United States EPA Science Advisory EPA-SAB-03-011
Environmental Board (1400A) August 2003
Protection Agency Washington, DC www.epa.gov/sab
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
FY 2002 ANNUAL STAFF REPORT
-------
EPA Science Advisory Board s
FY 2002 Annual Staff Report
Ms. Vickie Richardson, Ms. Patricia Thomas and Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson, Editors
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
ThisThis report is a summary ofThis report is a summary of activities of the U.S. Environmental I
ScienceScience Advisory Board Staff Office foScience Advisory Board Staff Office for Fiscal Ye
reviewedreviewed by the Board or the Agency, and shouldreviewed by the Board or the Agency, am
views of either organization.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function 1
1.2 SAB Organization and Membership 2
1.3 SAB Activities 4
1.4 SAB Products 5
1.4 Content of the Report 5
2.0 FY 2002 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 9
2.1 Executive Committee (EC) 10
2.1.1 Background 10
2.1.2 Activities 11
2.1.3 Products 11
2.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL) 12
2.2.1 Background 12
2.2.2 Activities 12
2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 13
2.3.1 Background 13
2.3.2 Activities 13
2.3.3 Products 14
2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC) IS
2.4.1 Background IS
2.4.2 Activities IS
2.4.3 Products 16
2.S Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) 16
2.S.I Background 16
2.S.2 Activities 16
2.S.3 Products 16
2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) 17
2.6.1 Background 17
2.6.2 Activities 18
2.6.3 Products 18
2.7 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) 19
2.7.1. Background 19
2.7.2 Activities 19
2.7.3 Products 19
2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC) 20
2.8.1 Background 20
2.8.2 Activities 20
2.8.3 Products 20
2.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) 21
2.9.1 Background 21
-------
2.9.2 Activities 21
2.9.3 Products 21
2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) 22
2.10.1 Background 22
2.10.2 Activities 22
2.10.3 Products 23
2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) 23
2.11.1 Background 23
2.11.2 Activities 24
2.11.3 Products 24
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SAB s STRUCTURE & AUTHORITIES A-l
Al Organizational Chart A-2
o
A2 Introduction to Charters A-3
A2.1 United States Environmental Protection Agency Charter
EPA Science Advisory Board A-4
A2.2 United States Environmental Protection Agency Charter
o J
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee A-7
A2.3 United States Environmental Protection Agency Charter
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis A-10
APPENDIX B - SAB ACTIVITIES & PRODUCTS B-l
Bl SAB Meetings for FY 2002 B-2
B2 SAB FY 2002 Products B-S
B3 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, Commentaries and Workshop Reports B-7
B4 SAB Reports and Notification of SAB Meetings B-l 9
BS Abstracts of the SAB Lecture Series
Science & the Human Side of Environmental Protection B-20
APPENDIX C - SAB PEOPLE C-l
Cl SAB Staff Organization Chart C-2
o
C2 SAB Committee Chairs C-3
C3 Guidelines For Service on The EPA Science Advisory Board C-7
C4 Types of Affiliation With The SAB C-14
CS SAB Members for FY 2002 C-16
C6 SAB Consultants for FY 2002 C-20
C7 Biographical Sketches of the SAB Staff C-31
11
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i-j-ihis report his report is intended to provide and reveal the his report is intended to provide and reveal the products of the Ei
J. toto ato a wide audience, to those both inside and outside the Agency. More specifically, thepurpose
ofof this Annual Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board ofthis Annual Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff is twofol
introduction to the SAB; and b) To provide a summary of the SAB s activities for FY 2002.
1.1 SAB FORMATION, AUTHORITY
AND FUNCTION
T:
•
-------
development process, advice on needed research,
unsolicited advice on technical topics that the
Board feels should be brought to the
o
Administrator s attention, and
forums/workshops/seminars for broadening and
leavening the Agency s thinking.
o o J o
1.2 SAB ORGANIZATION AND
MEMBERSHIP
T:
•
-------
SAB Staff Office Directors
June 2002
1988-2002
1981-1988
1978-1981
1975-1977
Dr. Vanessa T. Vu
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Thomas Bath
The Executive Committee (EC) serves as
the focal point to coordinate the activities of the
Board's 10 standing committees. The
organization of the SAB is depicted on Appendix
Al. The EC regularly meets to act on Agency
o J o J
requests for reviews, to hear briefings on
pertinent issues, to initiate actions/reviews by
the Board which it feels are appropriate, and to
approve final reports prior to transmittal to the
Administrator. Reports from the separately
chartered CASAC and the Council are submitted
directly to the Administrator, without need for
prior Executive Committee review or approval.
The charters for SAB, CASAC, and Council are
found in Appendix A2.
Five Committees have historically
conducted most of the EPA Science Advisory
Board reviews:
(a) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC):
Mandated by the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments
(b) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC)
(c) Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
(d) Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
(e) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Between 1986 and 1990, five additional
committees were added:
(a) Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC): Mandated by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act in
FY 1986
(b) Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC): Requested by the Administrator
in response to the Board s Future Risk
report in FY 1988
(c) Drinking Water Committee (DWC):
Evolved from the EHC in FY 1990
(d) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council): Mandated by the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(e) Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC): Requested by the
Administrator in response to the Board's
Reducing Risk report in FY 1990
The Board supplements the activities of
-------
these Committees by establishing a variety of ad
hoc Subcommittees as needed.
