United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Science Advisory
Board (1400)
Washington, DC
EPA-SAB-97-001
November 1996
&EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
FY1996 ANNUAL STAFF REPORT
Science Informing Policy
-------
This report is a staff summary of activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s Science Advisory Board for the Fiscal Year I 996, with projections for
Fiscal Year 1997. This report has not been reviewed by the Board or the Agency, and
should not be construed as representing the views of either organization.
-------
Annual Report page /
FOREWORD: SCIENCE INFORMING POLICY
Questions, questions, questions. Our society faces no lack of questions, many of
related to the environment:
The air we breathe is generally cleaner than it was 25 years ago, but is it clean
enough?"
"Has all that we have invested in environmental protection been worth the
effort?"
"How should we go about cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites?"
"Is 'marsh management1 a good idea?"
"How can we make better decisions about reducing environmental risks?"
In order to answer these questions adequately and acceptably, society must pull together
a great deal of disparate data, technical information, professional judgment, public values,
and personal opinions. In a properly designed approach to decision making, this mix of
inputs is combined in an open process to yield answers that meet the needs of the entire
community.
In its 1996 report on Risk Characterization, the National Research Council describes an
idealized, iterative procedure that cycles between phases of "analysis" and "deliberation". It is
in the analytic portion of the cycle that the technical contributions (e.g., science, engineering,
and economics) are featured and activities, such as sample collection, analytical chemistry,
toxicology, risk assessment, etc., occur. In the deliberation portion of the cycle, scientists
participate with non-scientists in making judgments that involve both technical and non-
technical issues, such as community values, personal perceptions, and implicit cost/benefit
balancing.
The role of science, then, is to provide data and insights that illuminate the problem so that
the broader public decision making process can proceed effectively. In short, science
informs—but does not itself make—policy.
Historically, the Science Advisory Board is one of the major arenas at EPA in which a
constructive "analysis" process takes place, in a public forum, to inform the "deliberation"
process leading to societal decisions on environmental protection. In FY 96, the Board
provided illuminating insights on each of the real-life questions listed above, plus many others.
This Annual Report by the SAB Staff describes the analysis process followed and the
results achieved by the SAB in addressing these questions. The SAB's goal is to insure that the
eventual policy decisions—whatever they are—have been informed by the best scientific advice
possible.
Donald G. Barnes, Ph.D.
Staff Director
Science Advisory Board
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paqe ii
Annual Report
THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD: SCIENCE INFORMING POUCY
Table of Contents
4. REVIEW OF FY96 ACTIVITIES
4.1 introduction
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities
4.2.1 Executive Cornmittee(EC)
4.2.2 Advisozy Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCID
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
4.2.5 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
4.2.6 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
4.2.7 Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
4;2.8 Environmental Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
4.2.9 integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
4.3 Examples of Science Informing Policy
4.4 SAB Staff in Transition
...l
12
12
19
20
• . 21
22
22
22
22
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
30
1. DCECU’IIVE SUMMARY
1.1 introduction to the Report
1.2 introduction to the Board
1.3 Review of FY96 Activities
1.4 Projections and Conclusions
2. INThODUCrION TO THE REPORT
2.1 PurposeoftheReport
2.2 Content of the Report
3. INTI ODUC 1ON TO THE BOARD
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function
3.2 SAB Orgrrni7ation and Membership
3.3 SAB Activities Section
3.3.1 Overview
3.3.2 Reports That Meet Criteria
3.3.3 Impacts of Activities
3.3.4 Responses and Reactions to SAB Activities
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page iii
5. PROJECI’IONS AND CONCLUSIONS 31
TABLES
I. SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades ... . 7
II. FY96 SAB Committee Chairs ... .9
ifi. SAB Expenses for FY91-96 ... 12
TV. SAB Activities and Resources: FY9 1-96 .. .13
V. SAB Activities by Committee: FY91-96 .. .14
VI. Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports . ... 17
APPENDICES
A. Charters
Al. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
B. Membership
B1. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affffiation with the SAB
B3. SAB Members for FY96
PA. SAB Consultants for FY96
C. Organizational Chart of the SAB in FY96
D. Staff Support and Committee Leadership in FY96
E. SAB Committee Meetings in FY96
F. SAB Reports and Abstracts in FY96
Fl List of SAB Reports, Letters, Commentaries, Advisories, and Consultations
for FY96
P2 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, arid Commentaries for FY96
G. Detailed Time to Completion Analysis for Reports and Letter Reports
H. Biographical Sketches of SAB Staff
1. SAB Reports and the Internet
Report of the Science Advisoiy Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
oaae I
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction to the Report
This Annual Report provides a succinct
introduction to the Science Advisorj Board (SAB);
a summary of the SAB activities for Fiscal Year
1996; and offers a near-term projection for future
SAB activities.
Section 2 is a brief introduction to the Report.
Section 3 provides background information on
the SAB, its organization, history, membership,
and resources. Section 4 contains summaries of
the activities of each of the SAB Committees
during FY96, details the major activities
addressing the “use of science to inform policy ,
and notes changes in the SAB Staff Office.
Section 5 provides some projections for FY97.
This Report also includes several specialized
appendices, containing: charters and leadership
information for the Committees; membership
information; organizational charts; guidelines on
service on the SAB; lists of meetings; abstracts of
FY96 reports; and biographical information about
the SAB Staff.
1.2 Introduction to the Board
The purpose of the Board is to provide
qualified, independent technical advice to the
Administrator of the EPA on the scientific, engi-
neering, and economic underpinnings of Agency
positions (see charters in Appendix A). The SAB
often functions as a peer review panel, assessing
the technical rationales underlying current or
proposed Agency positions. In recent years it
has initiated a number of activities on its own:
e.g., a commentary on strategic planning in the
Office of Research and Developments
engineering program, retrospective studies on
the impacts of past reports by the Radiation
Committee, and a self-study of the Board.
The SAB was formally chartered in 1978 by
the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
although its roots extend back to the birth of EPA
in 1970. The Board is a Federal Advisory Commit-
tee and must comply with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). The Board’s membership
is composed of non-federal scientists,
economists, and engineers appointed by the EPA
Administrator. The Guidelines for Service on the
SAB are included in Appendix B 1. Appendix B2
describes the various ways in which experts are
affiliated ‘with the Board. The 98 Members of the
Board (see Appendix B3) operate through ten
standing Committees, coordinated through an
Executive Committee (see the organizational
chart in Appendix C and information on Staff
Support and Committee Leadership in Appen-
dix D). The Members of the Board are some of
the most qualified technical experts in the
country, as evidenced by the credentials of the
FY96 Committee Chairs (see Table II). The
work of the Board is supported by some 300
Consultants to the Board (see Appendix B4),
who are non-governmental scientists,
engineers, and economists appointed by the
SAB Staff Director. Technical experts em-
ployed by the Federal Government who have
special skill or knowledge in particular areas
participate as Federal Experts, as needed.
The SAB’s operations are supported by a
Staff Office of 17 employees and an FY96
budget totaling some $1.8 million. These
resources enabled the Board to conduct 37
meetings (of which 9 were public conference
The Members of the Board are
some of the most qualified
technical experts in the country
calls and 28 were public meetings) and issue
three full reports, 17 short reports (generally
less than 10 pages, including ten Letter
Reports, three Commentaries, and four
Advisories), and two Notifications of Consul-
tations (see Tables Ill and JV).
SAB carries out projects at the request
Agency, Congress, and on its• own
In recent years, the number of
The
of the
volition.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paqe 2
Annual Report
requests for SAB action have well exceeded
the number that the Board can address.
Therefore, the Board has adopted criteria to
establish priorities arrtong the vcxnous requests,
based on the degree to which such requests:
a) Impact overall environmental protection
b) Address novel scientific problems or prin-
ciples
c) Integrate science into Agency actions in
new ways
d) Influence long-term technological devel-
opment
e) Deal with problems that transcend Fed-
eral agency or other organizational
boundaries.
0 Strengthen the Agenc s basic capabilities
g) Serve Congressional and other leadership
interests
h) Deal with controversial issues
The reports produced by the SAB have
positively impacted many aspects of the
Agency’s operations and policies:
a) The rigor of the Agency’s technical posi-
tions
b) The allocation of Agency resources for
scientific/technical activities
c) The directions taken by the Agency in
emerging science policy
d) The directions taken by the Agency in
planning
e) The directions and form of public debate
on scientific, engineering, and economic
issues
With all of these activities, attention and
impacts, the Board has maintained a broad
base of support both within and outside the
Agency.
1.3 Review of FY96 Activities
During FY96, the SAB’s various standing
and ad hoc Committees conducted 37 public
meetings which were announced in the Federal
Register. This number includes 9 public con-
ference calls held for planning, writing, and
discussion purposes. A wide variety of topics
were covered -- from the procedures to assess
nervous system risks posed by various agents to
assessing the costs and benefits of the Clean Air
Act. Appendices E and F provide a full listing
of FY96 S.AB meetings and reports (with
abstracts).
1.4 Projections and Conclusions
In FY96 the Agency was maturing in its use
of science as a tool to inform policy. Stimulated
by a study by the General Accounting Office, the
Agency has mare aggressively sought a variety of
avenues of peer review to insure a solid scientific
foundation for its actions. EPA established “local”
FACkcomrnittees within Agency Offices (e.g., the
Board of Science Counselors in ORD) and
greater use of outside peer reviews, either
through individuals or via panels. As a result,
more Agency decisions are being informed by
peer-reviewed science than ever before.
The SAB has never been able to address more
than a fraction of the requests made of it in a
given year. Therefore, the growth of alternative
peer review mechanisms for mare routine issues
has permitted the Board to focus on larger issues
(as judged by criteria discussed in Section 3.3.2)
and some unique projects; e.g., the Integrated
Risk Project, which should reach a successful
conclusion in FY97.
The SAB agenda for FY97 already contains
some important matters; e.g., a final look at the
reassessment of dioxin, a review of the Agency’s
cancer risk assessment guidelines, and a review
of the Agency’s risk assessment of mercury. In
addition, the SAB’s activity as a Lookout Panel will
be featured in an EPA-sponsored meeting of the
G-7 countries, designed to highlight the
importance of avoiding future problems, as well
as cleaning up after current and past problems.
Further, the SAB has embarked on a policy to
engage technical advisory groups in other
agencies and in other countries on the review of
issues of common interest.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 3
All of these efforts have the same goal: to
insure that good science informs good policy,
wherever and at whatever level that policy is
made.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
øaae 4
Annual Report
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
2.1 Purpose of the Report
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) isa legis-
latively mandated group of non-governmental
scientists, engineers, and economists charged
with providing independent technical advice on
environmental issues to the EPA Administrator
and others, (e.g., Congressional committees) to
help inform their decisions. Generally, the SAB
does not get involved in or provide advice on
regulatory policy aspects of problems confronting
the Agency, because such matters are the prov-
ince and responsibility of the EPA Administrator.
Additional details of the objectives, responsibili-
ties, composition, and activities of the SAB and its
two separately mandated entities (the CASAC
and the Council) are included in the charters of
the organizations (See Appendix A).
Informed observers acknowledge the SAB’s
remarkable history and its continuing importance
in the protection of public health and the
environment. However, some people both within
and outside of the Agency are hard-pressed to
describe the extent of the Board’s activities or the
detailed nature of its findings. This is due, in part,
to the complex structure of the Board and the
aperiodic issuing of its reports. To some, the SAB
is viewed as a hurdle which must be cleared on
the way to issuing regulations; much like having
to defend one’s thesis on the way to getting an ad-
vanced degree. To others, the SAB is seen as a
court of last resort in which competing scientific
arguments are objectively and dispassionately
evaluated.
For some puzzled observers of the SAB, the
biggest problem is simply finding out “What does
the SAB do?” A somewhat flippant, but accurate,
answer to that question is: “The SAB makes a
difference.”. For example, the SAB makes a
difference in the type and conduct of scientific
and engineering research at EPA. The SAB
makes a difference in the way that resulting data
are interpreted and used to inform regulatory and
other decisions. The SAB also makes a difference
to SAB Members and Consultants CM/Cs) and
SAB staff by giving them the satisfaction of seeing
their information and guidance used
appropriately by the Agency to address
environmental problems.
In broad terms, this Report is intended to
reveal the SAB to a wide audience: to those both
‘inside and outside the Agency, to those who
understand the Board, to those who think they
understand the Board, and to those who don’t
understand the Board. The intent is that each
reader gain a broader perspective of the SAB, its
activities, and its impact.
More specifically, the purpose of this Annual
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff is
three-fold:
a) To provide a succinct introduction to the
SAB.
b) To provide a summary of the SAB ’s activities
for FY96.
c) To offer a near-term projection of future
SAB activities.
The Report is designed to provide the written
equivalent of “a group photo” Of the SAB--its
people, its products, and its prospects--in
sufficient detail that the interested reader can
distinguish the major features and identify paths
for investigating the finer details.
2.2 Content of the Report
The Report consists of five principle sections,
plus appendices supplementing the discussion in
the main sections. Following the Executive Sum-
mary (Section 1) and this Introduction (Section 2),
Section 3 provides basic background information
on the SAB. Here the reader will find brief discus-
sions on the history of the Board, its organization
and Membership, and its principal activities and
procedures. Specific examples are described
that illustrate the way in which the SAB impacts
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 5
positively on the functions and operations of the
Agency.
Section 4 focuses on SAB activities during
FY96. This portion of the Report contains
descriptions of the activities of each of the Boards
Committees during the past year. In addition.
changes in the SAB Staff assignments and
operations of the Office are highlighted. Section
5 provides a glimpse into what FY97 holds in store
for the Board.
The Appendices contain important
infonnalion, such as organizational charts,
membership lists, abstracts of SAB reports, and
the like. These Appendices provide a source of
more detailed information about specific aspects
of the SAB.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 6
Annual Report
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function
The SAB was established by Congress to
provide independent scientific and engineering
advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical
basis for EPA regulations. Expressed in terms of
the parlance of the risk assessment/risk manage-
ment paradigm of decision making (National
Research Council, Managing Risk in the Federal
Government, 1983), the SAB deals with risk
assessment issues (hazard identification,
dose-response assessment, exposure assess-
ment and risk characterization) and only that
portion of risk management that deals strictly
with the technical issues associated with various
control options. Issues of Agency and Adrninis-
tration policy are generally beyond the scope of
SAB mandate and involvement.
The SAB, in its present form, was
established in 1978 by the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act (ERDDAA) (42 U.S.C. 4365).
Predecessor bodies date back to the early 1970s.
In carrying out the mandate of ERDDAA. the SAB
provides “such scientific advice as may be
requested by the 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.” 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. C) and related regulations.
Consequently, the Board has an approved
charter (which must be renewed every two years),
announces its meetings in the Federal Register,
and provides opportunities for public comment on
issues before the Board.
As a practical matter, the function of
providing credible technical advice to EPA and
Congress antedates ERDDAA and its
requirements for an SAB. SAB’s roots can be
traced back through various predecessor
committees within EPA and--prior to the creation
of EPA--into other agencies, such as the (then
named) Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. Since 1978, however, the SAB has
operated as a Staff Office, reporting directly to
the Administrator.
Members of and Consultants to the Board
constitute a distinguished body of scientists,
engineers, and economists who are recognized,
non-governmental experts in their respective
fields. These individuals are drawn from
academia, industry, and environmental
communities throughout the United States and, in
some limited cases, other countries (see
Appendices B3 and B4 for a listing of Members
and Consultants, respectively).
Increasingly, the Agency has placed a
premium on basing its regulations on a solid
scientific foundation. Consequently, over the past
18 years the SAB has assumed growing
importance and stature. It is now formal practice
that many major scientific points associated with
environmental problems are reviewed by the
SAB. For example, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) require that
technical aspects of decisions related to all
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
be reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC), which is administratively
housed within the SAB.
Generally, the Board functions as a tech-
nical peer review panel. The SAB conducts its
business in public view and benefits from public
input during its deliberations. Through these pro-
ceedings Agency positions are subjected to
critical examination by leading experts in various
fields in order to test their currency and technical
merits. At the same time, the SAB recognizes that
EPA is usually forced to take action to avert an
emerging environmental risk before all of the
rigors of scientific proof are met. To delay action
until the evidence amounts to incontrovertible
proof might court irreversible ecological and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 7
TABLE I SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades
Executive Committee
Chairs
Dr. Emil Mrak
Dr. John Cantlon
Dr. Earnest Gloyna
Dr. Norton Nelson
Dr. Raymond Loehr
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Affiliation
University of California
Michigan State University
University of Texas
New York University
University of Texas
Johns Hopkins University
Dates
1974-1978
1979-1981
1981-1983
1983-1988
1988-1993
1993-Present
SAB Staff Directors
Dr. Thomas Bath
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Donald Barnes
Dates
1975-1977
1978- 198 1
1981-1988
1988-present
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 sou-
ndness of the technical basis of the science policy
position adopted by the Agency.
3.2 SAB Organization and Membership
The SAB Charter (Appendix Al) includes the
following statements:
a) “The objective of the Board is to provide
advice to EPA’s Administrator On the scientif-
ic and technical aspects of environmental
problems and issues”.
b) “The Board will consist of a body of inde-
pendent scientists and engineers [ and now
economists] of sufficient size and diversity to
provide the range of expertise required to
assess the scientific and technical aspects
of environmental issues”.
c) “No Member of the Board shall be a full-time
employee of the Federal Government.”
In addition, the Charter requires formation of
an Executive Committee and inclusion of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (see
separate charter, also in Appendix A). Otherwise.
the Board may organize itself as needed to meet
its responsibilities.
The Board’s Executive Committee serves as
the focal point to coordinate the scientific reviews
by the Board’s standing committees. Appendix C
contains a chart of the FY96 SAB organization.
The Executive Committee meets to act on Agency
requests for reviews, to hear briefings on
pertinent issues, to initiate actions/reviews by the
Board which it feels are appropriate, and to ap-
prove final reports prior to transmittal to the Ad-
rninistrator. [ Reports from the CASAC and the
Council are submitted directly to the Adminis-
trator, without need for prior Executive Committee
review or approval.]
Five Comrrilttees have historically conducted
most Science Advisory Board reviews:
a) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC): Mandated by the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments
b) Ecological Processes and Effects Com-
mittee (EPEC)
c) Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
d) Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
e) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paqe 8
Annual Report
Between 1986 and 1990, five additional corn-
mittees were added:
a) Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC): Mandated in the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act in
FY86
b) Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC): Requested by the Administrator in
response to the Board’s Future Risk report in
FY98
c) Drinking Water Committee (DWC): Evolved
from the EHC in FY90
d) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council): Mandated in the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments
e) Environmental Economics Advisory Corn-
mittee CEZAC): Requested by the Administra-
tor in response to the Board’s Reducing Risk
report in FY90
The Board supplements the activities of
these committees by a variety of subcommittees,
as well as by ad hoc committee, as needed.
The Board has continually and successfully
recruited top technical talent to fill its leadership
positions. Those scientists and engineers who
have led the SAB (and predecessor organiza-
tions) for the past 22 years are listed in Table I.
Table II testifies to the caliber of individuals who
have served as chairs of SAB Committees in
FY96.
Although the number of appointed Members
is flexible, the FY96 SAB consisted of 98 Members
appointed by the Administrator, for two-year
terms, renewable for not more than two two-year
terms. Service as Committee Chair can lead to
an additional four years of continuous service. A
formal guideline on Membership service was
adopted by the Executive Committee in FY93 and
has been followed by the Administrator in making
appointments (see Appendix Bi).
Over 300 technical experts, invited by the
Staff Director, serve on an ‘as needed” basis as
Consultants to the Board on various issues where
their expertise is relevant. The number of Con-
sultants is flexible, and their one-year terms can
be renewed indefinitely. Consultants are re-
quired to meet the same standards of
technical expertise as do the Members. The
terms “Member and Consultants” (M/C) are
used throughout this annual report to refer to
these experts. Appendices B3 and 84 contain a
list of the FY96 Members and Consultants on the
Board, respectively. Nearly all of them serve as
“Special Government Employees (SGEs),”
subject to all relevant Federal restrictions,
including the conflict of interest statutes (18
U.S.C. Sections 202-209).
In some few cases, the SAB also accesses
experts via the route of Federal Expert and Invited
Expert Resources. These categories are
described in greater detail in Appendix B2, Types
of Affiliation with the SAB.
The SAB Staff consists of 17 EPA employees:
a Staff Director, a Deputy Staff Director, and the
Team Leaders of the Committee Operations Staff
and the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff;
four scientist/engineers serving as Designated
Federal Officers (DFOs), three administrative, six
support staff, an AARP Assistant and a student
intern.
The Staff identifies potential issues for SAB
attention, focuses questions for review by the
Board, works. with the Board to identify and
enlist appropriate Members and Consultants,
interfaces between the Board and the Agency
as well as the public, coordinates logistics for
reviews, and produces minutes and reports for
submission to the Administrator.
Appendix D provides an overview of the
staff structure and its alignment with SAB
Committees.
Report of the Science Advisoiy Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 9
TABLE II FY 1996 SAB Committee Chairs
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Professor of Epidemiology and Director of Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Program. Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
Certified Specialist in General Preventive Medicine, American Board of Preventive Medicine
Member, American Public Health Association
Member. American College of Epidemiology
Member, International Epiderniological Association
Member, Society of Epidemiological Research
Member, Bloelectromagnetics Society
Former Q2air, SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
Dr. Richard Schmalense.
Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy
Member, Board of Directors, Long Island Lighting Company
Associate Editor, Journal of Economic Perspectives
Fellow, Econometric Society
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Dr. George Wolff
Principal Scientist, General Motors Environmental and Energy Staff
Fellow, Air and Waste Management Association
Member, American Meteorology Association
Chairman. Editorial Review Board. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association
Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan, School of Public Health
Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Dr. Verne A. Ray
Assistant Director of Safety Evaluation Department, Pfizer, Inc.
