United States
\ Environmental Protection Agency
I OfHce of the Administrator
r Science Advisory Board
s
The
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
(CASAC)
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
Carcinogenesis"
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
APPENDICES
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
TABLES
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
-------
ABSTRACT
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
and:initiatives.
-------
DISCLAIMER
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.
-------
FORWARD
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
missed.
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
iii
-------
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
1988.
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
difference".
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
countries.
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
particular.
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
expenditures
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
issues.
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
Administrator.
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
decade.
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
Plan.
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
great.
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
involvement.
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
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT
RISK
MANAGEMENT
Dose-Response
Assessment
Hazard
IdoatjflcatioB
Risk
Characterization
Regulatory
Decision
Exposure
Assessment
Control
Options
Non-Risk
Analyses
O
JO
m
-------
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-
bilities.
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
10
-------
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
committees.
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
Administrator.
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.
11
-------
Executive Comm.
Chairmen
Dr. Emil Mrak
Dr. John Cantlon
Dr. Earnest Gloyna
Dr. Norton Nelson
Dr. Raymond Loehr
TABLE I
SAB LEADERSHIP DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES
Affiliation Date
University of California
Michigan State University
University of Texas at Austin
New York University
University of Texas
1974-1978
1979-1981
1981-1983
1983-1988
1988-
SAB Staff Directors
Dr. Thomas Bath
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Donald Barnes
Date
1975-1977
1978-1981
1981-1988
1988-present
12
-------
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
Laboratory
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
Association
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
Chemistry
Member, Water Pollution Control Federation,
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee
(EET+FC):
Dr. Rolf Hartung
Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the
University of Michigan
Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry
Member, American Industrial Hygiene
Association
Member, Society of Toxicology
Member, Wildlife Society
13
-------
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
Pathologists
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
(IAQC):
Dr. Morton Lippmann
Director of Aerosol Inhalation Research Laboratory
Professor of Environmental Medicine, New York
University
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.
14
-------
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
press.
15
-------
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
16
-------
TABLE IV
FY88 SAB Activities by Committee for FY89
Committee
CASAC
EC
Fiscal Year No. Mtgs
1986
1987
1988
1986
1987
1988
EC/Ad HOC 1986
Subcomm. 1987
1988
EEC
EET+FC
EHC
IAQC
RAG
CASAC
EC
EEC
EET+FC
EHC
IAQC
RAG
1986
1987
1988
1986
1987
1988
1986
1987
1988
1988
1986
1987
1988
7
6
2
4
4
4
16
26
25*
15
7
5
5
5
3
12
7
9
6
3
9
No. Reports
4
7
0
0
0
0
9
15
7
8
4
5
1
1
4
3
6
19
3
3
8
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)
17
-------
TABLE V
Science Advisory Board Resources and Activities*
1980-1989
Meetings
Open Closed
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989**
42
12
20
38
29
60
61
57
58
65
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Staff
Reports* Members FTE
13
10
10
11
17
41
28
36
43
50
81
72
37
44
48
60
59
74
74
64
15.75
13.25
10.50
9.10
14.10
14.00
14.10
14.10
16.00
17.00
Costs
(in thousands
to nearest $25
thousand)
875
750
600
650
1,025
1,200
1,200
1,350
1,300
1,425
* 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.
18
-------
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
environment.
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
4.3.2)
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
19
-------
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
standard.
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
regulation".
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
20
-------
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
guidelines).
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
21
-------
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.
22
-------
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
suggestions.
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
issues
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
23
-------
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
Director.
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
operations.
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.
24
-------
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.
25
-------
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
(EET+FC)
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
impact.
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.
26
-------
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
(IAQC)
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.
27
-------
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
government.
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
28
-------
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
implemented.
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
research.
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 •
29
-------
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
1989.
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
future.
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
30
-------
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
neck.
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
form.
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
31
-------
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
contamination.
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
32
-------
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
impact.
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
33
-------
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
Analyst.
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.
34
-------
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
laboratory.
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.
35
-------
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.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS - COMMITTEES, BOARDS, PANELS, AND COUNCILS
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
following:
V
- 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;
A-l
-------
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.
