United States Environmental Research June, 1989
Environmental Protection Laboratory
Agency Corvallis, OR 97333
Research and Development
PUBLICATION REVIEW
AND CLEARANCE PROCEDURES
June, 1989
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE 1
1.2 APPLICABILITY 1
1.3 EXCLUSIONS 1
1.4 WAIVERS 1
1.5 CHART OF ERL-CORVALLIS REVIEW AND CLEARANCE PROCEDURE 2
1.6 CHART OF ERL-CORVALLIS LABORATORY ORGANIZATION 3
2. PUBLICATION REVIEW AND CLEARANCE PROCEDURES 4
2.1 PROCESS SUMMARY 4
2 .2 MATERIAL TO BE REVIEWED AND CLEARED 4
2.3 REVIEW AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ERL-C MANUSCRIPTS 5
2.4 FORMAT FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ERL-C AUTHORS 5
2.5 REQUESTS FOR PEER REVIEW AND QA REVIEW 5
2.5.1 Peer Reviewed Journal Articles 7
2.5.2 Other EPA Publications 7
2.5.3 Internal Reports 7
2.5.4 Oral Presentations 8
2.5.5 Abstracts 8
2.5.6 Off-site Manuscripts 8
2.6 PROCEDURE FOR CLEARANCE BY THE LABORATORY DIRECTOR 9
2.6.1 Reconciliation, Transmittal, and Policy Implications Memos 9
2.6.2 The final Manuscript Package 9
2.7 FOLLOW UP 10
2.8 NOTES TO AUTHORS 11
3. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 13
3.1 COPYRIGHTED, CONTRIBUTED, OR UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL 13
3.2 PRIVATELY OWNED INFORMATION 13
3.3 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 14
3.4 DISCLAIMERS AND OTHER NOTICES 14
3.4.1 Trade Names and Manufacturers'Names 14
3.4.2 Articles in Peer Reviewed Journals 15
3.4.3 Papers and Book Chapters 15
3.4.4 Preliminary Draft Reports 15
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
3.4.5 Peer Reviewed EPA Reports 15
3.4.6 Internal Reports 16
3.4.7 Draft Reports for Regulatory Docket Files 16
3.4.8 Independent Research by EPA Employees 16
3.4.9 Manuscripts Without an EPA Author 17
3.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPOSING SPECIAL MEMOS 17
3.5.1 Transmittal Memo (Appendices C and D) 17
3.5.2 Policy Implications Memo (Appendix D) 18
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-SAMPLE REVIEW LETTER 19
APPENDIX B-SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL MEMOS (A-LEVEL AND ATS) 20
APPENDIX C-SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL MEMO (ATS) 22
APPENDIX D-SAMPLE COMBINED TRANSMITTAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS MEMO 23
APPENDIX E-ORD CLEARANCE FORM (EPA-362) 24
APPENDIX F-DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH PRODUCTS 25
APPENDIX G-SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH CERI DESKTOP PUBLISHING 28
APPENSIXH-FORMAT FOR COVERS OF PRINTED REPORTS 29
ii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis (ERL-C) produces approximately 300
documents a year. The purpose of this manual is to make manuscript review and clearance
procedures more responsive to the needs of the authors while maintaining the high standard of
quality at ERL-C. In Section 1, you will find flow charts showing the review and clearance procedure
and the ERL-C organization. The appendix contains samples of the letters, memos, clearance form,
and other documentation used in the review and clearance process. You may use these as guides for
preparing your own material.
1.2 APPLICABILITY
Every formal product of ERL-C's research program likely to be cited as a reference for scientific
or governmental purposes and every public presentation by ERL-C staff must go through the review
and clearance procedure.
1.3 EXCLUSIONS
Clearance is not required for review of preliminary drafts or for oral presentations that are not
publicly announced, for example, classroom presentations.
1.4 WAIVERS
Exceptions to procedures in case of special circumstances must be initiated by the Project
Leader. The Project Leader should forward a written request through his/her Team Leader to the
Laboratory Director for approval of a major deviation. For example, the minimum number of peer
reviews required may be reduced by the Director if the important aspects of the report have already
been peer reviewed. In this case, citations of the published articles should be included in the request
for waiver of review.
1
-------
1.5 CHART OF ERL-CORVALUS REVIEW AND CLEARANCE PROCEDURE
AUTHOR
~I
PROJECT LEADER (PL)
I
TEAM LEADER (TL)
I
BRANCH CHIEF (BC)
I
PEER REVIEWERS
AUTHOR
makes revisions, writes reconciliation memo, assembles packet -
document, clearance form (EPA-362), peer, QA & editorial reviews,
reconciliation memo
I
OA
signs
I
EDITOR
signs
I
PL
signs
I
TL
signs
I
BC
signs
I
TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGER (TIM)
checks package, signs, enters into tracking system
I
DIRECTOR
signs
I
TIM
assigns # if appropriate
makes copies (EPA-362)
i 1—h 1 1 1
AUTHOR PL TL BC ADMN. TRCKNG CERI
JOURNAL
* Products to be certified for completion only begin the procedures at the asterisk.
QA EDITOR
2
-------
1.6 CHART OF ERL-CORVALLIS LABORATORY ORGANIZATION
LABORATORY DIRECTOR
Tom Murphy
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Chuck Frank
* Computer Center - Gary Smith
SUPPORT FUNCTIONS
Facilities - Bob Trippel
Health & Safety - Bill Moke
Quality Assurance - Deborah Coffey
Technical Information - Maggie Rea
Technical Editor - Ann Hairston
WATERSHED BRANCH
Vacant
TERRESTRIAL BRANCH
Bob Lackey
(Branch Chief)
ECOTOXICOLOGY BRANCH
Hal Kibby
(Branch Chief)
* Aquatic Team Leader
(Dixon Landers)
* Watershed Team Lear*
(Dan McKenzie)
* Wetlands Team Leader
(Eric Preston)
* Ozone Team Leader
(Dave Tingey)
* Forest Team Leader
(Roger Blair)
* Global Team Leader
(Peter Beedlow)
* Wildlife Team Leader
(Bill Williams)
* Plant Team Leader
(Lawrence Kaputska)
* Microbiology Team Leader
(Ray Seidler)
-------
SECTION 2
PUBLICATION REVIEW AND CLEARANCE PROCEDURES
2.1 PROCESS SUMMARY
This section outlines the review and clearance process for all the types of manuscripts, reports
and presentations produced at ERL-C.