Member. Society of Toxicology
Member. Environmental Mutagen Society
Member, Genetic Toxicology Association
Lnvironmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. Paul Portney
President and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future
Member, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Task Force on Economics and Modeling
Member, Board of Directors, Management Institute for Environment and Business
Associate Editor, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 10 Annual Report
TABLE I I FY 1996 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Dr. lshwar P. Murarka
Target Manager, Environment Group, Eectric Power Research Institute
Member, Soil Science Society of America
Member, Air and Waste Management Association
Member, American Society of Agronomy
Life Member, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
Member, American Geophysical Union
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Mark A. Harwell
Director, Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses, Rosensteil School of
Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
Chair, U.S. Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Directorate on Human-Dominated Systems
Member, NAS-NRC Panel on Risk Characterization
Co-Editor, Ecology Applications special issue on ecosystems
Editor, Climatic Change, PAN-EARI’H series on global climate change effects
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Donald Mattison
Dean, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh
Diplomate, American Board of Toxicology
Fellow, the Academy of Toxicological Sciences
Member, National Research Council, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Member; Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of
Medicine, National Academy of Sciences
Member, Editorial Board of the Society for Risk Analysis
Member, Editorial Board, Pediatric Pharmacology
Member, Board of Directors, Pennsylvania Public Health Asssociation
Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
Dr. Joan M. Daisey
Head, Center for Atmospheric and Biospheric Effects Technology, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, American Association for Aerosol Research
Member, Air Pollution Control Association
Member, International Society of Exposure Analysis
Member, Editorial Review Board Aerosol Science and Technology
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Dr. James E. Watson, Jr.
Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina
Fellow, Health Physics Society (Past President)
Member, Radiological Health Section, American Public Health Association
Member, North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission
Member, National Academy of Sciences Radioactive Waste Disposal Panel
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 11
_TABLE H FY 1996 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Dr. Margaret I(ripke
Professor and Chair, Department of Immunology, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of
Texas
Member, National Institutes of Health Review Committee for Cancer Centers and Research
Programs
Past President, American Association for Cancer Research
Member, American Society for Photobiology
Member. Society for Investigative Dennatology
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 12
Annual Report
3.3 SAB Activities Section
3.3.1 Overview
The types of projects, as well as the range of
subject matter, reviewed by the SAB continue to
grow. The Board takes on reviews at the request
of Congress, the Administrator, and EPAs vanous
program offices, as well as on its own initiative.
In general, the trend over time has been for more
SAB reviews, addressing more vaned subjects,
requested by a wider range of individuals and
organizations.
Historically, most of the outputs of the Board
are in the form of full reports. They present the
findings of peer reviews of Agency document(s)
and contain considerable detail about the
findings and recommendations of the Board.
They also address the specific questions posed
by the Charge to the Board.
More recently, the SAB has moved towards
using two types of shorter, more timely com-
munications to the Administrator: letter reports
and commentaries. Letter reports are similar in
ongin, content, and purpose to full reports; simply
shorter. Commentaries provide unsolicited SAB
advice about technical issues the Board feels
should be drawn to the Administrators attention.
In addition, in recent years the SAB has
introduced the oConsultation” as a means of
conferring--in public session--with the Agency on
a technical matter before the Agency has begun
substantive work on that issue. The goal is to
leaven EPA ’s thinking on an issue by brainstorm-
ing a variety of approaches to the problem very
early in the development process. There is no
attempt or intent to express an SAB consensus or
to generate an SAB report. The Board, via a brief
letter simply notifies the Administrator that a
Consultation has taken place.
In FY94, the Board introduced a new vehicle
for communicating with its clients — the “Advisory”
-- which provides, via a formal SAB consensus
report, critical input on technical issues during
the issue development process.
Tables Ill and IV display the SAB ’s operating
expenses, staffing, meeting activity, and report
production for the past six fiscal years (1991-
1996). The increase in total costs over the years
reflects an increase in the number of Board
Members, a modest increase in the number of
Staff, increases in Federal pay and allowances,
and general increases in the cost of airline travel
and hotel/meeting accommodations.
Table V details meeting activity and report
preparation by Committee, and Table VI provides
time-to-completion data for SAB reports.
TABLE Ill SAB Expenses ($K) for Fiscal Years 1991 -1 996
Fiscal
Year
Staff
Compensation
M/C
Total
Travel
Other
Expenses
TOTAL
1991
778
459
1,237
329
162
1,728
1992
894
413
1,307
298
54
1,659
1993
1000
450
1,450
398
151
1,994
1994
1100
564
1,664
373
106
2,143
1995
1186
650
1,836
358
166
2,360
1996’
1045
434
1,479
259
111
1,849
Estimated
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 13
TABLE IV SAB Activities and Staffing, Fiscal Years 1991 -1 995
Committee Activities 0 Committee Reports Staffing
Public ’ PUbhCC Closedd Federal
Meet. Teleconi Meet. Total Fulle Lettert Total 9 Members Staffh
1991 44 3 1 48 16 6 22 62 16.6
1992 47 0 I 58 26 35 61 80 16.5
1993 54 12 1 67 16 21 37 95 16.0
1994 58 15 1 74 15 15 30 100 16.0
1995 44 5’ 1 50 27 13 40 98 17.0
1996 26 9 C 37 3 17 20 98 17.1
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) meetings announced in the Federal Register.
SAB staff and Members meet occasionally to prepare draft materials or to plan for public meetings.
Such meetings are exempt from FACA public notice requirements and are, therefore, not reflected in this table.
Public meetings held lace-to.f ace
‘Public teleconference meetings
Closed meetings, exempt from FACA with approval of the EPA Administrator
A full report on a topic is a more extensive discussion of the subject, e.g., greater than 10 pages.
‘A letter report is a more focused discussion of a topic. Included in this category are Latter Reports,
Commentaries, and Advisories to the Administrator on issues of concern to the SAB.
Appendix F contains a list of all FY96 reports and abstracts.
Measured in Full Time Equivalents (One FTE equals one employee working one year)
Includes one public hearing
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 14
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1991-1 996
Committee
Fiscal
Year
Committee Activities’
Mtas. Telecon. Total
Number of Reports 2
Full Short Total
ECI
ad hoc
Subcom.
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
5 0 5
5 0 5
5 0 5
5 0 5
6 2 8
3 2
o 0 0
o a o
8 0 8
13 1 14
4 1 5
10 11 21
1 0 1
3 0 3
0 0 0
3 1 4
2 1 3
0 1
3 0 3
3 0 3
5 3 8
5 0 5
5 1 6
1 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 2 3
1 2 3
0 0 0
0 1 1
0 2 2
1 0 1
4 0 4
0 0 0
0 1 1
0 3 3
0 0 0
1 1 2
1 1 2
2 0 2
0 4 4
0 3 3
0 3 3
0 3 3
0 8 8
EC
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
COUNCIL
CASAC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Repoit page 15
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1991-1996 (continued )
Fiscal Commitlee Activitiest Number ci Reports 2
Comnüttee Year Mtgs. Telecon. Total Full Shorl Total
DWC 1991 5 3 8 2 0 2
1992 5 0 5 4 8 12
1993 6 0 6 4 2 6
1994 5 0 5 2 2 4
1995 3 0 3 2 2 4
1996 2 1 3 0 2 2
EEAC 1992 2 0 2 0 1
1993 4 0 4 C l
1994 2 0 2 1 2 3
1995 1 0 1 0 0 0
1996 0 0 0 0 0 0
EEC 1991 8 3 8 2 1 3
1992 7 0 7 3 4 7
1993 8 0 8 4 3 7
1994 5 3 8 1 2 3
1995 7 0 7 6 1 7
1996 2 1 3 1 0 1
EHC 1991 4 0 4 3 4 7
1992 2 0 2 2 1 3
1993 2 1 3 3 0. 3
1994 2’ 0 2 1 1 2
1995 1 0 1 1 1 2
1996 1 0 1 0 0 0
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 16
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1991-1996 (Continued)
Annual Reoort
Committee
Fiscal
Year
Committee Activities’
Mtqs. Telecori. Total
Number of Re orts 2
Full Short Total
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
o 2
o 3
o 1
o 3
o 2
o 1
7 0 7
7 0 7
7 11 18
7 6 13
5 1 6
2 4 6
3 0 3
4 0 4
1 1 1
3 2 5
3 0 3
0 2 2
Executive Committee
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Drinking Water Committee
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Environmental Health Committee
Environmental Processes Effects Committee
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Radiation Advisory Committee
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
4 0 4
8 3 11
2 2 4
4 2 ‘6
3 3 6
0 .0 0
1 0 1
2 2 4
1 2 3
2 0
1 0 1
o 1 1
o 1
4 10 14
2 3 5
1 2
4 0 4
0’ 2 2
2 0 2
3 0 3
1 1 2
2 1 3
1 1 2
0’ 1 1
Indicates meetings and public teleconferences requiring notice in the Federal Register.
2 Reports are entered as Full reports, or Short reports (which includes letter reports, commentaries and advisories).
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995.
1996
0 10
0 ‘9
0 7
0 10
0 5
4
10
9
7
10
5.
3
2
3
3
2
EPEC
IHEC
RAC
RSAC
EC
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
EHC
EPEC
IHEC
RAC
RSAC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 17
TABLE VI Time to Completion for Reports and Letter Reports
Date of
Document Title and Last Committee To
Document Number Cmte Meeting Review Administrator
FULL REPORTS*
HWIR
A-SAB-EC-96-002 EC 5/31-6/1/95 2/28/96 5/21/96
Section 812 Retrospective
EPA-SAB-ACCAC -96-0U3 ACCACA 6/12-13/95 5/31/96 6/5/96
Waste Incineration
EPA-SAB- C 96-004 5/20/96 6/25/96 8 120/96
LETTER REPORTS
Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-001 CASAC 11/19/95 11i28 195 1/17/96
Staff Paper for Ozone -1
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-002 CASAC 9/20/95 11/30/95 1/17/96
Particulate Matter Comments
A-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-003 CASAC 12/15/95 1/4/96 1/5/96
OR!) Strategic Plan
A-SAB-RSAC-LTR-96-004 RSAC 2/23/96 2 128/96 3/27/96
Air Quality Criteria for PM
A-SAB-CASAC-LTh-96-005 CASAC 2/29/96 3/15/96 3/18/96
Staff Paper for Ozone -II
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-006 CASAC 3/14/96 4/4/96 4/5/96
Retrospective Study
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-007 CASAC 4126/96 5/31/96 6/5/96
Staff Paper for Particulate Matter
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-008 CASAC 5/17/96 6/14/96 6/14/96
Fine Particle Monitoring
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-009 CASAC 5/16/96 8/7/96 8/12/96
*Note: Report Number EPA-SAB-96-001 is the present SAB Annual Report and is. therefore, excluded from this
table
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 18 Annual Report
TABLE VI Time to Completion for Reports and Letter Reports
Date of
Document Title and Last Committee To
Document Number Cmte Meeting Review Administrator
Benefits and Costs of CAA
EPA-SAB-ACCACA-LTR-96-01O ACCACA 6/4/96 9/24-25/96 9/26/96
ADVISORIES
DW Distribution System Research
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-96-001 DWC 8/18/95 2/28/96 3/27/96
HPC Bacteria
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-96-002 DWC 8/18/95 2/28196 4/5/96
ERAMS
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-96-003 RAC 10 124/95 2128/96 4/5/96
Cumulative Exposure (Phase 1)
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-96-004 IHEC 6/28/96 9/17/96 10/1/96
COMMENTARIES
Hazard Identification
E PA-SAB-EC-COM-96-001 EC 9/21/95 9/22/95 1/17/96
Foreign Assessments
EPA-SAB .EC-COM-96-002 EC 9/21/95 9/22/95 1/17/96
ICRP Publication
EPA -SAB-RAC -COM-96 -p03 RAC 5/2 1/96 6/25/96 7/26/96
CONSULTATiONS
Cumulative Exposure Model
EPA-SAB-IHEC-CON-96-O01 IHEC 6/28/96 N/A 8/12/96
Environmental Indicators for Radon
EPA- SAB-RAC-CON-96-002 RAC 7/31/96 N/A 8/12/96
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Anhual Report
paqe 19
3.3.2 Reports That Meet Criteria
In the face of more requests than current
resources allow the SAB to address, the Board
must set its priorities. The SAB Staff has,
increasingly, relied on formal and informal
interactions with different parts of the Agency to
help set EPA’s priorities for reviews. Traditionally,
the majority of requests reflect the priorities of
an Assistant Administrator’s office. In addition,
the SAB Staff has sought the advice and counsel
of groups that cut across program offices in the
Agency; such as the Science Policy Council, to
help set Agency-wide priorities for SAB review.
SAB priorities are also guided by a set of
criteria first generated as a part of the its 1989
“self-study on the mission and functioning of the
Board. There criteria are listed below, together
with examples of FY96 reports reflecting those
criteria:
a) Impact overall environmental protection
1) CASAC Closure on Primary Standard
Portion of the Staff Paper for Ozone
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-002
2) CASAC Closure on Staff Paper
for Particulate Matter
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-008
Both of these documents informed the
Administrator and the public that the Agency had
established a sound scientific foundation upon
which to construct national ambient air quality
standards for these two pollutants.
3) Advisory on Cumulative Exposure
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-96-004
This Advisory on the Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation’s (OPPE) Cumulative
Exposure Project informed the Administrator that
a database on the National distribution of
exposures is useful and if coupled with an
understanding of the effects of such exposures,
the Agency should be able to target its efforts to
protect human health to those areas and popu-
lation groups most at risk, including children.
b) Address novel scientific problems
or principles
Review of Clean Air Act Section 812
Retrospective Study of Costs and
Benefits
EPA-SAB-ACCACA-96-003
This Agency study introduced new
techniques to assess the overall costs and
benefits of the most expensive environmental
program in the history of the country. In
validating the Agency’s approach, the Council
essentially concurred with the major finding that
the benefits have outweighed the costs by several
fold.
c) integrate science into Agency actions in
new ways
Review of a Methodology for
Establishing Human Health and
Ecological Based E dt Criteria for the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR)
EPA-SAB-EC-96-002
The Agency introduced new approaches to
determine the indirect exposure routes and
effects of pollution associated with RCRA sites.
The SAB found fundamental flaws in the
proposed approach and suggested specific
alternatives which hold greater promise of
achieving the desired end.
d) Influence long-term technological
development
Report of CASAC Technical
Subcommittee on Fine Particle
Monitoring
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-009
The Agency is considering a changein its
approach to regulation of particulate matter (PM),
focusing its concern on those particles that are
2.5 microns and smaller in size. This CASAC
review examined the question of whether such
particulate matter can be accurately and reliably
measured in the routine manner that would be
needed if a new standard were to be put into
effect.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 20
Annual Report
e) Deal with problems that transcend
agency or other organization boundaries
1) Review of a Methodology for
Establishing Human Health and
Ecological Based Eat Criteria for the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR)
EPA- SAB-EC-96-002
This report comments on an ambitious
attempt to estimate exposures via multiple
environmental pathways, a problem that is
generic to many Agency programs.
2) Basis for Apportioning Risk Among the
ICRP Publication 66 Regions of the
Respiratory Tract
EPA SAB-RAC-COM-96-003
The International Commission on
Radiation Protection (JCRP) has recommended a
method to differentiate the differences in
susceptibility to radiation damage experienced
by different regions of the lung (ICRP Pollution 66).
The RAC recommends that EPA use the model as
adopted by the ICRP and National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
and that it also undertake an effort to provide, for
consideration by the ICRP and NCRP a more
scientifically acceptable basis for apportioning
the tissue weighting factor for the lungs. The RAC
also noted that adoption of values by the EPA
independent of the ICBP and the NCRP would
cause unneeded confusion in the calculation of
effective doses in the United States.
O Strengthen the Agenc s basic capabilities
Review of the Strategic Plan for the Office
Research and Development
EPA-S .AB-RSAC-LTR-96-004
The SAB reviewed a comprehensive
strategic plan that will guide research activity in
ORD in the coming years. The Board reported
that this plan was the finest that they had ever
seen coming from the Agency and commended it
as a model for other programs to follow.
g) Serve Congressional and other interests
Although the effort has not yet resulted in a
report, the Integrated Risk Project was initiated, in
part, because of language in the Senate
Appropriations bill. It will be a major SAB
product in FY97.
h) Deal with controversial issues
CASAC Comments on the 11/95 Drafts
of the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter and the Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment
of Scientific and Technical Information
(OAQPS Staff paper)
EPA-SAB-CASAC -LTR-96-003
This report summarized the first publicS
CASAC meeting on the review of the particulate
matter issue. Due to a court-ordered deadline,
CASAC conducted the review on an expedited
schedule that coUapsed two stages into one. The
topic was identified by the Administrator as the
No. 1 issue for which she would be seeking SAB
input during her first term. Economists identified
the PM issue as the single largest economic cost--
and potential health benefit—on the Agency’s
agenda.
3.3.3 Impacts of Activities
Each SAB activity has a unique set of
consequences that can affect subsequent
actions by the Agency, and, by extension, the rest
of society. Some impacts have been highlighted
in the previous section and elsewhere in this
report. However, FY96 was unique in that 20 out
of the total 55 SAB meetings held were devoted to
the Integrated Risk Project (IRP), making it the
major SAB work effort this year!
The IRP is not highlighted in this report,
because it will not be completed until mid FY97.
It can be anticipated, however, that the IRP will
make a real difference in the way EPA plans its
activities, spends its funds and shapes its science
policy.
The Senate Appropriations Committee and
the Deputy Administrator of EPA are a primary
audience for the IRP. They asked the Board to
conduct the project and intend to put the findings
to use. The plan for IBP is to extend the 1990 SAB
Reducing Risk report by developing and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page2l
illustrating methodologies for integrating
information on risks and control options with
information about cots, benefits and other values.
3.3.4 Responses and Reactions to SAB
Activthes
Since 1984, the Board has formally
requested written Agency responses to SAB
reviews. The majority of the responses indicate
that the Agency has acted positively on the advice
given by the Board. In many instances, the Agen-
cy has initiated action on the basis of the advice
rendered at the public meetings, prior to their
actual receipt (via the Mmiriistrator) of the
formal report from the Board. In some other
cases the Agency and the Board ‘ agree to
disagree.”
Support for the SAB both inside and
outside the Agency remains strong. The
Administrator and/or the Deputy Administrator
have made it a practice to attend Executive Com-
mittee meetings to discuss topics of mutual inter-
est. Several Assistant Mministrators also made
presentations and requests at meetings of the
Executive Committee In FY96. The large number
of EPA requests for S.AB assistance speaks to
the Agency s commitment to the SAB. However,
resource constraints continue to limit the extent to
which the Board can respond fully to the needs of
the Agency.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 22
Annual Report
4. REVIEW OF FY96 ACTIVITIES
4.1 Introduction
FY96 will be remembered for many things;
primary among them being the Budget Wars of
unprecedented intensity, severity, and duration
and the SAB’s near-heroic response to adjust to
this adversity, carry out its mission, and actually
save almost a quarter of a million dollars.
The SAB - along with the rest of the Agency
— limped through much of the first half of the year,
surviving from one ‘continuing resolution” (a
short-term funding bill) to the next, each at a level
below that of the FY96 budget. In December the
storm clouds converged, and lights all but
ffickered off.
However, even during the darkest days of
the “Great Government Shutdown”, the SAB
continued its work. In fact, the stalwart members
of the CASAC PM 10 Panel were among the very
few “excepted government employees” who were
granted permission to continue their work during
the shutdown, in order to meet court-imposed
deadlines. The CASAC Chair, Dr. George Wolff,
and the rest of CASACers distinguished
themselves, their Committee, and the SAB by
holding their positions and, with the noted resolve
of DFO Bob Flaak, meeting each of the deadlines.
In all, however the Board’s calendar was
much more chaotic and called for much more
creativity than usual. To conserve the limited
resources available, the SAB placed an even
greater reliance on conference calls. Originally,
the target had been to conduct 15% of our
meetings by conference call. The Deputy
Administrator raised that bid to 30%. In the final
analysis, the SAB conducted over 40% of its
meetings (both FACA and non-FACA) via
conference call, which resulted in an estimated
savings of $60,000 in travel and salary.
An additional savings of about $80,000 in
rent was realized when the staff consolidated its
operations into a common location in Waterside
Mall. The refurbished area includes a
conference room, which has been used effectively
by several of the committees, thereby avoiding
the expense of renting space in area hotels.
Finally, by restructuring the pay rate for
S.AB members and consultants, the Agency saved
another $50,000, while giving the SAB members
their first pay rate increase in more than a
decade.
In sum, the difficult days of FY96 saw the
SA.B respond to the challenges with imagination
and resolve that resulted in the engineer’s and
pollution-preventer’s ideal: more with less. Of
course, there is a limit to this trend.
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC)
The SAB saw the storm clouds gathering on
the horizon of FY96 and cleverly decided to hold
their fall meeting in September of 1995.
Consequently, the EC held six meetings in FY95
and only three in FY96, Further, given the
exigencies of the time, the up-until-then annual
meeting of the entire SAB membership,
scheduled for April, was canceled.
Despite the pared-back schedule, the EC had a
productive year.
First, the EC undertook the Integrated Risk
Project (IRP) at the request of the Deputy
Administrator and the Appropriations Committee
EC Members
Genevieve Matanoski, Chair lshwar Murarka
Jesse Ausubel Paul Portney
Joan Daisey Robed Repetto
Virginia Dale Richard Schmalensee
William Glaze Jerry Schubel
Mark Harwell Ellen Silbergeld
Morton Lippmann James Watson
Donald Mattison George Wolff
M. Granger Morgan
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 23
of the U.S. Senate. Chaired by Dr. Matanoski, the
IRP is designed to update and extend the SABs
1990 report on Reducing Risk , through the
combined efforts of five subcommittees and a
steering committee. Together these groups
conducted 20 meetings in FY96 and have laid the
foundation for a major report in FY97. In response
to Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen’s request to
update the 1990 SAB report Reducing Risk, the
SAB engaged over 60 SAB members and outside
experts, to conduct the Integrated Risk Project
(IRP). Its goal is to improve risk-based decisions
by developing methodologies for:
a) Ranking health risks and ecological risks
b) Integrating the rankings of health and
ecological risks
ci Assessing the economic aspects of various
risk reduction options for selected
problems, and
d) Considering alternative approaches for
reflecting the full range of ecosystem
values in environmental decisionmaking.
