Scienea Advitory
A-101
Washington. DC 20460
SAB-87-007
October
Report of the
Director of the
Science Advisory Board
for Fiscal Year 1986
-------
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the
Science Advisory Board, a public advisory group providing extramural
scientific information and advice to the Administrator and other
officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is
structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of scientific
matters related to probleras facing the Agency. This report has not
been reviewed for approval by the Agency, and hence the contents of
this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
nafies or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
-------
FORWARD
ta Of
,« taf Of ^tt^ns the research program and the scientific b_
resolve the environmental problems facSg Sedation
^i* that thls first snnual ^Port of the Director of the
5 the B±d^o!f "V111 lead t0 a ^eate^Uc undi^S^nS only
c unn only
Terry P. Yosr Dire'ctor
Advisdry Board
'
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
I, Overview of Fiscal Year 1986
Science Advisory Board Activities
II. Guidelines for an Effective Scientific Advisory Process * 3
III. The SAB Fteview Process »,,,, 5
IV. Scientific Reviews Conducted During Fiscal Year 1986 .,« 6
V. SAB Organization, Budget and Personnel , 9
VI. SAB Reports Issued During Fiscal Year 1986 12
VII. SAB Matibership as of October 31, 1986 ...*........,.«... 24
-------
I-
is the first in what is intended to „.
Board (BW) anwal resorUi. Its prira
inform the Environ^ntal Protection Agency, SAB enters and
arxi the co^nity o£ irx3ividuals ^ organizatlons
the B-rf, of if continuing activities.
effort to promote a bett.r undertaking a^ng u^ audiences (an,
loader scientific o^nity, of the tara.s ^ in fflA deeisiw,
and its efforts to provide constructive scientific advice.
Given the significant ro!e that the Agency perform in ATOric*n society
there i. a critical need to ensure that EPA uses proved scientl£ic ^
^nd that its Jud^nts about such data are appropriate. Scientific data
for* the ioundation of _t of »-, regulatory and other progr^ under
the authorizes statutes that it implements.
^ Kisca! Yftar 1986 ,FV •««, th. Science Advisory Board conducted
^dependent scientific reviews in all of the EPA's ^or research and
reguiatory proy™ areas. On so^e occasions the Board generaily endorsed
the scientific logic, methods and conclusions used by EPA.S research and
r^ulatory offices. At other ti^s, it has criticized the A^-s scientific
v»rk. m either oase, the Board attested to identify areas where the
scientific basis for decision n^i^ can be i^rWed. The Board concludes
that the scientific dialogue bet^en its ^*ers and consultants arxi EPA
staff has been constructive, and should lead to greater public confidence
in the activities of the EPA,
-------
- 2 -
FY '86 represented the most active year in the history of the Science
Mvisory Board (SAB). A variety of indicators support this conclusion,
including the number of scientific 'issues reviewed by or requested of the
Board, the number of final technical reports submitted to the Agency, the
number of new Board Members and consultants participating in scientific
reviews, and expanded resources made available to carry out these and other
activities.
The Board conducted a number of different kinds of scientific reviews
in FY '86. These included reviews of individual research programs and,
for the first time, an evaluation of the President's proposed budget for
the Office of Research and Develops (for FY '87}; the technical basis of
regulations or standards? Agency policy statements or guidance; reviews of
scientific methodologies; non-research program reviews, EPA advisory documents;
specific scientific proposals, studies or surveys, letter reports to EPA or
Congress,- and scientific reviews conducted for other Federal agencies.
During the past three years several trends have emerged in EPA's use
of the Science Advisory Board. These trends point to a greater understanding
of the respective roles and responsibilities by EPA staff, and scientists and
engineers that serve on the Board. They also testify to the utility of
consulting with the scientific comnunity to strengthen the scientific basis
of EPA decisions and identify needed research to support ongoing EPA program
These trends include;
» Expanded number of scientific reviews. Ihe number of scientific
.:SAB has cisen fran 10 in FY tfl1' to 50 in PY
' to
In FY '86< Sm ca^i*d out,
£°r the enforceme"t office and an EPA
Office (Region III in Philadelphia).
-------
- 3 -
Increasing Participation in Radiation Related Activities. The
agenda of the Board's Radiation Advisory Coamittee included the
^2 iSSU?S thlS paSt £iscal yeari radon epidemiology prop
I™ ^ t th%Maine Medical <*«*«i design of the Na^naTt
Survey; technical support documents for radionuclide standards in
drinking water? radon mitigation efforts; EPA's Idaho Radionuclide
Study? ana risks associated with indoor radon exposure.
Congressional Requests for SAB Reviews, Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act require EPA to provide SAB with the opportunity
to Provide its scientific advice on drinking water issues and
* Public Participation. Bie SAB solicits the noaination of qualified
scientists and engineers by the public. Public participation
roitinely occurs at SAB meetings through scientific presentations
delivered by scientists and engineers from acaderaia, industry ,
research institutes and international
». Greater Awareness of SAB Activities, the SAB's Monthly Report
summarizes the Board's recent activities for all senior EPA
officials in addition, it is distributed externally to several
"skS ±hl Uf tand,0r9anizati0ns- C^essional testimony by
SAB numbers or staff and presentations at scientific and other
SAB-frole? alS° enhanced the PuWicf« understanding of the
II. guidelines for an Effective Scientific Advisory Process
As the Science Advisory Board's role in EPA decision making has evolved,
various ad hoc or infomal guidelines have erorged as indications of its
performance and relationship with EPA. These guidelines comprise reference
points or benchmarks for discussing the effectiveness, of independent peer
review by scientific committees in the regulatory process, the quality of
science used in EPA decision making and, finally, the degree and quality of
the dialogue between members of the scientific conwnity and EPA. Such
guidelines might apply to all regulatory agencies, mey include:
*?*" them is a Positive incentive, or,
th6 abSSnCe °f a '«9«tiv« incentive, to invite
i external scientists and engineers into their
decision process. Ihese incentives my include the desire foff
SiE^°! y acceptSle assessraent <« P"b"c health or environmental
risks, or_a concern about criticism if a scientifically inadequate
document is used 'as a basis for decision roaking.
-------
- 4 -
In submitting a document for review by independent sci^nHf^
iiP
integrated exposure data with the toxicitv data and
36 0£r™'teS tha
-
S=
. ar« ^™ "" **"*
should be transmitted in ffn^a^ f^^tory process, it
is Datable "thSe%enS^ Sdf^S9^ * tln*ahU ^
that scientific advi^nr?™^^ needs. This assumes, of course,
to
public
that can
revisers,
the
to
s a
the
they should have the
tefore a final
scientific
not
3t fOCTa"F scheduled
S fOrraal
qperatinB rethods «f peer
the advisors and
m
**»"»»» «C providing
.
the advisors an the to aSL Tfc\tUtiOrtal
ssssas
«-« sense of
-------
liklihood that a regulatory agency will give raore serious consideration
to an advisory report, if only because the advisory relationship is
a continuing one. Continuity of membership does not remove the
need for a routine process of rotating scientists and engineers on
and off ccnroittees on a periodic basis to introduce new scientific
views and perspectives.
