensitive, rather
  than commercially important species for testing.


   The Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory ^
   Board's Environmental Health Committee completed its review ot
   the Drinking Water Health Criteria Document for Ethylbenzene
   dated March 1987. The review was conducted February 4-5,  1988,
   at the Washington Circle Hotel in Washington,  D.C.  The
   Subcommittee made the following conclusions and recommenda-
   tions:  the use of study by Wolf et al is  acceptable in
   calculating the drinking water equivalent  level,  since the
   proposed drinking water equivalent level is greater than
   the odor and taste threshold a secondary should be  set for
   ethylbenzene.  Further research is needed   regarding
   interaction with other toxic substances such as acrylonitrile
   and xylene, classifying ethylbenzene as group D on  weight of
   evidence is sound and exposure section is  incomplete and


   The Metals Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's
   Environmental Health Committee completed its review of the
   Drinking Water Health Criteria Document for Mercury dated
   February 1987.  The review was conducted January 14-15, 1988,
   at the St. James Hotel in Washington,  D.C.   The Committee
   recommended that: the document focus clearly on inorganic
   rather than organic mercury,  the exposure  section be made
   realistic, the rationale be given for the  choice of end-point
   used to develop the standard of existing analysis be extended.
   The estimates of mercury intake from drinking water are
   probably too high and may  reflect the use of the analytical
   detection limit as a substitute for actual mercury
   concentrations.  The calculations of the drinking water
   equivalent level in the document correctly includes the
   differences in absorption between subcutaneously -injected and
   orally-ingested mercury.


   The Drinking Water Subcommittee of the SAB's Environmental
   Health Committee completed its review of the Drinking Water
   Health Criteria Document for Acrylamide dated July  1987.  The
   review was conducted February 4-5, 1988, at the Washington
   Circle Hotel in Washington, D.C.  The Subcommittee  made the
   following conclusions and recommmendations: because it was
   performed for two full years the Johnson Study should be used
   in setting the standard, the final assessment of the carcino-
   genic potential should await the results of the current

   bioassay, the ability of acrylamide to produce heritable germ
   cell mutations should be given emphasis in the risk assessment
   process, the health implications of products formed from
   acrylamide as a result of chlorination and oxidation processes
   are potentially serious and  must be considered in this
   document, and the potential effects of pH and metalions in
   water should be addressed.


   The Metals Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's
   Environmental Health Committee completed its review of the
   Drinking Water Criteria Document for Copper dated February
   1987.  The review was conducted January 14-15, 1988 at the St.
   James Hotel in Washington, D.C.  The Subcommittee concluded
   that the derivation of the drinking water standard from the 1
   day Health Advisory is reasonably based on acute effects.   No
   data indicates that copper will accumulate in the body at
   these levels which justifies the use of the 1 day health
   advisory for the drinking water standard.  However, there is a
   caveat:  If the proposed drinking water standard is equivalent
   to or the basis for a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) ,
   the consideration of dietary intake from food is recommended,
   since route comprises most (more than 80%) of the total copper
   intake. Rounding off to one significant figure the
   Subcommittee recommends a final value of one 1 mg/L for the


   The Metals Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's
   Environmental Health Committee has completed its review of the
   Drinking Water Health Criteria Document For Selenium dated
   December 1986.  The review was conducted January 14-15,
   1988 at the St. James Hotel in Washington, D.C. The
   Subcommittee made two recommmendations:  that more information
   was needed in the document on the studies on which the
   standard is based and that the Drinking Water Equivalent Level
   (DWEL) should be 200 micrograms/L based on an uncertainty
   factor of 10.  The Committee observed that the EPA suggested
   drinking water equivalent level was chosen a factor 15 and are
   to be able to balance the data from Yang et al  (1983) and the
   National Academy of Sciences 1980 conclusion that the safe
   range of daily selenium intake of 50 to 200 microgram.  The
   Subcommittee further recommended that because the Yang et al
   study and the National Academy of Sciences recommendation
   plays such an important role in the development of the
   drinking water equivalent level, that more detail be more
   redefined concerning these studies.