Second, the EC made good on the FY96
request by the Deputy Administrator for the EC to
serve as a Lookout Panel for the Agency. The
concept of and the recommendation for a
Lookout Panel was first articulated by the SAB in
its FY96 report Beyond the Horizon . The EC
explored two possible approaches to carrying out•
the Lookout Panel function:
a) The EC members generated a list of
potential future environmental problems
and selected a subset of “water problems”
for special discussion. In February, in a
public, broad-ranging discussion that
included the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Water, Bob Perciasepe, the EC
addressed issues of microbial
contamination, water quantity (as well as
quality), and the growth of high water use
industries.
b) In September, the EC made use of the
ongoing efforts of the Millennium Project.
The Millennium Project is an American
Council of the United Nations University-
sponsored network of nearly 200 visionary
thinkers from around the world who, from
their geographic and cultural perspectives,
conthbuted to a common list of possible
problems 20-30 years into the future. The
EC screened that list for the ones that they
felt held the greatest potential for likely
effects on the environment and, therefore,
should be called to the attention of the
Administrator.
In addition, thanks to the Deputy Administrator
Fred Hansen’s initiative, the Agency will sponsor
a gathering of the G-7 countries (U.S., Japan,
Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and
Italy) in the spring of 1997 to share views and
experiences in looking into and reacting to the
future. The SAB’s Beyond the Horizon will play a
role at the meeting.
Third, in FY96 the EC promoted interactions
with advisory committees from other agencies.
Presentations to or from advisory committees in
the Department of Energy, the Department of
Defense, the Food and Drug Administration, and
the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and
Health were a part of EC activities this year.
Positive interaction — ranging from interlocking
membership, to participation on SAB panels —
have marked an auspicious beginning to what the
EC hopes will be an even more productive
interaction in the future.
In addition to coordinating the work of the
committees, the EC completed a number of
projects of its own:
a) Review of the Methodology for Establishing
Human Health and Enological Based Ertit
Criteria for the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HW R)
EPA-SAB-EC-96-002
b) SAB Commentary on Hazard Identification
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-96-00 1
c) SAB Commentary on the
Consideration of Results of Foreign
Assessments
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-96-002
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 24
Annual Report
4.2.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL)
The Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis, previously referred to as the
Clean Air Compliance Analysis Council
(CAAC Q includes experts primarily in the field of
economics. The main role of the Council
(mandated by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act
(CAA) is to examine the Agency s draft documents
relating to the costs and benefits of CAA
regulations.
In 1992 the Council asked the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to review
the Air Quality Models components of the Section
812 Retrospective Study. The CASAC formed the
Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS), which
started their review in 1993 and conducted a
closure review on this topic in F ’Y 1996, producing
a letter report.
During FY 1996, the Council’s Physical
Effects Review Subcommittee (PERS) dealt with
review of the physical effects aspects of the
Agency’s draft Report to Congress. The PERS was
formed to address topics beyond strictly
economics issues and includes expertise in the
health, and ecological disciplines. The PERS
produced one letter report.
In FY 1996, the completed reports of the
Council, and the PERS were:
a) ACCACA Review of the Agency’s Progress
on the Retrospective Study of Section 812
Clean Air Act Benefits and Costs from 1970
through 1990
EPA-SAB-ACCACA-96-0 03
b) Review of ‘The Benefits and Costs of the
Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990,” by the Physical
Effects Review Subcommittee (PERS) of the
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council).
EPA- SAB-ACCACA-LTR-96-0 10
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC)
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) held six meetings dunng
FY96. Five of these meetings addressed issues
concerning national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) developed by the Office of
Research and Development and the Office of Air
I
and Radiation. . Four dealt with the particulate
matter NAAQS and one dealt with the ozone
NAAQS. The sixth meeting addressed cost
issues associated with the Clean Air Act Section
812 Retrospective Study. This latter effort was
conducted by CASAC on behalf of the S.AB’s
other separately chartered advisory group, the
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council). All of the CASAC reviews and
reports concerning the particulate matter NAAQS
were conducted under court mandated
deadlines.
The Committee issued eight letter reports in
FY96:
a) CASAC Closure on the Air Quality Criteria
Document for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-00 1
b) CASAC Closure on the Primary
Standard Portion of the Staff Paper
for Ozone
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-002
c) CASAC Comments on the November 1995
Drafts of the “Air Quality Criteria for
COUNCIL Members
Richard Schmalensee, Chair William Nordhaus
Maureen Cropper Wallace Oates
Ronald CwTwnIngs Paul Portney
Daniel Dudek Thomas Tietenberg
k Myrick Freeman W. Kip Viscusi
Robert Mendelsohn
CASAC Members
George Wolff, Chair Jay Jacobson
Stephen Ayres Joe Mauderly
Philip Hopke James PrIce
I
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 25
Particulate Matter” and the “ Review of the
NAAQS for Particulate Matter: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information”
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-003
d) Closure by the CASAC on the draft
‘ Air Quality Criteria Document for
Particulate Matter”
EPA- SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-005
e) Closure by the CASAC on the
Secondary Standard Portion of the
Staff Paper for Ozone
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-006
I) CASAC comments on Air Quality
Modeling for the Section 812
Retrospective Study
EPA- SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-007
g) Closure by the CASAC on the Staff
Paper for Particulate Matter
EPA- SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-008
h) Report of the CASAC Technical
Subcommittee for rme Particle Monitoring
EPA- SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-009
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
includes experts on the effects and control of
chemical and microbiological contaminants in
drinking water. The primary clients for the
Committee are the Agency’s Office of Water and
the Office of Research and Development (ORD):
This year the Committee met three times. At the
first of three DWC meetings during FY96 the
Agency presented a brief overview of its Draft
Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and
Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water. The
Committee also planned for its formal review of
the plan at this meeting.
The second meeting of the year involved a
formal presentation and discussion of the
Agency’s Draft Research Plan for Microbial
Pathogens and Disinfection By-products in
Drinking Water. The charge to the Committee in
regard to the research plan was to advise the
Agency on whether:
a) it has identified the correct issues that need
to be addressed to support the
development of the Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule and Stage 2 Disin-
fectants/Disinfectant Byproducts rule,
b) the research topic areas adequately
address the issues,
c) any other research topic areas be funded
in lieu of that which is ongoing or planned,
and has EPA given appropriate priorities to
the research to be conducted?
The final meeting of FY96 involved ci
discussion and review of the Agency’s statistical
procedure for estimating the level of pathogens in
drinking water, planning for FY97 reviews, and a
drafting session for portions of the Committee’s
report to the Agency on the Disinfection
Byproducts Research Plan.
The Committee issued
documents during FY96:
the following
a) Advisory by the Science Advisory Board’s
(SAB) Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Concerning EPA’s Proposed Drinking Water
Distribution System Research Project
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-96-OD I
b) Advisory by the Science Advisory Board’s
(SAB) Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Concerning the Health Significance of HPC
Bacteria eluted from POU/POE (Point of
Use/Point of Entry) Drinking Water Treatment
Devices
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADv-g6-002
4.2.5 Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC)
The Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee ( AC) includes experts in the
assessment of economic costs and benefits
DWC M
Verne Ray, Chair Curtis I ’sas ’i
Judy Bean Ellen OThherty
K th Cams Edo Pe zarl
Lenore Clesceri Vernon Snoeyink
Anna Fan-Cheuk Rhodes Trussel
Charles Gerba Marltynn Yates
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
p ge 26
Annual Report
associated with environmental decision making.
The Committee did not meet this year; however,
a number of Committee members served on the
Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis that
examined the Agency’s draft documents relating
to the costs and benefits of Clean Air Act
regulations. In addition, the Committee
leadership planned its support for the Science
Advisory Board’s integrated Risk Project.
The Committee completed one report in FY96:
Review of the Waste Incineration Program
EPA-SAB-EEC-96-004
4.2.7 Environmental Heafth Committee (EHC)
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
shares responsibilities for health effects reviews
4.2.6 Ei
(EEC)
Engineering Committee
In FY96, EEC held one èonference call
meeting, one conventional meeting and a
Subcommittee meeting. The reviews of the
Superfund Innovative Technology Research
program and the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory addressed issues of
technology and quality assurance, themes which
are expected to receive increased Committee
attention in FY97. Several Committee members
made a substantial contribution to the integrated
Risk Project by participating on the Risk
Reduction Options Subcommittee.
with several committees of the Board (DWC, IHEC,
RAC, and CASAC). The principal focus for EHC
has been issues related to development and use
of guidelines for health risk assessments. The
El-IC has continued to maintain a close
relationship with the other SAB health-related
Committees, and with the Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP) of the Office of Pesticides, often “sharing”
Members for reviews.
The EHC meet once during the year,
addressing two major topics:
a) the Office of Research and Development’s
Revised Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk
Assessment; and
b) the Office of Pollution Prevention Pesticide’
Revised Policy Document on Thyroid Cancer
Reports on both topics are currently in
preparation. The Committee released no reports
during the past year:
EEAC Members
Paul Portney, Chair Charles Kolstad
Nancy Bockstael Robert Repetto
Roy Cameron Robert Schmalensee
Maureen Cropper Robert Stavins
A. Myrick Freeman W. Kip VISCUSI
Allan Kneese
EHC Members
Donald Mattison, Chair Emil Pfitzer
Adoffo Correa Henry Pitot
Kenny Cnxnp Mark Utell
Michael GaHo Lauren Zeise
Frederica Perera
EEC Members
lshwar Murarka,, Chair JoAnn Lighty
Calvin Chien Charles Mercer
Hilary Inyang Frederick Pohland
James Johnson Robert Pojasek
Wayne Kachel Lynne Preslo
W. Randall Seeker
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 27
4.2.8 Environmental Processes and Effects
Committee (EPEC)
In F’t’96, the Ecological Processes
Effects Committee held 11 committee
subcommittee meetings. In a change
previous years, five of these meetings were
conducted via teleconference. A significant
portion of the Committee’s effort was devoted to
the Integrated Risk Project, to which EC served
as the Ecological Risk Subcommittee (mS). The
ERS met face-to-face for a total of six days and
held four teleconference meetings to work on the
IRP. The group made significant progress toward
identifying and ranking ecological risks. Thirty-
five ecological stressors were identified and
characterized, and a scheme for determirnng the
national ecological significance of the stressors
and their effects was developed. The ranking
methodology and a ranked list of ecological risks
at the national level will be completed in FY97.
The ERS also worked to integrate concerns about
ecological risks with the consideration of risks to
human health, being developed by the Human
Exposure and Health Subcommittee of the IRP,
through development of an integrated list of
stressors, discussion of the human health
consequences of ecological impacts, and
consideration of ranking criteria that would be
applicable to both ecological and human health
risks.
Other activities of the Committee included
review of the Agency’s draft guidance on
biological criteria for lakes and reservoirs, an
advisory on the problem formulation process
being employed in five watershed-level
ecological risk assessment case studies, arid
review of the proposed guidelines for ecological
risk assessment. Agency proposal and EPEC
review of the ecorisk guidelines marked a
significant milestone in the multi-year-effort to
develop guidelines for ecological risk
assessment, and was a culmination of
Committee/Agency interactions on this topic. In
addition, the Committee’s Marsh Management
Subcommittee completed work on its evaluation
of the ecological impacts of structural marsh
management, defined as the manipulation of
marsh hydrology using structures such as berrns,
levees and tide gates. The Subcommittee draft,
a state-of-the-science report that was two years in
the making, was released to the Agency and
interested public in August, and subsequently
approved by the full committee in September.
In terms of inter-committee involvement, a
number of EPEC members participated in the
Executive Committee’s ad hoc Subcommittee on
the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR
Subcommittee) that reviewed the multipathway
risk analysis prepared to support the proposal of
exit criteria for waste constituents that would no
longer be regulated as hazardous wastes under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Although the public meetings on this
topic were held in FY95, the report preparation
and approval was completed in FY96. Several
EPB members also participated in the Valuation
Subcommittee (VS) of the IRP, co-chaired by
EPEC Vice Coair Al Maid. The VS is charged with
examining methods for valuing ecosystems and
ways in which ecosystem values can be
considered in risk management decisions.
4.2.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC)
The IHEC addresses many of the exposure
assessment issues that come before the Board.
In FY96, the Committee’s name was changed
from the Indoor Air Qualitylrotal Human
Exposure Committee (IAQC) to reflect more
accurately the issues with which the Committee
typically dealt.
and
and
from
EPEC Members 1
Mark Harweft, Chair Carol Jobnston I
Al Maki, Vice Chair Anne McElroy
Wiuiau Adems Frederic Pfaender I
Steven Bartell Jerry Schubel I
Kenneth Cwrmwns Bill Siolth I
Virginia Dale Teny Young
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 28
Annual Reporl
The Committee met once during FY96,
reviewing the Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation’s Cumulative Exposure Project (Phase
1 and Phase 2). The project is intended to provide
a national distribution of cumulative exposures to,
environmental pollutants, providing comparisons
of exposures across communities, exposure
pathways, and demographic groups. Its ultimate
goal is to develop analyses of multiple exposures
and multiple pollutants, providing EPA with the
ability to identify the most significant
environmentally-mediated human health
problems and the most impacted communities or
demographic groups.
One report and one commentary were
issued:
a) Review of the OPPE Cumulative Exposure
Project (Phase 1)
EPA- SAB-IHEC-96-ADV-004
b) Consultation on the OPPE Cumulative
Exposure Project (Phase 2)
EPA-SAB-IHEC-CON-96-004
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
In FY96, the RAC conducted a
teleconference closure discussion on an advisory
of the Environmental Radiation Ambient
Monitoring System (ERAMS), as well as an
advisory report. This report represents a
significant investment of time and energy by the
RAC members and consultants CM/C) as
continued activities from the previous fiscal year.
A high visibility item which the RAC started
planning for in FY96 is the Multi-Agency Radiation
Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARS SIM)
review. This involves a large subcommittee, the
MARSSIM Review Subcommittee (MARSSIMRS),
which has three Working Groups and
Coordinators (Integration, Field Measurement
and Instrumentation, and Statistics). Because of
the importance of this manual for the Federal
agencies involved in this process (e.g., EPA. NRC,
DOD, DOE), the SAB/RAC/MARSSIMRS is
working closely with various other Federal
entities. This activity will continue through FY97.
The FY96, the RAC conducted six meetings
(four teleconferences, and two face-to-face
meetings), and produced one advisory, one
commentary and one consultation. The
completed reports were:
a) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Advisory on Environmental Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS)
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-96-003
b) Radiation Advisory Committee Commentary
on the Scientific Basis for Apportioning Risk
Among the ICRP Publication 66 Regions of
the Respiratory Tract
EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-96-003
c) Consultation on Environmental Indicators for
Radon and Associated Activities.
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-96-002
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC)
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC) held two teleconference meetings during
IHEC Members
Joan Daisey, Chair Maria Morandi
Paul Bailey Jerome Nriagu
Paul Hazen Barbara Petersen
Paul Lioy Jonathan Swiet
Kai-Shen Liu Ronald White
Thomas McKone
RAC Members
James Watson, Chair Owen Hoffman
William Bair Janet Johnson
Stephen Brown Bemd Kahn
June Fabryka.Martin Ellen Mangione
Richardo Gonzalez Paul Merges
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
naqe 29
FY96. Both meetings were concerned with the
RSAC review of ORDs Strategic Research Plan.
Due to a number of circumstances including
budget constraints, scheduling and the Federal
government shutdown, the annual review of the
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards
normal performed by a Subcommittee of RSAC
did not take place during FY96. This review is
scheduled to take place again during early FY97.
I
The Committee issued one letter report
during FY96, EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-96-004, Review
of the Strategic Plan for the Office of Research
and Development.
4.3 Examples of Science Informing Policy
As noted above, the purpose of the SAB is to
examine the technical underpinnings of EPA
positions and to relate the findings of its reviews
to the Mministrator and the public. The
recipients of scientific information, including
recommendations from the SAB, have a
responsibility to consider this technical input
when reaching a risk management decision. Of
course, they must also consider non-technical
factors, such as feasibility, economics, legislative
authority, etc. that are beyond those issues
considered by the SAB.
In their 1996 report, entitled Understanding
Risk, the National Research Council described
risk management decisions being made in an
iterative fashion that cycles between an
‘analytical process, involving primarily technical
experts, and a “deliberative process” in which a
broader range of interested and affected parties
participate. According to this NRC model, the
S.AB functions in the analytical phase of the cycle.
Every one of the SAB reviews provides
carefully evaluated scientific information to inform
pending decisions. In this section we will
highlight only a few reviews. A good example of
the analytical process can be seen in the results
of CASAC activities during FY96. As described in
Section 4.2.3, the CASAC met six times
throughout the year. By court order, they focused
on the Agency s NAAQS documents for the ozone
and particulate matter standards. They reviewed
the criteria documents (CD’s) prepared by
Agency staff and reached a technical judgment
as to whether all of the appropriate scientific
information had been gathered and discussed, a
strictly technical question.
In a separate, second step, CASAC reviewed
the Staff Papers, which contain the formulated
technical positions prepared by Staff of the
Office of Air and Radiation and which provide the
scientific basis for the regulatory standards for
bzone and particulate matter. The CASAC was
charged with determining whether or not the Staff
Papers provided a sound scientific basis upon
which to base that decision, whatever it might be.
The CASACs charge was to examine the strength
of the scientific case, not provide their opinions
about whether or not they agreed with the
regulatory decision, because regulatory
decisions must reflect considerations in addition
to scientific ones. In short, the guidance and
recommendations in the CASAC reports about
the interpretation of scientific information on the
risks of ozone and PM helps to inform, but not to
determine, the final EPA decision.
A second example of science informing
policy can be seen in the case of the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). The HWIR is an
ambitious attempt by the Agency to correct,
rationally and generically, a problem that arises
when a generally low-risk material is termed a
“hazardous material”. The issue is: Is there a
scientifically credible, environmentally
responsible process by which materials can be
“de-listed”; that is, no longer treated as a
hazardous waste? The problem arises in trying
to determine a decisionmaking process that will
be applicable to all sites, under all conditions.
RSAC Members
Margaret Kripke, Chair Joan Daisey
Stephen Brown Virginia Dale
Theodora Colborn Charles Gerba
Edwin Cooper Paulette Middleton
Kenny Crunip W. Randall Seeker
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paqe 30
Annual Report
During FY95, a special subcommittee of the
Executive Committee reviewed the Agency’s
proposed method for delisthg and found it
wanting. While praising the Agency for when
making advances in some difficult areas; e.g.,
multi-pathway analysis, the Board found such
fundamental flaws and limitations with the
proposed process that it recommended that the
HWIR proposal not be used to set national
standards until further research work was
initiated and completed. This SAB review project
was approved in FY96.
A third example of science informing policy is
the Integrated Risk Project (IRP). Initiated in 1996,
at the request of the Senate Appropriations
Committee and the Deputy Administrator of EPA
the goal of the IRP is to develop and illustrate a
methodology for integrating information on risks
to human health and the environment, risk
reduction opportunities, benefits, and costs in
order to improve environmental decision making.
The exclusive focus of this project is to develop a
framework for the use of science to inform
decisions. The specific charge to the SAB is to:
a) Update risk rankings from the 1990 SAB
report, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
Strategies for Environmental Protection;
b) Discuss techniques/criteria for identifying
risks;
c) Identify risk reduction opportunities;
d) Identify uncertainties and data quality issues;
e) Assess benefits and costs of risk reduction
options; and
0 Propose a new framework for ecosystem
valuation.
The project is being conducted by an ad hoc
SAB steering committee and five subcommittees,
each of which is focusing on a different type of
information important to sound environmental
decision making. The report is scheduled to be
completed in the Spring of 1997.
4.4 SAB Staff in Transition
Bob Flaak, Team Leader for the Committee
Operations Staff, took an extended detail to the
General Services Administration to act as
Director of the Committee Management
Secretariat, which oversees Federal Advisory
Committees throughout the government.
Tom Miller returned to the Office on a detail to
apply his talents to the needs of the Drinking
Water Committee, Valuation and the
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee,
and the Economics Analysis Subcommittees of
the Integrated Risk Project.
Priscilla Tillery-Gadson completed her year-
long activities in the Goalsetters Reaching for
Opportunities (GRO) program in the Agency. As
a part of the program, she completed a
successful temporary assignment in EPA ’s
Personnel Office.
Pat Thomas was selected as Team Leader for
the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff.
Both she and Janice Cuevas had served well in
that post in an acting capacity during FY96.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 31
5. PROJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In FY96 the Agency was maturing in its use of
science us a tool to inform policy. Stimulated by
a study by the General Accounting Office, the
Agency has more aggressively sought a variety of
avenues of peer review to insure a solid scientific
foundation for its actions. These avenues
included establishing ‘local’ FACA committees
within an Office (e.g., the Board of Science
Counselors in OR])) and greater use of outside
peer reviews, either as individuals or via panels.
As a result, more Agency decisions are being
informed by peer-reviewed science than ever
before.
The S AB has never been able to address more
than a fraction of the requests made of it in a
given year. Therefore, the growth of alternative
peer review mechanisms for more routine issues
has permitted the Board to focus on larger issues
(as judged by criteria discussed in Section 3.3.2)
and some unique projects; e.g., the Integrated
Risk Project, which should reach a successful
conclusion in FY97.
The SAB agenda for FY97 already contains
some important matters; e.g., a final look at the
reassessment of dio,dn, a review of the Agency s
cancer risk assessment guidelines, and a review
of the Agency s risk assessment of mercury. In
addition, the SAB’s activity as a Lookout Panel will
be featured in an EPA-sponsored meeting of the
G-7 countries, designed to highlight the
importance of anticipating and avoiding future
problems, as well as cleaning up after current
and past problems. Further, the SAB will
complete the Integrated Risk Project and has
embarked on a policy to engage technical
advisory groups in other agencies and other
countries on the review of issues of common
interest.