* Scientific advisory committees or boards should adopt explicit
guidelines to protect themselves from conflict of interest or the
appearance of conflict of interest. Such guidelines can enhance
both the integrity and the authority of the advisory process.
• The scientific advisory process must be a public process. This is
necessary not only to ecraply with certain legal requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act but also to ensure the credibility
of the scientific review process. A public advisory process, allowing
some form of public participation, can yield several important benefits.
It can lead to the introduction of new and important scientific
information bynumbers of the public, it enables the regulatory agency
to identify public concerns before it issues a forraal proposed
regulation, and it can lead to consensus on key scientific issues in a
raanner that is not* acceptable to the public because of the openness of
the advisory proceedings.
These guidelines do not constitute absolute requirements for a scientific
advisory process, nor are they the only guidelines that can be articulated.
But in the experience of the Science Advisory Board, they have proven to be
reliable and durable indicators for guiding and evaluating the Board's
performance and its working relationship with EPA.
ril. The SAB Review Process
The advisory process employed by the Science Advisory Board my vary
depending on the nature of the issues undergoing review, but certain features
remain constant throughout all reviews.
Most issues evaluated by the Board are technical support documents
prepared internally or by external contractors that are used by EPA program
offices in developing regulations, standards, guidance or policy statements.
The SAB also evaluates a considerable number of individual programs within
the Office of Research and Development. In generic terms the SAB review
process can be displayed in the following flow diagram:
-------
- 6 -
SAB Review Process for Technical Support Documents Used in the EPA
tegulatory and Research Planning Processes
1. Priority setting and 2,
developing the
scientific review
agenda.
4, Fact-finding ' 5,
Agency documents
transmitted to SAB
panel. Prelimi nary
briefings or site
visits conducted,
if needed.
Issues referred to
for review.
Agency documents
formally reviewed
in public meetings.
•Public comments are
accepted. SAB
derives a statement
on the scientific
adequacy of the
documents.
3. SAB Executive Ccmnittee
refers issues to a
standing ccxtmittee oc
establishes a new
siibocwniittee. Additional
expertise recruited, if
needed,
6. SAB ccnwittee prepares
report of its major
conclusions and recom-
mendations and transmits
it to the Executive
Committee for approval.
Based upon SAB and EPA discussions, a second draft
of the document may be prepared (if so, step 5 is
repeated).
Executive Ccroittee
review of reports.
If approved, report
is sent to the
Administrator. At
ttiis point the SAB
report becomes a
public document.
8. EPA formally
responds to* SAB
advice by noting
areas where
advice will be
taken or not
taken.
IV. Scientific Reviews Conducted During FY__MJ6
As previously noted, ETf "86 was the rosst active year in the history of
the Board, Scroe of the scientific issues reviewed carried over from the
previous fiscal year, and souse reviews initiated in FY '86 will be completed
in F¥ '87. The majority of activities began and terminated in FY '86.
By category of activity, the following issues constitute the SAB's
agenda for FY '86:
-------
- 7 -
Research Program Reviews
Alternate Hazardous Waste Control Technologies
Biotechnology
Dioxins
Ecological Risk Assessment
Extrapolation Modeling
Forest Effects
Indoor Air Pollution
Integrated Air Cancer Program
Radon Mitigation Program
Welfare Effects Assessment Associated with National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NA&QS)
NAAQS Research Needs for Ozone and Lead (2 issues)
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Program
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Five Year-
Research Program
Radiation Research Heeds
Water Quality Based Approach Research Program
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
PY '87 Budget Proposal for the Office of Research and Developtent
Reviews of the Technical Bases of Regulations and Standards
* Pioxin Toxic Equivalency Methodology
* Health Assessment Documents for Beryllium, Dibenzofurans, Nickel and
Tetrachloroethylene (4 issues)
9 Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen
• Relative Risk Coefficients for Radon
« Technical Support Documents for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Standards
» Radionuclides in Drinking Water: Radon, Uranium, Radiuro,. Man-Made
Radionuclides and Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemakino, {5 issues)
* Review of Technical Criteria for Establishing Alternate Concentration
Limits
» Review of Regulations for Ocean Dumping (with assistance from the
Army Corp of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board)
* Reuse/Disposal of Sewage Sludge
• Definition of Vulnerable Hydrogeology for Establishing RCRA Location
Guidance Standards
* Drinking Water Criteria Documents for Monochlorobenzene, Nitrate, Nitrite
(3 issues)
« Quantitative lexicological Evaluation of Beryllium in Drinking Water
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, Ozone and
Particulates {3 issues)
* Office of Toxic Substances Risk Assessment for Formaldehyde
• Municipal Waste Combustion'Assessment and Research Needs
• Stratospheric Ozone Staff Paper
-------
- 8 -
Technical, Rey_igwg_of_ .Agency Policy Statements or Guidance
* Risk Assessment Guidelines for Carcinogenicity, Complex Mixtures,
Developmental Effects, Exposure Assessment and Mutagenicity (5 issues)
* Technical Enforcement Guidance Document for Ground Water Monitoring
* Scientific Criteria for Development of an Acute Tbxics List
Methodology Reviews
* Methodology for Assessing Materials Damage from SOj and Acid Rain
SPA Advisories (3 separate reports)
* Office of Drinkirg Water Health Advisories for 37 Compounds;
acrylamide, benzene, p-dioxane, ethylbenzene> ethylene glycol,
hexane, legionella, methylethylketone, styrene, toluene, xylene,
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel,
nitrate/nitrite, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene,
1,2-dichloroethane, cis and trans 1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloro-
ethylene, dichlororaethane/ dichloropropane, dioxin epichlorohydrin,
hexachlorobenzerie, polychlorinated biphenyls, tetrachloroethylene,
lrl,2-trichloroethylene, 1,1,-trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
Non Research Program Reviews
* Integrated Environmental Management Program
Specific Proposals, Studies or Surveys
* Region Ill/Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Kanawha Valley
Study
* National Dioxin Study
* Radon Epidemiology Proposal from the Maine Medical Center
* Idaho Radionuclide Study
SAB Resolutions or Letter.Reports to the Administrator orto Congress
* Superfund Resolution
* Letter to Senator David Durenberger and other House-Senate conferees
presenting SAB conments on amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
as they pertain to the additional scientific review responsibilities
of the SAB.
» Letter to the Administrator regarding the creation of an advisory
comittee to provide a continuing independent review of technical
data before the issuance of biotechnology experimental use permits.
* Peer Review of Health Effects Institute Research Reports.