   The Metals Subcommittee of the Science Advisory  Board's
   Environmental Health Committee completed its  review of the
   Drinking Water Health Criteria Document for Barium dated
   December 1987.  The review was conducted January 14-15, 1988
   at the St. James Hotel in Washington,  D.C. The   Subcommittee
   was asked to review the Environmental  Protection Agency's
   standard 4.7 mg/L which was the standard recommended by the
   National Academy of Sciences in 1982.   The Subcommittee
   concluded that any value for the drinking water  standard in
   the range of 1 to 5 mg/L was consistent with  the scientific
   evidence. The Subcommittee observed that it was  unclear  how
   the National Academy derived its value and the Subcommittee
   recommended that EPA use its own data  base to develop a
   standard.  The Subcommittee further observed  that expressing a
   standard to significant figure gives a false  impression and
   precision and recommends that standard be given  to one
   significant figure.


   The Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Advisory  Board's
   Environmental Health Committee completed its  review of the
   Drinking Water Health Criteria Document for Styrene dated
   January 1988.  The review was conducted February 4-5, 1988 at
   the Washington Circle Hotel in Washington, D.C.   The
   Subcommittee made the following conclusions and  recommenda-
   tions: there is insufficient evidence  to justify the
   reclassification of styrene to EPA's category B2 and the
   Committee recommends continuation of the category C
   classification, the study by Quast et  al should  be
   discounted because it was less than a  lifetime study and the
   metabolism in the dogs poorly understood, the rationale for
   choosing the study used to quantify the risk  was unclear and
   needs to be more clearly articulated,  all of  the epidemiology
   findings should be included in the analysis,  and the exposure
   section needs to be changed to more realistically reflect the
   existing situation.

SAB—EC-88-040—09/01/88^.-Future Risk: Strategies  for the 1990s

   Future Risk:  Research Strategies for  the 1990s  summarizes the
   findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA
   Science Advisory Board  (SAB) regarding EPA's long-term
   research program.  Responding to a request  from Administrator
   Lee Thomas, the SAB reviewed EPA's current  research  efforts
   in light of the environmental problems expected to emerge
   during the 1990s and beyond.  As part  of their review, the SAB
   made ten specific recommendations on the scope and direction

of EPA's future research efforts.  The recommendations cover
the following areas:  a shift in the Agency's approach to
environmental protection; the need for sustained long-term
research; changes in research planning and implementation; the
need for anticipation of, rather than reaction to,
environmental problems; establishment of an Environmental
Research Institute; improved assessment of human exposure;
commitment to epidemiological research; coordination of
efforts from various sectors of society; improved scientific
and engineering resources; and doubling the EPA R&D budget
over the next five years.

APPENDIX 040A--Sources, transport and fate(STF)  research
explores the interconnections between sources of environmental
pollutants, their transport and transformation through the
environment, and  their ultimate fate.  These research
findings allow measurement or prediction of pollutant
concentrations at points distant from the sources.   These
exposure data are coupled with toxicity information to assess
risk.  STF reseach can be used to identify sources of
environmental risks and to provide "early warning" information
on potential, emerging, and/or escalating environmental

In order to meet these growing demands, STF research strategy
in the 1990's should have two major elements: a.)
Strengthening EPA's capability for predicting environmental
form and concentration of pollutants, with a known level of
uncertainty, through measurements and modelling. b.JUtilizing
STF knowledge to provide an early warning vehicle for
anticipating issues that are likely to become priority
concerns for EPA.

The Report contains three specific recommendations: improved
STF models, leadership by top Agency policy makers in
integrating STF research into Agency assessments and
establishment of a group to provide an early warning of
environmental and ecological problems.

APPENDIX 04OB—In order for the EPA to carry out its risk
assessment functions, strategies for assessing environmental
exposures should be based on the need for exposure
characterizations in quantitative risk assessments.  The
Subcommittee suggests that this overall strategy should
minimally address:  interfaces between the three principal
methods of exposure assessment  (personal monitoring, modeling,
and biomarkers) ; accountability of specific research efforts
to overall needs long term research commitment; closer ties
with other Federal agencies doing similar research; and
educational research.

This Report represents examples of research needed to support
a strategic research effort in exposure assessment.  These
include research on acidic aerosols and gases,  biological
aerosols, environmental tobacco smoke,  pesticides, volatile
organic compounds, time-activity patterns and behavior, and
the development of biological markers as a promising form of
research into determining human exposure.