The Members of the SAB constitute a
distinguished body of scientists, engineers, and
economists and other social scientists who are
recognized, non-federal experts in their
respective fields. These individuals are drawn
from academia, industry, state government, and
environmental communities throughout the
o
United States and, in some limited cases, other
countries. As needed, the SAB also accesses
experts via the route of Federal Expert and
Invited Expert. These categories are described in
greater detail in Appendix CS, Types of
Affiliation with the SAB.
The number of Members is flexible. In
FY 2002, SAB consisted ofj.07 members
appointed by the Administrator for two-year
terms, renewable twice. Service as Committee
Chair can lead to as much as an additional four
years of continuous service. A formal guideline
J o
on Membership service was adopted by the
Executive Committee in FY 1993 and has been
followed by the Administrator in making
J o
appointments (see Appendix C4).
More than 300 technical experts, invited
by the Staff Director, serve on an as needed
basis as Consultants to the Board on various
issues where their expertise is relevant. The
number of Consultants is flexible, and their one-
year terms can be renewed indefinitely.
Consultants are required to meet the same
standards of technical expertise as do the
Members.
Appendices C6 and C7 contain a list of
the FY 2002 SAB Members and Consultants
(M/C), respectively. TheM/Cs serve as Special
Government Employees (SGEs) and are subject
to all relevant Federal requirements, including
compliance with the conflict of interest statutes
(18U.S.C. Section 202-209).
The activities of the 400 M/Cs are
supported by a Staff Director, Deputy Staff
Director, Special Assistant, two Team Leaders
(Committee Operations Staff (who also serves as
a Designated Federal Officer (DFO), and the
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff); five
scientists/engineers who serve as DFOs, four
administrative staff, four support staff, one
detailee, and a National Older Workers Career
Center Office Assistant (see Appendix C8 for
Staff Biographies and Staff Transitions).
The SAB Staff works with the Agency to
o J
identify potential issues for SAB attention,
focuses questions for review, works with the
Board to identify and enlist appropriate Members
and Consultants, interfaces between the Board
and the Agency as well as with the public,
coordinates logistics for reviews, and produces
drafts of minutes and reports for submission to
the Administrator.
1.3 SAB ACTIVITIES
A:
Ls shown in Table I, the SAB s budget
in FY 2002 totaled more than $2.8
million. Table II and Table III show that these
resources enabled the Board to conduct^ 3
meetings and to issue 22 reports (see Appendices
Bl - B3). The increase in total costs over the
years reflects an increase in the number of Board
Members, increases in Federal pay and
allowances, and general increases in the cost of
airline travel, hotel and meeting
accommodations.
The types of projects, as well as the
range of subject matter, undertaken by the SAB
continues to grow. The Board takes on activities
o
at the request of Congress, the Administrator,
and EPA s various program offices, as well as on
its own initiative. In general, the trend over time
-------
has been for more SAB reviews, addressing more
varied subjects, requested by a wider range of
individuals and organizations.
o
SAB reports most often present the
findings of peer reviews of nearly-completed
Agency projects and contain considerable detail
about the findings and recommendations of the
Board. An SAB report is generally structured as
a response to a formal Charge to the Board. The
1 o
Charge is a set of specific questions, negotiated
by the Agency and the SAB, that guide, but do
not constrain, the review.
1.4 SAB PRODUCTS
Tables I , II and III display the SAB's
operating expenses, meeting activity, report
production, and staffing for the past five fiscal
years (1998-2002).
In recent years the SAB has worked with
the Agency to produce more timely advice that is
focused at the front-end of the Agency's
involvement with an issue. First, the Board can
conduct the "Consultation as a means of
conferring, as a group of knowledgeable
individuals, in public session with the Agency on
a technical matter, before the Agency has begun
7 o J o
substantive work on that issue. The goal is to
leaven EPA's thinking by brainstorming a variety
of approaches to the problem very early in the
development process. There is no attempt or
intent to express an SAB consensus or to generate
a formal SAB position. The Board, via a brief
letter, simply notifies the Administrator that a
Consultation has taken place.
Second, the Board may conduct an
"Advisory" as a means of providing, via a formal
SAB consensus report, critical input on technical
issues during the Agency s position development
process. In most instances, the topic of the
Advisory will later be the subject of an SAB
report, once the Agency has completed its work.
Third, most Reports are full-fledged
peer reviews of essentially completed Agency
products. Letter reports are similar in origin,
content, and purpose to full reports.
They are simply shorter; thereby generally
resulting in more rapid advice to the Agency.
Periodically the SAB will issue the results of a de
novo other-than-peer-review project as an SAB
report; cf Toward Integrated Environmental
Decision Making in FY 2000.
o
Fourth, the "Commentary" is a short
communication that provides unsolicited SAB
advice about a technical issue the Board feels
should be drawn to the Administrator's attention.
Fifth, the Workshop denotes SAB
Workshop seminars.
Appendix B2 details meeting activity and
report preparation by Committee during FYO1.
1.5 CONTENT OF THIS REPORT
This Report consists of two sections, plus
appendices supplementing the discussion in the
main sections. Following this Introduction
o
(Section 1), Section 2 focuses on SAB Committee
activities during FY 2002.
