Final Report THE MISSION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD A Report to the Board from the SAB Subcommittee on the Mission and Functioning of the SAB, Accepted by the SAB Executive Committee on October 23, 1989 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Reasons for the review 1 1.2 The approach taken by the review 2 2. CHARTER AND OVERALL MISSION 3 2.1 The formal mandate, charter, and apparatus 3 2.2 SAB's aiding-and-extending mission 4 2.3 SAB's auditing-and-certifying mission . 5 2.4 The foundations of SAB's authority 6 3. CURRENT FUNCTIONS 6 3.1 SAB's purview: Science for environmental protection 6 3.2 Consideration of science in context 7 3.3 Current advisory functions 8 4. MEMBERSHIP AND SERVICE 10 4.1 Nomination, appointment, and reappointment 10 4.2 Executive Committee nomination of new SAB members and consultants 11 4.3 Recruitment and breadth of representation 12 4.4 Safeguards against conflicts-of-interest . 13 5. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE 15 5.1 Current array of committees and subcommittees 16 5.2 Use of ad hoc subcommittees 18 5.3 Reorganizing to handle ecological issues better 19 5.4 Reorganizing to handle drinking water issues better 20 5.5 Intercommittee coordination 21 6. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 22 6.1 The Executive Committee's responsibilities 22 ------- 6.2 Orchestration of Board projects 22 6.3 Transmittal of SAB reports 23 6.4 Upgrading the Executive Committee's leadership role . . 24 7. RELATIONS AND DYNAMICS . 25 7.1 Relations with the Agency, in general 25 7.2 Potentially-SAB-relevant EPA program and research offices ...... 27 7.3 Advising EPA laboratories and regional offices 28 7.4 Relations with other advisory bodies 29 7.5. Relations with other advisory clients 31 7.6 Openness and relations with the public 32 8. PRIORITIES, AGENDA, AND TIMING 33 8.1 Setting priorities and the agenda . 33 8.2 Criteria for undertaking SAB studies 35 8.3 Timing and timeliness 36 9. SUPPORT AND RESOURCES ; 38 9.1 Staffing 38 9.2 The Board's responsibilities toward the staff 40 9.3 Staff Office operations . . 41 9.4 Operating budget 42 10. ENHANCING THE SAB MISSION 43 10.1 Providing forums and pursuing outreach 44 10.2 Advising on implementation and public communication 44 10.3 Helping the Agency be more anticipatory and strategic ........ 46 11. ENVOI AND INVITATION 47 APPENDIX: REPORTS COMPLETED BY THE SAB DURING FY 1989 ... 48 ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over recent years the need and demand for advisory service by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has increased substantially, and the diversity of issues brought before the Board has increased as well. This has strained the Board's capabilities, even while it has raised challenging, important opportunities for stewardship. In the spring of 1989 the SAB Executive Committee decided that a stocktaking was desirable, and it requested that an ad hoc subcommittee conduct a broad review of the mission and functioning of the Board. This report from the Subcommittee to the Board presents findings and proposals that can be reacted to and implemented as the SAB and the Agency wish. The Subcommittee believes that the basic legislated mandate and the administrative charter of the Board are appropriate and adequate. The Board has two principal missions: an aiding-and-extending mission, and an auditing-and-certifying mission. Its overall purview is science for environmental protection - that is, science, not policy; and science not just for regulation, but for protection of the environment via the whole range of means available to the EPA. Currently the SAB performs the following functions: reviewing the quality and relevance of particular regulatory science; reviewing generic regulatory-scientific approaches; reviewing research programs; reviewing the technical bases of various applied programs; advising on infrastructural and technical management issues; advising on emergencies and other short-notice problems; and advising on broad, strategic matters. The report suggests that the SAB would contribute even more if several other functions were added or upgraded: providing scientific forums and pursuing outreach; advising on aspects of implementation and communication; and helping the Agency anticipate problems and act more strategically. As to internal SAB improvements, the report recommends more active involvement of the Board in nominating new Board members; recommends broadening of recruitment ------- and diversification of representation in Board membership; recommends some alterations in SAB committee structure; and recommends heightened leadership by the SAB Executive Committee in relating with the Agency and other organizations, in setting project priorities, and in orchestrating the Board's activities. As to external reach and relationships, the report recommends expansion of SAB coverage of Agency programs; recommends more deliberate selection, planning, and timing of advisory projects by both the Board and the Agency; recommends more active coordination with other advisory bodies; and recommends more vigorous outreach to various scientific communities and to the public. As to workload and resources, the report recommends that the SAB staff support and computer efficiency be improved and the budget increased to match the expectations, demands, and opportunities of SAB advisory service. The Board's infrastructure needs to be renewed. Overall, the report makes a number of recommendations meant to improve the SAB's ability to help the EPA anticipate environmental issues and act more strategically in addressing them. ------- 1 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Executive Committee an ad hoc subcommittee has conducted a broad review of the mission and functioning of the Board. This report from the Subcommittee to the Board presents the findings and proposals so that they can be reacted to and implemented as the SAB and the Agency wish. The report is intended to stimulate discussion and improvement within SAB circles (members, consultants, staff) and between the Board and the Agency, and to inform other interested members of the government, scientific community, and public about the Board's work. The review started with the assumption -- which was confirmed by the study — that the Board basically is quite healthy and is contributing in crucial ways to the Agency's work. Its purpose was to explore whether there may be ways for organizing and operating even more constructively, extending the Board's reach, or being more anticipatory. 1.1 Reasons for the review. At least four concerns, which arose concurrently, motivated this review. First, the review was prompted by a desire to be sure the SAB is as well prepared as it possibly can be to address the daunting environmental problems the world, and the EPA, now are becoming engaged with -- such as the atmospheric and climate-change threats, which are truly global, nearly intractable, and deeply interdisciplinary. Second, the review was prompted by the need to be responsive to recent changes in the emphases that the Administration and the Congress are pursuing -- such as giving more attention to ecosystem issues, which in recent years have been relegated to secondary status while human health concerns Have been attended to, and striving harder to prevent, not just remediate, pollution. ------- 2 Third, the review was prompted by a general interest on the part of the Board, after several years of coping with a steadily increasing workload, to step back and examine how well it is doing, recast some of its approaches, examine some complaints and proposals, grasp opportunities, reconsider priorities, and strengthen the SAB infrastructure. And fourth, the review was prompted by the desire to foster dialogue with the Agency and develop a centerpiece report that might help mesh the Board's expectations and working style with those of the Administration. 1.2 The approach taken by the review. Consonant with the Subcommittee's initial conviction that the SAB is fundamentally solid, and respecting the dictum, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," this report strives to suggest possible upgradings that will conserve and build upon the present strengths of the Board. For these reasons, and to introduce less-familiar readers to the SAB, the report's sections begin with brief commentaries on the current situation, then move to endorsement of the status quo or proposals for change. The report defers most staff-specific issues to Section 9. But it should be appreciated that all SAB work is facilitated by the Board's professional and clerical staff, who serve at EPA headquarters in Washington. The contributions of SAB members, consultants, and staff are thoroughly integrated. The staff deserve substantial credit for the Board's accomplishments. In developing this report the Subcommittee surveyed the record (especially that of the SAB's work in recent years), read critiques of the Board and analogous advisory groups, interviewed numerous current and former SAB members and staff, sought the views of current and former EPA officials, led several discussions with the SAB Executive Committee, and in general solicited comments from a wide range of individuals and external organizations. The Subcommittee is grateful to everyone who contributed to the review. ------- 3 2. CHARTER AND OVERALL MISSION 2.1 The formal mandate, charter, and apparatus. The EPA has tapped external scientific advice since its beginning. When the Agency was founded in 1972, in part by amalgamating environmental units from several Federal agencies, the merging units brought along some of their advisory apparatuses. These began advising the new Agency on R&D issues. By 1974, in order to secure more centralized, coordinated, and efficient advising, most of the advisory groups were merged to form the Science Advisory Board. The SAB's reach soon expanded beyond R&D matters to cover a variety of Agency scientific issues. The SAB became even more firmly established in 1978, under the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. This founding legislation stipulates that the SAB provide "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." Biennially, as is called for by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the EPA Deputy Administrator revises and renews the charter. The SAB charter requires that the Board "consist of a body of independent scientists and engineers of sufficient size and diversity to provide the range of expertise necessary to assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues." To avoid the potential for conflict-of-interest, it directs that "no member of the Board shall be a full-time employee of the Federal government." It requires that an Executive Committee lead the Board. And, in accordance with provisions of the Clean Air Act, it authorizes the continuing operation of a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (stipulating some particular professional representations on the Committee and outlining some advisory obligations). Beyond that, the charter leaves the Board free to organize itself to fulfill its responsibilities. At present the Board is composed of some 60 scientists and engineers, assigned to a variety of committees. As a reservoir of supplementary expertise, a roster of over 200 ------- 4 formally appointed consultants is maintained on standby, available to be tapped without signing-on delay. Upon assuming service, SAB members and consultants are appointed as Special Government Employees, which means that they file financial-interest statements, take other conflict-of-interest precautions, and become eligible for a standard government per diem salary (which a few members decline to receive) and reimbursement of travel and other expenses. A fully-dedicated professional staff at EPA headquarters supports the Board. The Board works extremely hard. Indications of this are that in FY 1989 the SAB committees held 54 full meetings and conducted many teleconferences, the SAB Office processed 612 travel authorizations, members and consultants logged 14,609 workdays of compensable duty, and the Board published 38 reports (listed in the Appendix). In rendering formal substantive advice, as a matter of principle the SAB reports (with few exceptions) directly to the EPA Administrator; the Administrator's Office refers the SAB advice however it chooses within the Agency. For administrative purposes such as budget, staff personnel, and logistical support, the SAB operates as a "dotted line" function of the Deputy Administrator's office. The SAB cultivates an atmosphere of openness, and of course it complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and related regulations. There is little disagreement over the SAB's broad general mandate -- as the 1987 revision of the charter formulates it, "to provide advice to EPA's Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental problems and issues." Rather, concerns have to do with more specific functional objectives, how they might be better met, and what resources of advisory expertise and logistical support are required to do those jobs effectively. 