APPENDIX 04OC—Recognition is growing that the present scope
of ecological research must be broadened to accommodate the
spectrum of currently needed environmental decisions-and to
ensure acceptable environmental conditions in the future.
Building on past studies of effects on individual organisms or
populations, new studies are needed to provide a comprehensive
understanding of environmental processes and the consequences
of human activities.  These studies can be used to build
appropriate methodologies, a data base,  and a knowledge base
for evaluation of ecological effects and risks, thereby
meeting the needs of the Agency.   To guide the planning and
conduct of these studies, a research strategy with four
components is recommended.  The first strategic element is
assessing risk to ecological systems   including improved
protocols, endpoint identification, exposure characterization,
and uncertainty analysis.  The next recommendation calls for
defining the current status of ecological systems as a
reference point for determing decline or improvement.   The
third suggestion is that emphasis be placed on detecting
trends and changes in ecological systems, primarily through
monitoring efforts.  Finally, the Subcommittee recommends that
an improved ability to predict changes in ecological systems
be developed to consider complexities,  variability, and
long-term effects in natural ecosystems.

APPENDIX 040D—of the Science Advisory Board's report on
Future Risk is entitled Strategies for Health Effects
Research.  This document attempts to identify the long-term
health effects research needs (both basis and applied)
considered most supportive of the U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency's programs 1) historical perspective,
including underlying mechanisms and environmental
determinants; and 2) specific examples of basis and long term
applied research that have addressed generic issues;
3)illustration of the necessity for long-sustained, basic
research activity using lead as an example; 4)  highlights of
some aspects of the new biology and its importance; and 5)
discussion of the problems of quantitative risk estimates
including mathematical models and extrapolation techniques.

   APPENDIX 040E—Risk reduction, the central goal of EPA,  should
   be EPA's research and development programs.  Risk reduction
   techniques includes more than technology-based strategies.
   Technology-transfer, public awareness, and manpower
   development issues are critical to further reduction of
   environmental risks.  The hierarchy of risk reduction
   strategies for all environmental media begins with preventing
   the generation of wastes, residues, and contaminants;
   continues with recycling and reuse; follows with treatment and
   control techniques; and ends with minimizing residual
   exposure.  The report identifies ten candidate core areas as
   candidates for risk reduction research in EPA and includes a
   number of administrative recommendations for developing  and
   implementing the program.

SAB-RAC-88-041—09/09/88—Low-Let Risk Estimate for Regulatory

   The Science Advisory Board's  (SAB) Radiation Advisory
   Committee has reviewed EPA's Low-LET Risk Estimate for
   Regulatory Purposes and determined that, on an interim basis,
   the nominal central estimate of 400 fatal cancers and a
   range of 120-1200 additional fatal cancers per million persons
   exposed to one rad of low-LET radiation is acceptable.
   However, several important reports and radiation risks are
   expected within the year which could alter our understanding
   of their magnitude.  Based, in part, on new information  from
   Japan on the survivors of the atomic bombing  of Hiroshima  and
   Nagasaki, these reports include: a report of the National
   Academy of Sciences' Committee on the Biological Effects of
   Ionizing Radiation  (BEIR-V), a report of the United Nation's
   Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
   (UNSCEAR), and reports of the International Commission on
   Radiological Protection  (ICRP) and the National Council  on
   Radiation Protection and Measurement  (NCRP).  The  SAB urges
   EPA to take the findings and conclusions of such reports into
   account in the development of final regulations on
   radionuclides in the environment.

SAB-RAC-88-042—09/98/88—Radon Risk Estimates

   The Science Advisory Board's  (SAB) Radiation Advisory
   Committee endorses the range of risk  estimates proposed  by
   EPA's Office of Radiation Programs in Radon Risk Estimates.
   The Committee recommends EPA not attempt to develop  still
   another model for radon and radon daughter risk estimation and
   projection, but urges the use of existing technical  consensus
   reports.  Three important technical consensus reports on radon
   risks are of potential use to EPA:  (1) the 1987 International

   Commission on Radiological Protection's report entitled,  "Lung
   Cancer Risks from Indoor Exposure  to Radon Daughters" (ICRP
   50); (2)  the 1988 report of the National Academy of Sciences
   Committee on the Biological Effects  of Ionizing Radiation
   entitled, "Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally
   Deposited Alpha-emitters" (BEIR-IV);  and (3)  the 1984 report
   of the National Council on Radiation Protection and
   Measurements' entitled "Evaluation of Occupational and
   Environmental Exposures to Radon and Radon Daughters in the
   United States" (NCRP).  None of these reports is clearly
   pre-eminent; each has  its strengths  and weaknesses
   which reflect the uncertain state  of knowledge in particular
   areas.   The ICRP 50 and BEIR-IV reports appear to have greater
   utility for EPA.