A-2
-------
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
A-3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIVTSOPY CCMMITI t,L CHAPTEK
ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS - COMMITTEES, BOARDS, PANELS AND COUNCILS
CLEAN AIP. SCIENTIFIC AEVISOPY COMMITTEE
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,
A-4
-------
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
information,
- 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.
If,
Approval Date Deputy Administrator
AJG -5B87
Date Filed with Congress
A-5
-------
Science Advisory Board
FY 1989 Organization
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Science
Advisory Board
Exec. Comm, & Subc,
CASAC
& Subc,
EEC
& Subc,
fc
H3
§
a
M
X
Cd
EHC
Subc,
EET&FC
& Subc.
IAQC
& Subc,
RAC
Subc,
RSAC
& 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
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD ORGANIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 88-89
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
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
Dr. Norton Nelson, Chairman
For FY 1989: Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Chairman
Executive Secretary: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Staff Secretary: Ms. Joanna Foellmer
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Dr. Roger McClellan, Chairman
Executive Secretary: Mr. Robert Flaak
Staff Secretary: Ms. Carolyn Osborne
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, TRANSPORT AND FATE COMMITTEE:
Dr. Rolf Hartung, Chairman
For FY 1989: Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Executive Secretary: Ms. Jan Kurtz
Staff Secretary: Ms. Lutithia Barbee
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE:
Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman
For FY 1989: Mr. Richard Conway
Executive Secretary: Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
Staff Secretary: Ms. Marie Miller
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE:
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
c-i
-------
INDOOR AIR QUALITY/TOTAL HUMAN EXPOSURE COMMITTEE:
Dr. Morton Lippmann, Chairman
Executive Secretary: Mr. Robert Flaak
Staff Secretary: Ms. Carolyn Osborne
RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Dr. William Schull, Chairman
Executive Secretary: Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Staff Secretary: Ms. Dorothy Clark
RESEARCH STRATEGIES COMMITTEE:
Mr. Alvin Aim, Chairman
Executive Secretary: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Staff Secretary: Ms. Joanna Foellmer
C-2
-------
(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
Agronomy
Pres. & Chief Executive Officer
Director, Environmental Sciences
Division
President
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
Sciences
Corporate Development Fellow
Director, Center for Environmental
Management
Private Consultant
Director, Institute of Applied
Sciences
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
Health
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
Toxicology
Vice President
Engineering Policy
President
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
Science
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
Medicine
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
Center
New York, New York
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
-------
36. Dr. William Lowrance
Senior Fellow & Director
o
i
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 &
Immunology
President
Professor of Civil Engineering
Center on Molecular Toxicology
Lee R. Dice University Professor
of Human Genetics
Professor of Environmental
Medicine
Dept. of Wildlife Sciences
Principal, Decision Focus, Inc.
Professor of Radiology
Director of the Division of
Radiation Biology
Professor of Environmental
Engineering
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
School
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
Engineering
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
President
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.
National Council on
Radiation Protection and
Measurements
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
Engineering
Professor, Electrical
Engineering & Computer Sciences
Department
Chair, Department of Epidemiology
and Public Health
Environ-Corporation
Private Consultant
Professor and Director
Institute of Environmental
Medicine
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
Lab
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
u
-------
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 &
Wildlife
Natural Resources Defense
Council
St. Louis, Missouri
Monsanto Company
St. Louis, Missouri
University of Minnesota
St. Paul Minnesota
New York, New York
Environnmental Engineering Commitee
12/3/89
Professor, Department of
Agronomy
Senior Research Scientist
Energy Laboratory
Graduate School of Public
Health
Department of Entomology
Dr. Anders W. Andren Water Chemistry Laboratory
Dr. Larry Andrews
Dr. Carol R. Angle
Dr. Bernard D. Astill
Senior Principal Research
Toxicologist
Professor of Pediatrics
Health and Environmental
Laboratories
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
Institute
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
University
Richmond, Virginia
E-l
-------
15 Dr. Robert Baboian
Head, Electrochemical
& Corrosion Lab.