2.2 SAB's aiding-and-extending mission. The SAB assists the Agency in a number of ways, as this report will describe. It helps shape research programs, critique the factual rationales that undergird regulation, evaluate pollution control technologies, anticipate new aspects of environmental problems, and respond to emergencies. ------- 5 As it works back-and-forth between EPA's top management (where science is spottily represented) and operational EPA units, the Board helps forge science-related links between the Administrator and the program offices, laboratories, and regional offices. It helps ensure that the input the Administrator gets from Agency scientists is reliable. Throughout, the SAB champions the application of the soundest science available. Also, the Board reaches out in the interest of the Agency, helping solicit extensive and diverse technical input, providing informal liaison with many other organizations, and conveying some of EPA's messages. In acting as a continual open forum (including paper- flow forum) on the scientific and technical aspects of the EPA's work, the SAB serves as a nexus for judgment-gathering. This provides the EPA Administrator (and thereby also other Executive Branch officers, the Congress, and the nation) with broad input and "calibration." At the same time it provides a variety of concerned parties outside the EPA with scientific windows onto the Agency, through which information can be passed in both directions. The SAB windows are available both to those whose views the SAB actively solicits, such as Board consultants, and to others in the public who take initiative to be informed and involved. 2.3 SAB's auditing-and-certifying mission. Although it usually is taken as granted, one central mission of the SAB is not quite explicitly conveyed by the formal charter: SAB review of the scientific aspects of EPA work is widely relied upon as an auditing, a dispassionate, objective critiquing of quality and relevance, for both the Agency's benefit and the nation's. SAB approval of the scientific basis of a plan, program, or scientific judgment is an endorsement, a certification, in effect representing (if the Board does its job right) the state-of-art judgment of the larger scientific community. SAB disapproval or skepticism is at minimum a signal of possible inadequacy. Sometimes, because of timing or resource or legal constraints, the Agency simply is unable to develop or apply the best science conceivable. Sometimes political factors trump science. And sometimes, even after much discussion, the Agency and the Board just end up viewing matters differently. ------- 6 Formal SAB approval lends authority to an EPA position. Formal SAB disapproval puts a burden on the Agency to publicly justify its differing rationale. The Congress, regulated enterprises, the newsmedia, and others widely hold SAB's reviews in this regard. Thus, the Board's "advising" has much broader ramifications than merely "giving suggestions to the EPA." 2.4 The foundations of SAB's authority. Although the SAB's existence is mandated by Federal legislation, and the Board is actively consulted by the EPA, ultimately the SAB's social trustworthiness and authority derive from two interrelated sources: the Board's grounding in the larger scientific and technical communities, and its reputation for acting with integrity. The Board must stay in touch and in tune with state-of-art science. . SAB's leaders must be environmental statesmen who have won scientific recognition and command the respect of other scientific leaders. SAB's specialists must be experts who are highly regarded by their peers. And in all of its advising, the Board must "call it as it sees it" scientifically. Any erosion in these regards would undermine the SAB's credibility and weaken its potential as a resource for the EPA and society. 3. CURRENT FUNCTIONS 3.1 SAB's purview: Science for environmental protection. The SAB operates on the conviction that its mandate is to assist the EPA in marshaling the very best science available for protection of the environment, and to help integrate scientific considerations into Agency strategies and decisions. Two implications follow from this construal. The first is that the Board's obligation is to focus on scientific and technical aspects of issues, and refrain from making public policy judgments ~ it is the Science Advisory Board. Nonetheless, because the SAB is a group of human beings evaluating uncertain science for application to knotty issues in the very real world, the science-policy separatism cannot be absolute. The environmental- science, engineering, and public-health professions have built long and honorable traditions of wrestling with pragmatic judgments. Factoring out the scientific aspects of complex ' hybrid societal problems for advisory scrutiny is an important self-discipline the Board ------- 7 must maintain, and it is a consideration that the Board asks the Agency to respect and help with. The second implication is that the SAB does not focus solely on science for regulation. Like the EPA itself, the Board believes regulation to be only one of many instruments - along with monitoring, research, technology improvement, training, education, lifestyle change, economic incentives, and other approaches - for protecting the environment. Certainly one of the Board's most important functions is reviewing the specific technical bases for particular major regulatory decisions, and this should continue. But as this report will illustrate, quality-assurance of regulatory science is far from being SAB's only task. 3.2 Consideration of science in context. The Board deals with science; nevertheless, it is obliged to be sensitive to the social and policy contexts within which the science will be developed and put to use. The SAB cannot judge what degree of precision and accuracy should be required of any scientific analysis without taking into account at least a general sense of what environmental (not just financial) "stakes" hinge on that analysis -- the higher the stakes, the more important it should be to reduce the uncertainty (about the problem, about proposed solutions). Nor can the SAB advise on the desirability of waiting for more-certain science to come in, as opposed to going ahead and taking protective action, unless it knows what is at stake; major threats may demand that the EPA act without waiting for more definitive science. The SAB cannot evaluate the effectiveness of research programs in isolation, without considering the larger scheme of the EPA and other organizations' work. The SAB cannot assess environmental technologies except in the context of real-world application. The SAB cannot review research plans without exercising informed respect for research-budget constraints. Context and relevance must be fully considered. To the extent feasible, consistent with sound science, the SAB—EPA organizational arrangements and operating dynamics must be oriented to the Agency's complexion and agenda as these have been mandated by Congress and are being administered currently. This holds structural implications (for example, the Agency has a highly specialized Office of Radiation Programs, and the SAB matches this with a counterpart Radiation Advisory ------- 8 Committee). It also holds operational implications (in advising the EPA Office of Drinking Water, the SAB Drinking Water Committee naturally must respect the guidance of the Safe Drinking Water Act). In the long-run, whether slightly "ahead of or slightly "behind," the SAB must evolve basically apace with the Agency. 3.3 Current advisory functions. Over the years the SAB has provided the following variety of services (the taxonomy isn't important): Reviewing quality and relevance of particular regulatory science -- Reviewing scientific information being used or proposed as the basis for regulatory decisions (such as the criteria documents that underpin the National Ambient Air Quality Standards); - Reviewing targeted regulatory-support research programs and plans (such as surface-water monitoring protocols); Reviewing generic regulatory-scientific approaches -- Reviewing generic guidelines or protocols governing the use of scientific information in regulatory decisionmaking (such as the risk-assessment guidelines); - Critiquing analytic methodologies (such as mathematical modelling approaches used widely through Agency programs); Reviewing research programs - Reviewing and advising on medium-term R&D plans, programs, - ' and needs of EPA laboratory and grant programs (such as the draft Office of Research and Development Pollution Prevention Research Plan Report to Congress); -- Reviewing and advising on EPA laboratories' capabilities, plans, and research-in-progress (such as the Health Effects Research. Laboratory's neurotoxicology research program); Reviewing the technical bases of various applied programs Evaluating environmental engineering practices (such as drinking- ------- 9 water filtration and. disinfection technologies); — Assisting with remediation (indoor-radon mitigation) and emergency preparedness programs (development of the acute- toxic chemicals list under Superfund); Advising on infrastructural and technical management issues — Reviewing Agency scientific personnel recruitment, career advancement, research publication, and other infrastructural matters; — Advising on institutional issues (such as the organization of the EPA laboratories system, or the need for a national . Environmental Research Institute); Advising on emergency and other short-notice problems — Critiquing contemplated responses to emergencies (such as the pragmatics and research design of proposed bioremediation of the Prince William Sound oilspill); Advising on broad, strategic matters — Reviewing EPA's R&D program in broad scope (such as the overall Office of Research and Development program plans and budget); -- Surveying problem areas the Agency hasn't at the time, in the judgment of the Board, fully come to grips with in research or regulation (as with municipal waste incineration in 1987-88); — Advising on — and helping anticipate ~ broad, strategic Agency concerns and organizational preparedness for addressing them (as the "Future Risk" study did). More will be said about additional functional possibilities later. For the moment it is important to keep the diversity of these advisory tasks in mind as the organizational apparatus is reviewed. ------- 10 4. MEMBERSHIP AND SERVICE 4.1 Nomination, appointment, and reappointment. Nominations for SAB membership are submitted from a variety of sources, including the SAB itself. Periodically invitations to nominate are printed in the Federal Register, and the Agency repeatedly makes it known that it will entertain nominations from the public. Formally, SAB members are selected and appointed by the Deputy Administrator in consultation with the Staff Director, who conveys the Board's preferences as to types of expertise to be recruited, and names specific nominees. At present, Board members are appointed for terms varying from one to four years,- staggered. As Section 4.4 will describe, upon accepting the Deputy Administrator's invitation to serve, appointees must comply with a set of conflict-of-interest rules and guidelines. SAB consultants are appointed by the SAB Staff Director to one-year terms, renewable. They must conform to the same conflict-of-interest rules as members. A highly-qualified but specialized expert may serve more effectively as a consultant for one project, rather than as a member, since members are expected to work fairly broadly. (One difference between SAB members and consultants is that consultants are not empowered to vote, formally at least, on issues.) To an extent, the SAB consultant pool serves as a "farm team," from which especially productive contributors become identified and nominated for SAB membership; obviously, promising Board candidates become identified via other avenues as well. Also it serves as a mechanism for continuing to make available the services of former members who have rotated off the Board. Recommendation on terms of service. The variance in lengths of appointment strikes this Subcommittee as unnecessarily irregular. The Board, and the Deputy Administrator should examine the desirability of appointing, all members to two-year terms, renewable twice, with a hiatus of at least two years required before the member becomes re-eligible for further reappointment. Terms of service for committee chairs, for which cumulated SAB experience is important, should be treated exceptionally (such as by waiving-the break-in- service requirement). ------- 4.2 Executive Committee nomination of new SAB members and consultants. The SAB is counted on to nominate new Board members and consultants. It has always done this, and its suggestions seem generally to have been deferred to. But the process has been casual, has mostly been conducted outside of meetings, and seems to have heavily reflected the SAB staffs preferences. Operationally, the SAB Staff Director is the nomination locus: he consults as to talent needs and recommendations with his Executive Secretaries, the committee chairs, and the Chairman of the Board; he reviews the suggestions submitted to the Administrator by EPA officers and external sources; then he discusses his findings with the EPA Deputy Administrator, who formally issues invitations to serve. The SAB staff, justifiably, are anxious that current members not simply perpetuate the Board with their own kind, and are concerned to develop committee teams that are compatible and efficient. Board members, just as justifiably, believe that the SAB staff don't have sufficient experience, seniority, and reach in the nation's scientific communities to be able to make the best selections. By dint of good judgments, the process has worked satisfactorily; the current Board is rich in talents. But rarely in recent years has the Executive Committee, as a committee in session, discussed exactly what new talents need to be enlisted to the Board, or discussed specific possible