SAB-EC-88-043—09/09/88—Neurotoxicology Research Review

   The Neurotoxicology Research Review  Panel of  the Science
   Advisory Board met February 29,  and  March 1,  1988 to review
   the research program to develop neurotoxicology methods by the
   Neurotoxicology  Division of the Health Effects Research
   Laboratory in Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina.  In
   their analysis of this program  the committee  had six
   scientific recommendations and  three administrative
   recommendations.   The  scientific recommendation including the
   following: Focusing the approach in  behavioral research by
   involving all principal investigators,  establishing a data
   based for reference chemicals with known neurotoxic effects,
   utilizing field batteries of behavioral and electrophysical
   testing in high dose human exposure  cases,  emphasizing
   research on problems associated with screening test,
   emphasizing research in the area of  cross species
   extrapolation of toxicity data,  and  confining the study of
   limbic system electrophysiological to a secondary test.  The
   administrative recommendations  include the following:
   Development of better  mechanisms for assuring budget
   stability, developing  a method  for funding unit cost in the
   range of $15,000 to $50,000 and possibly forming a separate
   branch in cellular and molecular toxicology.

                           APPENDIX H

          Biographical  Sketches  of FY88  SAB  Staff Members
Staff Director:

Deputy Staff Director:

Executive Secretaries:
Program Analyst:

Staff Secretaries:
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Mrs. Kathleen Conway

Dr. C. Richard Cothern
Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Ms. Janis C. Kurtz
Mr. Samuel Rondberg

Ms. Cheryl Bentley

Mrs. Tish Barbee
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Annette Duncan
Ms. Joanna Foellmer
Ms. Germaine Kargbo
Mrs. B. Marie Miller
Ms. Carolyn Osborne
Ms. Mary Winston

Staff Director

     Executive Secretary:   Executive Committee
                           Research Strategies Committee

     DR. DONALD G.  BARNES  assumed his position as Staff Director
in March, 1988.  He came to the SAB from nearly ten years'
service as Senior Science  Advisor to the Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides and Toxic Substances.  In that role he became
involved with a number of  controversial issues; e.g.,  pesticide
re-registrations and the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA.
His claim to infamy, however,  is most notably tied to "dioxin'1;
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 cancellation hearings,  Agent Orange resolution, and
emissions from municipal waste combustors.   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 the EPA Gold
Medal for Superior Service.

    Dr. Barnes has also been active in the area of risk
assessment.  He was one of the Agency representatives to the
Office of Science and Technology Policy-led effort to produce a
consensus view of cancer in the Federal government; i.e.,
Cancer Principles.   He was active in the writing of Agency
risk assessment guidelines for cancer and for mixtures.  As a
member of the EPA Risk Assessment Forum, he joins with senior
scientist in addressing complex risk issues that affect
different program offices.  As former Coordinator and now Member
of the EPA Risk Assessment Council, he has been actively
involved with the policy review of scientific positions on risk.

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

    His formal education includes a BA (Chemistry) from the
College of Wooster, a PhD- (Physical Chemistry) from Florida
State University, and subsequent graduate courses in several
health-related areas; i.e., pharmacology, toxicology,  immunology
and epidemiology.  His informal education includes a wife, Dr.
Karen K. Barnes, two sons  and  a dog, all of whom — except the
dog — share in the active life of the local Baptist church.

 Deputy Staff  Director

      Executive Secretary:  Radiation Advisory Committee

MRS.  KATHLEEN Ct>NWAY received her BS --'and MS froia 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, where she
worked with 80 cities and towns on  a variety of water supply, waste disposal,
and sanitation issues.  She initiated training programs on sanitary landfill
operations for local Boards of Health and landfill operators.  She joined
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region I in 1974 to work in
the operations and  maintenance program.  She inspected wastewater treatment
plants constructed  with federal money, taught classes for operators, and
served on  a  team which investigated  the MDC system, one of the ten largest
in the nation.  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  an safety unit at IBM.  She joined the
 Science Advisory Board as Deputy Director in 1984.