* Integration of Risk Assessment
-------
- 9A -
Subcommittees of Major Standing Committees
CASAC __ __^__
* Materials Damage/SD2 Subccnroittee
Chair; Dr. Warren Johnson
• Ozone/Lead Research Review Subccumittee
Chain Dr. Morton Lippaann
* Welfare Effects Research Review Subecumittee
Chair; Dr. Warren Johnson
EHC_ :
* Drinking Water Subcommittee
Chairs Dr. Robert Tardiff
• Halogenated Organics Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. John* Doull
* Metals Subcommittee
Chairs Dr. Bernard Pfeiss
EEC
Hazardous Waste Alternative Technology Research Review Subccmraittee
Chair; Dr. Raymond Loehr
Alternate Concentration Limits Subcommittee
Chairs; Dr. Richard Conway
Dr. Mitchell Small
me
Drinking Water Subcommittee for Radionuelides
Chair; Dr. Warren Sinclair
Radioepidemiology Subecumittee
Chairs Dr. Seymour Jablon
National Radon Survey Design Subccnraittee
Chair; Dr. Oddvar Nygaard
Ra<3on Mitigation Subcommittee
Chair; Dr. John Till
EETPC
Municipal Waste Combustion Subcotttnittee
Chairs Dr» Rolf Hartung
Water Quality Based Approach Research Review Subcommittee
Chair; Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Water Quality Criteria Subcommittee
Chairs Dr. John Neuhold
-------
V . S
ProgramiHtic Subcommittees
* National Oioxin Study Research
Review Subccnmittee
Chairman: Dr. Robert Huggett
Executive Secretary; Dr. Terry F, Yosie
* Dioxin Toxic Squivalency Factor
Review Suhcoimittee
Chairman: Dr. Richard Griosamr
Executive Secretary; Dr. Terry F. Yosie
* Integrated Eiwirarmental Manage-
ment Subooimittee
Chairman: Dr. Ronald Wyzga
Executive Secretary: Dr. Terry F. Yosie
* Acute Toxics List Criteria Review
Subecmnittee
Chairman: Or. John Doull
* Executive Secretary: Dr. Terry F. Yosie
Risk Assessment Guidelines Review
Group*
Chairman: Dr. Norton Nelson
Executive Secretarys Dr. Terry F. Yosie
* Stratospheric Ozone Assessment
Subcommittee
Chairman: Dr. Margaret Kripke
Executive Secretary: Dr, Terry P. Yosie
_ ancl_ J^e_r_ sonne t
SAB OOHMJ '«'!>,, ...T ,\ND SUHaJMMITTEES ACTIVE DURING FY '86
£dmi ni st rator
Deputy Administrator
Science Advisory Beard
Executive Committee
Chairman* Norton Nelson
Director; Terry F. Yosie-
Note: All SAB Subcommittees are generally
created for single activity reviws
and are abolished when they submit
their reports to the Executive
Camdttee. In contrast, the role of SftB
standing! Canndtteea is a continuing one.
Standing Conroitteea can also create
subccmnitteea aa a mechanism to conduct
specific scientific reviews,
* Has coiBleted its reviews and nn loiwer exists
Research Review Subconrai ttees
* Study Group on Biotechnology*
Chairman: Dr» Martin Alexander
Executive Secretaryi Mr. tehert Flaak
• Forest Effects Review Panel* '
Chairmen: Dr. A. Legge & Dr. W. anith
Executive Secretaryr Mr. Robert Flaak
* Dioxin Research Review Subccnmittee*
Chairman: Dr. Sobert Huggett
Executive Secretary: Dr. Terry F. Yosie
* Extrapolation Modeling Research
Review Subconmittee
Chairman: Dr. Ronald Wyzga
Executive Secretary: Dr. Daniel Byrd
* Water Quality Based Approach
Research Review Subccmiuttee
(conducted under the auspices of
the SSIf)
Chairman: Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Executive Secretary! Dr. Terry F- Yosle
* Ecological Risk Assessment Research
Review Subcommittee
Chairtnafl: Dr. G. B. Wierara
Executive Secretary: Dr. Terry F. Yoaie
* Integrated Air Cancer Research
Review Subconmittee
Chairman: Dr. George Hidy
Executive Secretary} Ms. Kathleen Conway
* Indoor Mr Pollution Research
Review Subcctgcnlttee
Chairman: Dr, Jan StolwLjk
Executive Secretaryi Mr. Robert Flaak
* Hazardous Haste Alternative-
Technology Research Review
Subecmnittee (conducted under
the auspices of the EEC)*
Chairman: Dr. Raymond Loehr
Executive Secretary! Mr. Harry Itorao
* Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards SubccnrnLttee
Chairman: Dr. James Whittenberger
Executive Secretary: Ms. Kathleen Conway
* FY '87 Reaearcli Budget Review
Subocnmittea
Chairman! Dr. John MeuhoLd
Executive Secretary: Or. Terry K. Ycaie
PERMANSIT STWIUING COMMITTEES
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC AWISOM CQHMITTEE (CASAC)
Chairman: Dr. Horton Lippnann
Executive Secretary: Mr. Robert Flaak
EHVIROfWBMERL EFFECTS, TRANSPORT (EhTFC)
MO FATE CUMMITTEE
Chairman: Dr. RolC Hartung"
Executive Secretary; Ms. Jan Kurtz
E«VIROt«ENTAL ENGINEERING COWITreE (EEC5
Chairman: Dr. Raymond Loehr
Executive Secretary: Hr. Brie Hales
ENVIRQWENTAL HEALTH CCHHITTEE (EHC)
Chairnani Or. Richard Griesemer
Executive Secretary: Dr. Daniel Byrd
RADIATHJN ADV1SOW CCWMITTEE (RAC)
Chalmani Dr. William Schull
Exacutivo Secretary] Ha. Kathleen Cocway
-------
- 10 -
SCIENCE ADVISORY BCftBD FISCAL ¥EAR 1986 BUDGET
Condensation
(Members, Consultants & Staff) $1,010,400
Trawl 288,500
Purolator And Local
Delivery Services ' 3,200
Conference Room Rentals 4,000
Fe
-------
ii. -
SCIENCE ADVISORY BQftKD STAFF
• • • - i^rry F. Yosie
- Program Analyst Cheryl B. Bentley
Secretary ....... ......... Joanna A. Poellmsr
Clerk-iypist . Jane Mitchell
• • Kathleen w. ConWay
Secretary • Janet R. sutler
CLEAN .MR_SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMUTES
Environmental Scientist .._............. A. Robert Flaak
Secretary ...,»,,, fit
mvmwmwzL EFFECTS TRANSPORT AMD FATE COMMITTEE
Environmental Scientist janis C. Kurtz
* * •-'*•..... + ... laitithia V. Bartee
_ENGINEERING _Q3MMITTEE
Environnental Engineer Eric H. Males (Acting)
Environmental Engineer Harry ^^ {Qn Q^_
year leaw of absence)
Secretary ...................... ^^ A_ Brwne
Environmental Scientist ............... Daniel M. Byrd
•*••••«.» .... Frederica 0. Jones
CCfMITTEE
Environmental Scientist Kathleen W. Conway
Secretary t _ 0^^ Mt Clark
-------
- JW -
OCTOBER 1986
VI. SAB Reports Issued During'PY 1986
Report to the .Administrator on a review of a draft document entitled "Preliminary
Assessment of Health Risks to Garment Markers and Certain Hone Residents feoa
Exposures to Formaldehyde'''prepared by the office of Pesticides and Toxic substances
, (OPTS)—Environmental Health Committee—October 1, 1985—SAB-EHC-86-001.
The Committee concluded that formaldehyde is a carcinogen for rodents by
the inhalation route and that the weight of the evidence category under
EPA's new guidelines is "sufficient." The Conmittee found eommandable
the use of rodern nomenclature, analysis of exposure, integration of
hazard with parallel quantitative estimates, each one testing an
assumption.
Report to the Administrator on a review of the March 13, 1985 draft Background
Information Document to accompany the Agency's proposed standards m low-level
radioactive waste disposal—Radiation Advisory Committee—October 28. 1985—
SAB-fWC-86-002.