The Appendices contain important
information, such as organizational charts,
membership lists, abstracts of SAB reports, and
summaries of SAB seminars.
-------
Figure 2. SAB s Estimated Expenses ($K) for Fiscal Year 2002
Table I
Budget Totals for Fiscal Years 1998 - 2002
(In thousands of dollars)
Fiscal
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Staff
Compensation
1,250
1,318
1,488
1,505
1,548
M/C
Compensation
600
630
603
615
818
Total
1,850
1,948
2,091
2,120
2,366
Travel
285
308
290
310
226
Other
Expenses
281
298
312
365
296
Total
2,416
2,554
2,693
2,795
2,888
*Estimated
-------
Figure 3. SAB Activities for Fiscal Year 2002
Table II
SAB Activities for Fiscal Years 1998 - 2002
Fiscal Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Public
Meeting
42
33
32
24
18
Public
Teleconference
8(16%)
14(29%)
22(40%)
34(58%)
25(58%)
Closed
Meeting
1
1
1
1
0
Total
51
48
55
59
43
-------
Figure 4. Committee Reports for Fiscal Years 1998 - 2002
Table III
Committee Reports and Staffing for Fiscal Years 1998 - 2002
Committee Reports
Fiscal Years
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Full
Reports
11
19
17
8
11
Short
Reports*
10
21
20
12
8
Total
21
40
37
20
19
Notifications
of
Consultations
9
8
8
8
3
Staffing
Members
102
105
104
112
107
Federal Staff
(Full Time
Equivalents, FTEs)
19.7
19.7
18.8
18.8
17.0
1 (include Letter reports, Advisories & Commentaries)
-------
T:
2.0 FY 2002 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
•
-------
2.1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (EC)
EC Members
chair. Dr. William
'./ Oregon Health & Science University
Dr. Henr$ Anoerson
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Dr. TrMo$ Cameron
University of Oregon
Dr. Rennet^ Cummins
Humboldt State University
Dr. Dow Grasso
Smith College
Dr. Linda Greer
Natural Resources Defense Council
Dr. Philip Hop^e
Clarkson University
Dr. Janet Johnson
MFC, Inc.
Dr. Roger Kasperson
Dr. Raymond Loeyr
University of Texas
Dr. M. Granger Morgan
Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. William Swit
Yale University
Dr. Rofcert Stawins
Harvard University
Dr. R. Rhodes Trussed
Trussell Technologies
Dr. Terry Young
Environmental Defense
Stockholm Environment Institute
Liaison irom Otljer FACA Committees
Board of Scientific Counselors
Dr Geralo Sc(moor
University of Iowa
EIERA Scientific Actoisor^ Pane
Dr. Ron alo Kendall
Texas Tech University
Cyiloren s Realty Protection Actoisor^ Cowwittee
Dr. Joel Benoer
American Chemistry Council
2.1.1 BACKGROUND
T:
ihe EC coordinates the work of
eight SAB standing Committees
and numerous ad hoc subcommittees and panels,
and works collegially with the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Advisory
Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
(Council), both of which are administratively
housed within the SAB Staff Office. The EC had
four active subcommittees during the year.
o J
(a) Evaluation of Metals and Metals Compounds
Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. Valerie Thomas
Princeton University
(b) Benefits, Costs and Impacts of RCRA Subtitle
C and UST Programs Panel
Chair: Dr. Myrick Freeman
Bowdoin College
o
10
-------
(c) Particulate Matter (PM) Centers Review Panel
Chair: Mr. Daniel Greenbaum
Health Effects Institute
(d) Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards (STAA) Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. H. C. Ward
Rice University
With a Membership consisting of a Chair,
the Chairs of the eight standing Committees, the
CASAC and the Council, and six At-large
Members, this FACA-chartered institution is the
nerve center of SAB activity, reviewing reports
from the standing Committees (with the
exception of reports from the separately chartered
CASAC and Council), discussing proposals from
standing Committees, and directing the work of
ad hoc subcommittees that address complex issues
calling for multi-disciplinary expertise.
2.1.2 ACTIVITIES
i;
rn FY 2002, the EC met two times in
Lface-to-face FACA meetings. In
o
addition, the EC conducted four publicly
accessible conference calls to review formally
reports from SAB committees and subcommittees.
The EC s four subcommittees introduced
in the previous subsection collectively met face-
to-face three times and seven times by publicly
accessible conference call.
2.1.3 PRODUCTS
T
he EC s efforts resulted in the
following advice being sent to the
Administrator in FY 2002:
(a) Interim Review of the Particulate Matter (PM)
Research Centers of the USEPA (EPA-
SAB-EC-02-008)
(b) Overview of the Panel Formation Process at
the EPA Science Advisory Board
(EPA-SAB-EC-02-010)
In addition to these two reports, the EC
generated one Commentary and one Advisory in
FY2002:
(a) EPA Science Advisory Board Panel Formation
Process: Immediate Steps to Improve
Policies and Procedures.:
An SAB Commentary
(EPA-SAB-EC-COM-02-003)
(b) Evaluating the National Scale Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) 1996 Data:
An SAB Advisory
(EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-02-001)
The EC also produced one Workshop
report during FY 2002:
(a) EPA SAB/EPA Workshop on the Benefits of
Reductions in Exposure to hazardous Air
Pollutants: Developing Best Esitmates of
Dose-Response Functions
(EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001)
The EC coordinates the work of 10
standing committees and numerous ad hoc
o
subcommittees and panels. Appendix B3 contains
abstracts of these documents; complete
documents are available on the SAB Website,
http://www.epa.gov/sab..