16 Dr. Richard E. Balzhiser Senior Vice President
for Research and
Development
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
Sciences
lexicologist
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,
Statistician
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
Inhalation/Toxicology
Research Institute
Lovelace Foundation
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Research & Development
of the Cmmission of the
European Communities
Brussels, Belgium
Pacific Northwest
Laboratories
Richland, Washington
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jerse
National Institute of
Environmental Health
Sciences
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Environ Corporation
Washington, DC
E-2
-------
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
Planning
Senior Scientist
School of Civil
Engineering & Environ-
mental Science
Director of Water Quality
Associate Professor
Environmental Engineering
Department
Partner
Dr. j. Julian Chisolm Associate Professor
Dr. Leo Chylack
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
New Jersey Department of
Health, Trenton, New
Jersey
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
District
Oakland, California
Illinois State Geological
Survey
Champaign, Illinois
California Institute of
Technology
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
E-3
-------
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
Laboratory
Berkeley, California
56 Dr. James M. Davidson University of Florida
Gainsville, Florida
E-A
-------
Dr. Robert Dean
Dr. Richard Denison Staff Scientist
Graduate Research
Professor
Dr. Gary L. Diamond Director, Toxicology
Center
Dr. Douglas W. Dockery Assistant Professor
Harvard School of
Public Health
Dr. John Deutch
Dr. Naihua Duan
Dean of Science
Statistician
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
Corporation
New York, New York
Environmental Science
& Physiology
Boston, Massachusetts
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Rand Corporation
Santa Monica, California
Syracuse Research
Corporation
Syracuse, New York
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Consumer Federation of
America
Washington, D.C.
Davis L. Ford & Associates
Austin, Texas
Massachusets Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
The Johns Hopkins School
of Hygiene and Public
Health
Baltimore, Maryland
E-5
-------
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
Inc.
Norman. Oklahoma
G. D. Searle & Company
Skokie, Illinois
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginii
75 Dr. Thomas A. Gasiewicz Associate Professor
Department of Radiation
Biology
76 Dr. James M. Gentile Professor, Biology
Department
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
Sciences
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
Toxicology
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island
EPRI
Palo Alto, California
MDNJ
Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, New Jersey
Massachusetts Institute
Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Montana State Universit;
Bozeman, Montana
E-6
-------
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
Program
Independent Consultant
Professor of Medicine
Environmental Health
Service
Professor, Systems
Engineering
Research Scientist
Professor of Environmental
Health
College of Veterinarian
Medicine
Vice President
Center for Environmental
Research
University of Western
Ontario
London, Canada
Duke University Medical
Center
Durham, North Carolina
Public Service Company of
Colorado,
Littleton, Colorado
Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory
Berkeley, California
Tucson, Arizona
Rancho Los Amigos Medical
Center, University
of Southern California
Downey, California
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia
Ontario Ministry of the
Environment
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
E-7
-------
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
Department
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil
Engineering
Professor, Emeritus
Department of Epidemiology
Director, Hazard
Assessment Division
School of Public &
Environmental Affairs
Marine Biological
Laboratory
Department of Biology
Director, Division of Air
Resources
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
California
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
Board
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
E-8
-------
.12 Dr. James Johnson Department of University of North
Environmental Sciences Carolina
& Engineering Chapel Hill, North
Carolina
.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
Carolina
Chapel Hill, North
Carolina
.19 Dr. Eugene E. Kanaga Consultant Midland, Michigan
.20 Dr. Lawrence Keith Chemistry Development
Coordinator
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
University
Cleveland, Ohio
E-9
-------
125 Thomas J. Kulle
126 Marvin Kuschner
127 Nan M. Laird
128 Dr. Peter J. Lamb
Consultant
Dean, School of Medicine
Department of
Biostatistics
Climate & Meteorology
Section
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
Laboratory
133 Dr. Michael Lebowitz Professor of Internal
Medicine
134 Dr. James 0. Leckie Department of Civil
Engineering
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
York
Stony Brook, New York
Harvard School of Publi
Health
Boston, Massachusetts
Illinois State Water
Survey
Champaign, Illinois
Mt. Sinai School of
Medicine
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
Designers/Consultants
West Chester,
Pennsylvania
American Water Works
Services
Company, Inc.