She Committee beliefs "that the Background Information Document, on
the whole, provides a reasonable presentation of the potential sources
and,risks associated with the disposal of low~level radioactive wastes.
Howewr, there are deficiencies in parts of the document for "which
the Conmittee has, suggested extensive revisions to be made before
publication. The Committee's major findings are detailed in the report.
tetter Report to the Administrator on the Environmental Engineering Committee
Resolution concerning Superfund expenditures—Environmental Engineering Committee-
October 30, 1985—SAB-EEC-8(W)03,
The Environmental, Engineer! r»g Committee expresses its concerns in a
resolution about enormous expenditures being made under Superfund
without an adequate technological data base to support rehabilitation
of both public and private hazardous waste disposal sites. The Conmittee
recoamends using Superfund monies for a comprehensive research and
development program,
latter report to Senator David Durenbeijgfer presenting SAB comments on the
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act enacted by the House of Representatives
and the Senate as they pertain to the additional scientific review responsibilities
envisioned for the SAB—-Executive Committee—November 4, 1985—SAB-SC-86-Q04.
Both -houses of the Congress have requested the SAB's early participation
in the review of the development of drinking water regulations and
standards. Hie SAB will provide its technical evaluation prior to the
proposal of maximum contaminant level (MCL) goals and national primary
drinking water regulations.
SINGLE COPIES OF THESE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE Jff NO CHARGE FROM THE SCIENCE
ADVISORY BOARD. PLEASE ADDRESS REQUESTS TO SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (A-101F),
ENVIRDNMENTAL ProTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D»C» 20460, ATTENTION CHERYL B. 1
BENTLEYQR CALL (202) 382-2552, ____[
-------
- 13 -
n f f^ni?trator 0" the Radiation Advisory Comittee's response to
the Offcce of Radiation Program's request to provide assistance in
emergency criteria applicable to elevated indoor radon oonowSaS
'
in «»
The Committee's advice was sought on two issues:
(1) Is a range of relative risk coefficients of 1,2 to 2.8%
aTL *L? %CnCy *? USe in evaluati^ the risis Ssoiiat
at and above various alternative interim emergency action levels r
Reading Prong? ifie Committee's consensus was that the range 1.2-28% was
too^narrw. «easonably good data are available that giiTSlS as Io^ as
(2) Are there any special considerations that should be taken into
2 CaiS1Sin9 the riste ass^iat«3 with short-term exposures to
°^ P1^3^8 ^«V» lifetime exposures? The OanittM iToSte
ot L™?^1^1119.6^06 ^ short-te« 'ecposures to radon or to
other souroes of ionizing radiation iinpose a sraaller risk per unit
, Se
oh v ,
2 i^ ^e nsk estimate® cited stem from studies of occutationally
adults and may underestimate the risk to children in wtaTa qivwT
°
Report to the Administrator on the Science Advisory Board's review of the Office
of Research and Dewlopment's Fo^st Effects ltesea?ch ProgL^orest Iflects
Beview Panel— November 1985—SAB-BC-86-006. t-crectis
the review panel examined the Agency's research plan for forest dieback/
declirteat three different levels: 1} organization of the research program,
2) specific research designs and plans, and 3) integration of research
res uj.ts*
J1* ^inistrator on a Iteview of the RCRA Ground Water Monitoring
Ooc^nt^Environ^ntal E^ri^ Co^ttle-
bY ^ Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
to review its draft document entitled "RdA Ground Water Monitoring
technical Enforcement Guidance Document "(TSED). The document concerns the
-------
- 14 -
The Conroittee concluded that a TEGD document that it reviewed was badly
needed and represented a good start for setting consistent standards for
establishing and evaluating ground water monitoring efforts. The Committee
concluded that the majority of the TBGD is technically sound, and it made
a number of recommendations for improvement that are included in the report.
The Committee also suggested that the Agency should emphasize that the TBGD
is neither a regulation nor an "engineering handbook," and that flexibility,
highly trained and experienced personnel, and professional judgment should
be used by both EPA and those implementing ground water monitoring systems.
Seport to the Administrator on health effects information relating to particulate
matter that has beccroe available since the Committee's last official review—
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee—January 2, 1986—SAB-CASAC-86-QQ8.
CASAC's preliminary view indicates that the new data does not require
a fundamental alteration of the structure of the proposed particulate
standards and does not fundamentally change CASAC's understanding
of the mechanisms by which particulate exposures effect public
health. However, the Committee and many members of the public have
serious concern as to whether the current proposed ranges of interest
are as scientifically supportable as they were in November 1981 when
last examined by CASAC. The Committee made three major recatnendations;
1) that an addendum to the existing particulate matter criteria document
be prepared; 2) that an addendum to the existing particulate matter
staff paper be prepared; and 3) that the Agency prepare an issues
paper evaluating the scientific issues pertaining to acidic aerosols.
Report to the Administrator on a preliminary evaluation of the Agency's existing
research and risk assessment capabilities associated with the field application
of genetically engineered organisms—Biotechnology Study Group—January 1986-
SAB EO86-009.
The Study Group was requested to'undertake a preliminary evaluation
of the Agency's existing research and risk assessment capabilities
associated with the field application of genetically engineered
organisms. The Group concluded that although the Agency has '
increased its research staff and initiated a research program in
biotechnology, a larger and broader program than that envisioned is
needed by EPA decision makers. Evaluation of environmental effects,
in particular, is an issue which should receive high priority
by EPA. The Study Group endorsed EPA's current regulatory approach
toward this developing industry.
-------
- 15 -
Report to the Administrator on Alternate Concentration Limits for releases from
RCRA-penrdtted hazardous waste disposal facilities—Environmental Engineering
Committee—May 8, 1986—SA8-EEC-86-01Q,
At the request of the Office of Solid Wastes (QSW), the SAB*s Environ-
mental Engineering Committee reviewed a draft Agency guidance for the
establishment' of Alternate Concentration Limits (ACL) for RQRA facilities,
and two case studies demonstrating applications of that guidance. The
Committee identified only obvious technical errors or omissions which
are explained in detail in the report, QSW will seek a tnore oonprehensive
scientific review when it prepares a final draft of the ACL guidance.
Report to the Administrator on a review of the Agency's research program for
dioxin—Dioxin Research Review Subcommittee—January 24, 1986-SAB-EC-86-OH*
The Subcommittee reviewed the status of research being conducted to
assess and control the hazards posed by dioxin. Highlights of the
report include the Subcommittee's findings that EPA has made substantial
progress in a number of areas in support of the- Dicwin Strategy and
that the Agency needs to more carefully define and articulate its
health effects research role and capability with respect to other
Federal agencies.
Review of the Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology's (OEET) five-year
research plan—Environmental Engineering Committee—February 14, 1985—SAB-EEC-86-OI2,
The Committee was requested by the Director of OEET to review three sample
five-year research plans being prepared for 27 topics currently under study
by OEET. The five-year research plan's purpose is to describe the EPA/OBD
programs to EPA program offices* the scientific and engineering commwity,
other interested groups, and to serve as a basis for budgetary planning.