11
-------
2.2 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
(COUNCIL)
COUNCIL Members
Cyan: Dr. Trudy Came, ran. University of Oregon
Ms. Laurame Chestnut
Stratus Consulting Inc.
Dr. Don Fufferton
University of Texas
Dr. Lawrence Gowfder
Stanford University
Dr. Jane H all
California State University
Dr. James Haw wit
Harvard University
Dr. Charles Kofstod
University of California
Dr. Lester K.Lave
Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. Paul J. Li
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Dr. Pawfette Middfeton
Panorama Pathways
Dr. V. Kerr$ Sw M\)
North Carolina State University
2.2.1 BACKGROUND
T
i. r
Council has its origin in the
requirements of Section 812 of the
Clean Act Amendments of 1990. That section
mandated that a Council be established to provide
independent advice on technical and economic
aspects of analyses and reports that the Agency
prepares concerning the impacts of the Clean Air
Act on public health, the economy, and the
environment of the United States; i.e., overall
costs and benefits.
2.2.2 ACTIVITIES
The Council did not hold any activities in
FY2002.
12
-------
2.3 CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CASAC)
CASAC Members
Dr. Frederic^ Miller
CUT Centers for Health Research
Mr. Richard L. Poirot
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Dr. Frank Speizer
Harvard Medcal School
Swerre
National J
2.3.1 BACKGROUND
The CASAC is a separately chartered
Federal advisory committee that is
administratively housed within the offices of the
SAB. As an independent advisory committee, the
Committee reports directly to the EPA
Administrator. The Chair of CASAC serves as a
Member of the SAB Executive Committee, and
the Members of CASAC are also Members of the
SAB.
The CASAC has a statutorily mandated
responsibility (under the 1977 and 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments) to review and offer scientific
and technical advice to the Administrator on the
air quality criteria and regulatory documents
which form the basis for the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). NAAQS have been
established for lead, particulate matter (PM),
ozone and other photochemical oxidants (O3),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
and sulfur oxides (SOx). The CASAC process
includes a peer review of the Office of Research
and Development's Air Quality Criteria
Document (CD) for a given NAAQS, followed by
peer review of the Office of Air and Radiation's
Staff Paper (SP) for that NAAQS. The CD
contains all the relevant scientific and technical
information on the pollutant, while the SP is the
bridge between the science in the CD and the
policy decision that has to be made by the EPA
Administrator. When asked by EPA, the
Committee also reviews the scientific and
technical issues in the regulatory proposal for a
NAAQS prior to its promulgation. The
Committee also offers research recommendations
for individual NAAQS pollutants on a periodic
basis, often in conjunction with a review of the
Agency s Strategic Research Plan for that
pollutant.
2.3.2 ACTIVITIES
ihe CASAC met three times during FY
o
2002 one face-to-face meeting, two
publicly accessible conference calls. In addition,
the CASAC Subcommittee on Particle
Monitoring held one face-to-face meeting and one
o o
teleconference meeting.
13
-------
2.3.3 PRODUCTS
T
he CASAC issued the following
reports during FY 2002
(a) Review of the Agency s Continuous
Monitoring Implementation Plan
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-001)
(b) Review of the EPA Air Quality Criteria
Document for Particular Matter:
Third External Review Draft
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-003)
(c) Review of the Agency s draft Proposed
Methodology for Particulate Matter Risk
cv
Analysis for Selected Urban Areas:
An Advisory by the CASAC
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-02-002)
(d) Consultation on the Agency s Proposed
Methodology for Measuring Coarse
Particulate Matter
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-02-001)
Appendix B3 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
14
-------
2.4 DRINKING WATER COMMITTEE (DWC)
DWG Mewoers
ir: Dr. R. Rhodes TrM55e[[, Trussell Technologies, Inc
Dr. Davio Baker
Heidelberg College
Dr. M ary Dav is
West Virginia University
Dr. Ricardo DeLeon
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Dr. Jo(w Evans
Harvard University
Dr. Sidney Green
Howard University
Dr. Barbara Harper
Yakama Indian Nation
Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto
University of North Carolina-Davis
Dr. Lee D. McMwffen
Des Moines Water Works
Dr. Christine Moe
Emory University
Dr. P^ifip Singer
University of North Carolina
Dr. Gary Toranzos
University of Puerto Rico
2.4.1 BACKGROUND
T:
•
-------
2.4.3 PRODUCTS
T!