nominations and their potential impact on Board breadth, depth, and balance. If the Board truly is to involve ~ and be viewed by the public as involving - the most capable and representative leaders of the nation's scientific communities, nomination should be made into a more regular Board process, coordinated by and participated in by the SAB staff. Recommendation on Executive Committee nomination of SAB candidates. The EC should systematically solicit suggestions from the committees, survey the capabilities needed for handling upcoming issues, discuss particular talents, consider SAB breadth and balance, and nominate candidates for SAB service to the Administrator. (To encourage candid discussion, these would be among the few occasions on which it is proprietous to close the meetings to public observers.) ------- 12 4.3 Recruitment and breadth of representation. Are all the necessary disciplines and skills represented on the Board? How about balance of representation by women, members of minority groups, and various social and political institutions? The Board roster is diverse. A wide variety of technical disciplines are represented. Many members come from academia, some come from national laboratories, some from consulting firms, some from nonprofit thinktanks, some from industry, a few from state government agencies, and a few from environmental activist groups. One finding is clear. Representation by women and members of minority groups is widely recognized (including by the Executive Committee) to be inadequate. Past occasional efforts to rectify this haven't accomplished much. Less clear is what improvements should be made in seeking to broaden representation from various social and political institutions (such as environmental activist groups and industry). SAB members are expected to represent themselves as scientists, and not represent their institutions or geographic regions. But because a wide technical experience base is desirable, and because perspective biases can never be totally eliminated (engineers insist on quantitation, ecologists from the Chesapeake Basin tend to care a lot about estuaries), the Board always has sought diverse membership. This should continue. At least as important as balancing institutional backgrounds is balancing technical styles of approach: modellers as against measurers, rodent-assayers as against epidemiologists. Several commentors urge that the SAB involve more social scientists (such as economists and decision theorists), communication experts, and environmental lawyers. A few experts with social-science backgrounds, mainly in economics and operations research, currently serve ably on the Board. SAB economists and economist-engineers regularly -advise on.cost-benefit,analyses the.Agency performs in implementing the Clean Air Act, and on economic considerations that arise in drinking water and other areas. Section 10.2 of this report outlines several possible expansions of SAB's role that would depend heavily on social-science talents, which would have to be recruited. Almost certainly the most helpful social scientists (or lawyers) for the Board are those who have broad interests and environmental-science experience. ------- 13 All of these personnel issues need to be deliberated over by the SAB committees, and any shortcomings rectified. Recruitment should itself be made a project. Recommendation on SAB recruitment. The Executive Committee should establish an ad hoc Membership Nomination Subcommittee to work with the standing SAB committees to identify and nominate a diverse roster of the experts required for the Board, making special effort to recruit well-qualified women and minority scientists. Also this Nomination Subcommittee should attend to the balance of representation from different institutional and technical points-of-view. In its recruiting -- which should be treated as a project, with progress reports to the Executive Committee ~ this Subcommittee should review the findings and network of the national Task Force on Women, Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology; actively solicit nominations from relevant committees of such organizations as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, Society of Toxicology, engineering societies, ecological associations, and other professional bodies; review the rosters of the National Academy of Sciences complex; and scout the talents in state agencies and laboratories. Because the Board can only nominate candidates, for selection and appointment by the Deputy Administrator, the Board must work consultatively with the Agency leadership to pursue this broadened recruitment. If the initial (say, two-year) ad hoc project makes progress, the Executive Committee might well convert the Membership Nomination Subcommittee into a permanent subcommittee. Breadth of representation on the Board - with no compromise in competence ~ would remain one of the Subcommittee's primary concerns. 4.4 Safeguards against conflicts-of-interest. Currently several conflict-of-interest issues are being sorted out by the Agency and the SAB Office. This report can only mention the basic considerations. ------- 14 To the SAB, two overlapping conflict-of-interest concerns are central. The first is ensuring the integrity of scientific advice rendered -- making sure that SAB members' and consultants' personal biases and interests do not unduly influence the agenda, substance, or style of the Board's advisory work. The second is ensuring that in participating in,SAB activities, members and consultants not be in a position to influence matters that redound to their personal financial interest, or that of their institutions. Because public credibility is so crucial for the Board, both actual and possible appearances of conflict-of-interest must be safeguarded against. The legal background-is that SAB members and consultants serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs), a category of part-time Federal service. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act all SAB members and consultants are required, upon appointment, to file an official Statement of Employment and Financial Interests. This Statement is examined by the SAB Staff Director, referred to EPA counsel if there is any indication that legal judgment or advice might be desirable, held in confidential Agency files, and updated annually. Confidentiality of personal financial records is important to SAB members and consultants, and they ask to continue to be assured of this confidentiality and informed of measures taken to ensure it. Under other Federal conflict-of-interest laws, SAB members and consultants must also submit statements of corporate directorships and other relevant affiliations. EPA Ethics Officials (in the Office of the General Counsel) advise SAB members and consultants on their conflict-of-interest responsibilities and potential liability exposure. The SGE status applies some restrictions on SAB members and consultants, in part having to do with representing parties "on particular matters" (such as regulatory petitions) before courts or Federal agencies, both during tHe term of SAB service and afterward. Right now the Agency is reviewing the legal interpretation of these restrictions. They are a source of considerable "apprehension for SAB members and consultants -1 and for other scientists who might be future candidates for SAB service - who are "employed by, or Who serve as consultants to, regulated enterprises. ------- 15 This report, throughout, discusses a number of policies and procedures that help ensure SAB openness, diversity, and balance. The Board itself expects that members consistently will: (a) reveal their technical prejudices on issues, and any pertinent policy biases; (b) disclose any possibility of financial interest on their part or the part of their associates or institutions; and (c) absent themselves from deliberations where a possibility of conflict-of-interest exists. Advising on EPA research-grant programs is an area of sensitivity for SAB reviewers, since SAB experts potentially might have an interest in the grant issues being reviewed, but these judgments in the past seem to have been handled responsibly. Upon disclosure to EPA counsel of a potential for conflict of interest, a member or consultant may be granted a waiver if the counsel determines that the integrity of advising is unlikely to be affected. Issuance of waivers becomes a matter of public record. Finding on conflict-of-interest safeguards. To this Subcommittee, and surely to the Board, the paramount objective is that the SAB be in position to render the most insightful, broadly experienced, pragmatic scientific advice possible. In this light, the current conflict- of-interest precautions -- if fully observed - seem entirely adequate. The Subcommittee hopes that overly legalistic conflict-of-interest strictures will not encumber the Board's service or discourage able scientists from contributing to the work of the ,Board. Openness, a wide diversity of viewpoints, and candid, vigorous deliberations in the high tradition of science, are the keys to rendering the soundest environmental advice. 5. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE The essential working units of the Board are its committees. Although all of the committees are productive, recently a variety of questions have arisen as to whether the current committee structure "covers the ground" (which, of course, is enormous, diverse, and difficult) in the most effective and efficient way possible. ------- 16 Is the present-array of committees that make up the Board the most appropriate? Are any important substantive areas neglected? Are the committees structured and tasked in the most effective way to meet the Agency's needs? . Is the heavy use of ad hoc committees appropriate? 5.1 Current array of committees and subcommittees. At present the Board comprises the Executive Committee (EC), eight standing committees, and a variety of standing and ad hoc subcommittees. The EC, comprising the chairs of the standing committees and several members-at-large, directs the activities of the SAB. The chair of the SAB chairs the EC. The full complement of SAB units (with their names rearranged to emphasize topical subjects) includes: Executive Committee (EC) Dioxins, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Global Climate Stabilization, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Lead Issues, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Mathematical Models, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on ORD Advancement Criteria, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards, Standing Subcommittee on Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) in Hazardous Waste Incineration, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Relative Risk Reduction Strategies, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on [Revisions of Risk Assessment Guidelines, various ad hoc subcommittees to review (with the lead assigned to standing committees in some cases)] Environmental Health Committee (EHC) Halogenated Organic Solvents, Standing Subcommittee on Metals, Standing Subcommittee on Environmental Effects, Transport, and Fate Committee (EETFC) Long-Range Ecological Research Needs, Standing Subcommittee on Sediment Criteria, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Alaska Oil Spill Cleanup, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone/Forest Effects, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Visibility, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Drinking Water Committee (DWC) ------- 17 Indoor Air Quality/ Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQ/THEC) Environmental Tobacco Smoke Risk Assessment, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) Municipal Waste Combustion Ash, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Agency's Report to Congress on Pollution Prevention, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Saturated Zone Model, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Incineration of Municipal Sludge, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Toxics Treatability and Toxicity Reduction, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) Radiation Dose-Risk, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Radiation Measurements, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Radiation Sources and Transport, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) ORD Budget, Standing Subcommittee on ORD Manpower Skills Mix, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on. The array of committees is somewhat matrix-like: some committees have to do with particular environmental media (Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee); some with effects (Environmental Health Committee); some with modes of hazard (Radiation Advisory Committee); and some with disciplinary or remedial approaches (Environmental Engineering Committee). Each of the committees has been established, and has evolved, for particular historical reasons. Three of the SAB committees -- the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the Drinking Water Committee, and the Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee ~ fulfill (separate) legislated requirements that EPA secure external advisory input in these areas. The statutes specify some duties; for instance, the Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of 1986 requires that the Indoor Air Quality Committee review the Indoor Air Quality Implementation Plans that the EPA prepares for the Congress. Although not all of these committees are obliged to be made affiliates of the SAB, all serve effectively and in an integrated way within the Board structure. Finding on committee structure. With the exception of the ecological and drinking water areas (being attended to, as discussed below), the Subcommittee believes the current ------- 18 stable of committees generally is adequate. The committee structure matches the Agency's complex organization fairly well. And, especially by employing ad hoc subcommittees, the SAB is able to put together appropriate panels on issues coming up for attention. There are virtues in basically preserving (or at least not scrambling) the current committees, which have developed internal coherence and good working relations with the EPA offices and other organizations in their areas. If, in the future, the SAB finds itself advising much more actively in some large problem domain, such as atmospheric and climate-change issues, the charter leaves the Board free to establish new committees or subcommittees as it wishes. 