The Committee reviewed the following research plans—(1) Hazardous Waste-
Lard Disposal, (2) Drinking Water, and (3) Limestone Injection Multistage
Burner (LIMB), and applauds OEET for its development of these and other
fius-year research plans. The three are sensitive to the Agency program
offices' needs and were well done and will be helpful in describing the
present and future research of OEET to the program offices -and to the scien-
tific and engineering community.
The five-year planning period is appropriate in that it provides for some
continuity, is compatible with the Federal budgeting cycle, and yet
does not extend so far into the future as to lose its reality.
-------
- 16 -
Review for the Office of Environmental Engineering and technology (OEET) of a
report prepared by the ICP Corporation entitled "Pollution Control technology
Research and Development: Private Sector Incentives and the Federal Role in the
Systems—Environmental Engineering Committee—October 1985-
This review was a part of a continuing series of interactions between
the Director of OEST and the Committee, and reflects the Committee's
continuing interest in the technology R&O program in EPA. The objec-
tives of the ICF report were* 1) to develop a conceptual framework
which can be used to determine what amount of pollution control
technology R&D is optimal from society's perspective? 2) to identify
any types of pollution control technology R&D which are not being
carried out to a sufficient degree by the private sector in the
current regulatory system,' and 3) to propose ways that EPA can
encourage or work to ensure that more of that R&D is done. The
Committee agreed with the recommendations presented in the ICP
report which are summarized as follows: ' -
1) There is a need for a Federally and privately funded R&D
program for pollution control technology, which is seriously
underfunded at the .present time.
2} Further investigation should be made into alternative
approaches to the current system for R&D funding by EPA.
3} EPA cost sharing/ joint ventures with private industries
should be increased wherewr feasible.
4) tte_ Agency should inwstigate the feasibility of establishing
additional control technology research centers. As an example,
there is a particular need for municipal treatment technologies.
5) EPA should implement a more stringent internal review system for
control technology development projects.
Report to the Administrator on the creation of an advisory committee to provide
a continuing independent review of the technical adequacy of risk assessments
prepared by the agency before granting experimental use permits for Biotechnology
Applications— March 3, 1986— SAB-EC-8 6-014,
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Biotechnology Study Group and the
Executive Committee assumed that confidential business information
(CBI) would constitute a significant portion of the technical data
submitted by. individuals and organizations seeking an EPA permit, and
-------
that the number of permit petitions would gtow significantly in future
years. Because the SAB is a public advisory body whose raeirfaers are nS
K±iF.^fd/or CBI data, it is the Boat's ftocranendation^a?
the new biotechnology scientific advisory comittee should be separate
frcm the SAB, m addition, where circumstances warrant, it^oSf 5
useful to have overlapping membership between this cowraittee and the
oAoi
on a review of the proposed Fiscal Year
The scienos Advisory Board believes that it can assist e mress in
0 Si ln rea
This view is based on a lame
Lt SS
or — '^ —
pranrC?S.not gref^y ^^ in ^i^^ion «r support of the
FY 86 program, which is a .stabilizing force. A more seriouslSlem is
f^T^^f aV3ilable f°r extranural «~^h and *SlS2TaS
funds devoted to in-house use. EPA'S in-house ptmramls underfuriaed
aSen?f raSt,t0 f^ Fe*ral P^110 health ^ ^S^^I^S^
agencies. An altematiw would be for Congress to substantially raise
the current oeilmg of 51,000,000 before EPA is required to see! S?
gr^sional approval for mprogramtings within extrLural or StaS
accounts, or to authorize EPA to reprograin funds between extramural and
stouSt^±f v^ ?^r' a^ fw3s ttat ccte
should be earmarked for the Office of Sesearch and
°" ^ teview of "Permit Writers" Guidance Manual
S Waste I^nd Tr^ataBnt, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Engineering Conmit tee- June 1986-SAB-EBC-86-016
stCr™ vsofy Bf5d,(sf } was requested by the Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) to repew the draft docurtent listed above. This guidance
-m resporise to a reguireimnt in Section 3004(o)(7)
1**3uires «« Agency to publish "guidance criteria- for
•»".<* wtorahl* hydrogeology and to prowilgate "regulations
n .
SJn M? «^iaPf°r ^ accePtable location of new a«3 existing KM
rJS.i T* SAB's Environmental Engineering tomtittee (EEC) conducted this
review, in general the Conmittee's findings were.- (1) the Phase II location
Guidance is a clear and logical presentation of criteria to be used in
evaluating "vulnerable" hydrcgeology? -(2) the methodology described in the
-------
- 18 -
Guidance is suitable for use with well-prepared existing permit application
data (though the Conroittee notes that only a small fraction of the Part B's
actually haus enough information for making time-of-trawl calculations?
and (3) the methodology is not detailed enough to make a complete site-
specific determination, but is an appropriate method for "triggering" more
detailed analysis. Specific comtents are detailed in the report.
Time-of-TravelHZoncept—Although simplistic, the time-of-travel (TOT)
concept is technically sound/ and integrates various aspects of hydro-
geology into a single measure reflecting the potential for pollutant
migration arri exposure. The TOT concept depends heavily on the deter-
mination of effective porosity, hydraulic gradient and hydraulic
conductivity, and the guidance should be more explicit in how data should
be collected and used to make these determinations.
10/100 Year Time Frames—The technical analysis in Appendix D and the Case
Studies do not adequately support the time frames specified in the proposed
criteria (10 years for treatment and storage facilities, 100 years for
disposal facilities). Other studies should be conducted.
Adequacy of the 100-foot Flow Line Distance—The selection of a 100-foot
flew line is a conservative, practical engineering criterion, and as such
is adequate for the purposes of the guidance* but it cannot be justified
on the basis of hydrogeologic homogeneity or flow pattern predictability.
M41tional factors _to be Considered—The guidance should include some
means of evaluating the effects of seasonal variation on hydraulic
gradient, as well as the effects on TOT calculations of the physical and
kinetic characteristics of the toxic substances (such as partitioning or
decay).
Report to the Administrator on the Review of the "Superfund Innovative Technology
^valuation (SITE) Program—Environmental Engineering Comnittee-June 1986-SAB-EEC-86-01"
In October 1985 the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) expressed its
concern in a resolution to the Administrator of EPA that enormous expenditures
were being made ur*3er Superfurx3 without an adequate technological data base
to support rehabilitation of both public and private hazardous waste disposal
sites. The Administrator responded to EEC's resolution and stated that he
agreed and noted that the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response were developing a strategy for a
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation {SITE} Program to address sane
of these issues.
-------
- 19 -
At an EEC October 21-22, 1985 meeting, the Director of the Office of
Environmental Engineering and Technology in Q8D asked the EEC to review
the SITE program. The Coranittee reviewed the Agency's draft plan, which
incorporated some important components necessary bo the implementation
of an effective research, development and demonstration program, and
found the following major strengths; (1) a clear exposition of the
problem, and the goals and objectives of the Program; (25 a succinct
summary of the impend lire nta to the development and use of alternative
technologies; and (33. the enfshasis on getting 'the Program moving without
waiting to be sure that all problems have first been resolved.