•
-------
ecological attributes and included case examples
to illustrate potential applications of the reporting
framework for EPA programs and projects. The
report, A Framework for Assessing and Reporting
on Ecological Condition, is available in a bound
report with a separate bound Executive Summary
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009 and EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-
009a)
Other EPEC reports completed during
FY2002 include:
(a) Review of the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) Water and Watersheds
Extramural Grants Program
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-001)
(b) Planning for Ecological Risk Assessment:
Developing Management Objectives
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-OOS)
(c) Review of the Southeastern Ecological
Framework
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-02-002)
Appendix B3 contains abstracts of this document;
a complete document is available on the SAB
Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (EEAC)
EEAC Members
Dr. Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future
Dr. Lawrence Gowfoer
Stanford University
Dr. Michael Hanemann
University of California
Dr. Gloria Hefland
University of Michigan
Dr. Paul Joskow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Catherine Idling
Iowa State University
d?air. Dr. Rofcert Statins, Harvard University
Dr. Ric^aro Norqa
University of California-Berkeley
Dr. Stephen Poiasky
University of Minnesota!
Dr. Richard Reu esz
New York University
Dr. Jason S^ogren
University ofWyoming
Dr. Hilary Si0man
Rutgers University
2.6.1 BACKGROUND
T
he EEAC provides advice to the
Administrator on cross-cutting
guidance for EPA's office that conduct analyses of
o J
economics, cost, and benefits of environmental
regulations. The Committee also advises the
Agency on its economic research efforts. On
17
-------
occasion, the Committee provides independent
advice and peer reviews to EPA's Administrator
on the technical aspects of specific economic
analyses that are used in the development of
regulations or other Agency initiatives. All parts
of the Agency are potentially clients for the
Committee.
2.6.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
ihe EEAC met three times (two face-
to-face meetings and one telephone
conference meeting) in FY2002. Topics
discussed during the face-to-face meetings
included:
(a) A briefing on EPA s continuing efforts to
\ / o o
enhance its practices for estimating the
benefits of environmental actions that
reduce mortality risks
b) A Consultation on possible opportunities
for using incentives in water quality
o 1 J
pollution control
c) A Consultation on EPA s approach to
developing an economic research
strategy
d) A briefing on the Pollution Abatement
Cost and Expenditures (PACE) Survey,
and
e) A review of the national affordability
criteria for small systems.
During the telephone conference meeting, the
EEAC reached closure on its advice that is to be
delivered in a report to the Administrator on the
EPA small system affordability criteria.
2.6.3 PRODUCTS
The Committee issued one
Commentary and two Notifications
of Consultation during FY 2002.
a) Importance of Maintaining the Annual
Pollution Abatement Cost and
Expenditures (PACE) Survey
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-02-001)
b) Market Incentives: A SAB Notification of
Consultation
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-02-002)
c) An Approach to Developing a Research
Agenda for Environmental Economics: A
SAB Notification of Consultation
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-02-003)
Appendix B3 contains abstracts of this
document; a complete document is available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
18
-------
2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE (EEC)
EEC MewSers
Cya ir: Dr. Dow enico Gra ssof Smith College
PflSt C(?ah: Hilary Inyan0/ University ofNorth Carolina-Charlott
Dr.
Utah State University
Dr. Brwce E. Rittwiann
Northwestern University
Dr. Thomas T^eis
University of Illinois-C hicago
Dr. Vaferie Thomas
Princeton University
Barry ]
sana State Un
2.7.1. BACKGROUND
T:
EEC is one of the original five SAB
o
committees. The interests/
responsibilities of this interdisciplinary
Committee, anchored by the presence and
leadership of environmental engineers, have
grown to include such cross-Agency issues as
industrial ecology, technology diffusion, and
implementation of the Quality System.
2.7.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
ihe EEC and its Subcommittees
conducted one face-to-face meeting
and four publicly accessible conference calls in FY
2002.
2.7.3 PRODUCTS
T
he EEC's work resulted in the
following advice being submitted to
the Administrator:
a) Industrial Ecology: A Commentary by the
EPA Science Advisory Board
(EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-02-002)
Appendix B3 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
19
-------
2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE (EHC)
EHC Mewoers
Dr. Henry A. AH&ersOH, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Dr. Michael DeBawn
Washington University School of Medicine
Dr. Paul Foster
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Dr. Dflfe Hattis
Clark University
Dr. Datn'd Hoe
University of South Carolina
Dr. George Lambert
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson University
Dr. Grace Lewiasters
University of Cincinnati
Dr. Abb$ Li
Monsanto Company
Dr. ufri^e Lwoerer
Universit of California-Irvine
Dr.
New York University
2.8.1 BACKGROUND
T;
EHC, one of the original five SAB
Committees, now shares
responsibilities for the review of health effects-
related issues with several Committees of the
Board (DWC, IHEC, RAC, and CASAC). Over
the past several years, the principal focus for the
EHC has been on issues related to development
and use of guidelines for health risk assessments,
rather than the review of agent-specific
assessments which had previously been a major
activity. In contrast this year, the EHC reviewed
EPA s Trichloroethylene (TCE) Health Risk
Assessment.
2.8.2 ACTIVITIES
ihe EHC formed a new Panel,
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Health Risk
Assessment Review Panel, composed of EHC
Members plus Consultants and conducted 1 face-to-
face and 2 teleconference meetings on the review of
o
the Office of Research and Development s draft TCE
Health Risk Assessment during late FY 2002.
2.8.3 PRODUCTS
T
he report for the above referenced
meetings is in preparation.