All of these efforts have the same goal: to
insure that good science informs good policy.
wherever and at whatever level that policy is
made.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-I
APPENDIX A
CHARTERS
Al. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pane A-2 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX Al
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADViSORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
SCiENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY . This Charter is reissued to renew the Science Advisoiy Board in
accordance with the reqturements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. Ii SS 9(c). The
former Science Advisory Board, administr xtively 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 ( DDAA) of
1978,42 U.S.C. 4365. The Science Advisory Board charter was renewed October 31, 1979; November 19,
1981; November 3, 1983; October 25, 1985; November 6, 1987; November 8, 1989, November 8, 1991, and
November 8, 1993.
2. SCOPE OF’ACflVITY . The activities of the Board will include analyzing problems, conducting
meetings, reviewing the technical basis of Agency positions, 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 utilizing consultants (i.e., technical
experts) who are not members of the Board.
3. OBIECT1VES AND RESPONSIBILITIES . The objective of the Board is to provide independent
advice and peer review to EPA’s Administrator cn 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 U. S. Senate Committees and Subcommittees and U.S. House Committees and
Subcommittees, as appropriate. The Board will review scientific issues, provide independent scientific
and technical advice on EPA’s major programs, and perform special assignments as requested by
Agency officials and as required by the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1978 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Responsibilities include the
following:
Reviewing and advising on the adequacy and scientific basis of any proposed criteria
document, standard, limitation, or regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the To dc Substances
Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act, or any other authority of the Administrator;
Reviewing and advising on the scientific and technical adequacy of Agency programs,
guidelines, documents, methodologies, protocols, and tests;
Recommending, as appropriate, new or revised scientific criteria or standards for protection of
human health and the environment;
Repo,t of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT paçe A-3
Through the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Act Compliance
Analysis Council, providing the technical review and advice required under the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990;
Reviewing and advising on new information needs and the quality of Agency plans and
programs for research, development and demonstration;
Advising on the relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic pollution sources;
As appropriate, consulting and coordinating with the Scientific Advisory Panel established by
the Administrator pursuant to section 21(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,
as amended; and
Consulting and coordinating with other Agency advisory groups, as requested by the
Administrator.
4. COMPOSITION . The Board will consist of a body of independent scientists, engineers, and
economists of sufficient number and diversity to provide the range of expertise required to assess the
scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues. The Board will be organized into an executive
committee and several specialized committees, all members of which shall be drawn from the Board.
The Board is authorized to constitute such specialized committees and 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 subcommittees at least once a year to decide
which should be continued. These committees and panels will report through the Executive Committee.
The Administrator also shall appoint a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Board to
provide the scientific review and advice required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990.
The Administrator also shall appoint a Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council of the Board to
provide the scientific review and advice required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of and 1990. These
groups, established by separate charters, will be an integral part of the Board, and their members will
also be members of the Science Advisory Board.
5. MEMBERSHIP AND MEErINGS . The Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Science
Advisory Board for two year terms 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. Most members will
serve as special Government employees.
There will be approinrnately 50-60 meetings of the specialized committees per year. A full-time
salaried officer or employee of the Agency, who will serve as the Designated Federal Official (DFO), 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 to do so. The Board may not conduct any meetings in the
absence of the DFO or designee. Board meetings will be called, announced, and held in accordance
with the EPA Committee Management Manual. The Manual contains the Agency’s policies and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-4 ANNUAL REPORT
procedures for implementing FACA. Among other things, FACA requires open meetings and an
opportunity for interested persons to file comments before or after meetings, or to make statements as
permitted by the Boards guidelines, to the extent that time permits.
Support for the Boards activities will be provided by the Office of the Administrator, EPA. The
estimated total annual operating cost will be approximately $2,065,767 and the estimated Federal
permanent staff support will be 15.5 work years.
6. DURATION . The Board shall be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective
until November 8, 1997, at which time the Board charter may be renewed for another two-year period.
11A)8 / 95
Date Filed with Congress
10/18/95
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page A-5
Appendix A2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
of the Science Advisory Board
1. PURPOSE . This charter is reissued to renew the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the
Science Advisory Board in accordance with the requirements of section 9© of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 SS 9(c).
2. AUTHORITY The Committee was specifically directed by law on August 7,1977, under section
109 of the Clean Air Act, as amended [ ACI’], (42 U.S.C. 7409), and the charter was renewed on August
6, 1979; July 22, 1981; August 1, 1983; luly 23, 1985; August 5, 1987; August 7, 1989; August 7, 1991; and
September 30, 1993.
3. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACrWITY . The Committee shall provide independent advice on
the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research
related to air quality, source of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality
standards and to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. The Committee shall hold meetings,
perform studies, make necessary site visits, and undertake other activities necessary to meet its
responsibilities. The Committee will coordinate its activities with other Committees of the Science
Advisory Board and may, as it deems appropriate, utilize the expertise of other committees and
members of the Science Advisory Board. Establishment of subcommittees is authorized for any
purpose consistent with this charter. The Committee will report to the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
4. FUNCTIONS . The Committee will review criteria documents for air quality standards and will
provide independent scientific advice in response to the Agency s request and, as required by section
109 of the Act shall:
Not later than January 1, 1980, and at five year intervals thereafter, complete a review of the
criteria published under section 108 of the Clean Air Act and the national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards and
recommend to the Administrator any new national ambient air quality standards or revision of existing
criteria and standards as may be appropriate,
Advise the Administrator of areas where additional knowledge is required concerning the
adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised national ambient air quality standards,
Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information,
Advise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural
as well as anthropogenic activity, and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-6 ANNUAL REPORT
Advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy
effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national
ambient air quality standards.
5. coMPosmoN . The Administrator will appoint a Chairperson and six members including at
least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing
State air pollution control agencies for terms up to four years. Members shall be persons who have
demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in the scientific/technical fields
relevant to air pollution and air quality issues. Members of the Committee become members of the
Science Advisory Board, and the Chairperson of the Committee, or his designee, shall serve as a
member of the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board. Most members will serve as
Special Government Employees.
6. MEEI’INGS . The Committee will meet three to six times per year. A full time salaried officer
or employee of the Agency will be present at all meetings and is authorized to adjourn any such
meeting whenever this official determines it to be in the public interest. The Board may not conduct
any meetings in the absence of the DFD or designee. Board meetings will be called, announced, and
held in accordance with the EPA Committee Management Manual. The Manual contains the Agency s
policies and procedures for implementing FACA. Among other things, FACA requires open meetings
and an opportunity for interested persons to file comments before or after meetings, or to make
statements as permitted by the Boards guidelines, to the extent that time permits. Support shall be
provided by EPA through the Offices of the Science Advisory Board. The estimated annual operating
cost totals approximately $185,000 and two work years of staff support.
7. DURATION . The Committee will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be
effective until August 7, 1997. at which time the Committee charter may be renewed for another two ..year
period.
July 31.1995
Date Filed with Congress
Auaust 7. 1995
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pane A-7
APPENDIX A3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
of the Science Advisory Board
1. PURPOSE . This Charter establishes the Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis in
accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2 SS 9(c).
2. AUThORITY . The Council was specifically directed under section 812 of the Clean Air .Act, as
amended on November 15, 1990(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The Charterwas renewed on March 3, 1992.
3. OBJECTiVE AND SCOPE OF ACTiVITY . The Council shall provide independent advice on
technical and economic aspects of analyses and reports which the Agency prepares concerning the
impacts of the Clean Air Act on the public health, economy, and the environment of the United States.
The Council shall hold meetings, make necessary site visits and undertake other activities, necessary to
meet its responsibilities. The Council will coordinate its activities with other committees of the Science
Advisory Board and may, as it deems appropriate, utilize the expertise of other committees and
members of the Science Advisory Board. Use of consultants and establishment of subcommittees is
authorized for any purpose consistent with this charter providing subcommittees report back to the full
Council. The Council will report to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4. FtJNCT’IONS . As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Council shall:
review the data to be used or any analysis required under section 812 and make
recommendations on the use of such data, review the methodology used to analyze such data
and make recommendations on the use of such methodology, and prior to the issuance of a
report to Congress required under section 812, review the findings of such report, and make
recommendations concerning the validity and utility of such findings.
At the Agency s request, the Council will:
review other reports and studies prepared by the Agency relating to the benefits and costs of the
Clean Air Act, and provide advice on areas where additional knowledge is necessary to fully
evaluate the impacts of the Clean Air Act and the research efforts necessary to provide such
information.
5. COMPOSITION AND MEErINGS . The Council shall consist of at least 9 members, appointed by
the Administrator for terms of two years, after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the
Secretary of Labor. Most members will be appointed as Special Government Employees subject to the
conflict-of-interest restrictions. The Administrator shall appoint a chairperson. Members of the Council
shall be recognized experts in the fields of economics analysis, the health and environmental effects of
air pollution, environmental sciences, or such other fields that the Administrator determines to be
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-8 ANNUAL REPORT
appropriate. The chairperson of the Council shall serve as a member of the Executive Committee of the
Science Advisory Board. Other members of the Council may be members of the Science Advisory
Board and may also serve on its various other committees or study groups. It is expected that the
Council will meet two to four times per year. A full time employee of the Agency, who will serve as the
Designated Federal Officer, will be present at all meetings and is authorized to adjourn any meeting
whenever it is determined to be in the public interest. Support shall be provided by EPA through the
offices of the Science Advisory Board. The estimated annual operating cost totals appro dmate1y
$150,000 and 1.5 work-years of staff support.
6. DURATION . The Council will be needed on a continuing basis, and may be renewed beyond its
initial two-year period following the date of enactment of the Act establishing this Council, as authorized
in accordance with section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
November 15. 1994
Date Flied with Congress
November 15. 1994
Agency Approval Date
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-I
APPENDIX. B
MEMBERSHIP
BI. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
B3. SAB Members for FY96
B4. SAB Consultants for FY96
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pane B-2 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX BI
GUIDELiNES FOR SERVICE ON THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Background
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the Administrator. In 1978 the
SAB received a Congressional mandate to serve as an independent source of scientific and
engineering advice to the EPA Administrator.
The SAB consists of approximately 100 Members, who are appointed by the Administrator.
These members serve on specific standing committees. The Chairs of the Committees also serve as
members of the Executive Committee, which oversees all of the activities of the Board.
In many of its activities, the members of the Board are supplemented by Consultants, who are
appointed by the SAB Staff Director after confemng with the Chair of the Committee on which the
consultant is to serve. Also, on occasion. Panels will be supplemented by liaison members” from other
governmental agencies. These people are invited by the Staff Director to participate in an ad hoc
manner in order to bring their particular expertise to bear on a matter before the Board.
Both the Executive Committee and the permanent Committees may choose to conduct issue-
specific business through Subcommittees that are chaired by SAB members. Reports from
Subcommittees are reviewed by the respective permanent Committees. The Executive Committee
reviews all reports, independent of their origin, prior to formal transmission to the Administrator. The
sole exceptions are reports from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Act
Compliance Analysis Council, which are a separately chartered FACA committees operating within the
SAB structure.
Criteria for Selection of Members and Consultants
The SAB is chartered as a Federal Advisory Committee, subject to the rules and regulations of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463). The charter provides guidance and
restrictions on selection of S .AB members. The four most significant of which are:
a) Members must be qualified by education, training and experience to evaluate scientific
and technical information on matters referred to the Board.
b) The composition of Board committees, subcommittees and panels must be “balanced”,
representing a range of legitimate technical opinion on the matter.
c) No member of the Board may be a full-time government employee.
d) Members are subject to conflict-of-interest regulations.
The scientific and technical quality and the credibility of those selected is a paramount consideration.
Secondary factors considered include the geographic, ethnic, gender, and academic/private sector
balance of committees. Other factors that contribute to, but do not determine, the selection include
demonstrated ability to work well in a committee process, write well, and complete assignments
punctually.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-3
Nominations for membership/consultantship on the Board are accepted at any time. On a
biannual basis, the SAB Staff Office publishes a notice in the Federal Register formally soliciting the
names of candidates for SAB activities.
Terms of Appointment
Members serve at the pleasure and by appointment of the Administrator. In order to provide
suitable terms of service and to insure the infusion of new talent, the following guidelines are generally
followed:
Members are generally appointed in October for two-year terms which may be renewed for two
additional consecutive terms. Chairs of the standing committees are also appointed for two-year terms
which may be renewed for one additional term. If a member is appointed as Chair, this term of service
(2-4 years) is added to whatever term of service he/she may accrue as a member. For example,
Years Followed by years Followed by year Total
as member as Chair as member years
2 0 0 2
2 2or4 Oor2 4-6
4 2or4 0 6-8
6 2or4 0 8-10
Reappointment as a member is possible after a two-year hiatus from the SAB, during which time the
individual may be called upon to serve as a consultant for a specific issue.
Consultants are appointed to provide the necessary expertise for specific issues. Their terms of
appointment are for one year, beginning at any time, and are renewable annually. Their formal
appointments may be continued beyond completion of a given project so that their expertise can be
quickly assessed in future with a minimum of paperwork.
In general, interagency liaisons participate for the term of issue resolution only.
Member and Consultant Selection Process
Members are appointed by the Administrator based on nominations forwarded by the SAB Staff
Director and the Chair of the Executive Committee. These nominations, in turn, are based on
recommendations made by the Designated Federal Official (DFO--the member of the SAB Staff with
principal responsibility for servicing standing Committees) and the Chairs of the standing Committees.
The DFO has the responsibility for developing a list of candidates, utilizing all credible sources,
including members of the SAB, other DFOs, EPA staff, staff at the National Academy of
Sciences\National Research Council, trade groups, environmental groups, professional organizations,
scientific societies, regulated industries, and the informed public.
On occasion, an ad hoc Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee has been
established to assist in the selection process. This group is consulted about possible names and used
as a sounding board when decisions are being made about appointments. The Membership
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-4 ANNUAL REPORT
Subcommittees principal role is to maintain the integrity of the process and to probe the extent to which
objective selection criteria and procedures are being followed. They also raise questions about
adherence to the Statement of Intent on Women and Minorities, adopted by the Executive Committee in
1990. which was designed to increase the representation of these groups on the Board.
Consultants are appointed by the Staff Director following a similar procedure.
Panel Selection Process
In general. once the Board and the Agency have agreed upon a topic for SAB review, the subject
is assigned to one of the standing Committees. The Committee Chair and the DFO have primary
responsibility for forming a review Panel (the full Committee or a Subcommittee, as the case may be.)
The Panel will contain some or all members of the Committee. In marry instances, consultants may also
be added to the Panel in order to obtain specialized expertise on the particular issue under discussion.
A key aspect in the Panel selection process is the “charge”, the mutually agreed upon description
of what the Agency would like the review to accomplish and/or what the SAB expects to focus upon. The
most helpful charge is one that prescribes specific areas/questions that need attention and/or answers.
At a minimum, the elements of the charge should be sufficiently precise that the SAB can determine
what additional consultant expertise is needed to conduct the most helpful review.
Often the DFO begins by soliciting ideas about potential members from the Agency staff who are
intimately acquainted with the issue and will therefore are often aware of the most informed people. A
conscious effort is made to avoid selecting individuals who have had a substantive hand in the
development of the document to be reviewed. At the same time, experience has shown the utility of
having some representation from individuals/groups who may have been involved in prior reviews of the
issue or the document. The goal is to minimize the appearance or practice of an individual’s reviewing
his/her own work, while at the same time, maintaining an historical link to earlier deliberations
surrounding the document/issue. Once the Agency staff has suggested nominees and provided
background information on the individuals, their direct role in the panel selection process is complete.
Agency staff, the requesting office, and others may be consulted at a later stage for information about
nominees received from other sources.
The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an independent assessment of
the technical matters before the Board. Discrete inquiries about the nominees are made with a number
of different sources. This might include, for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters,
professional colleagues, and experts who are on “the other side” of the issue. As time and resources
permit and controversy demands, names of nominees will be investigated via computer search of their
publications and pronouncements in public meetings.
Frequently, a determining factor for selection is the availability of the individual to participate in
the public review. In the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the SAB may enlist the assistance of a
particularly skilled consultant who cannot attend all meetings, but who is willing to do additional
homework and/or participate via conference call.
In some cases, the Panel Chair consults with key members of the Panel for their advice before
completing the empaneling process. The final selections for consultants are compiled by the DFO in
conjunction with the Chair of the Panel and are submitted to the SAB Staff Director for discussion and
appointment.
Reporl of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-5
Conflict-of-Interest and Public Disclosure
The intent of FACA is to construct a panel of knowledgeable individuals who are free of conflicts-
of-interest. In this regard, each Panel member must complete a confidential financial information form
that is reviewed by the Deputy Ethics Officer, Donald Barnes, to determine whether there are any
obvious conflicts-of-interest.
Legal conflict-of-interests generally arise in connection with “particular party matters” (A
particular matter is any activity in which an employee participates in an official capacity, where he or
other persons have a financial interest, if the direct activity —particular matter— will have a direct and
predictable effect on his own or that person’s financial interests.) In general, the SAB (in contrast with
the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)) does not get involved in “particular party matters,” hence,
legal conflicts-of-interest are rare on the SAB. However, technical conflicts-of-interest can arise,
particularly for participants from academic institutions, in connection with Committee recommendations
for additional research studies. In most such cases, the DFO’s work with the Committee members to
apply for waivers from the conflict-of-interest concerns on this matter. The requests for waivers are
evaluated on a case-by-case basis by EPA’s Office of the General Counsel. (The Agency generally
determines that the benefits to the country derived from these experts’ recommendations for additional
research, outweigh any technical conflict-of-interest that might be involved.)
However, the Board is also concerned about “apparent conflicts-of-interest.” Consequently,
Members and Consultants to the Panel are generally selected from the “broad middle” specth.1m of
opinion on the technical issue under discussion. Experience has shown that achieving balance through
equal representation of extreme views reduces the chance of achieving a workable consensus--pro or
con—that the Agency needs to more forward.
The “public disclosure” (see Attached) process (a standard part of all SAB Committee meetings) is
a mechanism aimed resolving the apparent conflicts-of-interest issues. This procedure involves an oral
statement (sometimes Board members supplement this with a written document) that lays out the
individual’s connection with the issue under discussion; e.g., his/her area of expertise, length of
experience with the issue, sources of research grants, previous appearance in public forms where
he/she might have expressed an opinion, etc. This recitation of prior and/or continuing contacts on the
issue assists the public, the Agency, and fellow Panel members understand the background from which
particular individual’s comments spring, so that those comments can be evaluated accordingly.
Conclusion
These Guidelines are intended to assist the SAB in adhering to the mandates and spirit of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. By following these Guidelines the Board should be well-positioned to
provide technically-sound, independent, balanced advice to the Agency. At the same time, they provide
assurance that there will be adequate participation by and renewal with well-qualified experts from the
various communities served by the Board.
Prepared: Oct 14, 1991
Revised: Nov 26, 1991
Revised: Oct. 12, 1994
Revised: Nov 12, 1996
ATrACHMENT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-6 ANNUAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT
Guidelines for Public Disclosure at SAB ‘Meetings
Background
Conflict—of-interest (COl) statutes and regulations are aimed at preventing individuals from
(knowingly or unknowingly) bringing inappropriate influence to bear on Agency decisions which might
affect the financial interests of those individuals. The SAB contributes to the decision-making process of
the Agency by evaluating the technical underpinnings upon which rules and regulations are built. SAB
Members and consultants CM/Cs) carry our their duties as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and
are subject to the CO! regulations.
Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the advisory process itself and the reputations of
those involved, procedures have been established to prevent actual COl and minimize the possibility of
perceived COl. These procedures include the following:
a) Having M/Cs file, at the time of appointment, Special Form OGE-450, Confidential
Statement of Employment and FInancial Interest. This form is a legal requirement
and is maintained by the Agency as a confidential document.
b) Providing M/Cs with written material; e.g. copies of Ethics Mvisory 92-11,92-18,92-
19, 92-22.
c) Delivering briefings to M/Cs on COl issues on a regular basis.
The following is a description of an additional voluntary ’ procedure that is designed to allow both
fellow M/Cs and the observing public to learn more about the backgrounds that M/Cs bring to a
discussion of a particular issue. In this way, all parties will gain a broader understanding of “where
people are corning frorif and provide additional insights to help observers and participants evaluate
comments made during the discussion.
Procedure
When an agenda item is introduced that has the potential for (X)I—actual or perceived--the Desig-
nated Federal Official (DF’O) will ask each M/C on the panel to speak for the record on his/her
background, experience, and interests that relate to the issue at hand. The following items are
examples of the type of material that is appropriate to mention in such a disclosure:
a) Research conducted on the matter.
b) Previous pronouncements made on the matter.
c) , Interests of employer in the matter.
l Note: The disclosure procedure is voluntary, and members/consultants are not obligated to reveal information contained in
thai ’ Form 450 that would overwise remain confIdential.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-7
d) A general description of any other financial interests in the matter: e.g., having
investments that might be directly affected by the matter.
e) Other links: e.g., research grants from parties--including EPA--that would be
affected by the matter.
The DFO will also publicly refer to any waivers from the COI regulations which have been granted for
the purposes of the meeting.
The DFO will assure that the minutes of the meeting reflect that fact such disclosures were made and,
if possible, the nature of the disclosures. In addition, the minutes should describe any situations in
which, in the opinion of the DFO, an actual or perceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-8 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B2
TYPES OF AFFILIATION WITH THE SAB
1. SAB Members
SAB members are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the Deputy
Administrator for two-year terms. Members participate fully in their review committees, which are
generally conducted in a collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as members on
relevant rosters and generated reports.
Note that SAB reports are formally endorsed by SAB members by action of the Executive
Committee.
2. SAB Consultants
SAB Consultants are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the SAB
Staff Director for one-year terms. Generally, Consultants are appointed in order to augment the
expertise for a particular review and/or for mutual exploration of future membership on the Board.
Consultants participate fully in their review panels and committees, which are generally conducted in a
collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as Consultants on relevant rosters and
generated reports.
3. Federal Experts
The SAB charter precludes Federal employees from being members of the Board. However, in
some instances, certain Federal experts have technical knowledge and expertise that can add
significant value of the work of the SAB.