The Conndttee recommended that in order for the plan to be effective,
it must: (a) have the endorsement of the Administrator and other senior
officials of EPA, (b) be recognized as a long~tenft (at least 5 years)
effort and ccromitraent, (c) be adequately supported with personnel and
funds on a sustained basis and (d) have dedicated EPA personnel at
Headquarters, at specific research laboratories and in the regions.
The Contnittee stressed the importance that -senior SPA staff clearly
understand this, otherwise the SITE Program will not achieve its
desired success and will result in a waste of scarce financial and
human resources.
Beport to the Administrator on Ways in which EPA and the &iviro«nental Health
Ccmnittee can enhance their efficiency in carrying out joint responsibilities
in preparing and reviewing risk assessments—Environmental Health Goratdttee—
April 8, 1986—SAB-EHC-86-018
The Committee identified several areas in which the Agency could
enhance risk assessments, such as integration of hazard and exposure
data, coiprehensive scope of assessments, cut off dates for literature
reviews, use of more modern terminology, elimination of inconsistency
of nomenclature and assignment of priorities for reviews,
with respect to the issue of nultiple documents for the same pollutants,
the Cbnmittee recommended that the Agency utilize a cose document as a
means of critically evaluating available health and exposure data to
meet the needs of all program offices. This approach would permit joint
planning by EPA programs to identify their individual and collective
technical assessment needs for future documents and the use of one core
document as the technical basis for program-specific regulatory activities,
Media-specific assessments should be regarded as supplements to the core
document.
-------
•20 -
Report to the Acting Assistant Administrator for tesearch and Development on
the 1985 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards—1985 Scientific and
•technological Achievement Awards Subcommittee-March 4, 1986-SAB-BC-86-Q19
The Subcommittee reviewed 92 papers nominated by EPA's Office of
Research and Development for the 1985 Scientific and technological
Achievement Awards? 24 were recommended for awards. Hie Subeoratdttee's
coniiients included general observations about the nominations and the
nomination^ process, and repeated a suggestion made previously that
would permit a better evaluation of the Awards Program. This suggestion
involved the impression of the Subcommittee raenfcers that the number
nominated from different laboratories were wry uneven, and that the
numbers may not reflect accurately the quality and quantity of research
in a laboratory. Subcommittee members did not know what factors in the
nomination process lead, to this uneuermess, and were not able to assess
the extent of the problem until "denominator" information was provided;
that is, what fraction of the total peer-reviewed publications from a
given laboratory unit are represented by the nuntoer nominated for a
giwn year? This may be sensitive information, but it would be very
useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the nomination process.
In addition, the Subconmittee raised the question of whether to evaluate
the overall accomplishments of the Program,
Report to the Administrator on a review of the Agency's Anfcient Water Quality
Criteria Document for Dissolved Oxygen—Fresh Water Aquatic Life-—Environmental
Effects, Transport, and Fate Commit tee-April 18, 1986-SAB-EET&FC-86-020
The SAB assessed six major scientific issues including; the invertebrate
problem; laboratory-field iirplications; additive stresses and chemical
interactions; growth rate reductions; oxygen criteria levels; and
dissolved oxygen monitoring conditions. In general, the Board concludes
that the document is well-organized and researched and whose logic and
conclusions are scientifically defensible.
Report to the Acting Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Conroission (CPSC)
on a review conducted by the Clean Mr Scientific Advisory Committee on the
health effects and exposure assessment documents on nitrogen dioxide—May 9, 1986-
SAB-CASAC-86-021.
At the request of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Conmittee conducted a review on the potential
health hazards associated with exposure to 0.1 to 1.0 ppm nitrogen
-------
-.21 -
dioxide generated by unvented indoor combustion sources. Hue Committee
concluded that: 1) repeated peak exposures at concentrations of 0.3 ppn
of nitrogen diocide may cause health effects in some individuals, and
there is a possibility that such effects nay occur at concentrations as
low as 0.1 ppmj 2) the population groups that appear most sensitive to
nitrogen dioxide exposure include children, chronic bronchitics, asthmatics,
and individuals with emphysema; and 3) the most direct evidence regarding
lung damage associated with nitrogen dioxide is obtained from animal studies-
such studies conclude that a nunter of effects occur in a variety of animal
species, raany of which can be considered serious and irreversible.
fteport to the Administrator on a review o£ the Assessment of Welfare Effects
Research Needs for Setting National - Ambient Mr Quality Standards-KZlean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee—PENDING—SJ®-CftSJC-86-Q22
Report to the Administrator on the Head Criteria Document-Clean Mr Scientific
Advisory Committee—August 28, 1986—3AB-CASAC-86-023
This report documents the Committee's findings relatiw to its review of
the final Mr Criteria Document for Lead, and its 1986 Addendum «hich further
evaluated'the recent research concerning the relationship between blood-lead and
hypertension and the effects of lead exposure on childhood growth and stature.
Ihe Committee unanimously concluded that both documents represent a scientifically
balanced and defensible summary of the current basis of our knowledge of the
health effects literature for this pollutant
Report to the Administrator on recommendations on Lead Staff Paper-Clean Mr
Scientific Advisory Committee—August 29, 1986—SAB-CASAC-86-024
In reviewing the second external review draft of the Staff Paper for lead,
the Committee found the document to be clear and appropriate. • "Hie Uomraittee
makes a number of recommendations concerning improvements in the form and content
of the document.
Report to the Administrator on a Review of the Alternative ftechnologies Research
Program—Environmental Engineering Committee—September 18, 1986—SAB-EEC-86-Q25
As part of a process for reviewing EPA research programs* the Committee
was requested to conduct a review of the Alternati^i Technologies Research
Program at the EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research laboratory (HWERL)
in Cincinnati. This broad reviw concentrated on the Program goals and
progress in meeting those goals, on the relevance and responsi^ness to
needs of the Agency's regulatory programs, and on the relationship of the
Program to other research being conducted in ORD, elsewhere in EPA and
outside of EPA.
-------
- 22
The COtrmittee found the Program was well-conceived, balanced and cohesive r
and meets the relevant needs of the regulatory program in the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. ^The Committee also recommended that
the waste minimization component of the Program be strengthened! that the
process for selecting technologies for evaluation be reviewed, and that
consideration be given to streamling the permitting process for the Office
of Research and Development test program.
Report to the Administrator on the Draft Health Assessment Document for Nickel-
Environmental Health Committee — July 11, 1986— 'SAB-EHC-86-026
The Committee reviewed a previous version of the document in September
1983 and agreed that' the 'Current draft is clearer, more comprehensive,
and responsive to its earlier cements, Additional comments were
provided which should be incorporated in the final document before its
final publication, particularly in the areas 'of speciation, phawnacdcinetics
and choose of epidemiology data^ 'The Coranittee also concluded that the
document appropriately characterized the current scientific literature
on the carcinogenic! ty of nickel compounds.
Report to the Administrator on ways in which the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
the^Health Effects Institute (HE!) can work together to further their common goal
of improving the adequacy of scientific data used in Agency decision making —
Executive Committee — August 12, 1986^SAB-EC-86-G27
Hie Committee met with HEI at its July 10-11 meeting to discuss
several issues of mutual interest. Following the discussions -a
consensus was reached on the following:
(l)The Committee concluded that there was a need for a more systematic
relationship between SAB and HEI, but both organizations ought to
continue to maintain their Independence from each other in the course
of their mutual interaction.