5.2 Use of ad hoc subcommittees. Often, as the above list of committees shows, in order to address a problem that is novel or that cuts across the standing committees' interests, the SAB sets up an ad hoc subcommittee for the task, to be disbanded when the job is completed. Usually the ad hoc group includes representatives from the relevant standing committees and other experts as needed. Some observers find too much reliance on ad hoc subcommittees, especially those set up to report only to the Executive Committee; others find this no problem. Finding and recommendation on ad hoc subcommittees. For many purposes ad hoc subcommittees are a flexible way to organize, and they generally work satisfactorily. But ad hoc groups should be set up only when the standing committees and subcommittees cannot do the job at hand, and firm lead responsibility for ad hoc efforts should be assigned to standing committees whenever possible. The intention should be to respect and preserve the standing committees' functions, and to keep ad hoc efforts firmly integrated with the work of the standing committees. Incidentally, the Board recently decided that from now on, research-in-progress reviews - some of which in the past have been conducted by very ad hoc groups, perhaps reporting loosely to the Executive Committee — will be conducted by the appropriate standing committees (or ad hoc subcommittees under their auspices). ------- 5.3 Reorganizing to handle ecological issues better. Increasingly the Board has become aware that neither it nor the Agency are as well prepared to address ecological problems as they should be. The Board's 1988 report, Future Risk, called attention to the shortcoming, as did statements from the affiliated Long-range Ecological Research Needs Committee. The Administrator has announced strong intentions to upgrade the Agency's emphasis on ecological problems, and has begun to implement those intentions. Confronting this review was the organizational puzzle of how to accommodate these three intersecting structure-and-mandate changes: (a) establish an ecological committee, to broaden the Board's coverage of this whole area; (b) rework the Environmental Effects, Transport, and Fate Committee (EETFC), to accommodate to the establishment of the ecological committee and retune the Board's work on the movement and alterations of media and pollutants; and (c) mesh these changes with the work of the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC), which, among a variety of other matters, pursues many issues that can be viewed as having to do with transport-and-fate. The Subcommittee conducted extensive discussions of these matters with all of the concerned parties within the Board, and believes that the following recommendation embodies the SAB consensus. Recommendation on reorganizing to handle ecological issues better. The Board should: (a) establish an Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) with a very broad mandate, having special interest in the effects of contaminants on ecological systems; (b) convert the present Environmental Effects, Transport, and Fate Committee into an Environmental Transport and Fate Subcommittee of the new EPEC; and (c) charge the Environmental Engineering Committee with continuing to analyze transport and fate phenomena that are associated with engineered sources or processes (such as mining operations and waste-handling). The new Ecological Processes and Effects Committee would, for example, review the Agency's core ecological research program, review the ecological risk-assessment guidelines the EPA is now developing, and work on issues having to do with specific ecosystems (such as wetlands and estuaries). ------- 20 The Environmental Transport and Fate Subcommittee would address such problems as movement and alteration of air, waters, soils, and other media, and contaminants or biota in those media, relating to ecosystem health and stability. It would analyze some exposure issues. And it would review transport-arid-transformation monitoring programs. Merging ecological-milieu and ecosystem-effects studies within the EPEC will help integrate these considerations. On some issues, such as combustion processes, the EEC might handle the pollution source-release issues, the EEC and the Transport and Fate group jointly the movement from the source out to ecosystem exposure, and the EPEC or a subcommittee the effects on exposed ecosystems (while the Environmental Health Committee addresses any human health aspects). These proposals have been discussed extensively by SAB leaders in these areas as this review has proceeded, and the Executive Committee recently approved the changes, in principle. The EC should task an interim steering committee with finalizing the committees' mission statements, and making recommendations to the EC on subcommittee structure and on reassignment and augmentation of committee memberships. The next phase of work in this arena should be very engaging. 5.4 Reorganizing to handle drinking water issues better. During the course of the present review a strong plea was made by the Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Environmental Health Committee that it be granted independence and converted into a standing committee. The argument was that the drinking water enterprise is very large and active (for both EPA and SAB) and will remain demanding for the foreseeable future, and that the workload thus justifies full committee status. And further, although drinking water issues are driven by health concerns, quite a few hinge on technical complexities of groundwater protection, filtration, disinfection, distribution, water-quality analysis and monitoring, and cost-benefit analysis, that just are not the province of health experts; so interposing the EHC between the DW group and the Executive Committee doesn't make sense. ------- 21 The Executive Committee was persuaded by the merits of the proposal, and has authorized the changes. Thus in the fall of 1989 the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) became a standing full committee, and its chair a member of the EC. On health issues the DWC is committed to coordinating with the EHC, and on engineering, with the EEC. These committees should consider coordinating by making a few dual-committee appointments. 5.5 Intercommittee coordination. The SAB committees in general communicate and coordinate their activities well. Given the intrinsic complexity of environmental problems, it is not surprising that committees' "jurisdictions" intersect. But turf jealousies are not very pronounced. Committees often undertake joint efforts, usually by spawning hybrid ad hoc subcommittees to do the jobs. Because it includes the chairs of all of the standing committees, the Executive Committee plays a prime role in sorting out issues of committee intersection. The committees' Executive Secretaries also play this role, and they have been pursuing it more vigorously recently. The monthly newsletter, "Happenings at the SAB," very effectively helps communicate. Recommendations on intercommittee coordination. (a) All committees should make continual efforts to be sure that they are aware of other committees' work, and to apprise other committees of upcoming activities. (b) Where committees find themselves routinely intersecting, they should consider designating liaisons, perhaps even appointing a few members to two committees concurrently. If they find themselves overlapping redundantly, they should review the organizational structure and territorial boundaries. (c) The Board should consider holding an SAB Annual Meeting at which all of the committees would first conduct their business separately, then meet in various combinations and in plenary session. With proper scheduling and planning, this could be at least as efficient as the usual separate committee meetings, and could offer bonus opportunities for coordination, planning, and collegial exchange. Also it could provide a very effective forum for discussions with top EPA officials and with leaders of a variety of external organizations. ------- 6. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 22 The Executive Committee, led by the chair of the SAB, comprises the chairs of the eight standing committees and several members-at-large (who have tended to be generalists, of no set number). Also, the chairs of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Science Advisory Panel (FEFRA SAP) sit on the EC, ex officio. The EC "runs" the Board. Is the Executive Committee the right size and appropriately constituted'/ is it performing well? Can it do more or better? 6.1 The Executive Committee's responsibilities. In general the EC is constituted properly. However, the complex environmental issues that are now arising present severe challenges to the EC's planning and leadership. On several aspects of the SAB's functioning (to be-described), the EC must strive to work more robustly. Recommendation on Executive Committee responsibilities. The Executive Committee should consider its principal tasks to be: - "Scanning the environmental horizon, " sorting out priorities, and setting the broad SAB agenda; -- Representing the Board to the Administrator, the Assistant Administrators, and the Lab Directors; -- Conveying high-level Agency concerns to the SAB; -- Searching out and nominating candidates for SAB service; -- Outlining and chartering the committees' review and advisory tasks; - Coordinating the work of the various committees; -- Receiving advisory reports from the committees, vetting 'them, and endorsing and transmitting them to the Administrator (CASAC excepted); and -- Representing the Board to the larger scientific and technical communities, and • incorporating their input. 6.2 Orchestration of Board projects. As the environmental issues the Board confronts become ever more trans-media, trans-disciplinary, and therefore trans-committee, ------- 23 and as the Board's "reach" through the Agency expands, the EC must more dynamically orchestrate the working of the SAB committees. Recommendations on EC shaping and assigning of committee tasks. (a) On all major projects, whether initiated by the committees or by the EC or by other sources, the EC should, to whatever extent is appropriate, debate the involvement of committees, the scope of the issues to be investigated, the general approaches to be taken, the Agency context surrounding the projects, and how the projects fit into the environmental "big picture." (b) The EC must work harder at assembling and tasking the trans-committee teams that increasingly are being required. In consultation with the committees, it must assign the lead responsibilities, develop clear charges and terms-of-reference for projects, and carefully allocate personnel and other resources. (c) Overall, the EC must establish and drive the SAB's agenda, with "agenda" meant in both its grand and task-and-timing senses. 6.3 Transmittal of SAB reports. From early in its history on, the EC has served to transmit almost all committee reports, regardless of where those reports originate within the Board structure, to the Administrator. (The exceptions are reports from the CASAC, which the Clean Air legislation specifies must go to the Administrator directly; in practice, with the CASAC chair sitting ex officio on the EC, the CASAC thoroughly apprises the EC of CASAC activities and coordinates them with other Board activities.) Should the EC continue this transmittal? In what circumstances and to what extent should the EC itself review and "second-guess" the expert committee members and consultants who generate a report (excepting, of course, CASAC reports)? Recommendations on Executive Committee transmittal of reports. (a) The EC should continue to reserve for itself the role of transmitting reports to the Administrator, with the chair of the EC (who is the chair of the SAB) signing the letters of transmittal. (b) At the beginning of an SAB inquiry the EC should concern itself principally with the competence and appropriateness of the committee assigned to conduct the study, and ------- 24 with the charge to the committee. (c) When an inquiry has been completed and submitted to the EC for transmittal, the EC should examine the extent to which the charge has been fulfilled, the adequacy of the committee's consultation with other elements of the SAB with which there is overlapping or spinoff concern, the clarity of the evaluative logic within the review, the quality of the report as a communication (readability, focus, contexting, documentation), and plans for follow- through. In general the EC should restrain itself from the temptation to review the substantive details, no matter how intriguing those may be. But in an event that the EC is not satisfied on the matters cited above, or believes that the Agency may not be acting in good faith, or becomes aware of an allegation of undue bias or conflict of interest, the EC should roll up its sleeves, delve into the problem (including the substance if necessary), and work toward resolution. From time to time the EC, from its broad perspective, may notice that a committee has strayed into policy territory, overlooked some aspect of a problem, or drafted too parochial a report, and can call for reconsideration. The consensus seems to be that there is much merit in the EC's continuing to serve as the conduit for transmittal of reports to the Administrator, but that the EC should try to improve its vetting process so that reports are not unduly tinkered with or held up at the final EC stage. (Too, there is an interest in freeing more of the EC's meeting time to address matters other than report transmittal.) Perhaps the EC should ask a few of its members previously not involved with the study to vet each committee report, and raise concerns for EC discussion only if warranted. Or perhaps the EC mainly should screen the most important or contentious committee reports. The EC should discuss these possibilities. 