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 ------- |