On-site refers to personnel with EPA, NSI, CSC, OSU and other contractors/cooperators
physically located at ERL-C or reporting directly to an on-site employee, and to their products.
Off-site refers to personnel working with products reporting results of EPA/ERL-C funded
research and physically located at a site other than ERL-C.
The Project Leader is the EPA person responsible for the project. For cooperative/interagency
agreements, this would be the Project Officer. For the NSI contract, this would be the Task Manager.
2.2 MATERIAL TO BE REVIEWED AND CLEARED
Every formal product of ERL-C's research program likely to be cited as a reference for scientific
or governmental purposes must go through the review and clearance process.
• Journal articles
• Project reports
• Research reports
• User's guides
• Handbooks
• Proceedings
• Symposium papers
• Books and book chapters
• Software and documentation
• Maps and documentation
• Databases and documentation
• Oral presentations and abstracts (if presented in a public meeting, published, or text
distributed)
• Poster presentations
For detailed descriptions of research products, see Exhibit F.
4
-------
2.3 REVIEW AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ERL-C MANUSCRIPTS
Any document that lists an on-site ERL-C employee, contractor or cooperator as an author
citing affiliation with ERL-C, even if the author is one of many, is considered an on-site manuscript
and is subject to ERL-C publication review and clearance procedures.
2.4 FORMAT FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ERL-C AUTHORS
This format applies to both publications and presentation material List each author separately
with complete address as follows:
1. EPA Author
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
2. NSI Author
NSI Technology Services Corporation
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
3. University Cooperator (on-site)
University
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
4. Other Cooperators/Contractors (on-site)
Organization
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
If authors are numbered, use the complete address. Please note that the laboratory is always
identified as USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory, and the street address for the laboratory is
always 200 SW 35th Street.
2.5 REQUESTS FOR PEER REVIEW AND QA REVIEW
All draft manuscripts circulated for review must carry the following statement on page i or ii:
This document is a preliminary draft. It has not been formally released
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not be
construed to represent Agency policy. It is being circulated for
comments on its technical merit and policy implications. Do not
release. Do not quote or cite.
5
-------
Authors work with the Branch Chief to select peer reviewers. To formally request the review of
a manuscript, send a letter of request and the required number of copies of the manuscript to your
Branch Chief, who will sign the letter and forward the manuscript to the reviewers. Appendix A
shows a sample review letter.
Select technically qualified peer reviewers, without conflict of interest in fact or appearance.
Requests for QA review and editorial review also should be made at this time. Subsections 2.5.1
through 2.5.6 show the minimum review requirements for the types of manuscripts produced at
ERL-C.
Requirements are for the minimum number of peer reviews. Some reviews do not come in on
time. In order to meet both your deadline and the minimum review requirements, it is a good idea to
request additional reviews. If a report is likely to be criticized for Agency policy or regulatory
decisions or is scientifically controversial, additional peer reviews are necessary. Project Leaders
should work with the Team Leader and Branch Chief in this case.
All reviewers must provide a written review stating explicitly whether or not the manuscript
should be published. The review should indicate any specific revisions required for publication or the
reasons for recommending that the manuscript not be published.
Quality assurance (QA) reviews of documents are requested at the same time as peer reviews
and are conducted to evaluate the following:
• the presence of data in the document,
• that the data are presented clearly,
- that units are identified and conventional,
- that graphical representations do not distort the data,
- that the graphical representations chosen and the statistical analyses performed are
appropriate,
• that results discussed and conclusions drawn from the data are supported by the data
presented,
• that the "Materials and Methods" section clearly describes what was done so that:
- the experiment can be repeated,
- the reader understands the procedures,
• that the scientific design of the project is described and the rationale for the approach is
presented.
In many cases concerns identified during the QA review are issues of opinion. The QA staff
requests only that authors consider their comments and resolve significant issues in a memorandum
6
-------
of reconciliation. Significant issues will be clearly identified by QA staff in the memorandum returned
to the author.
2.5.1 Peer Reviewed Journal Articles
The following minimum review requirements apply to peer reviewed journal manuscripts.
• 1 technical peer review (off-site or on-site)
• 1 editorial review (on-site)
• 1 quality assurance review (on-site)
• Additional reviews are encouraged.
2.5.2 Other EPA Publications
This category includes project reports, research reports, user's guides, handbooks, proceedings,
symposium papers, books and book chapters, software and documentation, maps and
documentation, databases and documentation, and articles submitted to journals that do not have
an independent review board. The following minimum review requirements apply.
• 2 technical peer reviews (off-site)
• 1 technical peer review (off-site or on-site)
• 1 editorial review (on-site)
• 1 quality assurance review (on-site)
• Additional reviews are encouraged.
Please note, of the three peer reviews required, two must be off-site, all may be off-site.
2.5.3 Internal Reports
These reports are not distributed outside EPA, except in single copies on an as-needed basis.
The following statement must appear on the title page.
Internal EPA report. Do not release. Do not quote or cite.
All internal EPA reports must be cleared by the Laboratory
Director. The Branch Chief has the authority to waive peer
reviews, if requested and deemed justified. This must be stated
in block 16 of the ORD-362 (Clearance Form). If not peer reviewed,
it must carry the following disclaimer:
This document has not been peer reviewed and should not be
construed to represent Agency policy. Do not quote or cite.
7
-------
2.5.4 Oral Presentations
Unpublished oral presentations made by on-site employees are not reviewed, but must be
cleared by the Laboratory Director. Write a short summary of the presentation and route it with the
clearance form through the Project Leader for signatures.
2.5.5 Abstracts
Abstracts are not reviewed, but must be cleared by the Laboratory Director. Route the abstract
with the clearance form through the Project Leader for signatures.
2.5.6 Off-site Manuscripts
Any author not located at ERL-C who is producing manuscripts reporting results of EPA/ERL-C
funded research is considered an off-site author. Off-site manuscripts may be cleared in the same
manner as ERL-C manuscripts, or the Project Officer may request that they be certified for completion
only. Peer reviewed publications such as journal articles and book chapters, or reports published by
organizations other than EPA, do not require EPA/ERL-C review or clearance if they are written by off-
site authors and carry the following disclaimer:
Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly
or in part by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreement
(number) to (name), it has not been subjected to the Agency's review
and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and
no official endorsement should be inferred.