6.4 Upgrading the Executive Committee's leadership role. All of the responsibilities outlined at the beginning of this section are being carried out by the EC now. But each can be enacted even more vigorously. Section 4.2 of this report urged the EC to take control of the SAB membership nominating process. Later sections of this report will elaborate on the EC's horizon-scanning, agenda-setting, and representational duties. ------- 25 This Subcommittee urges the EC to lead the Board into a next phase wherein the work of all the diverse committees and subcommittees becomes a more cohesive, more integrated whole (this is not unlike what the Agency itself must strive for). The key - in relating with the Agency and others, in setting priorities, in orchestrating activities, and in allocating resourses - will be thinking and acting strategically. 7. RELATIONS AND DYNAMICS 7.1 Relations with the Agency, in general. How effective are the relationships overall, and in different program and problem areas? And, should the SAB advise the EPA laboratories or regional offices directly? This report at the outset sketched two overall missions for the SAB vis-a-vis the EPA: an aiding-and-extending mission, and an auditing-and-certifying mission. In pursuing these the SAB tries simultaneously to be colleague, ally, counsellor, and quality- control auditor to the Agency. This can generate conflicting tendencies on the Board's part, and engender conflicting reactions by the Agency. Some Agency officials say they view meeting with the SAB as being like "conferring with a friendly accountant"; others see it as being like "going to the dentist." Perhaps the best way to think of the Board is as loyal critic, with "critic" meant constructively. An implication of this is that even as the Board strives to work cooperatively and collegially with the Agency program and other offices, it must continue to maintain a certain "distance" in order to preserve the impartiality and legitimacy of its advising. The Board operates in many modes. It can advise in consultative fashion (for instance, as the Agency has worked its way through a large number of drinking water issues over the last several years, the SAB committees have discussed the problems with the program offices continually, to mutual benefit). It can, of course, subject a problem to elaborate, formal scrutiny, leading to a blockbuster report. It can conduct evaluative site- visits, such as to the EPA laboratories. It can hold workshops, act as a sounding-board, and brief top Agency officials. ------- 26 Recommendation on the Administrator as the addressee of formal SAB advice. For formal purposes, the Administrator himself — or, at least, the collectivity that goes by that name, "the Twelfth Floor" of headquarters, the Office of the EPA Administrator -¦ should continue to be the primary recipient of formal SAB advice. It remains the Administrator's prerogative to refer that advice to whatever offices within the Agency and elsewhere he judges appropriate, secure Agency responses to the SAB that he can sign his name to, and take action. The SAB opposes using multiple channels for formal, final advice-flow (even while it encourages using many channels for informal consultation). Any issue important and complex enough to warrant a formal request for SAB advice should be an issue that the Administrator is concerned about. The SAB wants never to become interposed on issues between the Administrator and his many offices and laboratories. Moreover, the SAB believes that the Administrator's Office should be aware of all major advisory communications, so as to properly integrate and lead the rather dispersed agency's work. Recommendation on SAB requests for response from the Administrator. The SAB should continue routinely to request that the Administrator provide timely, written responses to formally transmitted SAB advice. From 1984 to the present, the Administrators have willingly provided this feedback. When an SAB report arrives in the Administrator's Office, that Office's tracking system assigns the response-drafting task within the Agency, and notifies the SAB Office of the date the response is expected (usually a matter of weeks after receipt of the SAB report). If the Agency asks for an unusually long response lag, the SAB and the Agency negotiate expectations. The resulting dynamic two-way interactions have been mutually informative and engaging, have helped coordinate advice rendered with advice requested, and have proved to be an effective internal Agency management device as well. SAB advice thus does not simply "fall into a black hole." Even if the Agency disagrees with points of advice, the Board becomes apprised of the reasoning; and the Board may ask for reconsideration. ------- 27 These two protocols ~ transmission of SAB findings directly to the Administrator, and provision of written responses from him -- foster accountability, and they generate public documentation of rationales and responsiveness besides. 7.2 Potentially-SAB-relevant EPA program and research offices. The relationships between the SAB and the Agency offices differ from area to area. Asked what proportion of the EPA's major activities are one way or another brought to the SAB for some action, most observers guesstimate about 50%. The exact number doesn't matter. What is clear is that some program offices (Drinking Water) have a history of working closely with the Board, while others (Pesticides and Toxic Substances) do not. Occasionally the Board conducts a study — such as Future Risk in 1988, and the current study of Relative Risk-Reduction Strategies -- expressly for the Administrator's Office as the primary client. Recently it has reviewed several issues for the Agency's multiprogram Risk Assessment Forum. For mental surveying of the Agency's territory it is useful to think through the list, below, of the Offices within various Assistant Administrators' ["AA"] domains that might be expected to be clients for SAB advice; some of these work with SAB routinely, some rarely do, and some have in-between relationships: AA for Water Drinking Water Municipal Pollution Control Water Regulations and Standards Marine and Estuarine Protection Ground-water Protection Wetlands Protection AA for Solid Waste and Emergency Response Emergency and Remedial Response Solid Waste Underground Storage Tanks AA for Air and Radiation Radiation Programs Air Quality Planning and Standards Mobile Sources Atmospheric and Indoor Air Program ------- 28 AA for Pesticides and Toxic Substances Pesticide Programs Toxic Substances AA for Research and Development Research Program Management Modelling and Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance Environmental Engineering and Technical Demonstration Environmental Processes and Effects Research Health Research Health and Environmental Assessment Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support [The Laboratories] AA for International Activities AA for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation Policy Analysis Standards and Regulations Pollution Prevention. This Subcommittee is not in a position to generalize about the robustness of the particular relationships between these offices and SAB committees. For now, suffice it to say that they vary greatly, and that both the EPA offices and the SAB committees should be encouraged to re-explore the possibilities for improving the interactions. 7.3 Advising EPA laboratories and regional offices. Although the SAB potentially stands ready to advise any component of the Agency, it has been reluctant to advise non-headquarters units directly. Even what may at first appear to be exceptions, usually aren't. For example, at present a subcommittee is reviewing aspects of aquatic sediment-quality criteria, at the request of a regional administrator; but the review is a generic one that will have implications for all of the regional offices, and the SAB will transmit it to the Administrator, who presumably will send it to all relevant offices. On many occasions the SAB has reviewed EPA laboratory programs, as to their mission and focus, quality and relevance of research, competence, facilities, and other such attributes. But although these reviews surely have given useful guidance to the Laboratory ------- 29 Directors, the primary formal recipients of the advice have been the EPA Administrator and the Assistant Administrator for R&D. Recommendation on advisins non-headquarters EPA units directly. The SAB should consider advising the EPA Laboratory Directors or Regional Administrators directly, but only if this is requested by the EPA Administrator. 7.4 Relations with other advisory bodies. Several groups besides the SAB advise the Agency. How independently of each other should all of these advisors operate? Should the SAB revise its coordination with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Science Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)? At present that Panel is independent of the SAB, and there hasn't been much coordination. However, the FIFRA SAP chair is ex officio a member of the SAB Executive Committee, and the new chair has expressed an interest in becoming more involved with the SAB. The detailed, formal, registration-oriented and commercial proprietary aspects of the SAP's work is thought by some observers to preclude merging within the SAB structure. On some problems, such as neurotoxicity testing protocols, SAB and SAP have worked together. At present they are joindy examining issues having to do with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (which are relevant for regulating pesticides and many other chemicals). Recommendation on SAB- FIFRA SAP coordination. Every effort should be made to upgrade the coordination of the SAB with the FIFRA SAP on scientific principles, such as approaches to drawing inferences from experimental data. (In passing let it be noted here that not all pesticide issues should automatically be assigned to the FIFRA SAP; many have implications for groundwater, drinking water, and other broad Agency, and therefore SAB, responsibilities.) The Biotechnology Science Advisory Committee (BSAC), which was spawned by the SAB several years ago, also works on its own ~ mainly, so far, on microbial pest- controls. Whether there is need for coordination with the SAB at this stage is not clear, perhaps because the biotechnology group is small and still getting underway. Almost ------- 30 certainly coordination is desirable, just as;with the FIFRA SAP. The SAB? should explore the .desirability of recementing its relationship with the BSAC. A variety of other panels are assembled by. Aeencv offices from time to time for advice (most do not report to the Administrator). Many of these'are one-time, ad hoc groups that lack formal standing and are not coordinated with the SAB. But some, such as. the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) and the National Air Pollution Control Techniques, Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC), do have formal standing, have coordinated with the SAB in the past, and might become closer partners in the future. The newly upgraded SAB Drinking Water Committee is committed to developing better relationships with the NDWAC, as is logical. How should the SAB work with non-EPA advisory groups? The SAB interacts with such organizations as the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements mainly yia the personal participation of some SAB members in the other organizations. Joint projects seem rarely to have been undertaken, but on several occasions the SAB has helped initiate projects by the NRC or other organizations, such as bv ureine the EPA to commission anH fund them. For synergism, SAB committees may wish to explore informal liaison with other advisory groups. The EHC might, for example, pursue common cause with counterpart groups that advise units of the Department of Health and Human Services, such as the National Toxicology Program and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. And the Executive Committee might work in a more coordinated way with the NRC Board on Environmental Studies and Technology, whose agenda constantly overlaDS that of the SAB. Almost certainly the SAB would welcome an opportunity to work in some way with panels established