Voorhees, New Jersey
E-10
-------
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
Associate
3 M Company (Retired)
Associate Professor
Department of Environ-
mental & Community
Medicine
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
Research
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
Professor
Donald E. McMillan Department of Pharmacology
& Toxicology
National Water Well
Association
Worthington, Ohio
The University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta
Canada
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
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater
Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Carnegie-Mellon
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
NIEHS
Raleigh, North Carolina
Boyce Thompson Institute
Ithaca, New York
Ontario, Canada
University of Arkansas
Little Rock, Arkansas
E-ll
-------
151 Dr. Peter McMurry Department of Mechanical
Engineering
152 Dr. Richard B. Mailman Professor, Psychiatry &
Pharmacology
153 Dr. Wesley A. Magat Professor, Fugua
School of Business
University of Minnesota;
Minneapolis, Minnesota
University of North
Carolina
Chapel Hill, North
Carolina
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina
154 Dr. Kathryn Mahaffey National Institute of
Environmental Health
Sciences
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
Assessment
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
Jefferson,Arkansas
Mobil Oil
Princeton, New Jersey
Duke University Medica]
Center
Durham, North Carolina
Chem-Nuclear System
Albuquerque, New Mexicc
162 Dr. James Mercer
163 Dr. Jacqueline Michel
President
Geotrans, Inc.
Herndon, Virginia
Research Planning
Institute
Columbia, South Carolii
E-12
-------
164 Dr. David Miller
President
165 Dr. Irving Mintzer Director, Energy & Climate
166 Mr. John V. Molenar Vice President
167 -Dr. Harold Mooney Department of Biological
Sciences
168 Dr. William Moomaw World Resources Institute
169 Dr. Granger W. Morgan Head, Department of
Engineering & Public
Policy
170 Dr. Paul Mushak
Consultant & Adjunct
Professor
171 Dr. Brooke T. Mossman Department of Pathology
Geraghty & Miller Inc
Syosset, New York
World Resources Institute
Washington, D.C.
Air Resource Specialists,
Inc.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Stanford University
Stanford, California
1735 New York Avenue,NW
Washington, D.C.
Carnegie-Mellon
University
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
Program
Environmental Science
Department
Department of Human
Genetics
Department of Mathematics
177 Dr. Scott W. Nixon Professor of Oceanography
Electric Power Research
Institute
Palo Alto, California
Electric Power Research
Institute
Palto Alto, California
Battelle Northwest
Richland, Washington
Lee R. Dice University
Ann Arbor Michigan
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
University of Rhode
Island
Narragansett, Rhode
Island
E-13
-------
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
Science
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
Engineering
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 &
Engineering
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
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
University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusett
University of Californi
Riverside California
New York School of
Medicine
New York, New York
Research Triangle
Institute
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina
Columbia University
New York, New York
University of Wisconsir
Madison, Wisconsin
University of North
Carolina
Chapel Hill, North
Carolina
E-14
-------
192 Dr. Robert F. Phalen Professor
Community & Environmental
Medicine
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
Director
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
Laboratory
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Stephen M. Rappaport Department of Biomedical University of California
& Environmental Health Berkeley, California
Sciences
Verne A. Ray
Kenneth Reuhl
William Richards
Paul Risser
Patricia Rodier
Medical Research Labor-
atory
Pfitzer Inc.
Groton, Connecticut
Department of Pharmacology Rutgers University
& Toxicology
Vice President for
Research
Department OBGYN
•205 Dr. Joseph V. Rodricks
,206 Dr.
207 Dr. Robert Rowe
Joan Rose
Research Associate/
Lecturer
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
Medicine
214 Dr. Adel F. Sarofim Department of Chemical
Engineering
215 Dr. Walter Schaub
Technical Director
216 Dr. Harold Schecter Professor, Chemistry
Department
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
"*•
Meterologist
Senior Research
Scientist
Herman H. Shugart W. W. Corcoran Professor
of Environmental Sciences
Steven L. Simon Department of
Environmental Sciences
The Johns Hopkins
University
Baltimore, Maryland
University of Kansas
Kansas City, Kansas
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
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
Environment
Washington, D. C.