Even though an off-site manuscript need not be cleared by EPA/ERL-C, it must be submitted to
the Project Leader who will certify it as a completed ERL-C product and identify any Agency policy
implications. Use the ORD Clearance Form (EPA-362, Appendix E). In block 16 of this form, write:
Off-site manuscript to be certified for completion only; authors
responsible for publication.
Route the package to the Project Leader, Team Leader, and Branch Chief, who will send the
manuscript and the form to the Technical Information Manager (TIM). The TIM will send the package
to the Laboratory Director for his signature. It is then returned to the TIM for appropriate processing.
Off-site reports to be published by EPA for entry into the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) have the same review requirements as ERL-C reports:
8
-------
• 2 technical peer reviews (off-site)
• 1 technical peer review (off-site or on-site)
• 1 editorial review (on-site)
• 1 quality assurance review (on-site)
In this case, the disclaimer would be the same as the one for on-site authors.
2.6 PROCEDURE FOR CLEARANCE BY THE LABORATORY DIRECTOR
2.6.1 Reconciliation, Transmittal, and Policy Implications Memos
When you receive the reviewer's comments, make the necessary changes. Address all major
reviewers' concerns in a reconciliation memo to the Branch Chief, or explain why they have not been
incorporated into the manuscript.
If the manuscript is an A-level deliverable, prepare a transmittal memo similar to the one
shown in Appendix B. ATS deliverables require another transmittal memo (see Appendix C), as well.
B-level deliverables and "extra output" manuscripts do not require transmittal memos.
Work with the Team Leader and the Branch Chief to decide whether or not the manuscript has
policy implications for EPA; if so, prepare a policy implications memo. If it is practical, the policy
implications memo may be combined with the transmittal memo (Appendix D)
Be sure that the memos you submit with your manuscript are addressed to the appropriate EPA
Office Directors for your program or project. Section 3.4 contains detailed instructions.
2.6.2 The final Manuscript Package
You are now ready to submit a final manuscript package for clearance. Fill out the ORD
Clearance Form (EPA-362). Instructions for completion are on the back of the clearance form. Route
the complete package through the clearance procedure shown in the chart on page 2, beginning
with the Project Leader's signature. The package submitted for clearance should contain the
following items:
• Completed ORD clearance form (EPA-362)
* • Manuscript
- 1 copy of a journal manuscript
- 2 copies if the manuscript is an A-level deliverable
• 3 copies if the manuscript is an ATS deliverable
- 1 additional copy for NTIS if they are to print or archive the report
9
-------
* NOTE: The number of copies required may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript. Check
with the TIM if you have questions.
• Each reviewer's comments and letter
• Reconciliation memo
• Transmittal memo, if necessary (Appendix B and C)
• Policy implications memo, if the manuscript has policy implications (Appendix D)
At this time, the disclaimer statement should be changed to the following, if the manuscript has an
on-site EPA author:
The information in this document has been funded wholly (or in part)
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to
the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved
for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement of
recommendation for use.
On all manuscripts that have an on-site author other than EPA, the statement should read as follows:
The research described in this (article, report, chapter, etc.) has been
funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This document
has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon, through (contract #) to (name) and/or through
cooperative agreement (cr number) with (university). It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
2.7 FOLLOW UP
The Technical Information Manager keeps the official file information, returns copies of the
signed clearance form to the author and to the Project Leader to record project completion, and
sends appropriate manuscripts and floppy disks to the Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI), who then sends them to NTIS. When a peer-reviewed journal article is accepted,
forward a copy of your acceptance letter to the Technical Information Manager. When the
manuscript is published, submit three reprints of the published work to the TIM.
CERI is now printing all manuscripts from desktop publishing. Submit the final version of your
manuscript to the TIM on both hard copy and floppy disk. State the software used and the type of
computer. This will make the printing process move more quickly and with fewer errors. If a disk is
not included, a scanner will be used to capture the document. At present, the scanner does not have
all of the necessary font capabilities, and the manuscript will require more time and effort.
10
-------
For a complete listing of the software compatible with CERI desktop publishing, see Appendix G.
2.8 NOTES TO AUTHORS
Please give special attention to the following items to help expedite the review and clearance
process and the publication of your manuscript.
All authors
• Keep a copy of your manuscript for your files.
• Allow adequate time, this can vary from two weeks to one month, for manuscripts to go
through the on-site and off-site reviews and the laboratory clearance. The staff will
make every effort to help you meet your deadlines.
• Submit draft manuscripts to reviewers double spaced, specifying your intended
publication date.
• Check the accuracy and completeness of citations.
• Follow the copyright and disclaimer policies described in Section 3.
• Remember that the document you are clearing is the document attached to the ORD
clearance form. Clearing an abstract does not mean that you have cleared a symposium
paper or a future journal article
• Requirements are for the minimum number of peer reviews. Authors are encouraged to
work with as many reviewers as necessary to ensure the quality of their research.
Authors of journal articles
• You are responsible for adherence to the specific editorial criteria of the designated
journal. Attach the appropriate "Instructions for Authors" to the technical editor's copy
of your manuscript.
Authors of EPA published products
• See the Handbook for Preparing Office of Research and Development Reports (EPA
600/9-83/006, Revised March 1986) for format specifications.
11
-------
• Notify the TIM, who is also the Printing Control Officer, to make arrangements for
printing. Waivers are necessary for use of any printing office other than Cincinnati.
• Every manuscript that will be sent to NTIS requires an abstract no longer than 200 words.
The abstract is really an advertisement for the paper, and therefore should be done by
the author who best knows what it is he/she wishes to "sell".
• See Appendix H for the format for covers of printed reports. Please check with the TIM if
you have questions.
• The TIM sends all products listed in the first three categories under 9 on the ORD Form to
NTIS after clearance. Journal articles go as reprints. Other products are forwarded
immediately. Products listed in the last three categories under 9 on the ORD Form are
not forwarded to NTIS.
12
-------
SECTION 3
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 COPYRIGHTED. CONTRIBUTED. OR UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Copyrighted material may not be incorporated into a report without obtaining written
permission from the copyright owner. Prior use of copyrighted material in another government
publication does not necessarily constitute permission to use it in an EPA/ORD publication. When you
have received permission to use the material in a report, identify it by the following statement.
Reprinted from (title of publication, year of first publication) by (name
of author) with permission of (names of copyright owner, if different
from that of author).