by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, on such problems as global climate or carcinogenic,risk assessment,-or with a;resurrected Council on Environmental Quality. ------- 31 7.5 Relations with other advisory clients. Beyond advising the EPA, should the SAB make more effort to advise the Congress directly? How about other regulatory agencies? On occasion the SAB is asked to present testimony to Congressional committees on issues that the Board has reviewed. For the last four years, for example, a member of the SAB Office of Research and Development [ORD] Budget Review Subcommittee has testified before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment of the House of Representatives on the adequacy of the President's proposed budget for the ORD. Also, upon completion of the study Future Risk, the chair of the authoring Research Strategies Advisory Committee testified before that same Congressional Subcommittee on the desirability of establishing an Environmental Research Institute. Another way the SAB helps ensure high-quality information for the Hill is by reviewing Agency reports, at proposed-final-draft stage, prepared at the request of the Congress. For instance, in 1989 a subcommittee reviewed two elaborate Agency draft reports to Congress on global climate change: Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States, and Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate; the SAB input helped improve and certify those ambitious interdisciplinary reports. To do a proper job in some areas, the SAB has to examine not only the EPA's work but that of other agencies having intersecting interests. For example, the Indoor Air Quality Committee is required, under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, to review the entire federal indoor air program; the Committee has performed these reviews, although it has found it difficult to obtain adequate information on the non-EPA programs. On at least one occasion the SAB has fulfilled a request to review an issue for another federal agency (the Consumer Product Safety Commission), which lacked the necessary advisory resources. This is viewed as having been an unusual exception. These initiatives notwithstanding: The SAB views its primary advisory relationship to be that with the EPA Administrator. ------- 32 7.6 Openness and relations with the public. The SAB operates quite openly, in the tradition of science and in the spirit of the federal "sunshine" laws. It publishes notifications of its meetings in the Federal Register, routinely opens its meetings to the public, keeps minutes of meetings, safeguards against conflicts-of-interest, releases its documents freely, gives consideration to statements conveyed to it from the public, and reaches out to especially interested publics. The only meeting sessions that are closed to public observers are some that involve planning, report-drafting, examination of unreleased Agency budgets, or discussion of sensitive SAB personnel issues. The Board is always open to receiving written statements from any source, so long as they address relevant scientific issues. Usually committees are willing to allocate brief segments of meetings to listening to remarks by members of the public, again so long as they focus on scientific matters. Members of the press and representatives of various outside organizations routinely attend SAB meetings. Sometimes the SAB window-onto-the-Agency role is exercised vigorously, as when non-SAB scientists submit scientific input. If the SAB committee is convinced, it may well shepherd the information into Agency deliberations and secure a response. SAB tries routinely to distribute its reports to all public parties the SAB can identify as possibly being interested. It welcomes additions to its mailing lists. SAB reports now are deposited in all EPA libraries around the country, and they are placed on file with the National Technical Information Service, which assures.long-term access by libraries and readers. (The Board could help public attendees follow SAB meeting discussions by making available at the meeting extra copies of the documents being examined; this often is done, but not always.) The SAB Staff Director's Annual Report provides an excellent once-a-year retrospective on Board accomplishments. Although SAB reports are circulated to many EPA offices, some Agency commentors say that they wish that the documents were circulated more extensively within the Agency. Both the SAB staff offices and the Agency's own report-distribution system should review their report constituencies to be sure that all relevant EPA offices are covered. Periodically the SAB should circulate a listing of its reports, with abstracts. ------- As the Board reaches out, now, beyond circles of aficionados who follow the Board's work routinely, it must make sure that its report titles crystallize the topics of the reports, that the executive summaries encapsulate the reports' essences, and that the texts make the context of the advising clear. Some SAB reports, especially those with a specialized focus, have not been very accommodating to nonspecialist readers, or to potential readers who need to be able to judge from a title listing or report summary whether they wish to obtain and read the full report. Committees should make efforts to improve these aspects of their documents. 8. PRIORITIES, AGENDA, AND TIMING 8.1 Setting priorities and the agenda. Is the process by which the Board decides to undertake projects appropriate? How are SAB concerns meshed with Agency concerns? Should more explicit criteria be developed for selecting projects and setting priorities? SAB initiatives have many origins. Some come from Agency program offices, laboratories, or regional offices. Some come from the Administrator's Office. Some come from the Hill. Some come from SAB members or committees, or the committee staff. A few come from SAB consultants or the public. Whatever their origins, however, all ideas are referred either to the Administrator or the SAB Executive Committee, which, working through the SAB Staff Director, jointly consider whether and how to undertake the advisory project. Some SAB reviews, such as CAS AC's reviews of the scientific considerations involved in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, are committed to long in advance (the NAAQS reviews, for example, are mandated by the Act and come to the CASAC with considerable advance notice). Some are triggered by emergencies. Many SAB projects are responses to Agency requests; some are initiatives taken by the Board. As should be expected, often the SAB induces the Administrator to formally request SAB advice. ------- 34 Probably it is too sweeping, but an extreme operating principle would be for the Administrator to identify all upcoming major Agency actions, and offer the SAB the opportunity to undertake review— an SAB "right of declination to review." Terms of review (such as timing) would be negotiated with the Administrator. Of course the Administrator would retain the prerogative to request any advice he desires. Occasionally the SAB declines an Agency request, on grounds that the request is not clearly articulated, or that the issue hinges on extra-scientific considerations that the Board is not an authority on, or that the problem is not sufficiently important relative to other demands as to warrant SAB attention. Sometimes the SAB tasks itself. An influential example was the SAB's "scoping" of municipal waste incineration in 1986-87, which will be discussed later. In 1988 the Environmental Engineering Committee took it upon itself, with the approval of the EC, to survey and critique the Agency's application of a wide variety of mathematical models (sophisticated and simplistic, up-to-date and outdated); the Committee prepared a report, and then the EC endorsed a resolution of concern to the Agency on this generic problem. Self-initiation seems to be an increasingly important mode for the SAB. There is nothing specifically wrong about the way in which issues are referred to the SAB or are generated by the Board. Multiple input is desirable. But some committees need to cultivate their relationships with the relevant EPA program offices and laboratories in their areas, to elicit more active, effective, and timely SAB advisory assistance. And to act more strategically, the Board needs to move toward a more regular process for sorting among all the possible advisory projects and deciding which ones to undertake, and which of those to subject to a quick looking-at and which to a full-dress review. Recommendations on SAB asenda-settins. (a) The various SAB committees should devote much more effort to scanning the horizon and setting their agendas - tasks, tactics, timing, resource and talent needs. On many issues the committees are much better positioned than the Executive Committee is to ------- 35 recognize emerging issues or anticipate difficulties. (b) The Executive Committee, actively involving the standing-committee chairs, all of whom are EC members, should continually scrutinize the agenda of the Board as a whole so as to make the Board most responsive and most productive. It should consider engaging in more brainstorming, perhaps along with high Agency officials, to identify emerging issues that should be considered for the SAB agenda. (c) The Agency itself should be urged to identify upcoming major Agency actions whose scientific aspects might warrant SAB attention, and more systematically sort out and express its priority preferences for the SAB agenda. The SAB agenda should continue to be negotiated between the Board and the Agency, with every effort made to focus on issues having the highest importance. 8.2 Criteria for undertaking SAB studies. Although obviously the Board has a sense of what is worthy, "weighting" criteria would help determine whether to undertake advisory tasks. Recommendation on criteria for selection of SAB projects. The Board should develop criteria like the following to guide selection of SAB projects. For instance, proposed SAB projects might be assigned precedence according to how intensively they will: - impact on overall environmental protection: -- address novel scientific problems or principles; -- integrate science into Agency actions in new ways; -- influence lone-term technological development; -- respond to emergencies; -- deal with problems that pervade several EPA domains: -- address problems that transcend federal-aeencv or other organizational boundaries; -- strengthen the Agency's basic capabilities; -- serve Congressional or other leadership interests. The more strongly an issue meets several criteria, the stronger the impetus would be to commit to SAB review. Such a list of criteria would aid the Board both internally and in its agenda-setting with the Agency. The criteria should be taken as considerations, as ------- 36 guides, not as rigid requirements. To illustrate, notice how some of the SAB's more influential recent investigations have de facto met such criteria: impact on overall environmental protection (consensus on the health and environmental effects of ozone air pollution); address novel scientific problems or principles (inferences allowable from observation of thyroid carcinogenesis in rat assays); integrate science into Agency actions in new ways (application of ecological knowledge to contemplated regulation of marine sediments); influence lons-term technological development (efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drinking-water-treatment technologies); respond to emergencies (whether and how to deploy specially-cultivated bacteria to help remediate the Alaska oilspill); deal with problems that pervade several EPA domains (carcinogenicity classification of lead compounds, which are regulated in air, surface waters, drinking water, solid waste, and other milieus); address problems that transcend federal-agency or other organizational boundaries (coping with the effects of global climate change); have potential to strengthen the Agency's basic capabilities (effectiveness of EPA's scientific career-development ladder);, serve Congressional or other leadership interests (indoor air pollution). 