(2)A reasonable .balance, between independence and interaction is for SAB
to regularly invite HEI selected representatives as obserwrs to its
reviews of EPA research programs, iteciprocally, HEI could periodically
brief SAB committees on its ongoing research program.
(3) Since EPA will have a keen interest in HEI's research in its
rulemaJcing activities, an important issue is whether to use such data
before its appears in a refereed journal. The SAB
concluded that journal publication is preferable prior to the
use of scientific data in regulatory decision making* The
research results HEI sponsors may play a signf leant role in
EPA's decision making process* As a result, the SAB believes
that such data should not be excluded from consideration.
-------
23
(1)
Hi is belief assumes that EPA will continue to conduct its own
assessment of the data and make it widely available for public
distribution and comment.
Report to the Administrator on a review of the Office of Research and eve
proposal entitled "Health Effects of Waterbome Radon" —Radiation Advisory
Committee—September 5, 1986—SAB-86-RAC-Q28
The Committee formed an Radioepidemiology Subcommittee to
to review the scientific merit of a proposal to conduct an
epidemiological study of radon in indoor air. Specifically,
the Agency requested the Committee to review the following
questions:
Can further epidemiological study contribute to an understanding
of the risks of lung cancer associated with household radon
exposures?
The Subcorraittee concluded that scientific uncertainties in current
epidemiological studies (chiefly studies of uranium miners) could
be further reduced through direct investigations of the denestic
population,
t(2) Is the proposed study under review by the Office of Research
and Dewlopment entitled "Health Effects of Waterborne Radon*
appropriately designed to address this risk? '
For reasons cited in the report, the Subcommittee concluded that
it is not appropriately designed.
While supporting the need for epidemiological studies on radon
in indoor air, the Sufaccnroittee recommends that the Agency not
undertake the study reviewed in this report as it is presently
planned.
Report to the Administrator on the. Science Advisory Board's initiation of a
series of scientific reviews of Agency research programs—Executive Committee—
August 29, 1986—SA&-EC-86-029
SAB reviews of research programs have focused both the 'Board's
and the Agency's thinking on research plans and needs to a degree
never before achieved through preparation and review of the Five
Year Research and Development Plan (Research Outlook). The Board
believes that its extensive research program reviews fulfiU the
spirit and intent of Congress for SAB oversight of the Agency's
research program. Corrarents on specific issues in the five year
plan have also been addressed in individual research program
reviews.
-------
OCTOBER 1986
Dr. Seymour Abrahanisan
Professor of Zoology &
Genetics
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MRMDrlRSHIP
APPOINTED TERMINATION., DATE
FORMER SAB SERVICE
CORREWr POSITION
1/84
9/89
Former SAB Consultant Member, Environmental
Baalth Committee .
Dr. Martin Alexander
Professor, Dept. of Agronomy
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
12/83
9/88
Former SAB Member
Memberr Environmental
Effects, Transport
& Fate
Dr. Stanley I. Auerbach
Director, Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
3/86
9/88
None
Member, Executive
Committee
KJ
*>
Dr. Richard A. Conway
Corporate Development Fellow
Union Carbide Corporation
South Charleston, W
4/82
9/87
None
Member, Environmental
Engineering Committee
Dr. John Doull
Professor of Pharmacology
University of Kansas
Medical Center
Kansas City, Kansas
4/82
9/69
FIFRA SAP, 1976-1980
Member, Environmental
Health Committee
-------
CURRENT
APPOINTED TEFHINATION DftTR SAB SERVICE
CURRENT POSITION
Dr. Philip E, Enterline
Professor of Biostat1stics &
Director for the Center for
Environmental Epidemiology
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
10/86
10/89
None
Member, Environmental
Health Committee
Dr. Ben B. Ewing
Director, Institute for
Environmental Studies
University of Illinois at
Urhana-Champa ign
Urban, Illinois
4/82
9/87
None
Mewfoe r. Environmental
Engineering Committee
Dr. inavis \*. Fow3
Group Vice President
Engineering Science,
Austin, TBC
4/82
9/87
None
Inc,
Member, Environmental
Engineering Coranittee
Dr, Robert Frank
The Johns Hopkins School
Of Hygiene and Public
Health
Baltimore, Mfl
11/83
9/Bfl
Consultant
cnsAC &
Environmental
Health Committee
Consultant
Merrfoer, Clean Mr
Scientific Advisory
Committee
10, Dr. Sheldon K. Friedlander
Parsons Professor of
Chemical Engineering
[iniM*mlty r>f cral
at lJDS Angeles
Angeles, O\
10/82
9/87
SAB "technology
Oonmittee 1975-78
CW5AC 1^78-1982
Meraber-At-La rge
-------
APPOINTED TERMINATION DATE
FORMER SAB SERVICE
CURRENT POSITION
11. Or, Wilfori R. Gardner
Head, Department of Soils,
Water and Engineering
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
4/82
9/87
None
Member, Environmental
Effects, Transport
& Fate Committee
1.2. Dr. Earnest f* Gloyna
Dean, College of Engineering
University of Itexas at Austin
Austin, Ttexas
11/B1
9/87
Chair, Executive
Ccondttee
Member, Executive
Committee
1.3. Mr. George P. Green 5/82
Public Service Company of Colorado
Manager, Production Services
Littleton, CO
9/88
None
Menfcer, Environmental
Engineering Committee
14, Dr« Rich and A. Griesener
Director, Biology Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak lidge, Tennessee
1/85
9/B7
None
Chair, Environmental
Health Committee
15. Dr. Bolf Hartung 4/82
Professor of Environmental
lexicology, School of Public Health
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
9/87
None
Chair, Environmental
Effects, Tranaport,
& Pate Committee
16» Dr. J, William Haun
Vice President
Eng ineeringPollcy
General Mills, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
4/R2
9/87
None
tenter, Environmental
Engineering Carmittee
-------
CURRENT
WHEN APPOINTED TERMINATION DATE.
FORMER SAB SERVICE
CURHEMT POSITION
17. Dr.- George H. Hidy
President
Desert Research Institute
Reno, NV
4/82
9/87
None
Member, Executive
Conmittee
18. Dr. Robert J. Huggett 9/84
Senior Marine Scientist
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William & Mary
Gloucester Point, VA
9/88
Homer SAB Consultant
Member, Environmental
Effects, Transport,
& Fate Committee
19. Dr. Seymour Jablon 12/84
Director, Medical Pollow-up Agency
National Research Council
Wash., D.C.
9/88
None
Meirter, Radiation
Advisory Committee
20. Dr. Kenneth D. Jenkins ,
Professor of Biology
California State University
at Long Beach
Long Beach, CA
5/85
9/87
Former SAB Consultant
Mentoer, Environmental
Effects, Transport
& fate Committee
21. Dr. Warren B. Johnson
Director, Atmospheric
Science Center
SM International
Menlo Park, CA
1/83
9/S7
None
Meittoer, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory
ODnmittee
22. E. Marshall Johnson
Professor and Chairman
Department of. Anatomy
Jefferson Medical College
Philadelphia, PA 19107
10/85
9/87
Former SMJ Consultant
Menfoer, Environmental
Health Committee
-------
CURRENT MEMBERS
WHEN APPOINTED TERMINATION DATE PORKER SAB SERVICE
CURRENT POSITION
23i Dr. Nancy Kim
Director, New York Department
of Health
Bureau of Toxic Substance
Assessment
Albany, New York
1/85
9/87
None
Member, Environmental
Health Committee
24.