The EHC produced the following report
as part of a joint effort with the SAB Integrated
Human Exposure Committee (IHEC):
(a) Review of the Office of Air and Radiation and
Indoor Air s draft Methodology for
cv
Ranking Indoor Air Toxics
(EPA-SAB-EHC/IHEC-02-004)
Appendix B3 contains abstracts of this
document; a complete document is available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
20
-------
2.9 INTEGRATED HUMAN EXPOSURE COMMITTEE (IHEC)
IHEC Members
Chair. Dr. Ken Sexton, University of Minnesota
Past chair: Dr. Henry Anoerson, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Dr. Timothy Buckley
Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Annette Guiseppi-Elie
DuPont Spruance Plant
Dr. Rofeert Havley
University of California
Dr. Lovell Jones
University of Texas
Dr. Catherine Kos(;[flno
University of California
Dr. George W. Lwcier
Consultant
Dr. Rflno^ Maooflfena
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Dr. Refeecca Parkin
The George Washington University
Dr. Jeo M. Walkman
Calfornia Department of Health Servic es
Dr. Dawio Wa iimga
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Dr. Charles Wesc(;[er
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
2.9.1 BACKGROUND
i:
[n 1996, the Executive Committee
established the Integrated Human
Exposure Committee (IHEC) in growing
recognition of the need for the Agency -- and the
Board --to consider risk factors, including
exposure, in a more holistic fashion. The IHEC
was essentially a re-naming of the Indoor Air
Quality Committee (IAQC) that was formed in
response to a Congressional determination
(Superfund Act of 1986) that the actual exposure,
including indoor air, of the human population to
various environmental agents is a key factor in
determining the nature and extent of possible
health risks.
2.9.2 ACTIVITIES
I
n FY 2002, IHEC held no meetings
2.9.3 PRODUCTS
Committee, in conjunction with
the Environmental Health Committee
(EHC) produced a report titled:
T:
(a) Review of the Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air s Draft Methodology for Ranking
cv o
Indoor Air Toxics
(EPA-SAB-EHC/IHEC-02-004)
This report reviewed a draft methodology for
generating an order-of-magnitude, screening-level
ranking of key indoor air toxics. The
methodology was developed by EPA s Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (OIRA) as an outgrowth
of the methodology used to select key pollutants
CV J 1
for the National Air Toxics Program/Urban Air
Toxics Strategy.
Appendix B3 contains abstracts of this
document; a complete document is available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
21
-------
2.10 RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RAG Members
ir: Dr. Janet Johnson, Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Dr. Lynn Anspaugy
University of Utah
Dr. Bruce Boeder
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Dr. Giffes Bwssod
Science Network International, Inc.
Dr. Thomas E. Geseff
Idaho State University
Dr. Helen Grogan
Consultant, Cascade Scientific, Inc.
Dr. Richard HornMHg
University of Cincinnati
Dr. JiffLipoti
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Dr. Genefiewe Roessfer
Consultant
2.10.1 BACKGROUND
Throughout its history, the RAC has
had the Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air (ORIA) as its principal customer.
However, other offices within and outside of the
Agency have sought advice from the RAC. In
o J o
particular, there has been an increasing interest
and attention to inter-agency aspects of radiation
protection. As a consequence, the RAC has been
sought out by the Federal agencies, departments
and commissions and has been actively involved in
a number of joint reviews on inter-agency
J O J
technical and scientific topics. These include such
topics, such as radiation protection,
decommissionings and cleanups on products
jointly prepared by the US EPA, the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), the US
Department of Energy (DOE), and the US
Department of Defense (DOD).
2.10.2 ACTIVITIES
i;
rn FY 2002, the RAC and its Multi-
LAgency Radiological Laboratory
Analytical Protocols (MARLAP) Review Panel
met a total of five times in public meetings to
1 o
conduct it s activities. There were two face-to
face MARLAP Meetings, as well as two public
conference calls. Additionally, one RAC Planning
meeting for FY 2003 projects that took place on
September 26, 2002. In specific reference to the
MARLAP Review, the RAC expanded it s inter-
agency involvement, having also included
o J ' o
involvement by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) and the US
Geological Survey (USGS), as well as two
participating states (California and Kentucky) in
addition to involvement by the US EPA, DOD,
DOE, and the NRC in the MARLAP activity. It
is interesting to note that it took the Federal
MARLAP Work Group from these seven
participating agencies, departments and
commissions and two participating states 7 years
to prepare the review draft of the Protocols
Manual.
22
-------
2.10.3 PRODUCTS
D;
(uring Fiscal Year 2002, the
SAB/RAC s MARLAP Review Panel
worked on drafting its review report as their main
activity. Due to the extensive commentary
required by the MARLAP Review Panel, the
actual report was not finalized this fiscal year.
2.11 RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RSAC)
RSAC MewSers
Dr. Raymond Loe(;r; University of Texas
Dr. Alan Maki
EXXON Mobil
Dr. Genevieve Matanos
Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Maria Morandi
University of Texas
Dr.
University of Rochester Medical Center
Dr. James E. Watson
University ofNorth Carolina
Dr. Lauren Zeise
California Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. WiffiawJ. Adams
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.
Dr. Stew en Barteff
Cadmus Group
Dr. Ric(;a ro BM[[
MoBull Consulting
Dr. Rofein Cantor
LECG LLC
Dr.