The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) requires that all copyright release letters
accompany publications submitted to it for distribution. When a report containing copyrighted
material is sent to the Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) in Cincinnati for
distribution through NTIS, the original and one copy of all copyright release letters should be
submitted along with it.
Unpublished work may be protected under common law or equity, even though there is no
copyright notice. Refer problems relating to the protection given to unpublished work to EPA's
Associate General Counsel, Grants, Contracts and General Law Division.
Courtesy requires that uncopyrighted materials from, or assistance rendered by, other persons
be acknowledged through the use of a footnote, bibliographic reference, or statement in the text.
Credit lines need not be given for designers, typographers, layout artists, or art directors. In addition,
material purchased by the government need not be credited.
3.2 PRIVATELY OWNED INFORMATION
To avoid restricting the availability of a report, make every effort not to use information
accepted by the government for limited purposes. Such information will be used only when it is
essential to the understanding of a report and only after approval for its use is authorized by the
Office of General Counsel. Reports containing such information will bear a statement restricting
availability and handling, as required.
13
-------
3.3 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
Information developed, compiled, or written by a government employee as part of that
person's official duties exists in the public domain and, as such, is not protected by copyright
provisions. Although an EPA employee is permitted to offer a paper, an article, or a portion of a book
produced under the auspices of the government for publication in the private sector, he or she may
not execute an assignment of copyright to a publisher. Any forms requesting the assignment of
copyright privileges should be returned to the publisher unsigned with the following statement
affixed:
"This assignment cannot be executed, since the referenced work was authored by a
United States Government employee as part of that person's official duties, and, in
view of Section 105 of Public Law 94-553, it is not subject to copyright protection."
Any non-government author developing information under a government grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract may arrange for copyright of that material without the approval of the
Agency. However, in these instances, the Government is vested with a royalty-free, non-exclusive,
and irrevocable license to publish, translate, reproduce, and deliver that information and to
authorize others to do so.
3.4 DISCLAIMERS AND OTHER NOTICES
3.4.1 Trade Names and Manufacturers' Names
The use of trade and manufacturers' names should be brought to the attention of the Project
Officer and fh<» cognizant approving official before the report is cleared for publication. Trade r^d
manufacturers' names should always be capitalized when referred to in a report.
Final documents that contain any information unique to a company, laboratory, or individual,
including the use of trade names, should carry a statement in the Notice (p. ii of front matter), similar
to the following, which disclaims any endorsement or recommendation of a commercial product by
the Agency.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
14
-------
3.4.2 Articles in Peer Reviewed Journals
Articles by ERL-C contractors, cooperators, and assistance recipients documenting Agency-
sponsored research and submitted for publication to refereed scientific journals and not reviewed
must include a statement indicating that the article does not reflect the views of EPA. The following
statement is recommended.
Although the research described in this article has been supported by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through (contract or
assistance agreement and number) to (name), it has not been subjected
to Agency review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views
of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.
3.4.3 Papers and Book Chapters
For research products by by ERL-C contractors, cooperators, and assistance recipients that have
been peer reviewed and approved by the Agency and will be presented and distributed at meetings
or published elsewhere (in non-EPA published proceedings, trade journals, book chapters, etc.),
include the following statement:
The information in this document has been funded (wholly or in part)
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under (contract or
assistance agreement and number) to (name). It has been subjected to
Agency review and approved for publication.
3.4.4 Preliminary Draft Reports
As a result of provisions contained in the Freedom of Information Act, and for other
programmatic reasons, draft copies of ORD reports are sometimes distributed outside the Agency. To
prevent misunderstanding, the following notice must appear on page i or ii of all draft scientific and
technical reports.
This document is a preliminary draft. It has not been formally released
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this
stage be construed to represent Agency policy. It is being circulated for
comments on its technical merit and policy implications.
3.4.5 Peer Reviewed EPA Reports
If it is agreed that a peer reviewed draft of a technical information product is appropriate for
release as an EPA publication, the following statement must appear on page i or ii.
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under (contract or assistance
15
-------
agreement and number) to (name). It has been subject to the agency's
peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. (Add disclaimer statement for
documents containing proprietary information.)
If agreement cannot be reached that a draft is appropriate for release as an EPA publication, a
recipient may independently publish and distribute the document at his or her own expense,
provided that the following statement is included in the document.
Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or
in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under (contract or
assistance agreement number) to (name), it does not necessarily reflect
the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be
inferred.
3.4.6 Internal Reports
Final documents for internal use by the requesting program office shall contain the following
notice.
This document is intended for internal Agency use only. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
3.4.7 Draft Reports for Regulatory Docket Files
Final draft documents that may become part of a regulatory docket file but are not submitted
for a formal public comment period contain the following notice.
This report is an external draft for review purposes only and does not
constitute Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendaticr. fcr use.
3.4.8 Independent Research by EPA Employees
If you publish independent research on your own time, you are requested to include the
following disclaimer.
The research described herein was developed by the author, an
employee of the U.S. EPA, on his or her own time. It was conducted
independent of EPA employment and has not been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review. Therefore, the conclusions
and opinions drawn are solely those of the author and should not be
construed to reflect the views of the Agency.
16
-------
3.4.9 Manuscripts Without an EPA Author
The research described in this (article, report, chapter, etc.) has been
funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This document
has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon, through (contract or assistance agreement number)
to (name) and/or through cooperative agreement (cr number) with
(university). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
3.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPOSING SPECIAL MEMOS
3.5.1 Transmittal Memo (Exhibits C and D)
Prepare a transmittal memo for A-level deliverables and ATS deliverables (Exhibit B). The
memo should indicate the reasons the work was done, highlight the major accomplishments of the
findings, and explain the value of the research to EPA. Limit the transmittal memo to one page, if
possible, and include the following standard closing paragraph.
For further information on this report or related research activities,
please contact the Director of the Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon, FTS-420-4601.
Both A-level and ATS deliverable memos are drafted for the OEPER Director's signature and
addressed to the appropriate recipient, usually a counterpart Office Director. The deliverable
package is sent to the OEPER Director by the TIM
A second ATS deliverable transmittal memo (Exhibit C) is drafted for the signature of the
Assistant Administrator/ORD to the Assistant Administrator of the appropriate recipient. The first
line should be:
The attached subject ORD (type of product) was recently delivered to
the (office name) in response to the Agency's need for...