In order to access that expertise for the benefit of the Board and the Administrator, the SAB staff
will work with the Office of the General Counsel to identify appropriate mechanisms for assessing the
potential for conflicts of interest.
The SAB Staff Director can invite Federal experts who do not have a real or apparent conflict-of-
interest (either personally or through their agencies) to service on an SAB committee for the duration of
a particular the review/study. Federal Experts participate fully on the committees, which are generally
conducted in a collegial. consensus-building style. Their names appear as Federal Experts on relevant
rosters and generated reports.
4. Invited Expert Resource
In some situations, there are individuals (both Federal employees and non-Federal employees)
who have expertise and/or knowledge of data that bears on an SAB review but who also have real or
perceived COIs that would preclude their participation as Members or Consultants. There people can
attend the SAB meeting as Invited Expert Resources. The SAB pays travel expenses, if needed.
For example, the person could be the author of a key study of PCBs when the EHC is reviewing the
Agency s reference dose for PCBs. The SAB would fund the travel expenses for the person. This person
could be either Federal or non-Federal employee. The intent is to have a source real-time, authoritative
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-9
feedback available during the SAB discussion of the issue. The person would not be asked to serve as a
consultant in this case, due to a professional conflict-of-interest; i.e., he would be placed in the position
of reviewing his own work.
Another example would be a researcher who has access to some important data, alternative
analysis, etc. at another agency, but that is germane to the SAB review. The person would not be asked
to serve as a consultant in this case because of a real or apparent conflict-of-interest; e.g., works for an
organization (private or Federal) that would be so directly impacted by the Agency’s position as to cause
a MIC from such an organization to ask for a recusal.
Invited Expert Resources have limited participation in SAB reviews. They are available to answer
questions of the S.AB committee panel, provide invited presentations, and enlighten the discussion with
pertinent pieces of information. Their names are listed as Invited Expert Resources on rosters and
reports, with an explanatory footnote recording their presence and role at the meeting. They are not a
part of the Board’s consensus/decision about the report. The intent is to indicate that such experts were
available during the meeting, but that they were not a party to the judgment.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-1O ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B3
SAB MEMBERS FOR FY96
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATION CITY, STATE
Adams William J. EPEC Kennecott Utah Cooper Corporation Magna, UT
Ausubel Jesse EC The Rockefeller University New York, NY
Ayres Stephen M. CASAC Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA
Bailey Paul IHEC Mobil Business Resource Corp. Paulsboro, NJ
Bair William MC Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab Richiand, WA
Bartell Steven EPEC SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Oak Ridge,TN
Bean Judy DWC University of Miami Miami, FL
Bockstael Nancy E EEAC University of Maryland College Park, MD
Brown Stephen L RAC/RSAC Risks of Radiation Chemical Camp Oakland, CA
Cameron Trudy EEAC University of California Los Angeles, CA
Cams Keith E DWC Washington University St. Louis, MO
Chien Calvin EEC DuPont Company Wilmington, DE
Clesceri Lenore DWC Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY
Colbom Theodora RSAC World Wildlife Fund Washington, DC
Cooper Edwin RSAC University of California Los Angeles. CA
Comma Adolfo EHC Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Cropper Maureen L COUNCIL/EEAC The World Bank Washington, DC
Crump Kenny EHC/RSAC ICF Kaiser Ruston, LA
Cummings Ronald G. COUNCIL Georgia State University Atlanta, GA
Curnmins Kenneth EPEC Ecosystem Res. Dept. W. Palm Beach, FL
Daisey Joan M. EC/IHEC/RSAC Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, CA
Dale Virginia EPEC/RSAC Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN
Dudek Daniel J. COUNCIL Environmental Defense Fund New York, NY
Fabryka-Martin June RAC los Alarrios National Laboratory Los Aimnos, NM
Fan-Cheuk Anna DWC California EPA Berkley, CA
Freeman A Myrick COUNCIL Bowdoin College Brunswick, ME
Gab Michael EHC UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Piscataway, NJ
Gerba Charles P. DWC/RSAC University of Axizona Tucson, AZ
Glaze William EC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC
Gonzalez-Mendez Ricardo MC University of Puerto Rico San Juan, PR
Harwell Mark A EC/EPEC University of Miami Miami, FL
l-lazen Robert IHEC NI Dept. of Envir. Protect & Energy Trenton, NJ
Hoffman Owen MC SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. Oak Ridge, TN
Hopke Philip CASAC Clarkson University Potsdam, NY
lnyang Hilary EEC University of Massachusetts - Lowell Lowell, MA
Jacobson Jay S. CASAC Boyce Thompson Institute at Cornell U Ithaca, NY
Johnson James H. EEC Howard University Washington, DC
Johnson Janet A MC Shepherd Miller, Inc. Fort Collins, CO
Johnston Carol A EPEC University of Minnesota Duluth, MN
Kachel Wayne M. EEC Mele Associates Brooks AFB, TX
Kahn Bemd MC Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA
Klaassen Curtis DWC University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, KS
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-lI
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATION CITY, STATE
Kneese Allan EEAC Resources for the Future Washington, DC
Koistad Charles EEAC University of California Santa Barbara, C?
Kripke Margaret EC/RSAC University of Texas Houston, TX
Lighty JoAnn S. EEC University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT
Uoy Paul 1. IHEC Env & Occup Health Sciences Institute Piscataway, NJ
Uppmann Morton EC New York University Medical Center Tuxedo, NY
LAu Kai-Shen IHEC California Department of Health Services Berkeley, CA
Maki Alan EC/EPEC Elocon Company, USA Houston, DC
Mangione Ellen RAC Colorado Department of Public Health Denver, CO
Matcinoski Genevieve EC Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Mattison Donald EC/EHC University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA
Mcxuderly Joe CASAC Lovelace Biomed & Env Res Institute Albuquerque, NM
McElroy Anne EPEC State University of New York Stony Brook, NY
McKone Thomas IHEC University of California Berkeley, CA
Mendelsohn Robert COUNCIL Yale School of Forestry & Env. Studies New Haven, CT
Mercer James W. EEC GeoTrans, Incorporated Sterling, VA
Merges Paul RAC NY State Depart of Env Conservation Albany, NY
Middleton Paulette CASAC/RSAC Science & Policy Associates, Inc. Boulder, CO
Morandi Maria IHEC University of Texas Houston, DC
Morgan M. Granger EC Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA
Murarka lshwar EC/EEC Electric Power Research Institute Palo Alto, CA
Nordhaus William COUNCIL Yale University New Haven, CT
Nriagu Jerome IHEC University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI
CYflaherty Ellen DWC University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH
Oates Wallace COUNCIL University of Maryland College Park, MD
Pellizzan Edo D. DWC Research Triangle Institute RIP, NC
Pererci Frederica El-IC Columbia University New York, NY
Petersen Barbara 1. IHEC Technical Assessment Systems, Inc. Washington, DC
Pfaender Frederic K. EPEC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC
Pfitzer Emil A. El-IC Rsch Inst for Fragrance Materials,Inc. Hackensack, N)
Pitot Henry C. EHC University of Wisconsin Madison, WI
Pohiand Frederick EEC University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA
Pojasek Robert B. EEC Cambridge Environmental, Inc. Cambridge, MA
Portney Paul EC/EEAC/COUNCIL Resources for the Future Washington, DC
Preslo Lynne EEC Earth Technology Berkeley, CA
Price James CASAC Texas Natural Resources Conserv Comm Austin, TX
Ray Verne A. EC/DWC Pfizer, Inc. Groton, C I ’
Repetto Robert EEAC World Resources Institute Washington, DC
Samet Jonathan M. IHEC Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Schmalensee Richard EC/COUNCILJEEAC Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA
Schubel Jerry EC/EPEC The New England Aquarium Boston, MA
Seeker W. Randall EEC/RSAC Energy & Environmental Research Corp. Irvine, CA
Silbergeld Ellen EC University of Maryland at Baltimore Baltimore, MD
Smith William H. EPEC Yale University New Haven, CT
Snoeyink Vernon L. DWC University of illinois Urbana, IL
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-12 ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFIUATION CITY, STATE
Stavins Robert EEAC Harvard University Cambndge, MA
Tietenberg Thomas COUNCIL/EEAC Colby College Wateiville, ME
Trussell R. Rhodes DWC Montgomery Watson Consulting Engineers Pasadena, CA
Utell Mark EHC University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester, NY
Viscusi W. Kip EEAC/COUNCIL Huivu d Law School Cambridge, MA
Watson James E. EC/RAC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC
White Ronald Il-JEC American Lung Association Washington, DC
Wolff George T. EC/CASAC General Motors Env. & Energy Staff Detroit, Ml
Yates Marylynn DWC University of California Riverside, CA
Young Terry F. EPEC Environmental Defense Fund Oakland, CA
Zeise Lauren EHC California EPA Berkeley, CA
user\pthomas\docs\msters\96mcrost....
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page B-13
APPENDIX B4
SAB CONSULTANTS FOR FY96
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMIUEE AFFILIATION CITY, STATE
Abriola-Weber Linda EEC University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI
Adams William C. CASAC University of California Davis, CA
Ahmed Abdul Karim EHC Committee for National Inst. for Envir. Washington, DC
Alexander Martin EPEC Cornell University Ithaca, NY
Allen Herbert RSAC University of Delaware Newark, DE
Aim Alvin L. RSAC Science Applications International, Inc. McLean, VA
Anderson Mary P. EEC University of Wisconsin Madison, WI
Auerbach Stanley EPEC SENES Oak Ridge Oak Ridge, TN
Bailar John C. El-IC University of Chicago Chicago, IL
Bates David RAC Univ of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
Beck Barbara D. CASAC Gradient Corp. Cambridge, MA
Bedford Barbara EPEC Cornell University Ithaca, NY
Berkey Edgar EEC University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA
Bishop William E. EPEC Procter & Gamble Company Cincinnati, OH
Boesch Donald EPEC University of Maryland Cambridge, MD
Bond James A. EHC Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology RTP, NC
Boston Harry L. EPEC Lockheed Martin Energy Systems Oak Ridge, TN
Bostrom Anne MC Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA
Bowers Dorothy EEC Merck & Company, Inc. WhitehouseStn, NJ
Brierley Corale EPEC VistaTech Partnership, Ltd. Sandy, UT
Brown Gardner M. COUNCIL University of Washington Seattle, WA
Brown Halina S. EHC Clark University Worcester, MA
Buchsbaum Robert EPEC Massachusetts Audubon Society Wenham, MA
Buffler Patricia CASAC University of California Berkley, CA
Buist A. Sonia CASAC Oregon Health Sciences University Portland, OR
Bull Richard DWC Battelle Pacific Northwest Ltiboratones Richiand, WA
Bunn William El -IC Navistar International Chicago, IL
Burks Sterling L. EPEC The Stover Group Stiliwater, OK
Byus Craig MC University of California at Riverside Riverside, CA
Cameron Roy EC Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation Mashantucket, CI ’
Carison Gary P. El-IC Purdue University West Lafayette, IN
Carpenter George F. EEC Michigan Dept of Natural Resources Lansing, MI
Chapman Peter EPEC EVS Environment Consultants N. Vancouver, BC
Charbeneau Randall 1. EEC University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX
Cnen Ruth El-IC ENCOTEC Inc. Ann Arbor, MI
Chess Caron ECNS Cook College/Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ
Chisoim 1. Julian CASAC Kennedy Krieger Institute Baltimore, MD
Clapp Richard EHC Boston University Boston, MA
Clifton Kelly MC University of Wisconsin Madison, WI
Coates Joseph MC Coates & Jarratt, Inc. Washington, DC
Cochran Roger C. RSAC California EPA Sacramento, CA
Colome Steven CASAC Integrated Environmental Sciences lrvine, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-14 ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFIUATION CITY, STATE
Conway Richard A. EEC Union Carbide Corporation S.Charleston, W\
Cooper William E EC Michigan State University East Lansing, Ml
Coppock Robert EEC German-American Acad. Council Found. Washington, DC
Cortese Anthony D. RSAC Second Nature Cambridge, MA
Cory-Slechta Deborah EPEC University of Rochester Rochester, NY
Costanza Robert EPEC University of Maryland Solomons Isl, Mt
Cox Dennis CASAC Rice University Houston, TX
Crapo James D. CASAC Duke University Medical Center Durham, NC
Cutshall Norman H. EC/I Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge. TN
D’Dia Christopher EPEC University of Maryland College Park, MD
Dabberdt Walter EC Nalional Ctr for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO
Daston George P. EHC Procter & Gamble Cincinnati, OH
deFur Peter L EC Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA
Deisler Paul F. RSAC Consultant Austin, DC
Denison Richard EEC Environmental Defense Fund Washington, DC
Diamond Gary L EHC Syracuse Research Corporation Syracuse, NY
Dickinson Robert E. EPEC University of Arizona Tucson, AZ
Dickson Kenneth L. EPEC University of North Texas Denton, DC
DiGiovcxrmi John RAC University of Texas Smithvffle, DC
DiGiulio Richard EPEC Duke University Durham, NC
Dockery Douglas W. CASAC Harvard School of Public Health Boston, MA
Dorn Philip B. EPEC Shell Development Company Houston, TX
Doull John EHC University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, KS
Ediger Richard EEC The Perkin-Elmer Corporation Norwalk, C I ’
Elliot Diane L EHC Oregon Health Sciences University Portland, OR
Ensley Burt D. EPEC Phytotech Monmouth Jct, NJ
Epstein Lois EEC Environmental Defense Fund Washington, DC
Estabrook Ronald W. EHC University of Texas Dallas, TX
Faison Brendlyn EEC Oak Ridge National Laboratcry Oak Ridge, TN
Faustman Elaine EHC University of Washington Seattle, WA
Feero William RAC Electric Research and Management, Inc. State College, PA
Fenters James CASAC IT T ’ Research Institute Chicago, IL
Fmkel Adam M. EHC Resources for the Future Washington, DC
Fischhoff Baruch CASAC Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA
FIsher Gerald CASAC Sandoz Research Institute E. Hanover, NJ
Frank Nedd R CASAC Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Frantz Robert W. EEC General Electric Company Fairfield, C
French Nina Bergen EEC SKY+ Oakland, CA
Gallagher John EPEC University of Delaware Lewes, DE
Garshick Eric CASAC West Asbuxy VA Medical Center West Roxbury, MJ
Gasiewicz Thomas A. EHC University of Rochester Rochester, NY
Gentiy Bradford S. EEC Yale University New Haven, CT
Gesell Thomas F. RAC Idaho State University Pocatello, ID
Giesy John P. EPEC Michigan State University East Lansing, MI
Gilmore Richard G. EPEC Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst. Fort Pierce, FL
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pane B-15
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATION CITY, STATE
Goldstein Bernard El-IC UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch Piscataway, NJ
Goldstein Robert A. CASAC Electric Power Research Institute Palo Alto, CA
Gordon Theodore EEC Consultant Vero Beach, FL
Gosselink James G. EPEC Consultant Baton Rouge, LA
Goyer Robert El-IC Consultant Chapel Hill, NC
Graham John D. EHC Harvard University Boston, MA
Greenberg Michael EEC Rutgers University New Brunswick,N
Greenlee William EHC University of Massachusetts Worcester, MA
Greer Linda EEC Natural Resources- Defense Council Washington, DC
Gulirnette Raymond RAC Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute Albuquerque, NM
Haimes Yacov Y. EPEC University of Virginia Charlottesville, V.
Hamilton Martin DWC Montana State University Bozeman, MT
Hammond S. Katharine IHEC University of California Berkeley, CA
Harley Robert A. IHEC University of California Berkeley, CA
Harris Robert L. RAC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC
Hartung Roll EPEC University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI
Haflis Dale CASAC Clark University - Worcester, MA
Hausman Jerry A. ECIVS Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA
Hawkins Charles EPEC Utah State University Logan, UT
Heath Clark RAC American Cancer Society Atlanta, GA
Henderson Rogene EHC Lovelace Biomedical & Env. Res Inst. Albuquerque, NM
Hidy George M. EEC University of California Riverside, CA
Hites Ronald A.. IHEC Indiana University Bloomington, IN
Hoel David RAC Medical University of South Carolina Charleston, SC
Jahnke James EEC Source Technology Associates RTP, NC
Jasanoff Sheila EC Cornell University Ithaca, NY
Jay jock Michael IHEC Rohm and Haas Co. Spring House, PA
Jeffries Harvey E. CASAC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC
Jenkins Kenneth EPEC California State University Long Beach, CA
Johnson Charles C. DWC Rear Admiral (PHS) Retired Washington, DC
Johnson El Marshall EHC Jefferson Medical College Philadelphia, PA
Kabat Geoffrey C. IHEC Albert Einstein College of Medicine Bronx, NY
Kalton G. Graham RAC Westat Rockville, MD
Karninski Norbert EHC Michigan State University East Lansing, MI
Kareiva Peter EPEC University of Washington Seattle, WA
Kasperson Roger E. EPEC Clark University Worcester, MA
Kendall Ronald EPEC institute of Wildlife & Env Toxicology Pendleton, SC
Khalil M. Aslam Khon EEC Portland State University Portland, OR -
Kim Nancy K. EHC New York Department of Health Albany, NY
Kimerle Richard A. EPEC Monsanto Company St. Louis, MO
Koerug lane Q. CASAC University of Washington Seattle, WA
Koutrakis Petros CASAC Harvard University Boston, MA
Kreamer David K. RAC University of Nevada Las Vegas, NV
Kuschner Marvin EHC State University of New York Stony Brook, NY
La Point Thomas W. EPEC Clemson University Pendleton, SC
Laird Nan M. RAC Harvard School of Public Health Boston, MA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-16 ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFIUATION CITY, STATE
Lamb lames C. RSAC lellinek, SchwurtL & Connolly, Inc. Arlington, VA
Larntz Kinley CASAC University of Minnesota St. Paul, MN
Larson Timothy V. IHEC University of Washington Seattle, WA
Love Lester B. COUNCIL Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA
Leaderer Brian P. IHEC John B. Pierce Lab, Yale School of Med New Haven, CT
Lebowitz Michael CASAC University of Arizona Tucson, AZ
Lee Kun-Chieh EC (HWIR Sub) Union Carbide Corporation S. Charleston, W
Legge Allan CASAC Biosphere Solutions Calgary, Alberta
Lewis Steven C. E l-IC Docon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. East Millstone, NJ
Loehr Raymond C. EC University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX
Longo Lawrence D. CASAC Loma linda University Loma linda, CA
Lowndes Herbert E. EHC Rutgers University Piscatawoy, NJ
Lue-Hing Cecil DWC Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Chicago, IL
Luthy Richard G. EEC Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA
Mack Thomas M. EHC Univesity of Southern California Los Angeles, CA
MacKay Donald EPEC University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario
MacLean Douglas E. ECIVS University of Maryland Baltimore, MD
Mahoney James CASAC International Technology Corporation Torrance, CA
Mancini John EPEC John Mancini Consultants, Inc. Fort Worth, TX
Maney John P. EEC Environmental Measurements Assess. S. Hamilton. MA
Manning William CASAC University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA
Martin lames RAC University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ml
Marty Melanie CASAC California EPA Berkeley, CA
Massmann Joel EEC University of Washington Seattle, WA
McBee Karen EPEC Oklahoma State University Stiliwater, OK
McClellan Roger 0. RSAC Chemical Industry Instutite of Toxicology } P, NC
McCurdy David E RAC Yankee Atomic Electric Company Bolton, MA
McLachlan John A EHC Tulane/Xavier Ctr for Bioenv Research New Orleans, LA
McManus - Terrence EEC Intel Corporation Chandler, AZ
McMichael Francis C. EEC Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA
McMuny Peter H. CASAC University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN
Medinsky Michele CASACIEHC/IHEC Chemical Industry Institute of Technology R P, NC
Meijer Arend RAC GCIC Inc. Albuquerque, NM
Menzel Daniel B. EHC University of California-Irvine Irvine, CA
Mercer Robert R. CASAC Duke University Medical Center Durham, NC
Meyer Joseph S. COUNCIL University of Wyoming Laramie, WY
Meyer H. Robert RAC Keystone Science Fort Collins, CO
Miller Frederick 1. EHC Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology Rl’P, NC
Monson Richard El-IC Harvard School of Public Health Boston, MA
Moomciw William R EPEC Tufts University Medford, MA
Morrison Robert D. EC R. Morrison & Associates, Inc. Escondido, CA
- Mueller Peter K. CASAC Electric Power Research Institute Palo Alto, CA
Mullins Judith EEC General Motors Corporation Detroit, MI
Mushak Paul CASAC PB Associates Durham, NC
Napier Bruce A RAC Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richiand, WA
Nerode Arril RSAC Department of Mathematics Ithaca,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pacie 8-17
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATION CITY, STATE
Neuhauser Edward EPEC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp Syracuse, NY
Neuhold John M. EC Utah State University Logan, UT
Nixon Scott EC University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI
North D. Warner EHC Decision Focus, Inc. Mountain View, C
Norton Bryan EEAC Georgia institute of Technology Atlanta, GA
Nygaard Oddvar RAC Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH
O’Connor Mary Ellen RAC University of Tulsa Tulsa, OK
O ’Melia Charles EEC The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Oberdorster Gunter EHC University of Rochester Rochester, NY
Olson Betty H. EPEC University of California, Irvine Irv ine, CA
Omenn Gilbert CASAC University of Washington Seattle, WA
Oppenheimer Michael CASAC Environmental Defense Fund New York, NY
Ozonoff David M. EHC Boston University Boston, MA
Paustenbach Dennis J. IHEC McLaren/Hart Alameda, CA
Payne John W. ECIVS Duke University Durham, NC
Pease William S. IHEC University of California Berkeley. CA
Peeler James EEC Emission Monitoring Inc. Raleigh, NC
Pefley Richard CASAC Privtrte Consultant Santa Clara CA
Peterson Richard EPEC University of Wisconsin Madison. WI
Pierce Donald RAC Oregon State University Corvallis, OR
Pierson William R CASAC Desert Research Institute Reno, NV
Pittinger Charles A EPEC The Procter & Gamble Co. Cincinnati Oh
Plaa Gabriel El-IC University of Montreal Montreal, Oueoe
Podkulski Daniel EEC Chevron Research and Technology Richmond. CA
Power Alison G. EPEC Cornell University Ithaca, NY
Rabinowitz Michael B. CASAC Marine Biological Laboratory Woods Hole, MA
Radike Martha I. EHC University of Cincinnati Cincinnati. OH
Rail David EHC/DWC institute of Medicine Washington. DC
Reed Donald El-IC Oregon State University Corvallis, OR
Reuhi Kenneth R. EHC Rutgers University Piscataway, NJ
Ringen Knut El-IC Center to Protect Workers’ Rights Washington, DC
Ringer Robert K. EPEC Consultant Traverse City, MI
IRisser Paul G. EPEC Oregon State University Portland, OR
Roberts Paul EEC Stanford University Stanford, CA
Rockette Howard IHEC University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA
Rodier Patricia El-IC University of Rochester Rochester, NY
Rodricks Joseph V. RAC ENVIRON Corporation Arlington, VA
Rose loan B. DWC University of South Florida St. Petersburg. FL
Ross Stephen T. EPEC University of Southern Mississippi 1-iattiesburg. MS
- Roth Philip CASAC Envair San Anselmo, CA
Rowe Robert D. COUNCIL Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc. Boulder, CO
Rozman Karl K. EHC University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City. KS
Russell Clifford S. EPEC Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN
Russell Milton EC/IRP joint Institute for Energy & Environment Knoxville, TN
Ryan John lake EHCIIHEC Health Canada Ottawa, Canada
Ryckman Devere EEC REACT Environmental Engineers St. Louis, MO
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-18 ANNUAL. REPORT
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATiON CITY, STATE
Safe Stephen H. EHC Texas A&M University College Station, T
Saum David EEC Infiltec, Scum Enterprises, Inc. Falls Church, VA
Schachter Edwin Neil CASAC Mt. Sinai Medical Center New York, NY
Schnoor Jerald EPEC University of Iowa Iowa City, IA
Schreck Richard CASAC General Motors Corp. Warren, MI
Schull William RAC University of Texas Houston, TX
Scialli Anthony C Georgetown University Medical School Washington, DC
Segerson Kathleen CASAC Department of Economics Storrs, Cr
Seigneur Christian CASAC ENSR Consulting and Engineering Alameda, CA
Sextro Richard RAC Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Berkeley, CA
Shaub Walter EEC CORRE. Inc. Washington, DC
Shugart Herman H. EPEC University of Virginia Charlottesville. VA
Shugart Lee R EPEC Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN
Shy Carl M. CASAC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. NC
Silverstone Allen E. EHC State University of New York Syracuse, NY
Sinclair Warren RAC Nat’l Council on Radiation Protection Bethesda, MD
Skelly John CASAC Pennsylvania State University University Park P / i
Small Mitchell EEC . Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA
Smith Clifford V RAC GE Foundation Fairfield, Cr
Sobsey Mark D. DWC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. N
Specie Anne EPEC Purdue University West Lafayette I
Speizer Frank CASAC Harvard Medical School Boston, MA
Spengler John D. CASAC Harvard University Boston, MA
Stein Michael EC University of Chicago Chicago, IL
Stetter Joseph R. IHEC Transducer Research, Inc. Naperville. IL
Stohs Sidney EHC Creighton University Omaha, NE
Stolwijk Jan IHEC Yale University School of Medicine New Haven. CT
Stout Judy EPEC Maxine Environ Sciences Consortium Dauphin island. AL.