      She is  also Executive  Secretary to  the Radiation Advisory Committee
 and  serves as Executive Secretary  to other SAB review groups as needed.
 Such  groups  include the Awards  Subcommittee, the Environmental Engineering
 Committee  (FY1988), the Hazard Ranking Review Subcommittee,  the Risk Reduction
 Group, the Modeling Study Group.   She was   the  recipient  this year  of an
 EPA Bronze Medal for her work on the SAB Research  Strategy effort.

     Executive Secretary:  Environmental Health Committee

     DR. E. RICHARD COTHERN received a BA (Physics and Math) from
Miami University (Ohio),  a MS (Physics)  Yale, and a PhD
(Physics) from the University of Manitoba.

    Immediately prior to joining SAB in 1987, Dr. Cothern served
as the Agency National Expert on Radioactivity and Risk
Assessment in Drinking Water.  His earlier activities includes
service in the Office of Toxic Substances,  Science Advisor to the
Ohio Senate Committee on Energy, and appointments an the
University of Dayton, Wright-Paterson Air Force Base, and
University of Manitoba.  He currently maintains a relationship
with George Washington University as Associate Professorial
Lecturer in Chemistry.

    In FY88 Dr. Cothern was the Executive Secretary for the
Environmental Health Committee.   Under his direction the
activity of the Drinking Water Subcommittee has grown to such an
extent that his principal duty involves servicing the
Subcommittee.  In addition, he is active in a number of
professional organizations, leading local groups and serving on
national committees.  These activities have allowed him to share
his interest and abilities in the area of risk assessment and

Executive Secretary: Environmental Health Committee

    MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG is the newest member of the professional
staff of SAB.  He retired from the Senior Executive Service
(SES) in August, 1988 and re-entered federal service in November
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,  analytical, and policy formulation positions with
the Department of Transportation and the Veterans
Administration's  Department of Medicine  Surgery.  He also
served in the U.S. Army for two years, with the rank of Captain.
Most of his  federal career has been devoted to advancing the
use of analytic methodologies to address public policy issues,
and to improving the management of federal research activities.
At EPA, he has directed particular efforts to the complex
problems and issues engendered by operating 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  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.
           is married, the  father of one college 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

     Executive Secretary:  Clean Air Scientific Advisory
                               Commi ttee
                           Indoor Air Quality/Total Human
                       Exposure Committee

    MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK is the most experienced of the SAB's
executive secretaries, having served for six months as the
original executive secretary for CASAC 1978-1979 and re-occupying
that position from 1984 to the present.  In addition, he serves
as the staff scientist for the Indoor Air Quality/Total Human
Exposure Committee and a number of the SAB's ad hoc sub-
committees; e.g., the global climate change review.

    in between appointments with the SAB, he served for five
years with the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Marine Environment
and Systems as Senior Environmental Specialist developing and
implementing environmental policy and guidance for the
preparation of environmental impact statements for bridge
construction in wetlands throughout the United States and its

    Prior to his first tour with the SAB, Mr. Flaak served as
Staff Marine Biologist with an engineering consulting company
where he assisted in the design and coordination of sampling and
data analysis for oceanographic surveys.  He has also worked as a
consulting marine taxonomist for clients including 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 interest in
phytoplankton ecology, bivalve nutrition, and bivalve and
invertebrate mariculture.

    Mr. Flaak has graduated from Stuyvesant High School in New
York City, the City College of New York  (BS in zoology), the
University of Delaware (MA in marine studies), and Central
Michigan University (MA in public administration).  In addition,
he has taken various courses towards a doctoral program in
Environmental Biology and Public Policy.

    His 23 years of military service include three years of
active duty with a tour in South Vietnam.  He is currently an
active US Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel, serving as the
Assistant Chief of Staff-Logistics for a 125 person brigade, part
of the 1st Special Operations Command.  He lives with his wife,
Dottie, and their four-year old son,

     Executive Secretary:  Environmental Engineering Committee

    DR. K. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN joined the SAB in July, 1988 as
executive secretary of the Environmental Engineering Committee.
He brings to his new work over 20 years of experience with
environmental issues, including nearly 15 years of diverse
experience within EPA Headquarters.