Include a paragraph near the end of the transmittal memo identifying the research program
associated with the deliverable, the laboratory, and the names of the principal users of the document.
For example:
This document is a product of the (program, generally at the Issue or
PPA level) at (lab name), and (person) and (person) of your staff are
familiar with this research effort.
17
-------
Identify and list as courtesy copy recipients all other individuals you believe could find the document
useful. Please do not limit your courtesy copies to people in the program office.
When sending your draft transmittal memo and manuscript to Headquarters for processing,
include a sufficient number of copies of the document to cover the Office Director, principal users,
and courtesy copy recipients.
3.5.2 Policy Implications Memo (Exhibit 0)
This memo should clearly and concisely describe the content of the document in regard to
policy issues and ramifications for the Agency. The memo is prepared for the Laboratory Director's
signature and addressed to the appropriate recipient.
• Peer reviewed journal manuscripts. Compose memo from Director through OEPER
Director to appropriate person in Program Office
• Acid rain manuscripts. Compose memo from Director through OEPER Director.
• All other manuscripts. Contact the TIM for further information.
Be sure that copies of the document and the policy implications memo are sent to the staff directly
involved in the project.
Remember that the policy implications memo and the transmittal memo can often be
combined (Exhibit D).
18
-------
„otr APPENDIX A - SAMPLE REVIEW LETTER
sT
S>
{
M \
tjfg? | UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
¦ ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
\ ml<* 200 S W' 38TH STREET
CORVALLIS. OREGON 97133
Dear :
Thank you for agreeing to review the manuscript "
Please examine this work for technical quality and suitability for publication. We ask that you give us
a brief written evaluation of the manuscript, including your explicit recommendation whether or not
it should be published. If revisions are necessary for publication, list clearly those you feel are
essential. If you conclude the manuscript should not be published, please indicate why. In addition,
feel free to mark up the manuscript with any other comments or suggestions you may have.
Your review is needed by . Return it directly to .
He/she may be reached at if you have any questions.
I very much appreciate your assistance. Your advice is important to our maintaining high standards of
research quality.
Sincerely,
(Branch Chief)
letter with your written comments. Be sure to check A or B:
I recommend that this manuscript be published
I do not recommend that this manuscript be published at this time
Please return this
A. Q
B- ~
19
-------
X B - SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL MEMOS (A-LEVEL AND ATS)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Transmittal of ORD Report Entitled Effects of Northern
Bobwhite on Results of the Avian Dietary Toxicity Test
(Deliverable 7629-A)
Courtney Riordan
Director, Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research (RD-682)
Charles Elkins, Director
Office of Toxic Substances (TS-792)
The attached copy of the subject ORD report is being delivered to your office in response to the
Agency's need for information relating to factors affecting avian dietary toxicity testing. Identifying
sources of variation in toxicity testing is essential to proper interpretation of potential hazards to
wildlife. Two suspect sources of variability in avian dietary toxicity tests are age and body weight of
the test animal.
This study confirms the results of others, that different aged birds used in the EPA's Avian
Dietary Toxicity Test can have a significantly different dose-response to some chemicals. These
differences occurred within the limits of current guidelines for age (10-17 days old). This study also
demonstrated that differences in initial body weight can further confound dose-response in these
tests. These variables (age and weight), either in conjunction of independently, can change the value
of the LC50 by as much as two-fold. In light of these results, we recommend that the Agency consider
adopting a standard bird age and requiring a stratified random design for distribution of body
weights among treatment groups.
This document is a product of the Systems-Level Effects research conducted by the Wildlife
Toxicology Program at ERL-Corvallis. William Rabert of the Environmental Effects Branch is familiar
with this research effort.
For further information on this report or related research activities, please contact Dr. Thomas
A. Murphy, Director of the Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, FTS-420-4601.
Attachment
cc: Douglas Urgan (TS-769C)
James Gifford (TS-796)
APPENDI
SUBJECT:
FROM:
20
-------
X B - SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL MEMOS (A-LEVEL AND ATS)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
Transmittal of ORD Report Entitled Toxicity Bioassav office of
and Eluate Heavy Metals Analysis: Results of the Bench research ano development
Scale Stabilization Study of Soils from the United Chrome
Suoerfund NPLSite; Corvallis. Oregon
(Deliverable 7965-A)
Courtney Riordan
Director, Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research (RD-682)
Robie G. Russell
Regional Administrator, Region 10
The attached copy of the subject ORD report is being delivered in
response to your request for technical assistance at the United Chrome
Superfund Site.
Region 10 has identified stabilization as a promising remedial
technique for sites with large volumes of contaminated soil. United
Chrome Superfund Site soil was chosen for an assessment of stabilization,
as performed by the selected vendor, to determine if the process would
effectively reduce leaching of heavy metals and "pretreat" contaminated
soils for subsequent off-site management. Biological and chemical testing
was performed on soils aftd eluate, prepared from the soils, to determine
toxicity of the samples. Results from bioassays demonstrated that
hexavalent chromium was the dominant heavy metal toxicant prior to
stabilization. Toxicity testing showed that the stabilization process did not
eliminate toxicity from treated soil. A surprising finding was evidence for
the process having introduced significant levels of additional toxic effect
into control samples.
This document is a product of the Ecotoxicology Branch's Hazardous
Waste Assessment Team at ERL-Corvallis. The product represents a
combination of research and technical assistance cooperation with John
Barich of your Environmental Services Division. You should note that the
document is for internal use only by EPA Staff. It has not been subjected
to the Agency's Peer Review process and therefore, should not be quoted
or cited.
For further information on this report or related research activities,
please contact Dr. Thomas A. Murphy, Director of the Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, FTS-420-4601.
APPENDI
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Note:
Internal
Report
Comment
Attachment
21
-------
APPENDIX C - SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL MEMO (ATS)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH and development
SUBJECT: Transmittal of ORD Report Entitled HCB Uptake
and Accumulation in Eoo and Embryo of Bobwhite
(Deliverable 7260-A)
FROM:
Courtney Riordan
Director, Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research (RD-682)
TO:
Charles Elkins, Director
Office of Toxic Substances (TS-792)
The attached copy of the subject ORD report is being delivered to your office in response to the
Agency's need for information related to the Office of Research and Development's Risk Assessment
Initiative.