Dr. Timothy V. Larson 10/86
Research Associate
Environmental Engineering & Science
Program
Department of Civil Engineering
Seattle, Washington
10/89
Former SAB Consultant Member, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory
Committee
25.
Dr. John Laseter
Knviro Health Systems
Richardson, Texas
1/84
9/87
Former SAB Member
Member, Environmental
Effects, Transport
& Fate Committee
F
.CO
2G. Dr. Terry Lash 12/84
Director
Department of Nuclear Safety
Springfield, Illinois
27. Dr. Joseph Ling 7/84
Vice President Retired
Consultant
3M Company
St. Paul, MN
9/87
9/88
Former SAB Consultant
Member, Radiation
Advisory Committee
Former SAB Consultant Member, Environmental
Engineering Conmitbee
-------
CURRENT MEMBERS
WHEN APPOINTED TERMINATION DATE FORMER SAB SERVICE
CURRENT POSITION
28, Dr. Morton Lippnann
Professor of Env. Medicine
Institute of Environmental
Med icine
Hew York University
Medical Center
Mew York, New York
9/83
9/87
Ec-oner SAB Consultant
Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory
Committee
29» Or, Raymond Loehr
Civil Engineering Department
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
10/83
9/87
SAB Technology
Conmittee
1976-1981
Chair, Environtnantal
Engineering Cormuttee
30. Dr. William Lowrance
Senior Eel low and Director
Life Sciences Program
Tlie Rockefeller University
New York, Wew York
6/83
9/87
None
Member, Executive
Committee
31. Dr. Francis L. Macrina
Department of Microbiology &
Immunology
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, Virginia
10/86
10/88
Fbrner SAB Consultant Member-At-Large
32, Dr. Roger o. McClellan.
Lovelace Biomedical and
Environmental Rase arch Inst.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
2/80
9/87
SAB Executive
Contra., 1976-19 BO
Environmental Health
Coom., 1980-82
itovironmental Health
Conmittee Chair
Menrter, Executive
Committee
-------
CURRENT MEMBERS
WHEN APPOINTED TERMINATION RATE FORMER SAB
33. Dr. Francis C. McMichael
Professor of Civil
Engineering
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
6/83
9/87
SAB, Technology
Committee,
1979-ai Former
SAB Consultant
CURRENT POSITION
Herribe r-At-La rge
34. Dr. Robert A. Weal
President, Chemical Industry
Institute of "floxicology
Research Triangle Park, NC
11/82
12/87
FIFRA SAP, 1976-80
NEWAC, 1979-82,
1983-85, Former SAB
Consultant
Member, Executive
Committee
Or. .Tames V. Neel 12/84
fee It. Dice University Professor
of: fluman Genetics
University of Michigan Medical School
Ann Arbor, Michigan
9/88
Former SAB Consultant
Member, Radiation
Advisory Committee
i
o
!>r, Morton Nelson
Professor of Environmental
Medicine
New York University
Hew York, New York
1/83
9/88
Environmental Health
Committee 1975-1979
Chair, Executive
Committee
37. Dr. John K. Neuhold
Dept. of Wildlife Sciences
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Utah
10/82
9/87
Ecology Committee
1974-1978.
SAB Executive Com. T
1980-1982
Chair, Subooramittee
on Strategic & Long-
Term Research Planning
38. Dr. n. Warner North
Principal, Decision Focus, Inc.
l£)S Alto, CA
4/82
9/89
Former SAB Consultant
Member, Environmental
Health Committee
-------
WHEN APKMIfreo TERMINATION DATE
FORMER SAB SERVICR
CURHENT POSITION
39. Dr. Oddwar Nygaaod
Professor of Radiology
Director of the Division of
Radiation Biology
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
12/84
9/88
None
Member, Radiation
Committee
40. Dr. Donald J. O'Connor
Professor of Environmental
Engineering
Martiattan College
Bronx, NY
10/83
9/87
None
Mentor, Environmental
Engineering Conmittee
41. Dr. Charles R. O'Helia
Professor, Dept. of Geography
and Environmental Engineering
John Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
4/82
9/87
None
Member, Environmental >-
Engineering Committee r
42. Dr. Charles F. Reinhatdt
Haskell Laboratory for 'toxicology
and Industrial Medicine
E. I, dy Pont de Nemours & Company
Newark, Delaware
1/85
9/8?
None
Mente r-At~Large
43. Dr. William J, Schull
Director and Processor of
Population Genetics
Science Center at Houston
Houston, Ttexas
4/02
9/87
Menter, Environmental
Health Conmittee
Chair, Radiation
Mvisory Conmittee
-------
TERMINATION DOTE FQBMER SAB SERVICE
CURRE3W POSITION
44. Dr. Ellen K. Silberaeld
Senior Scientist
•toxic Chemicals Program
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C,
6/83
Hone
Member, Executive
Committee
45. Dr. Warren Sinclair
President, National Council on
Radiation Protection and
Measurements
Bethesda, Maryland
12/84
9/fia
7
tellter> Radiation
Advisory Committee
SAB Q^ultant
Department of Civil Engineering
Carnegie-Mellon University
Schenley Park
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Engineering Conroittee
OJ
K)
47. tr. Charles Suaskina
Professor, llectrical
Engineering and Conputer
Sciences Department
Oniwrsity of California
at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
6/83
W
§/Sfl
X
Radiation
Advisory Committee
48, Jan A» 0» StolwljJc
Department of Epidemiology
ana Public Health
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Conrvecticrut
6/86
9/88
7
r>^ t -, *
Chair' Illdoor Air
Research Seview
Subcommittee
-------
CURRENT
IMfN MTOIWTED TERMINATION OOTR FORMER SAB SERVICE
CURRENT POSITION
49. Dr. Robert Tan3iff
Environ-Corporation
Washington, D.C.
1/85
9/87
None
Member, Environmental
Health Committee
50. Dr. John Till
Private Consultant
Nooses, South Carolina
12/84
9/87
None
Neither, Radiation
Advisory Committee
51. Dr. James Ware
Department of Biostati sties
Harvatd School of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts
8/84
9/87
ibrmer CSSAC
Consultant
Meitter, Clean Mr
Scientific Advisory
Committee
52. Dr. Bernard Weiss 11/84
Professor, Division of Toxicology
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
9/87
fb-rraer SAB Consultant Member, Environmental
Health Conraittee
53. Dr. Jerome J» Wesolowski
Air and Industrial Hygiene Lab 1/86
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California
9/88
None
Member, Clean Air
Scientific Mvisory
Coromitbee
54. Dr. James Whlttenberger
Southern Occupational Health
Center
University o£ California
Irvine, CA
12/93
9/87
Environmental Health
Committee
Member-At-Large &
Long-tetro Research
Planning Subcommittee
55. Or, RonaM R.
Program Manager
Electric Power Hosearch
Institute
11/84
9/89
Itormer RAB Consultant Mernber, Environinental
lioalth Conmittee
------- |