Sundennczn Frederick EHC University of Connecticut Farmington, CT
Susskind Charles RAC University of California Berkeley, CA
Suter Glenn CASAC Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN
Swenberg James A EHC University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC
Syrnons James M. DWC University of Houston Houston, TX
Taub Frieda B. EPEC University of Washington Seattle, WA
Taylor George E. CASAC University of Nevada-Reno Reno, NV
Templet Paul H. EC/IRP Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA
Tephly Thomas R DWC University of Iowa Iowa City, IA
Them Myint EC Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN
Thomas Valerie IHEC Princeton University Princeton, NJ
Tiedje James M. EPEC Michigan State University East Lansing, Ml
Tikuisis Peter CASAC Defense Civil Inst of Env. Medicine N.York,Ontario
Till John E RAC Radiological Assessments Neeses, SC
Travis Cheryl RSAC University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN
Trehy Michael RSAC Monsanto Corporation St. Louis, MO
Trulear Michael G. EEC ChemTreat, Inc. Richmond, VA
Upton Arthur C. EHC UMDNI-Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch Piscataway. NJ
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
DaaeB-19
LAST NAME FIRST NAME
COMMITTEE
AFFILIATION
CITY, STATE
Valentine Jane
Van Konynenburg Richard A.
Voilleque Paul
von Lindern Ian
Walton Barbara
Ward C. Herb
Warheit David
Wegman David
Weis Judith S.
Weiss Bernard
Weiss Scott T.
Whicker floyd W.
Whipple Christopher
White Warren H.
Williams Marcia
Williams Philip B.
Wilson john
Wilson Richard
Windom Herbert L.
Winner William
Witschi Hanspeter
Wolff Ronald K.
Wood RonaldW.
Woods James E.
Wyzga Ronald
Yosie Terry F.
Zacharewski Timothy R.
Zedler Joy B.
El-IC
RAC
RAC
CASAC
EPEC
EEC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
El- iC
IHEC
RAC
RAC
CASAC
RSAC
EPEC
EEC
RAC
EPEC
EPEC
RSAC
CASAC
CASAC
IHEC
EHC
EC/Futures
mc
EPEC
University of California at Los Angeles
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
MIP Risk Assessment, Inc.
TerraGraphics Environmental Eng
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Rice University
DuPont Haskell Laboratory
University of Massachusetts
Rutgers University
University of Rochester
Harvard University
Colorado State Universtiy
ICF Kaiser
Washington University
Williams & Vanino, Inc.
Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.
New Mexico Institute of Mining & Tech.
Harvard University
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Oregon State University
University of California-Davis
Eli Lilly & Company
New York University Medical Center
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State U
Electric Power Research Institute
E. Bruce Harrison Company
University of Western Ontario
San Diego State University
Los Angeles, CA
Livermore, CA
Idaho Falls, ID
Moscow, ID
Oak Ridge, TN
Houston, TX
Newark, DE
Lowell, MA
Newark, NJ
Rochester, NY
Boston, MA
Fort Collins, CO
Oakland, CA
St. Louis, MO
Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco, CA
Socorro, NM
Cambridge, MA
Savannah, GA
Corvallis, OR
Davis, CA
Greenfield, IN
New York, NY
Blacksburg, VA
Palo Alto, CA
Washington, DC
London, Ontario
San Diego, CA
i:\user\pthomas\docs\rosters\96mcrost.xls
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page C-I
APPENDIX C SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
..
..
0
0
0
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Chartered under
Chartered under
Section 812 of
Section 109 of
Mandated under
Formed at request
of
CAA of 199()
CAA of 1977
SDWA of
1988
Administrator in
1992
I COUNIL]
I CASAC 1
I DWCI
I EEC
I EEACI
//
J—F UTIV E COMM IrrE j— [
/
Chartered under
ERDDAA of 1978
a)
Q
0
I - .
0
-1
I EPECI
EHC
IHEC I
I RAC1
I RSACI
Formerly Ecology and Mandated by Title IV Formed as a result of SAB
Environ. TransporilFate olSuperlund (1986) Future Risk Report in 198%
Formerly Indoor Air QuaIity/
Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)
All Committees (except COUNCIL and CASAC which report directly ) report to the Administrator through the Executive Committee
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page D-1
APPENDIX D
STAFF SUPPORT AND COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP IN FY96
Many of the following positions were filled by two (or more) people during the year as changes in personnel
or staff alignments were made. Where two persons occupied a position during the year, both are listed. The latter
name is the incumbent at the close of FY96.
I - STAFF STRUCTURE
STAFF DIRECTOR’S OFFICE
Staff Director: Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Secretary to the Staff Director: Ms. Priscilla Tilleiy-Gadson
AABP Assistant: Ms. Betty Fortune
DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
Dr. John R Fowle III
Team Leader:
Management Analyst:
Management Analyst:
Project Coordinator:
Administrative Technician:
Secretary:
Student Intern:
Vacant
Ms. Patricia Thomas
Ms. Janice Cuevrxs
Ms. Carolyn Osborne
Ms. Vickie Richardson
Ms. Lan Gross
Ms. Momque Ford
Committee Operations Staff
Team Leader: A. Robert flaak
Designated Federal Officers:
Ms. Kathleen Conway
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Meeting Planners/Staff Secretaries
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Connie Valentine
Ms. Mary Winston
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page D-2 ANNUAL REPORT
H - Staff Committee Alignment
Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Donald C. Barnes
Staff Secretary: Mrs. Priscilla Tillezy-Gadson
Integrated Risk Steering Subcommittee of the Executive Committee
Chair: Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Designated Federal Official: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Staff Secretary: Ms. Connie Valentine
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Chair: Dr. Richard Schmalensee
Designated Federal Official: Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian
Staff Secretary Ms. Diana Pozun
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. George Wolff
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Robert Flaak
Staff Secretary: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Drinking Water Committee
Chair: Dr. Verne Ray
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Robert Flaak
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Thomas Miller
Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Chair: Dr. Mark Harwell
Designated Federal Official: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Staff Secretary: Ms. Connie Valenthe
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page D-3
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Paul Portney
Designated Federal Official: Dr. jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Thomas Miller
Staff Secretary: Ms. Diana Pozun
Environmental Engineering Committee
Chair: Dr. Ishwar Muraka
Designated Federal Official: Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Staff Secretary: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Environmental Health Committee
Chair: Dr. Donald Mattison
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Chair: Dr. loan Daisey
Designated Federal Official Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Staff Secretary: Ms. Mary Winston
Radiation Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. lames Watson
Designated Federal Official: Dr. lack Kooyoomjian
Staff Secretary: Ms. Diana Pozuri
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Chair: Dr. Margaret Kripke
Designated Federal Official: Mr. Robert flaak
Staff Secretaries: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page E-1.
APPENDIX E - SAB MEETINGS FOR FY96
Key to Committees of the Science Advisory Board
COUNCIL Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
DWC Drinking Water Committee
EC Executive Committee
EEAC Environmental Economics Advisoiy Committee
EEC Environmental Engineering Committee
EHC Environmental Health Committee
EPEC Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
IHEC Integrated Human Exposure Committee
IRP Integrated Risk Project
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Note: Meetings listed in bold are face to face meetings, and italics are teleconference calls.
1st Quarter
October24 RAC ER .4 MSAdviso,y
October25 RAC Planning
November 9 DWC Disinfection-By-Products Research Plan
November 21 EPEC Marsh Management Teleconference
December 14-15 CASAC PMIO Review (RTP,NC).
December 18 RSAC ORD Strategic Research Plan/ORD Reorganization
2nd Quarter
Januaiy 25 R .4C Planning
February 7 EC Lookout Panel Planning
February 12 EC Subcomm Membership Issues
February 23 RSAC ORD Strategic Research Plan
February 28-29 EC Quarterly Meeting(LRP SteeringfLookout Panel
February 29 CASAC PMIO-Critena Document (RIP, NC)
3rd Quarter
March 1 CASAC/Subc Monitoring PM 2.5 (RIP, NC)
March 13 ECF IRP Steering Committee
March 14-15 ECIIRP Ecological Risks
March 19-20 DWC Disinfection-By-Products Research Plan
March 21 CASAC Ozone: Secondary Standard Staff Paper (RIP, NC)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page E-2 ANNUAL REPORT
April 22-23 EPEC Lakes Biocriteria Review
April26 CA SAC Section 812: Air Quality Monitoring Teleconference
April29 EC/JRP Steering Committee Teleconference
April30 MC JCRP Lung Model Commentary Teleconference
May 13 EC/IRP Ecological Risks Teleconference
May 16-17 CASAC PM 10 Staff Paper (RTP,NC)
May20 EEC Incineration Report Teleconftrence
May 21-22 RAC ICRP Closure; Briefings on MARSSIM, Radon
May 21-23 ECIIRP Ecological Risks
Briefing on Water Quality Criteria Program
May28 EC/IRP Eco Effects Teleconference
June 4 COUNCIL Section 812: Physical Effects Subcommittee
June 5-6 COUNCIL Section 812: Retrospective Studies
June 11-13 EEC Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (Cin,OH)
June 13 EC/IRP Ecological Effects Teleconference
June 13-14 EC!IBP Human Exposure & Health Subcommittee (1)
June 25-26 EC Executive Committee Quarterly Meeting
June 26-27 ECIIRP Risk Reduction Options Subcommittee
June 27-28 IHEC Cumulative Exposure Review
4th Quarter
July 1 EC/IRP:RROS Media Work Group Teleconference
July 5 EC/IRP:RROS Media Work Group Teleconference
July 15 EC/JRP:RROS Media Work Group Teleconference
July 16-17 ECIIRP Steering Committee
July17 EC/IRP Ecological Risk Working Group
July 16-18 DWC Disinfection-By-Products Research Plan
July 18-19 EHC Thyroid Tumor/Neurotox GLs Review
July 18-19 EPEC Watershed Case Studies/Problem Formulation
July 19 ECI1RP Valuation Subcommittee
July 22 ECIIRP:RROS Media Work Group Teleconference
July24 EC/JRP:RROS Location Work Group Teleconftrence
July30 COUNCIL &ction 812: Physical Effects Subcommittee Closure
July31 ECIIRP Eco Work Group
July 30-August 1 RAC MARSSIM Planning
August 28 EC Lookout Panel: Mission, Vision & Workplan
September 10-12 EC/IRP Risk Reduction Options
September 17-18 EC Executive Committee Quarterly Meeting & Lookout Panel
September 18 ECIIRP Steering Committee Integration Working Group
September 19-20 EPEC Ecorisk Guidelines Review
September 25-27 EEC Lab Strategic Review & Surface Impoundment
ConsuLtation
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page F-I
APPENDIX F
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD FY96 REPORT ABSTRACTS
Fl List of SAB Reports, Letters, Advisories, Commentaries,
and Consultations for FY96
FULL REPORTS
EPA- SAB-EC-96-OO 1
EPA-SAB-EC-96-002
EPA-SAB-A JCA A-96-OO3
EPA-SAB-EEC-96-004
EPA- SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-OO 1
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-002
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-003
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-96-004
EPA-SAB-CASA LTR-96-OO5
EPA.SAB-CASAC-LTF-96-006
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-007
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-008
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTh-96-009
Annual Report of the SAB Staff:
The Future is Prologue
Methodology for Establishing Human
Health and Ecologically Based Exit Criteria
Clean Air Act Section 812 Retrospective Study
of Costs and Benefits
Waste Incineration Research Program
LETTER REPORTS
Closure on the Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants
Closure on the Primary Standard Portion of the
Staff Paper for Ozone
Comments on Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter and Review of NAAQS for PM: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information
Strategic Plan for the Office of Research and Development
Draft Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter
Secondary Standard Portion of the Staff Paper for Ozone
Air Quality Modeling for the Section 812 Retrospective Study
Staff Paper for Particulate Matter
Closure on FIne Particle Monitoring
ADVISORIES
Distribution System Research Project
Health Significance of HPC Bacteria Duted from Point of
Use/Point of Entry Drinking Water Treatment Devices
Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring Systems (ERAMS)
Review of OPPE’s Cumulative Exposure Project
(Phase 1)
EPA- SAB-DWC-AD V-96-OO I
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-96-002
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-96-003
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-96-004
4
Report of the Scieflce Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-2 ANNUAL REPORT
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-96-OOl Hazard Identification
EPA- SAB-EC-COM-96-002 Consideration of Results of Foreign Assessments
EPA- SAB-RAC-COM-96-003 Basis for Apportioning Risk Among the ICRP
Publication 66 Regions of the Respiratory Tract
CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-ll-IEC- CON-96-OO1 Phase for Two of OPPEs Cumulative Exposure
Model
EPA- SAB-RAC-CON-96-002 Environmental Indicators for Radon and
Associated Activities
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-3
F2 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, and Commentaries
forFY 1996
FULL REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EC-96-002 Review of a Methodology for
Establishing Human Health and
Ecologically Based Exit Criteria for the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
At the request of the Office of Solid Waste (OSW), the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board
established an ad hoc Subcommittee to review the draft document, Development of Human Health Based and
Ecologically Based Exit Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identifralion Project (dated March 3, 1995), prepared
to support the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). The intent of HWJR is to establish human health-based
and ecologically based waste constituent concentrations (exit criteria) for constituents in wastes below which
listed hazardous wastes would be reclassified and become delisted and nonhazardous wastes under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The draft HWIR document describes a proposed methodology
for calculating exit concentrations of 192 chemicals for humans and approximately 50 chemicals for ecological
receptors, based on a consideration of five types of waste management units (sources), numerous release.
transport and exposure pathways, and biological effects information.
The Subcommittee concluded that the proposed methodology has a number of critical flaws that must be
corrected in order to develop scientifically defensible exit criteria. The Subcommittee recommended that the
proposed method of calculating exit criteria, which considers each exposure pathway individually, be abandoned
in favor of true multi-pathway calculations in which a receptor receives contaminants from a source via all
pathways concurrently. In addition, the Subcommittee urged the Agency to: conduct substantial validation and
peer review of the overall methodology; provide a systematic examination of parameters and uncertainties;
calculate ecologically based exit criteria for those chemicals for which a minimum data set is available; and
rewrite the documentation for clarity and transparency. The Subcommittee estimated that a concerted effort to
correct the major flaws in the methodology could be completed within a relatively short time, perhaps a year or
two, if a concerted effort is instituted with the appropriate scientific involvement.
EPA-SAB-ACCACA-96-003 ACCACA Review of Progress on the
Retrospective Study of Clean Air Act (CAA)
Benefits and Costs from 1970 through 1990
The Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (ACCACA or the Council; formerly known as the
Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council, CAACAC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) has reviewed Agency
draft documents prepared for the retrospective study of benefits and costs from 1970 through 1990 mandated
under Section. 812 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Council stressed the importance of providing both a sound
quantitative picture of total costs and benefits attributable to the CAA and a sound qualitative picture of the state
of knowledge regarding all the CAA’s readily identifiable effects, whether or not they can be quantified. The
Council stressed that quantitative measures of uncertainty should be presented whenever possible, and major
sources of uncertainty should always be described qualitatively.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-4 ANNUAL REPORT
The Council advised that, because of ongoing controversies, the methods used to estimate valuations should
be clearly indicated. Several other issues of presentation were considered, and the Council advised that
predicted employment changes should be deemphasized, and costs and benefits should be disaggregated where
possible.
The Council devoted considerable attention to estimation of particulate-related mortality changes and to
valuation of mortality changes (including variations in the value of a statistical life), as these are likely to be among
the most important determinants of estimated total benefits. The Council provided detailed technical advice on
both topics, and stressed that the final treatment of particulate-based mortality in the retrospective analysis should
be consistent with and should cite the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committees (CASAC) ultimate conclusions,
taking into account that key issues in this area are studies in which mortality should be based and that the
purposes of the retrospective cost-benefit study and the CASAC analysis are different.
Other significant issues were identified and advice was offered on a number of topics, including the
treatment of post-1990 benefits, choice of discount rate(s), use of cost of illness estimates, valuing reductions in
chronic bronchitis, inputs to benefit analysis (including dollar value attached to lives saved), relations between
peak and average emissions, spatial extrapolation of ozone concentrations, CAA effects on asset replacement
decisions, and estimated impacts of lead reduction on wages.
EPA-SAB-EEC-96-004 Review of the Waste Incineration
Research Program
The Waste Incineration Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board reviewed EPA ’s waste incineration
research program. The Subcommittee was asked to: a) review the importance of the issues identified for work
in the future, namely formation, control, and monitoring of products of incomplete combustion (PICs), including
dioxins, metal transformation and control; and waste combustion and emission characterization. Review the
integration of this research with any e dsthg research programs; b) review the integration of the program in terms
of past work and plans for future work which will address the issues stated above and obtain the needed research
information; and c) evaluate the effectiveness of in-house research on meeting short-term and long-term issues
and needs.
The major findings and recommendations of the Subcommittee are: a) The issues the laboratory is
addressing are important and the research projects are obtaining the needed information. While the laboratory
has interacted with some outside investigators, the Subcommittee believes this interaction should be expanded
because collaborations provide strengths in areas where the laboratory does not necessarily have expertise. This
was evident by the strengths of the projects which contained some collaboration. b) To be a core research
program, funding must be provided to the laboratory to operate as such. It appears as though the marketing to
obtain funds outside of EPA resulted in a lack of integration in the program. This integration is necessary to
address long-term and emerging issues. The Subcommittee recommends that the laboratory develop a strategic
plan which will help determine criteria for judging the projects which are underway (however, this can only occur
if operated as a core program). In addition, the strategic planning should incorporate the role of incineration and
combustion in pollution prevention. c) The issues appear to be meeting the short term needs (as evidenced by the
interactions with Office of Solid Waste) and most of them will address the long-term combustion related
challenges that the Agency is faced with. d) Although the importance of incineration will vary under different
policies, combustion and incineration research should remain part of the Agency’s core research program
because of the dependence of society on combustion. Maintaining core competency allows the Agency to
address unanticipated future problems using an existing base of expertise and science.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-5
LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-OO1. CASAC Closure on the Air Quality
Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants
A Panel of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) met
on September 19, 1995 to review the draft Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemicol O ddants .
The Committee noted with satisfaction the improvements made in the scientific quality and completeness of the
Criteria Document. The changes made are consistent with CASAC’s recommendations. Therefore, the
Committee came to closure on the Criteria Document. It was the consensus of the Committee that the Criteria
Document provides an adequate review of the available scientific data and relevant studies of ozone and related
photochemicaioxidants. The document is quite comprehensive and will provide an adequate scientific basis for
regulatory decisions on ozone and related photochemical oxidants based on available information.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-002 CASAC Closure on the Primary
Standard Portion of the Staff Paper for
Ozone
A Panel of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA ’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) met
on September 19 and 20, 1995, to review a draft of the primary standard part of the document entitled Review of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information (the
OAQPS Staff Paper). At that time, a draft of the secondary standard portion of the document was not completed.