The significance of chemical residues in terrestrial wildlife has long been of interest to the
Agency. The uptake and accumulation of chemicals in animal tissue is fairly predictable, following
basic principles of pharmokinetics and chemical properties. Many chemicals are highly lipophilic,
sequestering predominantly in fat and fatty tissue. In many cases, chemicals in this general category
are not acutely toxic, rather, have long-term effects on reproduction and other physiological
parameters. Hexachlorobenzene, although not acutely toxic to Bobwhite quail at the levels tested,
has been shown in this report to adversely affect reproduction by decreasing hatching success and
reducing chick survivability. A mechanism is suggested that may account for the late embryonic
death and decreased hatching success demonstrated in this paper: Utilization of egg yolk by the
developing embryo does not occur until late in incubation, and thus exposes the embryo during that
short time to the HC3 sequestered in the yolk.
This report provides important equations and relationships of chemical accumulation and
compartmentalization needed to improve models of uptake and exposure.
This document is a product of the Terrestrial Plant and Wildlife Toxicology Program at ERL-
Corvallis and Donald Rodier and Robert Lipnick of your staff are familiar with this research effort.
Attachment
cc: James Bilford (TS-796)
Donald Rodier (TS-796)
Robert Lipnick (TS-796)
Doug Urban (TS-769C)
22
-------
APPENDIX D • SAMPLE COMBINED TRANSMITTAL AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS MEMO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
office of
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT. Transmittal of, and Policy Memo on, an ORD Journal Article on Analysis of Southern
Pine Decline (Deliverable 8028-A)
FROM:
Courtney Riordan
Director, Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research (RD-682)
TO:
David L. Dull, Acting Director
Office of Program Development (ANR-443)
The extent and magnitude of the deterioration of forests due to acidic deposition will be an
important input into regulatory decisions to control the precursors (sulfur and nitrogen compounds)
of acidic deposition. The attached article, which has been submitted to Forest Science for publication,
provides new evidence that 1) growth rate decline of pine species in the southeast is real, 2)
competition from hardwood trees is probably a major causal factor, and 3) the effect of acidic
deposition is probably not a major causal factor. The exact level of effect of acidic deposition remains
unknown.
An important source of temporal information on the growth rates of tree through the last
several decades comes from the Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. The
data obtained by this effort have the advantage of extending back in time often to the 1950's. They
also have the disadvantage of having not been collected for the purpose of estimating the effects of
pollution. Thus the data must be analyzed carefully. Published analyses of the FIA data from the
southeast have claimed recent declines in growth "*e. However, these have been subject to
extensive criticism. This paper develops new statistical methods to infer growth rates and their
confidence intervals from such data. The results reported here confirm that a decline in growth rate
has indeed occurred in the southeast. A stratified analysis of the data further implicates increased
competition from hardwood tree species as a major causal factor. Effects of acidic deposition cannot
be ruled out by this analysis, but the magnitude of the effect is shown to be limited unless acidic
deposition differentially affects younger trees.
These results indicate that we should treat claimed cases of growth declines with caution. The
Corvallis laboratory is following this paper up with proposals to obtain more detailed data on
hardwood competition and to obtain data from the Gulf South to extend the analyses there.
23
-------
I. EPA Report No.
2. Series
ORD CLEARANCE FORM APPENDIX E - (EPA-362)
Original Document Title:
SB Final Document Title, i< changed:
6. Authors). Affiliation, and Address (identify
EPA authors with Lab/Office)
11. Technical Information (Program) Manager
Signature
Date
gnature of sender (if other than TI(P|M) Date to CERI
Signature/Date
15A. This Publication
~ does not have policy implications for EPA
~ has policy implications for EPA
(memo attached)
3 Lab/Office Draft No.
4. Copyright Permission
~ Yes (Attached) Q No ~ N/A
7. Project Officer/FTS Telephone
8 Contract/IAG/Assistance Agreement No.
9. Product (check one)
~ Peer Reviewed Journal Article (complete block 13)
~ Published Reports: Project Report/Summary (magnetic tapes/
floppy diskettes). Method. Research Report. User's Guide.
Design Manual, Handbook. Criteria Document, Health
Assessment Document. Technology Transfer Report,
Proceedings (Conferences. Symposia. Workshops)
~ Symposium Papers and Book Chapters
~ Internal Report (distribution restricted to EPA)
~ Miscellaneous (newsletter, research brief, trade peper) non-
peer reviewed journal article (complete block 13)
~ Unpublished rteport
13. Bibliographic Citation (Include Month/Year)
O Accepter! O Published
14. Distribution (use block 16. if necessary)
15B. Lab/Office Director Signature
ISC. Date
16. Comments
CHEMICALS:
KEY WORDS:
EPA •362(CinXR*v. 3/87)
24
-------
ORD CLEARANCE FORM
CAMPLE
1 EPA Report No
2 Series
3 Lab'Office Draft No 4 Copyright Permission
ERL-COR-IOIQJ ~ Yes (Attached) ~ No C N. A
SA Original Document Title
rowth and Reproduction of the Earthworm Eisenia fetida with Exposure to Sublethal
concentrations of Organic Chemicals
5B Final Document Title, if changed
6 Authorts). Affiliation, and Address (identify
EPA authors with lab/Offieel
E. F. Neuhauser
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
300 Erie Boulevard West
Syracuse, New York 13202
C. A. Callahan, ERL-Corvallis
7. Protect Officer/FTS Telephone
C. A. Callahan, 420-4764
B. Contract/IAG/Assistance Agreement No.
CR yiozw b-7-
9. Product (chack one)
^Peer Reviewed Journal Article (complete block 13)
~ Published Reports Protect Report/Summary (magnetic tapes/
floppy diskettes). Method, Reseerch Report, User s Guide.
Design Manual. Handbook. Criteria Oocument. Health
Assessment Document, Technology Transfer Report.
Proceedings (Conferences. Symposia. Workshops)
~ Symposium Papers and Book Chapters
~ Internal Report (distribution restricted to EPA)
~ Miscellaneous (newsletter, research brief, trade paper) non-
peer reviewed journal article (complete block 13)
~ Unpublished Report
10 DU/Obj./PPA/Proiect/Deliverable Output No
Y/or/F /i
W. Technical Information (Program) Manager
Signature/ Obi*'
ature of tender (if other than Tl(P)M| Date to CERI
jnaturt/0»te
X- iW® VCu^~ shdpj1
13 Bibliographic Citation (Include Month/Year)
O Aconurt n P..hl,«h»rt
This manuscript will be submitted to the
Journal of Soil Biology and Biochemistry.