8.3 Timing and timeliness. Are there aspects of the SAB's work in which timing can be improved — in becoming involved with problems, in defining tasks, in performing and delivering products? The SAB can get involved at any attention-stage of an, issue problem definition; research planning, pre-regUlatory assessment, whatever. In most instances the SAB is best in a position to address rather broad, strategic scientific aspects of problems before the Agency commits itself , to. formal remedy. After the Agency has set policy, or promulgated regulations, or issued guidance to state governments, usually it is too late to call for review of the scientific bases upon which the actions were taken. Afterthought reviews tend to be tedious and ineffectual. So, again, agenda-setting is key, and it depends upon both the Agency and the SAB. Always there is the question of how to synchronize Agency actions with scientific progress (such as the completing of research, or the updating of basic data, or the releasing ------- 37 of monitoring results). Obviously the Agency has to decide when it will have to take protective action. Sometimes the SAB can advise on propitious pacing. In some instances partial revisiting of an analysis can be scheduled, for a later time when new findings are expected to become available. How far along toward final EPA action should the SAB "follow" an issue whose scientific bases it has advised on initially? In some cases the Board helps the Agency establish fundamental premises and then disengages; in others it checks later to be sure the science is preserved all the way through into application. On major air regulations, the CASAC reviews the scientific background (criteria documents and the like) early in the attention cycle; then it reviews the scientific aspects of the "staff paper" the Agency eventually prepares to establish the ground for the Administrator's regulatory decisions. Informal follow-through, at least, generally makes sense on any issue that earlier has been important enough to have warranted SAB examination. The Agency and the Board should deliberate this for each project. Timeliness of SAB advising has improved substantially over recent years. The agenda-setting reforms suggested should help further. Perhaps the Executive Committee can streamline its vetting of proposed committee reports. As the next section will complain, the document-processing bottleneck needs remedying. To better manage its timing, the Board should set up a system for tracking the progress of all of its studies, from proposal stage to reporting to follow-through. As the quick SAB response on bioremediation of the Alaska oilspill demonstrated, "crash" response certainly is possible. But it has its difficulties. Assembling a proper team of experts takes a little time. Travel has to be paid for; a deeper financial reservoir would help meet emergency requests. Individuals on the SAB roster always can be tapped quickly, as individuals, if the Administrator requests informal advice. But this cannot be said to constitute formal "SAB" advice. Deliberations involving more than one Board member may have to meet various Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions, although these can be officially waived in emergencies. And of course running proposed advice through full SAB (including Executive Committee) review for formal endorsement and transmittal is time-consuming. ------- 38 Some of the most awkward timing in the past has been driven by court orders or other external pressures that have truncated the normal lead-time and violated the usual pacing of Board review. The Board has tried to adjust and be responsive anyway. On a few occasions this has meant that a committee review has had to be reported out without being vetted and endorsed by the Executive Committee. It is in the best interests of the nation that the Agency not allow the Board, or the Board allow itself, to be abused on timing. Often some release of time-pressure can be negotiated, even on court-driven schedules. Recommendation on improving timing and timeliness. Early along in contemplated advisory exchanges, the relevant EPA offices and SAB committees should consult as to the nature of the proposed advising; reach clear agreement on which aspects of the subject will be examined, and how; negotiate as to timing, interim reports and checks, deadlines, procedure, staffing, and documentation needs; and carefully husband and schedule the use of SAB talents and staff support. 9. SUPPORT AND RESOURCES 9.1 Staffing. Although this report has not mentioned the SAB staff all along, it should be understood that the staff help facilitate every aspect of SAB activity. The SAB is supported by eight professional staff officers: a Staff Director, six Executive Secretaries (who are assigned to the Board committees and legally serve as the Designated Federal Officials for those committees under Federal Advisory Committee Act regulations), and a Program Analyst (who manages budgetary, personnel, and logistical matters). Eight Staff Secretaries complete the office. The key to appreciating the staffing roles is recognizing their "in-betweenness." The staff are employed by the EPA, with the Staff Director reporting to the Deputy Administrator, and they serve within the Agency's personnel system. The Board's budget is allocated entirely from the Deputy Administrator's Office budget. But the substantive direction and overall task agenda of the SAB and its staff are, or at least should be, set by ------- the Board itself. Thus the staff must serve in-between. Also the staff must deal with the difficulties of working with the dispersed and very busy SAB members, who serve voluntarily, part-time, and on-the-run. By far the most important duty for the SAB Staff Director and Executive Secretaries is serving as two-way ambassadors: they must represent Board concerns to the Agency, and Agency concerns to the Board. Operationally, the staff officers make things happen: they assist with planning the committees' work, nominating and renewing the appointments of members and consultants, safeguarding against conflicts-of-interest, scheduling and planning meetings, arranging for. travel and reimbursement of travel expenses, running meetings and teleconferences, drafting and revising reports, moving an enormous amount of paper in many directions, assuring compliance with all the applicable Federal "sunshine" laws, and interacting with the public and the newsmedia. A staff officer is required to be present at every committee meeting. By planning, conferring, scheduling, and briefing, the staff help mesh the SAB's work with that of the Agency. Overall, the staff must be competent at summarizing and integrating complex environmental scientific analyses; at planning and organizing; at working with a diversity of people under pressure; and at writing and communicating fluently. Crucial roles are played by the SAB Staff Director. He must work very closely with the Chairman of the Board and the committee chairs, manage the staff's work, serve as the SAB's most active liaison to the Agency, and convey Agency concerns to the Board and SAB staff. The Subcommittee (and, it certainly seems, the Board) finds the current professional staff generally to be competent, energetic, and dedicated. Much of the time, the professional staff members have to work under near-overload conditions. They perform heroically. But although those staff officers might not say it, "burnout" occasionally threatens. And, additionally, in the past year or so several prolonged staff-position vacancies have added to the drag. Certainly heroism is expected, but it should not have t( ------- 40 be required all day every day. The Agency should see to it that the SAB professional staff positions are highly rated and rewarding. Much of the Board's productivity depends on its being assisted by a Staff Director and Executive Secretaries who are scientifically competent and who are able to cultivate solid working relationships with all involved parties, synthesize and express advisory views, represent the Board impressively to the public, and exercise leadership. Incidentally, to the public the job title "Executive Secretary" fails to connote the demanding responsibilities these officers fulfill; thought should be given to revising this title. The Board and the Agency must ensure that personal career development is provided for the staff. Staff members who become outdated or "lose touch" with the technical fields they serve cannot be expected to perform at state-of-the-art levels. Opportunities and funds should be provided for mid-career re-education and for travel to important professional conferences. Probably it would be productive if both the SAB Staff Office and a subcommittee of the Executive Committee (separately and then together) reviewed the staff career-development needs and opportunities. 9.2 The Board's responsibilities toward the staff. A strong factor in SAB productivity is staff task-setting. Much of the responsibility for determining the staffs workload and scheduling resides with the Board. As in all of life, short-term and tangible demands - such as revising the countless details of committee reports - tend to consume the staff's efforts, to the exclusion of longer-term task exploration and planning. The Board should try to be mindful of the staff workload and pacing, and help match work demands to staff capabilities. Recommendation on husbandine of staff efforts. Committee chairs and members should help budget and protect the SAB staff officers' time and efforts. Also they should encourage their committees' Executive Secretaries, as important parts of their jobs, actively to pursue liaison with the Agency program and other offices - to cultivate vigorous working relationships, communicate about issues arising, negotiate expectations for reviews, and ------- 41 follow through on advice rendered. In general: These professional-staff jobs are demanding; the staff play essential roles, and they play them well; everyone concerned should help bolster the staff's work, and award proper recognition to staff accomplishments. 9.3 Staff Office operations. Without question, the logistical support for the SAB and its professional staff needs improvement. The Board needs substantial Agency help with this. Finding on SAB Staff Office operations. The Subcommittee finds, and has been urge by many Board members to emphasize, that the clerical and secretarial support services are very inadequate for handling the relentless SAB office workload of telephoning, planning meetings, arranging travel, reimbursing expenses, and preparing, revising, logging, reproducing, and distributing large volumes of documents. Clerical performance is not uniformly impressive (grade-level and salary limits may be a problem). Many of the problems just are the result of overload. In the past few years turnove? in support staff has been high. The SAB offices chronically have had to work seriously shorthanded. These deficiencies have unduly held up preparation of Board reports and impeded other work. Because the SAB Office is shorthanded and overloaded, it is unable to perform effectively; morale suffers; overload worsens; performance suffers; personnel recruitment suffers.... This state of affairs urgently has to be remedied, in part to ease the burden on staff members who have struggled devotedly to "hold the fort." Concurrently with the present SAB Subcommittee's review, at the request of the SAB Staff Director, the EPA Division of Management and Organization and the Office of the EPA Comptroller are conducting reviews of the SAB Staff Office. Those reviews -- which will audit many aspects of staff recruitment, work roles and workload, office organization, operating procedures, office facilities, computer efficiency, and budgetary resources ~ are scheduled to be released to the SAB staff and membership at about the ------- 42 same time as the present report. This Subcommittee has coordinated with these complementary reviewers, looks forward to learning their conclusions, and deeply hopes that these managerial reviews will recommend means for relieving the clerical and other impediments. The SAB's computer capabilities (hardware, software, and training), which can powerfully assist with report drafting and make up for some of the secretarial shortcomings, have been less than optimal. Improvements will provide high gains in productivity at relatively low cost. True systems are needed, not just assorted hardware. Some upgrading is being pursued now, and the SAB is converting uniformly to the wordprocessing program "WordPerfect®, Version 5.0." The current expansion of these capabilities (again, bolstered by the management audit) should be watch sd to see whether it rectifies the computer inadequacies. Recommendation on upgrading of SAB Office computer efficiency. The Board should encourage the SAB Office to invest the infrastructural effort required to survey the capabilities of its computers and those available to the EPA, acquire the necessary software, set up mailing lists and tracking systems and document preparation systems, train all of the staff appropriately, and in general master and prepare to make the fullest use of computers. 