The Panel members comments reflect their satisfaction with the improvements made in the scientific quality and
completeness of the primary standard portion of the Staff Paper. The changes made in that portion of the
document are consistent with CASAC’s earlier recommendations. The Panel provided the Agency with additional
comments at the meeting, however, the Panel did not feel that it was necessary to review another revised version
and came to closure on the primary standard portion. It was the consensus of the Panel that although our
understanding of the health effects of ozone is far from complete, the document provides an adequate scientific
basis for making regulatory decisions concerning a primary ozone standard. The Panel did not come to closure
on the secondary standard portion of the Staff
It was the consensus of the Panel that EPA’s selection of ozone as the surrogate for controlling photochemical
oxidants is correct, that an 8-hour standard was more appropriate for a human health-based standard than a 1-
hour standard, that the present 1-hour standard be eliminated and replaced with an 8-hour standard, and that
the form of the 8-hr standard be more robust than the present 1-hour standard.
The Panel noted that since the last ozone review, the scientific community has made great strides in their
understanding of the health effects of ozone exposure because of ongoing research programs. Panel members
were very impressed with how much more we understand now as compared to the prior round. Nevertheless,
there are still many gaps in our knowledge and large uncertainties in many of the assessments. For this reason,
it is important that research efforts on the health and ecological effects of ozone not be reduced because we have
come to closure on this review.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-6 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-003 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) Comments on the November, 1995
Drafts of the Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter and the Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information
(OAQPS Staff Paper)
On December 14 and 15, 1995, a Panel of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA’s
Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed a revised draft of the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and a first
draft of the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Msessment of
Scientific and Technical Information (Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards - OAQPS - Staff Paper). The
Panel was impressed with the breadth and scope of the Criteria Document, especially given the extremely tight
schedule imposed upon the Agency by the Court. The Panel believes that it is an extensive review of the PM
literattue. Nevertheless, the Panel could not close on the Criteria Document and advised the Agency that another
review of certain chapters (esp. Chapters 1,5,6 and 13) would be required. The Panel was also impressed with
the first draft of the Staff Paper. Some felt it was the best first draft of any Staff Paper that CASAC has reviewed.
However, the Panel could not come to closure on the Staff Paper. noting that the current draft does not provide
an adequately articulated scientific basis for making regulatory decisions concerning a PM National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). In this letter, the Panel articulates a number of concerns regarding both documents.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-96-004 Review of the Strategic Plan for the
Office of Research and Development by the
Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC) of the Science
Advisory Board
In December 1995, the Agency submitted its draft Strategic Plan for the Office of Research and Development
URD) to the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB). On February
23, 1996, the RSAC reviewed the Plan, providing individual written and oral comments to OR]), followed by a
formal Committee report to the EPA Administrator outlining the major points of RSAC consensus. The RSAC was
asked to comment on the Strengths of the Plan, Strategic Message; Clarity; Criteria for Priorities and the Utility
of the Plan. The general sense of RSAC was thatthe Plan represents a monumental undertaking and an important
step forward. The Committee congratulated OR]) and EPA for producing a well-written document that responds
to advice given to the Agency by other external review groups, such as the SAB and the National Academy of
Sciences. The Plan clearly states the vision and mission of OR]), articulates the principles underlying EPA
research, delineates long and short term research goals, and presents criteria for priority setting. The existence
of the Ran, coupled with the desire of the Agency, and specifically OR]) management, to implement it, will provide
OR]) with much needed guidance for setting its immediate and future research agenda. Although RSAC found
the Plan to be clearly focused and well written, the Committee also voiced its concerns about specific parts of the
Plan, and wheje possible, offered recommendations that they believe will further strengthen the Plan.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-7
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-005 Closure by the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) on the
Draft Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) met on
February 29, 1996 to review revised draft chapters (1, 5, 6 & 13) of the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter
(Criteria Document). Although pointing out areas where improvement was needed, the Panel commended the
Staff in the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) for producing its best ever example of a true
integrative summary (in Chapter 13 of the draft) of the state of knowledge about the health effects of a National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Panel had no major comments on Chapter 5. For Chapter 6, Panel
members raised issues concerning the definition and level of background PM concentrations. For Chapter 1, the
Panel noted that it should reflect the revisions that have been recommended for Chapters 6 and 13. Of the 17
members of the Panel present, five were satisfied with Chapter 13 as is, four had no substantive comments
because their expertise was outside of Chapter 13, and eight had some substantive comments on one or more
aspects of the chapter. These are discussed in detail in the letter. The Panel was satisfied with the improvements
made in the scientific quality and completeness of the revised chapters, as these changes are consistent with the
Panels’ earlier recommendations. It was the consensus of the Panel that although our understanding of the health
effects of PM is far from complete, a revised Criteria Document which incorporates the Panel’s latest comments
will provide an adequate review of the available scientific data and relevant studies of PM. With the incorporation
of these suggested changes, the revised Criteria Document will be very comprehensive and will provide an
adequate scientific basis for regulatory decisions on particulate matter based on available information.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-006 Closure by the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) on the
Secondary Standard Portion of the Staff Paper
for Ozone
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviewed the revised draft of the secondary standard
portion of the EPA document entitled Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Assessment
of Scientific and Technical Information (the Staff Paper). The Committee noted their satisfaction that the Staff
Paper was much improved, while also pointing out important, additional modifications that are still required.
Nevertheless, it was the consensus of CASAC that further review of the document by the Committee was not
necessary. Consequently, a majority of the CASAC came to closure on the Staff Paper, noting that the Staff Paper
will provide an appropriate scientific basis for making regulatory decisions concerning a secondary ozone
standard, once their additional changes are incorporated.
The Committee agreed that damage is occurring to vegetation and natural resources at concentrations
below the present 1-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 0.12 ppm. Further, it was agreed that
a secondary NAAQS, more stringent than the present primary standard, was necessary to protect vegetation from
ozone. However, agreement on the level and form of such a standard is still elusive for a number of reasons.
A number of the Committee offered their insights as to why there are such divergent opinions on the
recommended form and level of the standard. The main issues are the lack of sufficient rural ozone data, and
the lack of relevant plant exposure studies. There are serious deficiencies in terms of the disthbution of monitoring
sites, particularly in rural areas that prevent us from accurately assessing exposure once ozone damage is
observed. There was disagreement over whether the SUMO6 standard is the best form for a cumulative standard.
and what the level of the standard should be to protect vegetation from damage by ozone. The Committee also
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-8 ANNUAL REPORT
discussed the level of uncertainty associated with crop loss risk assessment. The Committee agrees that plants
are being damaged by ozone and that the current secondary standard is not sufficiently protective, but there
remain important limitations to our understanding of the extent of the response of vegetation to ozone under field
conditions.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-007 CASAC Comments on Air Quality Modeling for
the Section 812 Retrospective Study
The Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
reviewed the Agency s air quality modeling methodology in support of the Retrospective Study of Clean Air Act
(CAA) Benefits and Costs from 1970 through 1990. The Subcommittee conducted public teleconferences on
October 1 and 21, 1993, December 2, 1993 and a final public teleconference on April 26, 1996 to review the air
quality modeling. A major concern raised in the earlier review was that the uncertainties in the air quality
estimates in the TM no-Clean Air Act” scenarios would be intolerable. At the last public teleconference, the
Subcommittee expressed its overall satisfaction that the Agency followed the it’s recommendations and that the
final Agency product is sound. Although the Subcommittee’s concerns over the uncertainties has diminished
considerably, it still exists. In that respect, the Subcommittee has provided the Agency staff with a number of
recommendations to explicitly articulate the uncertainties, to not overstate the precision of the estimates, and to
more carefully present the implications of the uncertainties for the overall study results.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-008 Closure by the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) on the Staff
Paper for Particulate Matter
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), supplemented by Consultants, met on May 16-17,
1996 to review the revised draft Staff Paper for Particulate Matter (PM) (Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information) and the
recommendations contained within the Staff Paper for the level and form of the proposed PM NAAQS (national
ambient air quality standard).
It wa_s the consensus of the Committee that although our understanding of the health effects of PM is far from
complete, the Staff Paper, when revised, will provide an adequate summary of our present understanding of the
scientific basis for making regulatory decisions concerning PM standards. Although the Committee voted for
closure, it also noted that there were areas of the Staff Paper which still required revision and expected the
Agency to make these changes in the next version of the Staff Paper which is due by July 15, 1996 (a court ordered
mandate). The desired changes were articulated to EPA Staff at the meeting and subsequently in
writing.(Subsequent to the preparation of this report, the Agency met the July 15, 1996 deadline.)
The Committee endorsed the EPA Staff’s recommendation not to establish a separate secondary PM
NAAQS for regulating regional haze and agrees that there is an inadequate basis for establishing a secondary
NAAQS to reduce soiling and material damage effects. The Report also contains a summary table which
surnmanzes the Committee members’ recommendations concerning the form and levels of the primary standards.
Although some Committee members prefer to have a direct measurement of coarse mode PM (PM 1 )
rather than using PM 10 as a surrogate for it, there is a consensus that retaining an annual PIM NAAQS at the
current level is reasonable at this time. A majority of the members recommend keeping the present 24-hour PM 10
NAAQS, at least as an option for the Administrator to consider, although those commenting on the form of the
standard strongly recommended that the form be changed to one that is more robust than the current standard.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-9
There was also a consensus that a new PM 5 NAAQS be established, with nineteen Committee members
endorsing the concept of a 24-hour and/or an annual PM NAAQS. However, there was no consensus on the
level, averaging time, or form of a PM NAAQS. Part of this diversity of opinion can be attributed to the
accelerated review schedule. This diversity of opinion also reflects the many unanswered questions and
uncertainties associated with establishing causality of the association between PM and mortality. The
Committee recommended that the Agency implement a targeted research program to address these unanswered
questions and uncertainties. It is also essential that we obtain long-term PM measurements.
The Committee commended EPA Staff for producing such quality documents in such a short period of time,
but also noted that the court-ordered deadlines did not allow adequate time to analyze, integrate, interpret, and
debate the available data on this very complex issue. Nor does a court-ordered schedule recognize that achieving
the goal of a scientifically defensible NAAQS for may require iterative steps to be taken in which new data are
acquired to fill obvious and critical voids in our knowledge.
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-009 Report of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee Technical Subcommittee
for Fine Particle Monitoring
The Technical Subcommittee for FIne Particulate Monitoring of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CAS.AC) was formed in response to discussion at the December 14-15. 1995 CASAC meeting to review the
Particulate Matter Criteria Document. During that meeting it became clear that there were substantial concerns
in the scientific community about the EPA’s planned path for development of reference and equivalent methods
for rr nitoring PM2.5. The Subcommittee was established to provide advice and comment to EPA on appropriate
methods and network strategies for monitoring fine particles in the context of implementing a possible revised
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). In addition, the Agency asked for
specific advice and comment on eight key issues.
The Subcommittee held a public meeting with significant public input on March 1, 1996. At the meeting there
was significant progress toward a consensus concerning a reasonable approach to fine particulate monitoring,
but important questions and technical concerns remained. After clarifications from EPA staff and development
of a new approach to setting priorities for monitoring to optimize protection of public health from excessive
concentrations of fine particulate matter, the Subcommittee reached consensus on its recommendations,
providing responses to the eight key issues as well as several related issues.
EPA-SAB-ACCACA-LTR-96-O1O Review of the Benefits and Costs of the Clean
Air Act, by the Physical Effects Review
Subcommittee (PERS)
The Physical Effects Review Subcommittee (PERS) of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (ACCACA, or the Council) of the Science Advisorj Board (SAB) reviewed the Agency’s May 3, 1996 draft
Report to Congress entitled “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970-1990.” The Agency was responsive
to the PERS critiques of preliminary drafts, with exceptions being agricultural and forest productivity and
ecological impacts In these areas, the Agency’s draft document is still not up-to-date.
For PM-associated excess daily mortality, the PERS noted that it is difficult to assign monetary values to the
reductions to mortality. By contrast, the annual mortality can more readily be expressed in terms of reduced
lifespan, providing a firmer basis for the monetary valuation. The Agency should not have omitted the estimates
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-1O ANNUAL REPORT
of annual mortality studies from its summary tabulations, and estimates of annual mortality should be presented
as a separate ledger item from the daily mortality. Combining these estimates would be double-counting, since
excess daily mortality is one component of excess annual mortality. The PERS also recommended a separate
discussion for lead mortality. The control of exposure to lead is a success story, and this is reflected in the
thorough and well described benefits analysis in the Agency’s draft document.
With the e eption of the treatment of chronic bronchitis, the estimates of the morbidity effects of the criteria
pollutants evaluated for exposure-response relationships in the Agency’s draft document has provided a thorough,
careful and complete an evaluation and summation as the available literature permits.
ADViSORIES
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-96-OO1 EPA ’s Drinking Water Distribution
System Research Project
On August 16-18, 1995, the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met to
conduct an Advisory on EPA’s proposed Drinking Water Distribution System Research Project. An SAB Advisory
is a peer review of an Agency work-in-progress. The Committee was asked to respond to the following questions:
a) Has the Office of Research and Development (ORD) accurately characterized the research issues related to
water quality in distribution systems? b) What areas should be the highest priority for research? and c) Is the
current EPA role appropriate with respect to the research role of other entities? The Committee found the tentative
charge to be too broad. OIRD’s proposed Drinking Water Distribution Systems Research Project is not, nor was
it intended to be, an exhaustive listing of distribution system research issues. The Committee believes that the
Agency’s proposed Drinking Water Distribution System Research Project is appropriately focused on
microbiologically related research issues; however, a comprehensive research plan is needed which is based
on human health risk pnoritization. High priority should be given to future research related to kinetic models for
chk,rine decay in distribution systems, enhancement of the APPEND model, and research related to opportunistic
pathogens in biofilms. Drinking water distribution system research needs to be conducted with the goal of
developing practical guidelines for the design and operation of distribution system pumps, piping and storage
facilities. The Agency should continue to leverage research efforts by partnering with AWWARF and other
research groups, including the private sector.
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-96-002 Health Significance of HPC Bacteria Eluted
from Point of UselPoint of Entry Drinking
Water Treatment
On August 16-18, 1995, the Drinking Water Committee conducted an Advisory on EPA’s proposed project
on the Health Significance of HPC (heterotrophic plate count) Bacteria fluted from POU/POE (point of use/point
of entry) Drinking Water Treatment Devices. An SAB Advisory is a peer review of an Agency work-in-progress.
The Committee was asked to address the following questions:
a) Is existing epiden’iiological evidence sufficient to conclude that amplification of HPC concentrations by
POUIPOE devices, used on centrally treated water, does not pose a threat of adverse health effects to the
normal population? Ms. No. This is addressed in the text of the letter.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-lI
b) If existing evidence is not sufficient, could the proposed research (especially the normal controls),
potentially provide enough information to conclude there is no threat to the normal population? If not, what
other research is needed? Ms. No. Other research needs are addressed in the text of the letter.
c) Is there a need for additional research to assess the potential threat posed to immuno compromised
persons by elevated HPC concentrations eluted from POU/POE devices (relative to other HPC exposures)?
Ms. The answer depends on what part of the irnrnuno- compromised population. For the severely immuno-
compromised, the answer is no. These people should not be drinking POU water; they should be drinking
boiled water. For other susceptibles in the population, the answer is yes.
d) If so, what is the most appropriate type of research: animal studies, epidemiological studies, or a
combination? Ms. Both animal and epidemiological studies can be justified. There should be a well-
defined research program and a commitment of needed resources for each type of study.
e) If animal studies are appropriate, is the ORt) research proposal a scientifically sound and adequate
proposal for determining the potential threat to imrnuno compromised persons? li not, how should it be
modified? Ms. No - This project is not adequate.
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-96-003 Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring
System (ERAMS)
The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed a draft
document dealing with plans for the reconfiguration of the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
(ERAMS), dated June 15, 1995. The RAC met on July 13 and 14, 1995 at the EPA’s National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama for presentations and discussions of the ERAMS,
and concluded this advisory review on October 24, 1995 in a teleconference meeting. Both meetings were open
to the public. The RAC responded to the charge provided by the Agency.
In the process of the advisory review, RAC members and NAREL staff came to the conclusion that the items
stated as objectives for the redesign of ERAMS were actually a mix of activities, objectives and goals to achieve
objectives. The RAC noted that an ERAMS mission statement is needed, and that objectives should support this
mission. A critical component in determining the objectives is defining the uses for the ERAMS data. The
recommendation to emphasize interpretation of the ERAMS data would increase the data’s usefulness both to the
scientific community and to the public.
There was a consensus among RAC members and NAREL staff that the ERAMS mission/goal should include
the following components: (1) to gather baseline data on environmental levels of natural and man-made radiation
and radionudides. These data should be independent; reliable, and capable of revealing trends; (2) to gather
data that help the assessment of population exposures/doses; (3) to monitor radionucides released into the
environment during radiological emergencies; and (4) to inform the public, as well as public officials.
The Advisory on ERAMS contains at least 20 specific suggestions for further consideration by the Agency.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page F-12 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB- IHEC-ADV-96-004 Review of OPPE’s Cumulative Exposure
Project (Phase I)
The Committee believes that with caveats, the Cumulative Exposure Projects conceptual framework is
scientifically sound and provides a basis for an assessment of population exposures to to ucants, and, ultimately,
a means to compare exposures to multiple toxicants across geographical and demographic groups. The project
is very ambitious and suffers (at least in the near term) from limitations in the data. Also, the Agency and the
scientific community needs to develop defensible means of combining exposures to multiple toxic pollutants in
order to assess health risks from combined exposures to y chemicals. Ultimately, the project should provide
a more strategic means of evaluating exposures to toxicants than does the chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-
medium approach currently used.
We encourage the Agency to begin to examine ways in which environmental data collected for regulatory
purposes might be collected in ways that would make these data simultaneously useful for scientific purposes.
Specific technical issues are discussed in the body of the report but there are several overarching issues.
These include: EPA’s need to make a strong commitment to providing the measurement resources that will be
needed for the success of this project; a commitment to develop criteria and strategic plans prioritizing collection
of measurement data; a commitment to verify the performance of the model by comparing its predictions with
“ground truth” data; an effort by the Agency to begin examining means by which environmental data collected
primarily for regulatory purposes might be also collected and recorded in databases in ways that would make
such data simultaneously useful for scientific purposes; coordination of this effort with other federal agencies that
are generating databases that are important to the success of this project; and inclusion in the model evaluation
process and report of more discussion of the limitations and capabilities of the models being considered.
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-96-OO1 Science Advisory Board Commentary on
Hazard Identification
The Executive Committee sent a commentary to the Administrator to clarify the Board’s position on the of
hazard identification phase of risk assessment. In the commentary, the EC supports EPA’s intent to expand the
hazard identification and evaluation phase to include additional data about the nature of the effects observed,
the consistency of the data, the mechanisms of action, if known, the pattern of dose-response relationships in the
studies reviewed and the relevance of the effect(s) to human health. They felt that this shbuld be expressed in
qualitative terms and that the hazard identification process should remain clearly discernable from the dose-
response evaluation.
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-96-002 Commentary on the Consideration of Results
of Foreign Assessments
The Executive Committee sent a commentary to the Administrator on the Board’s position on the use of risk
assessments performed by other countries. In the commentary, the EC supported EPA ’s reference to, and, as
appropriate, use of the results of assessments performed by other countries. They noted that this was consistent
with the Risk Characterization Policy issued by the Administrator March 21, 1995.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-13
EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-96-003 Commentary on the Scientific Basis for
Apportioning Risk Among the ICRP
Publication 66 Regions of the
Respiratory Tract
The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) prepared this commentary
on the scientific basis for apportioning risk among the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP)
Publication 66 regions of the respiratory tract in response to concerns raised by the Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air (OR1A) within the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). In this commentary it is concluded that the current use
of the default values recommended by the ICRP would not have a major impact on radiation protection.
Nevertheless, the EPA is encouraged to undertake an effort to provide a more scientifically acceptable basis for
apportioning the tissue weighting factor for the lungs. This could involve reexamining the literature for data on
the relative radiation sensitivity of the several regions of the lungs, including more recent results from
epidemiology studies and animal experiments as well as studies that might identify the frequency distribution of
radiation sensitive cells in the various tissues in the lungs.
The RAC noted that an EPA Effort that resulted fri a scheme for apportioning the lung tissue risk weighting
factor that was acceptable to the ICRP and the NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements) would be welcomed by the radiation protection cornrnunity. The Committee also noted that the
adoption of values by the EPA independent of the ICRP and the NCRP would cause unneeded confusion in the
calculation of effective doses in the United States.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-1
APPENDIXG
DETAILED TIME TO COMPLETION GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS FOR FULL
AND LETTER REPORTS
The Science Advisory Board is concerned that its advice be accurate, useful, and timely. Accuracy is
addressed through the qualified and balanced Panels that conduct the reviews. Usefulness is measured, in part,
by the degree to which the Panels complete the Charge, i.e., the list of questions that guide the review. Timeliness
depends on a number of factors including the complexity of the issue, size the SAB Panel and report, and the
capacity of the SAB process (members and staff) to focus on the
report.
In FY94 the SAB adopted as a measure of timeliness the length of time that transpires from the last public
meeting on issue (some issues may require more than one such meeting) until the final report is transmitted to
the Administrator. This time period is referred to as timne-to-completion (TOCY’. For most reports (those of the
Council and CASAC being the exceptions) this time period can be divided into two segments:
Segment 1:. The time from the last public meeting until approval by the Executive Committee (EC). This
period is devoted to drafting the report and reaching Committee consensus on its content.
Segment 2: The time from approval by the EC until the transmission of final report to the Administrator.
During this period of time, the DFO and Committee Chair address generally minor concerns raised by the
Executive Committee that has formally approved the report, subject to final approval by members
designated to vet the report on behalf of the entire EC.
In FY95 the SAB reached its self-proclaimed goal of a TOO averaging no more than six months. Hence, in
keeping with the tenants of Total Quality Management (TQM), the board announced another timeliness goal: an
average TOC of no more than 4 months.