Ohio State University
Columbia, Ohio
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, Michigan
Teledyne Isotopes
Westwood, New Jersey
Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory
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
E-16
-------
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
Economics
J28 Dr. William H. Smith Professor of Forest
Biology
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 &
Engineering
;I31 Dr. Frank Speizer
132 Dr. John Spengler
233 Dr. Peter Y. Sheng
Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Professor, Environmental
Health
Professor, Department of
Coastal & Oceanographic
Engineering
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
University
Raleigh, North Carolina
University of North
Carolina
Chapel Hill, North
Carolina
Channing Laboratory
Boston, Massachusetts
Harvard University
Boston, Massachusetts
University of Florida
Gainsville, Florida
Ruxton, Maryland
CITT
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Argonne National Lab-203
Argonne, Illinois
E-17
-------
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
Engineering
243 Dr. Nien Dak Sze
President
244 Dr. Joel Tarr
245 Dr. Freida Taub
Professor
Professor of Forest
Biology
246 Dr. George E. Taylor Group Leader, Physio-
logical Ecology
Environmental Sciences
Division
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
Pharmacology
Associate Professor and
Director of Biostatistics
General Electric Company
Fairfield, Connecticut
University of Connecticu
Farmington, Connecticut
University of California
Berkeley, California
Chemical Industry
Institute
of Toxicology
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
Atmospheric &
Environmental
Research Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Carnegie-Mellon Universit
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Battelle Pacific Northwes
Richland, Washington
John Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, Maryland
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
University of Southern
California
Los Angeles, California
E-18
-------
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
President
Professor of Economics
Department of Economics
Department of Sociology
Principal Engineer
Department of Natural
Environmental Sciences
Division
Santa Fe Research
Corporation
Bloomington, Minnesota
Consulting & Engineers,
Inc.
Pasadena, California
Harriman Associates
Auburn, Maine
Velzy/Weston
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
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Professor of Biostatistics Harvard School of Public
Health
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
E-19
-------
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
Department
E-20
-------
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
26
27
28
32
33,
34,
EET&FC
••
"
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
F-l
-------
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
November
November
November
December
December
December
December
December
February
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
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
58.
Sources Transport & Fate July 13-14-15, 1988
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988
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
G-l
-------
are now considered environmentally sound land disposal
practices and the associated monitoring methods to assure
that those practices are environmentally sound over many
decades.
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
Program
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
G-2
-------
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
G-3
-------
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.
SAB-EHC-88-011--03/09/88—Perchloroethylene
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
cancer.
G-A
-------
SAB-EHC-88-012—03/09/88—Draft Addendum to HAD for
Trichloroethylene
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
Xylenes
The Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
Board's Environmental Health Committee has completed its
G-5
-------
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.
V
SAB-EHC-88-016—03/09/88—Ortho-Meta-Para-Dichlorobenzene
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
G-6
-------
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.
SAB-EHC-88-018—03/09/88—Dichloroethylenes
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.
G-7
-------
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,
G-8
-------
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
G-9
-------
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
G-10
-------
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
Awards
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
G-ll
-------
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.
G-12
-------
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.
G-13
-------
SAB-EHC-88-033—07/19/88—Ethylbenzene
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
misleading.
SAB-EHC-88-034—07/19/88—Mercury
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.
SAB-EHC-88-035~07/19/88~Acrylamide
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
G-14
-------
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.
SAB-EHC-88-036—07/19/88—Copper
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
standard.
SAB-EHC-88-037—07/19/88—Selenium
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.
G-15
-------
SAB-EHC-88-038—07/19/88—Barium
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.
SAB-EHC-88-039—07/19/88—Styrene
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
G-16
-------
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
problems.
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.
G-17
-------
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.
G-18
-------
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
Purposes
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
G-19
-------
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.
G-20
-------
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
H-l
-------
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.
H-2
-------
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.
H-3
-------
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
radiation.
H-4
-------
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
history.
H-5
-------
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
territories.
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,
Chris.
H-6
-------
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.
H-7
-------
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.
H-8
-------
PROGRAM ANAYLST
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.
H-9
-------
|