Clarkson University
Dr. Hilary Inyan0
University ofNorth Carolina
2.11.1 BACKGROUND
The RSAC advises the Agency and
Congress on the overall EPA Science
and Technology (S&T) Budget, as well as the
Agency s overarching science programs and
policies (e.g., STAR program, peer review policy,
etc.). Each spring RSAC conducts its review of
the President s budget request for the following
fiscal year and testifies before the House
Committee on Science and Technology s
cv
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.
RSAC also provides advice to EPA as requested.
An important RSAC role is to be a
presence to encourage consideration of long-term
science at EPA. Being both a regulatory and a
science Agency, RSAC helps the Agency find ways
to use science for its immediate and intermediate
needs and also helps it maintain a long-term
23
-------
science program by providing advice and
reminders about the need to stay the course on
key areas of science.
Generally, RSAC members serve or have
served on other SAB Committees and tend to be
more senior than the members of other SAB
committees. This experience insures that the
Committee is familiar with EPA operations, its
science needs, and how Big science is budgeted
7 o o
and conducted.
2.11.2 ACTIVITIES
T
he RSAC conducted two face-to-face
meetings during the year. There
o o J
were no Consultants involved in these efforts.
Among the issues addressed at these
o
meetings were the following:
(a) Multi-Year Plan for Water Quality
(b) Multi-Year Plan for Pollution
Prevention
(c) The President s FY 2003 Science and
Technology Budget for EPA
In April, Dr. Genevieve Matanoski,
RSAC Member, testified before the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards of the House Committee on Science on
the RSAC s review of the President s Budget
o
Request for Science and Technology at USEPA.
2.11.3 PRODUCTS
T
he RSAC efforts resulted in two full
reports being submitted to the EPA
Administrator in FY 2002:
(a) FY 2003 Presidential Science and Technology
Budget Request for the Environmental
Protection Agency: An SAB Review
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-007)
(b) Water Quality and Pollution Prevention
Multiyear Plans: An SAB Review
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-003)
Appendix B3 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
24
-------
APPENDIX A
SAB s STRUCTURE & AUTHORITIES
Al. Organizational Chart
A2. Introduction to Charters
A2.1 EPA Science Advisory Board Charter
A2.2 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Charter
A2.3 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Charter
A-l
-------
Al
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Chartered under Section
812 of CAA of 1990
Chartered under Section
109 of CAA of 1977
Mandated under
SDWAof 1988
Executive Committee
Chartered under ERDDAA of 1978
All Committees (except COUNCIL and CASAC which report directly) report to the Administrator through the Executive Committee
COUNCIL Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
DWC Drinking Water Committee
EEAC Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
EEC Environmental Engineering Committee
EHC Environmental Health Committee
EPEC Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
IHEC Integrated Human Exposure Committee
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
A-2
-------
A2
CHARTERS
The Science Advisory Board was formally chartered in 1978 by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA). The Board is a Federal Advisory
Committee and must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The SAB is a
Congressionally mandated and a FACA-chartered advisory committee, currently consisting of 10 Committees
(Appendix B), coordinated by an Executive Committee.
The Charter requires formation of an Executive Committee and inclusion of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL)
(Appendix A). Otherwise, the Board may organize itself as needed to meet its responsibilities. It must
comply with FACA (5 U.S.C.) and related regulations. The charters must be renewed every two years,
announce its meetings in the Federal Register, and provide opportunities for public comment on issues before
the Board. CASAC and COUNCIL are independently chartered FACA committees. As such, they report
directly to the Administrator. However, they are administratively housed within the SAB and their Chairs
participate as fully integrated members of the SAB Executive Committee.
An advisory committee charter is intended to provide a description of a committee s mission, goals,
and objectives. It also provides a basis for evaluating a committee s progress and its effectiveness. The
advisory committee charter must contain the following information:
J o
(1) The committee s official designation;
(2) The objectives and the scope of the committee s activity
(3) The period of time necessary to carry out the committee s purpose(s)
(4) The agency or official to whom the committee reports
(S) The agency responsible for providing the necessary support to the committee
(6) A description of the duties for which the committee is responsible and specification of the
authority for any non-advisory functions
(7) The established annual operation costs to operate the committee in dollars and person years
(8) The estimated number and frequency of committee meetings
(9) The planned termination date, if less than 2 years from the date of establishment of the
committee
(10) The name of the individual and/or organization responsible for fulfilling the provisions of
section 6(b) of FACA, which requires a report to the Congress one year after a
Presidential advisory committee provides public recommendations to the President;
and
(11) The date the committee charter is filed.
A-3
-------
A2.1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CHARTER
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
EPA Science Advisory Board
2. Authority:
This charter renews the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App § 9 (c). SAB is in the public interest and supports
EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities. The former Science Advisory Board, administratively
established by the Administrator of EPA on January 11, 1974, was terminated in 1978 when the Congress
created the statutorily mandated Science Advisory Board by the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA) of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 4365. The Science Advisory Board charter
was renewed October 31, 1979; November 19, 1981; November 3, 1983; October 25, 1985; November 6,
1987; November 8, 1989, November 8, 1991, November 8, 1993, November 8, 1995, November 7, 1997,
Novembers, 1999.