3)l "h/itf
14 Distribution (use block 16. if necessary)
ISA ThisPublication
Q does not have policy implications for EPA
~ hat policy implications for EPA
(memo attached)
15B. Lab/Office. Director Signature
/ (i ^7
15C. Date
v/p'/A")
16 Comments
Y WORDS: sublethal effects, earthworm, organic chemicals
carbaryl , chloracetamide, 1,2-dichloropropane, dieldrin, 4-nitrophenol,
CHEMICALS: dimethyl phthalate, n-nitrosodiphenyl amine, fluorene, phenol, 2,4,6-trichlo
EPA -362lCinjlR* *3/87)
-------
ORD CLEARANCE FORM
SAMPLE
1 EPA Report No
2. Series
3 Lab/Office Draft No
* Copyright Permission
J
ERL-COR-992J
0 res (Attached) 0 No D N/A
Confidence Interval Estimation Related to Parameter-Effects Curvature
for the Weibull Nonlinear Model
5B Title, if different from above;
6 Authols). Affiliation, and Address (identify
EPA authors with lab/Office)
M.C. Somerville, K.A. Dassel,
and J.o. Rawlings
Department of Statistics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7601
10 DU/Obj /PPA/Pro/eci/Deiiverabie Output No
A101/A/60/01/extra output
IV Taehnical Information (Program) Manager
t $
Signature//
Data '
gnature o< senderJjk other than TI
-------
SAMPLE
ORO CLEARANCE FORM
| l. EPA Report No.
2. Sane*
3 Lab/Office Draft No
ERL-COR-545
4. Copyright Permission
~ Yes (Attached) ~ No Q N/A
Document Title
Use of Avian Nest Boxes for Reproduction "Tests in the Field
58 Title. H different from above:
The Use of Starling Nest Boxes for Field Reproductive Studies: Provisional Guidance
Document and Technical Support Document
6. Authorf *1. Affiliation, *nd Addres* (identify
EPA author* with Lab/Offica)
Ronald J. Kendall, Larry W. Brewer,
Thomas E. Lacher, Brad T. Marden, and
Michael I. Whitten
Institute of Wildlife Toxicology, Western
Washington University, Bellingham, WA
98225
7. Project Officer/FTS Telephone
Richard S., Bennett / 420-4582
B. Contract/IAG/Assistance Agraamant No.
CR813662
9 Product (check one)
~ Paer Reviewed Journal Article (complete block 13)
p Published Reports: Project Report/Summary, Method.
Research Report. User's Guide. Design Manual. Handbook.
Criteria Document. Health Assessment Document. Technology
Transfer Report. Proceedings (Conferences. Symposia.
Workshops!
~ Symposium Papers and Book Chapters
~ Internal Report (distribution restricted to EPA)
~ Miscellaneous (newsletter, research brief, ebstract. oral
presentation, trade paper) non-peer reviewed journal article,
magnetic/video tapes (complete block 13)
~ Unpublished Report
10 DU/Obj /PPA/Projact/Dalivarabia Output No.
E104/D/06/37/7250A
11. Technical Information (Programl Manager
Signature Dete' /
Signature of aandar (if other than TI(P)M) DatetoCEPI
12. S^nature/Dete , ,
.fSa.eitVoOr^ w/s / $ 9
16. Commant*
KEY WORDS: starling, nest box, reproduction, pesticides, field effects
CHEMICALS:
-------
OPD CLEARANCE FORM
SAMPLE
1. EPA Report No
2 Series
3 Lab/Offic* Draft No
4 Copyright Permission
ERL-C0R-1014D
~ Yes (Attached) D No O N/A
Document Tula
Current and potential losses of biodiversity in forests of the Pacific coast states.
5B Title. if different from above
6 AuthoHsl. Affiliation, and Address (identify
EPA author* with Lab/Office)
Sandra Henderson, Richard K. Olson,
Reed F. Noss
NSI Technology Services Corp.
ERL - Corvallis
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis. OR 97333
10 DU/Obj /PPA/Project/Deliverable Output No
A101/G/94/86 Extra product
M Technical Information (Program
Signeturj/''
^gnatur* of aen^ar (if ^ther than Tt">
7. Protect Offteer/FTS Telephone
Peter A. Beedlow 420-4791
6 Contract/IAG/Aisistance Agreement No
9 Product (check one)
C Peer Reviewed Journal Article (complete block 13)
~ Published Report* Project Report/Summary. Method
Research Report. U*er'i Guide. Design Manual. Handbook.
Criteria Document. Health Assessment Document. Technology
Trencfer Report. Proceeding* (Conference*. Symposia.
Wort shop!)
JH. Symposium Paper* and Book Chapter*
~ Internal Report (distribution restricted to EPA)
~ Miscellaneous (newsletter, research brief, abstract, oral
presentation, trad* paper) non-peer reviewed journal article
magnetic/video tapes (complete block 13)
~ Unpublished Report
13 Bibliographic Citation (Include Month/Year)
~ Accepted ~ Published .
14. Distribution (us* block 16. if necessary)
i/OHtef^Dttactor Signature /J J
1SA This Publication
h/4om not have policy implications for EPA
^ has policy implications for EPA
(memo attached!
16B Lab/0
5*
15C. Da
16 Comments
To be submitted to the symposium on the effects of air pollution on western forests
that will take place at the 82nd APCA annual meeting. No new data generated.
KEY WORDS: biodiversity, forest, fragmentation, edge effects, air pollutants
CHEMICALS: ozone, CO2 , greenhouse gases
-------
ORD CLEARANCE FORM
SAMPLE
1. EPA Report No
2 Series
3 Lab/Office Draft No
4 Lopyrignt Permission
D Yes (Attached) Q No Q N/A
Origin*! Document Tula
An Exercise in Testing the WESSIN variant of PROGNOSIS Crown Ratio Parameter
Sensitivity
58 Final document Title, if changed.
6 Authonsl. Affiliation, and Address (identify
EPA author* with lab/Office)
Terry D. Droessler
(¦J C^NSI Technology Services Corp,
, Environmental Research Lab
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
10 DU/Ob|./PPA/Project/Deliverable Output No
N104/F07/67/extra product
^7/fy
2- if? 7
11. Technical Information (Program) Manager
S
-------
APPENDIX F - DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH PRODUCTS
RESEARCH PRODUCTS
Type (Product code)
Journal Article (A-01)
Research Reports (A-02)
Project Reports (A-03)
Project Summaries
Unpublished Reports
User's Guides (C-01)
Description
Journal articles are a major means by which ORD scientific
information reaches the research community. Articles
accepted by peer-reviewed journals enhance ORD's
credibility and reputation with peer audiences in all fields.