The TOO data for FY96 are displayed in Table G- 1 (in text/numerical form) and FIgure G- 1 (in graphical
form), with a clear distinction between Segment 1 and Segment 2 information. The total TOO figures are sum of
Segment 1 and Segment 2.
Note that the data from the Council and CASAC consist of only a single figure; i.e., the time from the public
meeting to the time of transmission to the Administrator. This difference is due to the fact that these two
Committees are separately chartered and report directly to the Administrator, without having to past through the
EC.
As you can see, the average TOC for all reports, full, letter, advisories, and commentaries is 123 days.
Excepting the full reports, the average TOC falls to 86 days.
In summary, the SAB is making strides in reducing its average TOO. However, there remains some room
for improvements, particularly in the area of Full Reports. The intent is make systemic improvements in the
process that will result in further reductions in TOO fri FY97.” Note that we have to calculqte the average TOO
figures, rounding off to the nearest tenth of a month; e.g., 4.4 months.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-2 ANNUAL REPORT
Fiscal Year 96 Reports
Full Reports Days Report Date Other Dates*
HWIR 357 5/22/96
Meeting 2 5/31-6/1195
Executive Committee Approval 272 2/28196
ToMmir3istrator 83 5/21/96
Section 812 Retrospective 360 6/3/96
Meeting 2 6/12-13/95
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 358 6/5/96
Waste Incineration 345 8115/96
Meeting 3 5/20/96
Executive Committee Approval 36 6 125/96
To Administrator 56 8/20/96
Letter Reports
Air Quality Criteria for Ozone 60 11/30/95
Meeting 1 11/19195
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
ToAdministrator 59 1/17/96
Staff Paper for Ozone - I 120 11/30195
Meeting I 9/20/95
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
ToAdministrator 117 1/17/96
Particulate Matter Comments 22 1/5/96
Meeting 1 12/15195
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 21 1/5/96
ORD Strategic Plan 34 3/15196
Meeting 1 2/23/96
Executive Committee Approval 5 2128/96
To Administrator 28 3/27/96
AirQua lityCriteriaforPM 19 3/15/96
Meeting 1 2i29/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 18 3/18/96
* Shows date of last public meeting,date report approved by EC,and date report was sent to the Administrator
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page G-3
Letter Reports (cont’d) Days Report Date Other Dates *
Staff Paper for Ozone - II 23 4/4/96
Meeting i 3/14/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 22 4/5/96
Retrospective Study 41 5/31/96
Meeting 1 4/26/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 40 6/5/96
Staff Paper for Particulate Matter 29 6/13/96
Meeting 1 5/17/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 28 6/14/96
Fine Particle Monitoring 90 8/7/96
Meeting 1 5/16/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 89 8/12/96
Benefits and Costs of CAA 115 9126/96
Meeting 1 6/4/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Administrator 114 9/26/96
Advisories
Drinking Water Distribution System 223 3/26/96
Meeting 1 8/18/95
Executive Committee Approval 194 2/28/96
To Administrator 28 3/27/96
HPC Bacteria 232 4/3/96
Meeting 1 8/18/95
Executive Committee Approval 194 2/28/96
To Administrator 37 4/5/96
ERAMS 165 4/5/96
Meeting 1 10/24/95
Executive Committee Approval 127 2/28/96
To Administrator 37 4/5/96
Shows date of last public meeting,date report approved by EC,and date report was sent to the Administrator
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-4 ANNUAL REPORT
Advisories (cont’d) Days Report Date Other Dates*
Cumulative Exposure (Phase I) 96 9/30/96
Meeting 1 6/28/96
Executive Committee Approval 81 9/17/96
To Adminisfrator 14 10/1/96
Commentaries
Hazard Identification 119 12/8/95
Meeting 1 9/21195
Executive Committee Approval 1 9/22/95
ToAdministrator 117 1/17/96
ForeignAssessments 119 12/11/95
Meeting 1 9/21/95
Executive Committee Approval 1 9/22/95
ToAdministrator 117 1/17/96
ICRP Publication 67 7/24/96
Meeting 1 5 121/96
Executive Committee Approval 35 6/25/96
To Administrator 31 7/26/96
Consultations
Cumulative Exposure Model 46 8 / 8196
Meeting 1 6/28/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A N/A
To Mminisirator 45 8/12/96
Environmental Indicators for Radon 13 8/7/96
Meeting 1 7/31/96
Executive Committee Approval N/A NIA
To Administrator 12 8/12/96
- Shows date of last public meeting,date report approved by EC and date report was sent to the Administrator
Repoil of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT ______ page G-5
F c.t Year 1996 Riposls
-- -- — -—
P L O Th
llfflIu1fflllMTIfflfflu!ITUI 1H ;- 1ll1IIflll
-3
.‘ 0WW11111111 111111111111111111111296
&ET
119
J
P.I.J s C— O21 I
—-
A3AC
I
M I.r C18l
A Th4S O -
A- -cAaAc-1.m4s.Io7 -
PACA$ LTh
. PsIs *lUQ89
EP Th.I %
I. dCsu slCi AO 114
E A SAB-AC.C.ACA4.TR - .OIO
I!IlIIlllUI lIitIIIlIIl
I lUll i i lUll i ii HIll! 1 1 1 1 111 1111
0 10 110 100 300
Niisrd ys
• Number of days
until transmittal
to Mmlnistrator
EAmount of Days
until EC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page G-6 ANNUAL REPORT
Fiscal Year 1996 Reports
T
COMMEP4TARES
117
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-O&001
For.Q Ausssm1s1 117_
+
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-O6-
ICRP fflfflllI35IllEfflhI31
EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-O6-O
+
CONSULTATIONS;
Cummaistive Exposti. O45
EPA-SA8-IHECCON- 6-OO1 H
Errvom .ia o R.don 01121
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-O6-O
ADVISORES — II
llfflfflllllfflllfflu1HhIIIIfflllllffllluIfflllllWli19WH 1llllfflllu1llffl1llffllluJllfflUllI28
EPA-SAB-OV -ADVO6-OO1
HPC 8a sr llfflfflfflfflllfflfflllllllllQfflffl1llhIflllllllllllllHllll 194IIfflu!fflfflffllllllluh11fflllHfflffllllllllifflllllfflUffl 37
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-06002
fflfflIIfflfflfflIIfflllllfflfflIIIIffl 127 IllllllIIIIIIII1IIIIfflu1IIIIfflllfflh!37
EPA-SA8-RAC-ADV-96
Cummu at,ve Exposure (Ph s 1) fflfflfflfflfflJllIffluI81 Jffl1ffluh11l 1llfflhI ll1 141
EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-06-004
0 50 100 150 200 250
Numb.r at Days
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H-I
APPENDIX H
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS
Staff Director Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Deputy Director Dr. John Fowle, III
Team Leader, Committee Operations Mr. k Robert Flaak
and Support Staff, Designated
Federal Officer
Designated Federal Officers Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Dr. K. lack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H-2 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. DONALD G. BARNES
Staff Director
Designated Federal Official for the Executive Committee
DR. DONALD G. BARNES assumed his position as Staff Director in 1988. Since arriving, he has
overseen cx 25% growth in the Committees of the Board and cx 50% increase in the membership of the Board.
During his tenure the Board has completed three major novo reports [ Future 1 isk (1988), Reducing IRisk
(1990), and Beyond the Horizon (1995)) and two self-studies (1989 and 1994), in addition to more than 200
reports to the Administrator.
Dr. Barnes is active in Agency-wide issues associated with science and risk assessment. For
example, he serves on the Administrator’s Science Policy Council and the ftsk Assessment Forum. He
continues top a variety of risk assessment topics, such as benchmark dose and toxicity equivalency
factors, recently receiving special Agency recognition for a paper on PCBs.
Dr. Barnes came to the SAB following ten years’ service as Senior Science Advisor to the Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. In that role he became involved with a number of
controversial issues; e.g., pesticide re-registrations, the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA. and “dioxin , for
which he received two EPA Gold Medals for Superior Service..
He has been active in the area of risk assessment for more than a decade as practitioner, reviewer
and instructor. For example. he participated in the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Ptlicy-led
effort to produce a consensus view of cancer in the Federal government; i.e., Cancer Principles . He has been
was active in the writing of a number of the Agency s risk assessment guidelines; e.g., for cancer and for
mixtures. In a tangential activity he has worked with the government of Bulgaria to inculcate risk-based
decision making in their emerging environmental protection program, both at the ministry and regional levels.
Prior to corning to EPA, Dr. Barnes was Associate Professor and Science Division Chair at St. Andrews
Presbyterian College in North Carolina. His formal education includes a BA (chemistry) from the College of
Wooster, a PhD (physical chemistry, with a minor in physics) from the Institute of Molecular Biophysics at
florida State University, and subsequent graduate courses in several health-related areas; i.e.,
pharmacology, toxicology, immunology and epidemiology.
His real world education continues to be provided by Dr. Karen K. Barnes and their two sons.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H-3
DR. JOHN R. “JACK” FOWLE, III
Deputy Staff Director
DR JACK FOWLE joined the staff as Deputy Director in September 1995. In his first year with the
Board staff he managed consolidation of the SAB staff offices and the archivmg of a couple decades worth of
SAB FACA files. In addition to duties with the SAB staff, Dr. Fowle works with the Agencys Science Policy
Council, cochairing efforts to implement EPA ’s 1995 Risk Characterization Policy.
Dr. Fowle was detailed from EPA to the U.S. Senate as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Science
Advisor from January 1992 until December 1994. While focussing on environmental legislation, he provided
advice to the Senator and to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on a wide range of
issues. He was the principal staff person working on Senator Moynihan ’s risk bills in the 102nd and 103rd
Congresses.
Before joining Senator Moynihan’s staff, Dr. Fowle spent three years in Research Triangle Park, NC as
Associate Director of EPAs Health Effects Research Laboratory. He planned and managed EPA’s Drinking
Water Health Research Program, coordinated EPA’s R&D work efforts with the World Health organization, and
chaired the EPA ad hoc Arsenic Research Recommendation Workgroup. The Journal of Environmental
Geochemistry and Health dedicated an entire issue to papers related to the workgroup’s findings (Vol. 14,
June 1992).
Dr. Fowle first came to EPA in 1979 when he joined ORD’s Carcinogen Assessment Group, and has
served in a variety of other capacities since then. He managed the development of EPA’s initial Biotechnology
Research Program in 1983 and 1984 and was subsequently detailed to Congressman Gore’s Investigation and
Oversight Subcommittee, Committee on Science and Technology, as a Science Advisor on Biotechnology
issues. He directed the Environmental Health Research staff of the Office of Health Research in ORE) at EPA
headquarters from 1985 to 1987, and was Health Advisor to EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Research &
Development in 1988 and 1989, and in 1995.
Born in 1949, Dr. Fowle received both his baccalaureate and doctoral degrees from George
Washington University in Washington, DC. His dissertation research focussed on the genetic control of
pigmentation during development in different cell types in Drosophila melanogaster.
Dr. Fowle is an amateur musician. His wife Kate is a glass jewelry artist. They share a passion for the
arts and for their daughter Eliza.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H-4 ANNUAL REPORT
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
Team Leader, Committee Operations Staff, Designated Federal Official for
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the Research Strategies
Advisory Committee, and the Drinking Water Committee
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK served as the Board s Assistant Staff Director from 1991 through 1995.
Under the current staff reorganization, he seives as the Team Leader of the Committee Operations Staff of
the board and as Designated Federal Official for two committees. Mr. flaak was first associated with the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1978 when he became the DFO for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) when the committee was first chartered. Since then he has been the DFO for the
following SAB committees: CASAC (1978-1979; 1984-1991; 1995-present); Indoor Air Quality/Total Human
Exposure Committee (now the Integrated Human Exposure Committee) (1986-1993); Drinking Water
Committee (1991-1993; 1995-present): ad hoc Industrial Landfill Panel (1992-95); Environmental Futures
Committee (1993-1995); Research Strategies Advisory Committee (1995-present), and a host of SAB
subcommittees and working groups involved with issues such as global climate, biotechnology and
reducing risk.
In addition to his dunes with the Board, Mr. floak has held two outside assignments during the
latter portion of this fiscal year. First, he has continued his part-time detail to the Agency’s Science Policy
Council as a member of the Agency’s Peer Review Advisory Group. providing oversight to EPA on the
implementation of its peer review policy. Second, from July 1, 1996 through November 4, 1996, Mr. Flack
was detailed to the General Services Mrninistrcition (GSA) where he served as the Acting Division
Director for the Committee Management Secretariat with oversight responsibility for the 1000 plus Federal
advisory committees operated by over 55 Federal agencies. Mr. flack also Chairs the Interagency
Committee on Federal Advisory Committee Management. In addition, since 1988 Mr. Fleak has assisted
GSA in the development and presentation of its training course on Federal Advisory Committee
Management. Along the way he has helped teach over 1500 Federal workers how to run Federal Advisory
Committees legally and effectively.
Mr. flack’s academic training is in biological oceanography. He graduated from the City College
of New York (BS, Zoology); University of De1aware s Graduate College of Marine Studies (MS. Marine
Studies); Central Michigan University (MA. Public Administration). He has taken other graduate level
environment and management courses and has over 20 years of experience as a trainer. He has
developed national environmental policy for bridge construction and highway modifications with the
Department of Transportation; designed oceanographic surveys and coordination field sampling,
laboratory analysis arid data analysis and interpretation as Staff Marine Biologist with an engineering
consulting firm: conducted original research on phyoplankton dynamics and was a consulting Marine
Taxonomist for clients including Du Pont, Roy F. Weston, Inc., and the University of Delaware. Mr. flaak
had been an active member of the US Army Reserves since 1972. He retired in 1995 after 29 years of service
including service in South Vietnam in 1968-69 and, more recently, ci Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during
Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91. He lives in Clifton, Virginia with his wife Dottie, their 11 year old son Chris
and their dog Suzy.
Repo,1 of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H-5
MRS. KATHLEEN CONWAY
Designated Federal Official for the
Environmental Engineering Committee
MRS. KATHLEEN CONWAY received her BS and MS from Tufts University where she studied biology,
public health, and sanitary engineering. Between degrees she wrote for the Hartford Courant . As sanitary
engineer for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Mrs. Conway worked on water supply, solid
waste disposal, and subsurface sewage disposal issues in Central Massachusetts. While there, she proposed
and organized training on solid waste issues for local boards of health and landfill operators. From 1973-77
she served the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Region I as a sanitary engineer in the wastewater
treatment plant operations and maintenance program. Most of her work there consisted of inspections,
trouble-shooting, and training. During this time she chaired the Boston Section of the Society of Women
Engineers.
In 1977 Mrs. Conway left field work in New England to join the Office of Research and Development at
EPA Headquarters in Wcihington, D.C. where her background in epidemiology landed her a job in the Office
of Health and Ecological Effects. Her subsequent service as acting Director for two divisions in the Office of
Health Research led to her selection, in 1982, as a participant in the Presidents Executive Exchange Program.
During her exchange year she worked with an occupational health and safety unit at IBM. She served the
Science Advisory Board as Deputy Director from 1984 to 1989 when she resigned the position to work part-
time.
She continued as Designated Federal Official to the Radiation Advisory Committee through FY93 and
has since supported the Environmental Engineering Committee. She volunteers with at-risk school children in
Arlington where she lives with her three sons and a dog.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H-6 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. K. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Act Compliance
Analysis Council and the Radiation Advisory Committee
DR. JACK KOOYOOMIIAN joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July, 1988 as Designated Fed-
eral Official (DFO) of the Environmental Engrneering Committee (EEC). In 1993, he transitioned into becoming
the DID of the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC), handing off the EEC activities to Ms. Kathleen Conway.
In January of 1994, he was asked to concurrently serve as DFO of the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (Council; formerly known as the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis Council, CAACAC),
as well as the RAC. He brings to his work at the SAB over 27 years of engineering and professional expe-
rience with environmental issues, including over 22 years of diverse experience within EPA Headquarters.
In the mid-l970’s he worked in the Office of Solid Waste, documenting cases involving the improper
disposal of hazardous wastes, which contributed to the passage of the landmark legislation known as the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. He also gained experience with saturated and
unsaturated zone modeling and ground-water model assessment during this time. He has over four years
experience in the Office of Water developing guidelines and regulations for industrial wastewater sources.
From 1979 through 1988, Jack was very involved with the Superfund’s Emergency Response program.
Dr. Kooyoornjian received a BS (Mechanical Engineering) from the University of Massachuse’tts, and a
MS (Management Science) and a Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering, with a minor in Economics) from
Rensselaer F lytechnic Institute. Ffis academic career included his induction into a number of honorary
societies: e.g., Sigma Xi (research), Chi-Epsilon (civil engineering), Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics). His
professional activities continue apace. He served as a member of the Board of Control of the Water Pollution
Control Federation (WPCfl [ now known as the Water Environment Federation (WEF) with over 42,000
members world-wide) from 1986 to 1989, and was a member of its Pblicy Advisory Committee in 1988/1989. In
1988 he received the Arthur Sidney Bedell Award from WEF for extraordinary personal service in the water
pollution control field. He served as Local Arrangements CO-Chair of WEFs 63rd Conference and Exposition,
which was held October 1990 in Washington, D.C. and hosted nearly 13,000 registrants. He is also very active
in the Federal Water Quality Association (FWQA). the local member association of WEF, where he has served
in numerous capacities, including President. and TM Amnbassador-at-Large.” He is currently Chairman of the
Government Affairs Committee of the FWQA. He is listed in Who’s Who in Science and Engineering,” and
Who’s Who in the Eixstem United States. TM
In April 26, 1992, .he received an honorary professorship for his work as part of a five-person team
from the United States to develop an environmental engineering bachelors program and to outhne a masters
curricula for the State Engineering University of Armenia (SEUA), which has over 23,000 students, as well as to
assist in addressing the newly-independent republic of Armenia’s environmental problems. More recently, in
mid-July to early August of 1995, he was an invited lecturer in environmental management to the American
University of Armenia. In this capacity, he taught a University oi Southern California-sponsored course in
Environmental Management to three classes of graduate students, who were majoring in Public Health.
Political Science, and Business Administration.
Closer to home, which he shares with his wife Gerry, and their three daughters, Jennifer (22), Melissa
(17) and Jessica (15), Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous civic activities which focus on development,
land-use and environmental issues in his area. He was a candidate for the Governors Award for volunteerism
for the state of Virginia in 1991. He also has received the EPA Public Service Recognition Award in 1988 and
1992, several County Recognition Awards, and in 1995 a Virginia state planning association award for his civic
involvement.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page H-7
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
Designated Federal Official for the Environmental Health Committee And
the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG retired from the Senior Executive Service (SES) in August, 1988 and re-
entered federal service in November 1988, when he joined the SAB staff. During his previous full and fruitful
career at EPA he served as an Office Director and Associate Office Director in EPA’s Office of Research
Development CORD) and the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM).
Before joining EPA in 1974, Mr. Rondberg held research management, analytical, arid policy
formulation positions with the Department of Transportation and the Veterans Administration’s Department of
Medicine and Surgery. He also served in the US Army for two years, with the rank of Captain. Most of his
federal career has been devoted to advancing the use of analytic methodologies to address public policy is-
sues, and to improving the management of federal research activities. At EPA. he has directed particular
efforts to the complex problems and issues engendered by operating a research program within the context of
a regulatory agency—coordination between legal and scientific cuitures”; 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 CAB, 1959) and graduate studies at Washington University,
where he also served as a Teaching Assistant in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and as a Public
Health Service Fellow and Research Associate in the Medical School. In 1967, he was awarded a National
Institute of Public Administration Fellowship in Systematic Analysis at Stanford University and completed a
special interdisciplinary curriculum in the Schools of Engineering, Graduate Business, and the Departments
of Economics and Computer Science.
Mr. Rondberg has authored publications in clinical psychology, research management, and the
applications of electronic systems and telemetry to urban transportation.
Sam’s wife (Ruth) of 33 years is a Rehabilitation Counselor; they have one daughter, who recently
completed a Master’s degree in Social Work and entered the working world. Sam attempts to find time to
pursue interests in modem history, the impacts of technology on society and culture, amateur radio, marine
aquaria keeping, and antique posters and advertising graphics as a reflection of our social history.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page H-B ANNUAL REPORT
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE
Designated Federal Official for the
Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee
MS. STEPHANIE SANZ ONE has been a Designated Federal Official at the EPA Science Advisory
Board for 3 years, working with the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. She holds degrees in
Biology, Chemistry and Marine Science. Prior to coming to SAB, she spent 4 years with EPA ’s National
Estuary Program, a program which assists. states and local communities to manage and protect bays and
estuaries based on sound science. Ms. Sanzone has also worked to bring science to the legislative process,
seiving as legislative staff at both the state and federal levels. Her professional interests include management
of coastal environments, the role of science and risk assessment in policy making, and making science and
scientists intelligible to lay audiences (e.g., policy makers, managers and the public).
Ms. Sanzone received a BA in Biology, with a minor in chemistry, from the University of Virginia, and
a M.S. in Marine Science from the University of South Carolina. Her thesis research examined the role of
amino acids and hemolymph proteins in a crustacean’s response to changing environmental salinity.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page J-1
J. SAB REPORTS. AND THE INTERNET
Single copies of this document can be obtained by writing or faxing your request to:
Science Advisory Board (1400)
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FAX 202-260-1889
Please request the FY96 Annual Report ci the Science Advisory Board Staff, and include your name and
complete mailing address.
You can also find copies of this document and other SAP ’ documents on the SAP’ Website at URL
http://www.epa.gov/science 1. In addition, you can subscribe to the SAP’ Listserver, and automatically receive
copies of all Federal Register notices announcing SAB meetings, together with brief descriptions of the topics
to be covered at the meetings. These notices will be mailed to you within 24 hours of their publication in the
Federal Register.
To subscribe, simply send the following message, inserting your names,
Subscribe epa-sab FIRST NAME LAST NAME
to
listserv@urthanail.rtpnc.epa.gov
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
------- |