    In the mid-1970s he worked in the Office of Solid Waste,
documenting cases of improper disposal of hazardous wastes which
contributed to the passage of RCRA in 1976.  He also gained
experience with saturated and unsaturated zone modeling and
groundwater model assessment during this time.  This background
coupled with four years experience in the Office of Water
developing guidelines for effluent discharges from various
industrial sources.  In 1979 he joined the Superfund program
where his activities included development of reportable
quantities for spills, oil and hazardous substance pollution
prevention regulations, and the emergency response data base
known as Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical Assistance Data
System  (OHMTADS).

    Dr. Kooyoomjian received a BS  (Mechanical Engineering)from
the University of Massachusetts, and a MS  (Management
Science)and a PhD  (Environmental Engineering) 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), and Omicron Delta
Epsilon  (economics).  His professional activities continue
apace.  He is currently a member of the Board of Control of the
Water Pollution Control Federation  (WPCF), as well as member of
its Policy Advisory Committee.  In  1988 he received the Arthur
Sidney Bedell Award from the 34,000-member WPCF for extraordinary
personal service in the water pollution control field.  He  is
also active in the  local unit of WPCF where he has served in
numerous capacities,  including President.

    Closer to home  — which he shares with his wife, Gerry, and
their three daughters — Dr. Kooyoomjian  is involved in numerous
civic activities,  for which he received both  an EPA Public
Service Recognition Award and a County Recognition Award  during
the past year.

    Executive Secretary:  Environmental Effects,  Transport and
                           Fate Committee

    MS. JANIS KURTZ has served as Executive Secretary and
Environmental Scientist to the Environmental Effects, Transport
and Fate Committee for nearly three years.   During this period
she has helped the Board to address a broad spectrum of
environmental issues, including biotechnology,  municipal waste
combustion, water quality, sediment criteria,  and a long-term
strategy for ecological research.

    Prior to joining the Agency, Ms. Kurtz  spent  three years
with a consulting firm conducting and evaluating  toxicology
experiments, mainly genetic toxicology protocols, in support of
the registration of pesticidal and pharmaceutical products for
governmental and industrial clients.  While with  the firm she
managed a unit focusing on hazard assessment.   A  major project
involved enhancement of the National Library of Medicine's
Hazardous Substances Data Base.  Other projects involved
biotechnology-related tasks, including identification of
microorganisms with potential utility in industrial sectors
related to hazardous waste, preparation of  environmental risk
assessments, and identification of technical and  regulatory
issues.  In addition, she participated in the development of
instrumentation capable of detecting and monitoring hazardous
wastes by coupling laser light scattering technology and
genetically engineered strains of Bacillus  subtilis.

    Ms. Kurtz has received a BS (Biology) from Florida
Technological University and a MS (Biology: Molecular Genetics)
from the University of Central Florida.  She is currently
enrolled in the graduate program in Environmental Biology and
Public Policy at George Mason University in anticipation of
entering the doctoral program there.  Her current research
involves investigations of the survival, growth and microbial
community interactions caused by the introduction of non-endemic
and/or engineered bacteria into aquatic systems.

    When not involved in safe and sane SAB  activities, she is
likely to be found with her husband, Steven, scubadiving in the
tropics or motorcycle racing in the mountains.


     Cheryl B. Bentley, a native of Baltimore, Maryland and a
former resident of Pennsylvania moved to Washington, D.C. in 1969
following her high school graduation.  After 3 years of Federal
Service in the Department of Transportation, she transferred to
EPA where she has successfully served in the Office of Policy &
Planning, the Assistant Administrator's Office of Planning and
Management, Office of Audit and the Science Advisory Board.  She
joined the SAB in December of 1980, assuming the duties of staff
secretary to the Principal Science Policy Advisor to the
Administrator who was also  the Director of the Board.  In 1984
she was promoted to her current position as Program Analyst for
the SAB staff, with lead responsibility in budgeting, logistics,
personnel issues and administrative matters.  In addition, she is
actively converting serveral of the Board's operations (travel
voucher tracking system, SAB reports/abstracts, and membership
lists) to a computerized format.

     She graduated from the University of Maryland with a
Bachelor's of Science  in Technical Management in May 1988 and
also has an Associates of Arts degree in Business Management.