They provide references for the development of criteria
documents and for the defense of proposed and existing
standards.
Research reports represent the best of EPA's research in an
attractive, high-quality format. They normally will contain
information not appropriate for, or not published in, peer-
reviewed journals. They will not contain large volumes of
back-up data. (This data will be submitted to NTIS and
referenced in the EPA Research Report.)
Project reports are the means by which most EPA research is
documented and made available to the research
community. Project Reports are required when 1) neither a
journal article nor an EPA Research Report is produced, or
2) the journal article or EPA Research Report published is
incomplete in terms of fully documenting the project or
would require additional background data to survive
rigorous scientific challenge. A Project Report is published
and distributed by NTIS only; it is not printed by EPA. For
every Project Report produced, a Project Summary must
also be produced.
These are short synopses of the key findings of a research
project, which is otherwise published and recorded only as
a Project Report by NTIS. These summaries should be
written in the terminology commonly used in the
applicable area of research. The summary should be as
short as possible, ideally less than four printed pages in
length, but up to 12 pages may be necessary on exceptional
reports. Project summaries are key means for gaining wider
appreciation of ORD's research. Unlike their parent Project
Reports, Project Summaries are printed and distributed by
EPA. They are produced only in conjunction with a Project
Report.
Unpublished reports are those for which a decision has
been made that publication would not be in the public
interest for one or more of the following reasons: 1) The
quality of the work was substandard, misleading, or so
inconclusive as to have no scientific value; 2) the results are
highly redundant of a prior investigation; and/or 3) the
results are to be incorporated in subsequent reports
(definitely planned) and early dissemination of partial
results would not prove cost-effective.
A user's guide explains and describes an ORD-developed
model or process. It is necessary if potential users are to be
able to exploit off-the-shelf products.
2S
-------
APPENDIX F - DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH PRODUCTS
RESEARCH PRODUCTS
Type (Product code)
Design Manuals (C-02)
Handbooks (C-03)
Description
These manuals are comprehensive specific descriptions of
new technology or methodology applicable to a particular
environmental problem. Design manuals are intended to
guide the user through major steps of the process of
creating, constructing and maintaining a particular
technology or technique. In most cases, these works will
require input from several laboratories, other ORD offices
and EPA program offices.
Handbooks are reference tools which may be used either at
the desk or the bench. They are broad collections of
information, statistics, data and techniques which are
proven both accurate and highly relevant to the subject
area. Handbooks require a great deal of assistance and
review to be comprehensive, and are intended to retain
both their relevance and utility for years.
Environmental Research Briefs (D-03) Sometimes it is desirable to publish a short summary
announcing the status of an ORD research project before a
complete report can be prepared. In such cases, an
Environmental Research Brief can be produced to convey
this information in a timely fashion to a large audience.
Program Summaries/Plans (D-04) These are introductions to a particular major research
program. For both internal use as a unifying document and
for external use as a detailed introduction, these
documents are normally 12 to 32 pages in length. Program
Summaries/Plans focus on organizational issues, mandate,
roles, goals and plans with minimal discussion of the
background or details of the environmental issues
addressed by the program.
Technology Transfer Reports (D-05) Technology Transfer Reports have long been one of ORD's
most popular forms of communication with the technical
applications community. Generally, these reports are
summaries of significant control technology developments
which may be covered in far greater detail in handbooks
and manuals. These reports are especially suited for
providing their audience with a succinct, accurate overview
of a complex subject.
Problem-Oriented Reports/ Problem Oriented Reports are produced when there is a
Internal Reports (E-01) need for a written report in response to a request from a
Regional Office or other office in the Agency. They
normally address a specific issue or problem and vary in
format depending on the nature of the request and
urgency of the need. Such reports are duplicated or
printed, depending on the distribution needs of the
requesting office.
26
-------
APPENDIX F -
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH PRODUCTS
RESEARCH PRODUCTS
Type (Product code)
Criteria Documents (E-02)
Description
Air Quality Criteria Documents and Water Quality Criteria
Documents are mandated by the Clean Air Act and Federal
Clean Water Act, respectively. The successful
implementation of these major environmental laws rests
partially on the successful preparation of these documents.
Both types of criteria documents required by these laws
contain a discussion of all the factors involved in the
enhancement or deterioration of the environment. It is
partially on the basis of this information that the
Administrator decides at which level to set standards for
regulating a pollutant.
Criteria documents are therefore subjected to the most
rigorous public scrutiny and stringent scientific review.
27
-------
APPENDIX G - SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH CERI DESKTOP PUBLISHING
Office Writer 4.0
ASCII (Standard)
OfficeWriter 5.0
ASCII (Smart)
Office Writer 6.0
Communications format
PFS.WRITE VerC
PFS:Professional Write 1.0
DisplayWrite (DCA/RFT)
PFS:Professional Write 2.0
PFS: First Choice 1.0
EBCDIC
PFS:First Choice 2.0
IBM Writing Assistant 1.0
Volkswriter Deluxe 2.0
Volkswriter3 1.0
Microsoft Rich Text Format
Microsoft Word 3.0, 3.1
WordPerfect 3.0
Microsoft Word 4.0
WordPerfect 4.1
Word Perfect 4.2
MultiMate 3.3
WordPerfect 5.0
MultiMate Advantage 3.6
MultiMate Advantage II
WordStar 3.3, 3.31
WordStar 3.45
Navy DIF
WordStar 4.0
XYWrite III
XYWrite III Plus
28
-------
APPENDIX H
U«lt*4 *a»lrai»M»tal **»»areh (Pft/tOO/ • /
(¦•Iranaaatal Labaratarv (MO.Y*)
A«aa«y Carvallla. 01 97113
Itmrrt »»< 8<»al»»«a»t
c/EPA TITLE (no larger print than the logo and EPA)
subtitle
EPA logo, print: black, EPA blue, or EPA green
Cover print: Univers typeface
(Helvetica, only if necessary)
Any color paper, EPA blue preferred.
Use ORD graphic identifier if no other graphics are used.
format for covers of printed reports
29
------- |