9.4 Operating budget. Currently all of the SAB budget is allocated from the Deputy Administrator's Office budget. The occasional temptation to charge SAB costs to programs or laboratories under review is generally rejected by the Board as having potential to compromise the SAB's independence. The FY 1989 SAB budget was modest, totalling about $1,491,000. Of this total, some $425,000 went to member and consultant compensation, $715,000 to staff compensation, $288,000 to travel, and $63,000 to office and miscellaneous expenses. Even as the workload has substantially increased, the past several years have brought budget constraints to the SAB. Several projects have been stunted, or postponed or aborted, because of lack of funds, especially the travel funds that are so essential to the functioning of a dispersed voluntary board. ------- 43 This Subcommittee cannot provide a detailed budget analysis here. But -- with the encouragement of many Board leaders ~ it feels obliged to point out that the resources committed to the SAB are extremely low for such an active board advising an agency the size and technical complexity of the EPA, and that the cost-effectiveness is very high. The leverage afforded the Agency by tapping the nation's scientific community via the Board is enormous. (And, incidentally, a sizable indirect contribution is made by the members' and consultants' home institutions, which usually do not recover the overhead costs they incur in providing secretarial, photocopying, and other services in support of SAB projects.) As a minimum, if the Board helps improve the effectiveness of even one major research or regulatory program, it in effect "pays for itself ~ but obviously a budget that makes this possible has to be invested in the first place. Finding and recommendation on the SAB budeet. The Subcommittee believes that the present SAB budget is inadequate for the expectations, demands, and opportunities of the Board's work. The Subcommittee strongly urges the Agency and the Congress to tend the SAB's budget as carefully as the budget of the Agency itself 10. ENHANCING THE SAB MISSION Recall from early in this report that the functions the SAB currently performs include: -- Reviewing the quality and relevance of particular regulatory science; - Reviewing generic regulatory-scientific approaches; - Reviewing research programs; - Reviewing the technical bases of various applied programs; -- Advising on infrastructural and technical management issues; - Advising on short-notice problems; and - Advising on broad, strategic matters. To these functions the Board should consider adding three regular functions that would not be entirely new but would be enhanced versions of things already being done ------- 44 but in low-key: providing forums and pursuing outreach; advising on aspects of implementation and communication; and helping the Agency anticipate problems and act even more strategically, 10.1 Providing forums and pursuing outreach. As was noted at the outset, in its own working the SAB acts as a forum, bringing into the Agency diverse views and providing a focus even for both indirect and unsolicited inputs. Should the SAB go further, as by convening workshops on issues? The consensus seems to be that the SAB should at least help initiate and design informal workshops on uncertain, highly-contentious scientific issues on which vigorous direct exchange among experts, or between experts and policymakers, would be constructive. It has done this in the past on some issues in neurotoxicology, the toxicological interpretation of mouse-liver tumors, and other topics. The SAB can suggest that the Agency convene small conferences, or join other organizations in doing so. Or the SAB can recommend that the Agency commission professional societies or the National Research Council to hold seminars (perhaps within already-scheduled larger conferences). Probably the best role for the SAB is identifying the need for stocktaking, then catalyzing and participating in — not leading — these workshops. However, it wouldn't in principle be bad for the SAB itself to hold a workshop. In all events, SAB's imprimatur should be safeguarded and not lent to efforts that don't really bear considered SAB endorsement. A simpler and more direct way for the SAB and the Agency to hear leading opinions is to invite several experts to present briefings and join in discussion at SAB committee meetings. This has proved enlightening in the past. 10.2 Advising on implementation and public communication. Should the SAB evaluate and advise on the effectiveness of program implementation, technology transfer, risk communication, or other such issues? ------- 45 Consensus simply isn't clear. Opinions differ. Several observers suggest that the SAB expand its coverage and: (a) help develop context surrounding decisions involving but not limited to scientific findings (such as analysis of health "stakes," or the handling of scientific uncertainties); (b) evaluate strategies and programs for informing the public (such as on how to cope with household radon) and changing the public's behavior (such as urging recycling); and (c) evaluate the effectiveness of EPA's implementation of various programs. There isn't any inherent reason why some such issues couldn't be examined by the SAB, except that the appropriate talents would have to be recruited. In 1988 a few members of the Radiation Advisory Committee productively reviewed the EPA's draft Citizen's Guide to Radon; although the Committee did not, as a committee, review the document, presumably it could have. There have been other examples. But the technical aspects of many implementation and communication issues are hybridized with political, or managerial, or funding, or other non-scientific aspects in ways that create difficulties for SAB review. How one views all this may hinge in part on whether one considers psychology, economics, sociology, and the like to be "science." There is potential for backlash if the SAB is publicly perceived to be meddling in extra-scientific policy and managerial matters. The SAB should explore these domains vigorously but cautiously. The question is not whether the Board could generate answers (naturally it could); the question is whether by doing so it might stretch and weaken its natural-science authority. Much hinges on how the problems are defined and shaped for SAB examination. Perhaps the SAB should simply conduct a few trials: broaden its membership by a few leading social scientists with environmental experience, try a project or two, and see how productive the exercises turn out to be. These are initiatives the Executive Committee should discuss. Unquestionably such issues as education, program implementation, and cost- effectiveness deserve scrutiny by outside experts. Perhaps the Agency should establish, separate from the SAB, a policy and implementation analysis panel, reporting to the AA for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (PPE); Such a panel should involve not only social scientists and communication experts but aiso some natural scientists skilled at interpreting ------- 46 science for nonscientists and integrating science into policy decisions. Of course the EPA can set up such a panel regardless of whether the SAB recruits more social scientists and takes on some of these issues. If both plans are pursued, overlap problems will have to be sorted out. The pool of social scientists and policy analysts that would be drawn on would be similar for the SAB and for a PPE group — but die auspices would be fundamentally different, the questions could be cast somewhat differently, and advisors serving PPE might "wear different analytic hats" from the ones worn when serving on the SAB. If the Agency does establish a PPE panel and the SAB does not expand its coverage, some projects would have to be conducted jointly between the two groups. 10.3 Helping the Agency be more anticipatory and strategic. It is surpassingly important for both the Agency and the SAB to anticipate environmental issues and act more strategically. Easy to say, hard to do. Hindsight shows us how much better off the country (and the world) would be if we had controlled industrial wastes earlier and more effectively. The same with protecting groundwater. The same with recycling of materials, dealing with asbestos, and protecting urban air. Examples are ruefully obvious. On many issues like these, the SAB should try to catalyze Agency action. Some agency-leading SAB advising has been quite constructive. In 1986, frustrated that the Agency was not keeping up with (much less leading) the rapidly growing movement toward incinerating municipal wastes, the SAB undertook a fairly elaborate survey of the scientific dimensions of that enterprise; . as the study progressed, the Agency took its own initiatives and requested that the SAB review an incineration research plan and a health- risk-assessment methodology for incinerator emissions; the SAB provided the requested reviews, published its own survey report, and is still conducting two follow-on studies (of incinerator ash problems and of products of incomplete combustion). Sometimes the Board finds that the Agency isn't easily moved; this may or may not be the fault of the program office in the area. To mention an example, several SAB expressions of concern about inadequacies of EPA's research and scientific coverage of nonionizing radiation problems have been unavailing. ------- The SAB committees should scan ahead for environmental problems that are impending and underattended, and for technical and other possibilities for addressing them, and raise alarms and opportunities forcibly to the attention of the Agency. On some problems, as it did with municipal waste incineration, the SAB may find demonstration- value in conducting "scoping" studies to survey the parameters of the problem. The Executive Committee should encourage and amplify these efforts. Environmental "horizon-scanning" and issue-identification should be a portion of every Executive Committee meeting. Committee chairs should be expected to bring forward concerns from their committees. Briefings by Agency officials or others might be requested. The SAB Annual Meeting might provide a special opportunity to set out a menu of topics to be screened for SAB and Agency attention. As for being strategic, the challenge - again, for both the Agency and the SAB - is to identify and take on the most genuinely threatening problems, and not let Agency efforts get frittered away on the swarms of nagging but lesser issues. Environmental protection should be viewed as investment. Priority-guiding exercises, such as the Agency's current relative-risk-reduction project on which the SAB is advising, may help. So can environmental monitoring, early warning, and environmentally-sensitive technology development. On all of these matters, the SAB can provide assistance. 11. ENVOI AND INVITATION The Mission and Functioning Subcommittee hopes that the entire Science Advisory Board network — members, consultants, committees, staff, other colleagues -- will become engaged in responding to this report. The Subcommittee also hopes that the Agency will work through the report, examine the advisory endeavor from its perspective as the SAB's principal "client," and then explore with the Board possibilities for reducing obstacles, meeting challenges, and seizing mutual opportunities. ------- 48 APPENDIX: REPORTS COMPLETED BY THE SAB DURING FY 1989 SAB-CASAC-89-001 Possible Listing of Acid Aerosols as a Criteria Pollutant SAB-CASAC-89-002 Acid Aerosol Research Needs SAB-RAC-89-003 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Standards for Radionuclides SAB-EHC-89-004 Thyroid Follicular Cell Carcinogenesis SAB-EHC-89-005 Male and Female Reproductive Risk Guidelines SAB-EHC-89-006 Lead in Drinking Water SAB-EHC-89-007 Drinking Water Contaminants Involved in Phase II Draft Regulations: Treatment Technologies SAB-EHC-89-008 Health Assessment Document for Phosgene SAB-CASAC-89-009 CASAC Advice on Acid Aerosols SAB-IAQC-89-010 EPA Indoor Air Quality Implementation Plan SAB-EHC-89-011 Drinking Water Contaminants Involved in Phase II Draft Regulations: Analytical Methodologies SAB-EEC-89-012 Resolution on the Use of Mathematical Models by EPA for Regulatory Assessment and Decision-making SAB-RSAC-89-013 Office of Research and Development's Core Research Program SAB-EC-89-014 Fiscal 1990 President's Budget for the Office of Research and Development SAB-EC-89-015 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards SAB-EC-89-016 Review of the Report to Congress: Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the U.S. SAB-RAC-89-017 Radon Measurement Profiency Program SAB-CASAC-89-018 Lead NAAQS Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation SAB-CASAC-89-019 NAAQS for Ozone: Closure on the Office of Air Quality and Planning and Standards Staff Paper (1988) and the Criteria Document Supplement (1988) ------- SAB-EETFC-89-020 Evaluation of the Proposed Guidelines for Exposure-Related Measurements SAB-CASAC-89-021 Clinical Research Program of the Health Effects Research Laboratory SAB-EC-89-022 Five-Year Office of Research and Development Outlook SAB-EETFC-89-023 Alaskan Oil Spill Bioremediation Project SAB-RAC-89-024 Office of Radiation Programs NESHAPS Background Information Documents SAB-RSAC-89-025 Evaluation of the Office of Research and Development's Preliminary Skills Mix Assessment SAB-RSAC-89-026 Evaluation of Career Ladders for Office of Research and Development Field Scientific and Engineering Positions SAB-EETFC-89-027 Evaluation of the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) Approach for Assessing Sediment Quality SAB-EHC-89-028 Office of Drinking Water's Health Criteria Document for Cyanide SAB-EHC-89-029 Office of Drinking Water's Health Criteria Document for Antimony SAB-EHC-89-030 Office of Drinking Water's Health Criteria Document for Sulfate SAB-EHC-89-031 Office of Drinking Water's Health Criteria Document for Thallium SAB-EHC-89-032 Office of Drinking Water's Health Criteria Document for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene and 1,1,2-trichloroethane SAB-RSAC-89-033 Office of Research and Development Assistant Administrator's Interim Guidance for FY 1991 SAB-EC-89-034 Review of the Report to Congress: Policy Options for Stabilizing Climate SAB-EEC-89-035 Office of Water's Proposed Sludge Use and Disposal Regulation SAB-EHC-89-036 Mixtures Relating to Soime Phase II Drinking Water Regulations of the Office of Drinking Water SAB-EEC-89-037 Draft Pollution Prevention Research Plan: Report to Congress SAB-EHC-89-038 Arsenic Issues Relating to Phase II Proposed Regulations From the Office of Drinking Water ------- SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE MISSION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE SAB William W. Lowrance (Chair) Senior Fellow and Director Life Sciences and Public Policy Program The Rockefeller University 1230 York Avenue New York, NY 10021-6399 (212) 570-8679 Paul F. Deisler, Jr. Visiting Executive Professor University of Houston c/o 11215 Wilding Lane Houston, TX 77024 (713) 467-3080 Roger O. McClellan President Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology 6 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (919) 541-2070 C. Herb Ward Professor and Chair Department of Environmental Science and Engineering P.O. Box 1892 Rice University Houston, TX 77005 (713) 527-4086 ------- |