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
The objective of the Board is to provide independent advice and peer review to EPA's Administrator
on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental problems and issues. While the Board reports to the
Administrator, it may also be requested to provide advice to U. S. Senate Committees and Subcommittees
and U.S. House Committees and Subcommittees, as appropriate. The Board will review scientific issues,
provide independent scientific and technical advice on EPA's major programs, and perform special
assignments as requested by Agency officials and as required by the Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, and the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
The major objectives are to review and provide EPA advice and recommendations on:
(1) The adequacy and scientific basis of any proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or
regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act, or any other authority of the Administrator
A-4
-------
(2) The scientific and technical adequacy of Agency programs, guidelines, documents,
methodologies, protocols, and tests
(3) New or revised scientific criteria or standards for protection of human health and the
environment
d. Matters as required under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 and 1990, through the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis
e. New information needs and the quality of Agency plans and programs for research,
development and demonstration
f. The relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic pollution sources
As appropriate, the SAB consults and coordinates with:
a. The Scientific Advisory Panel established by the Administrator pursuant to section 21 (b) of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended; and other Agency
FACA Committees; and
b. Other Federal advisory groups, as appropriate, to conduct the business of the Board
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of the SAB are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will report with its advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this support will be
provided by the Office of the Administrator.
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the SAB is $2,109,028 which includes 22.7
work-years of support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
There will be approximately fifty (SO) meetings of SAB s standing committees and specialized
subcommittees each year. Meetings may occur approximately four (4) ID five (5) times a month, or as
A-5
-------
needed and approved by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses
when determined necessary and appropriate. A full-time or permanent part-time employee of EPA will be
appointed as the (DFO). The DFO or a designee will be present at all meetings and each meeting will be
conducted in accordance with an agenda approved in advance by the DFO. The DFO is authorized to
adjourn any meeting when he or she determines it in the public interest to do so. Among other things, FACA
requires open meetings and an opportunity for interested persons to file comments before or after such
meetings, or to make statements to the extent that time permits.
9. Duration and Termination:
The SAB will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective until November 8,
2003, at which time it may be renewed for another two-year period.
10. Member Composition:
The SAB s Executive Committee will be composed of approximately seventeen (17) members, who
are the chairs of SAB s standing committees, chairs from the separately chartered Advisory Council on Clean
Air Compliance Analysis, the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, and at-large members. Most
members will serve as Special Government Employees. Members will be selected from among, but are not
limited to; independent scientists, engineers, and economists to provide a range of expertise required to
assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues.
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form SAB subcommittees or workgroups for any purpose consistent with this charter. Such
subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the chartered committee. Subcommittees or
workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered committee nor can they report
directly to the Agency.
October 22. 2001
Agency Approval Date
Novembers. 2001
Date Filed with Congress
A-6
-------
A2.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
2. Authority:
This charter renews the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.
§ 9 (c). CASAC is in the public interest and supports EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities.
CASAC was specifically directed by law on August 7, 1977 under § 109 of the Clean Air Act, as amended
[ACT], 42 U.S.C. 7409), and the charter was renewed on August 6, 1979; July 22, 1981; August 1, 1983;
July 23, 1985; Augusts, 1987; August 7, 1989; August 7, 1991; September 30, 1993, August 7, 1995,
August 7, 1997, and August 7, 1999.
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
CASAC will provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects
of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, sources of air
pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality.
The major objectives are to:
(a) Not later than January 1, 1980, and at five year intervals thereafter, complete a
review of the criteria published under § 108 of the Clean Air Act and the national primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards and recommend to the Administrator any new
national ambient air quality standards or revision of existing criteria and standards as may be
1 J o J
appropriate
(b) Advise the Administrator of areas where additional knowledge is required concerning
the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised national ambient air quality standards
(c) Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information
(d) Advise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of
natural as well as anthropogenic activity
A-7
-------
(e) Advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or
energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and
cv J o
maintenance of such national ambient air quality standards
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of CAS AC are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will submit advice and recommendations and report to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this support will be
provided by the EPA Science Advisory Board, Office of the Administrator.
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the CASAC is $396,372 which includes 1.9
work-years of support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The committee expects to meet approximately three (3) to six (6) times a year. Meetings may occur
approximately once every two (2) to four (4) months or as needed and approved by the Designated Federal
Officer (DFO). EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses when determined necessary and appropriate. A
full-time or permanent part-time employee of EPA will be appointed as the (DFO). The DFO or a designee
will be present at all meetings and each meeting will be conducted in accordance with an agenda approved in
advance by the DFO. The DFO is authorized to adjourn any meeting when he or she determines it in the
J J J O
public interest to do so. Among other things, FACA requires open meetings and an opportunity for
interested persons to file comments before or after such meetings, or to make statements to the extent that
time permits.
9. Duration and Termination:
CASAC will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective until
o
August 7, 2003, at which time it may be renewed for another two-year period.
10. Member Composition:
CASAC will be composed of seven (7) members. The Administrator will appoint a Chairperson and
six members including at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one
person representing State air pollution control agencies. Members shall be persons who have demonstrated
A-8
-------
high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in the scientific/technical fields relevant to air pollution
and air quality issues. Most members will serve as Special Government Employees (SGE).
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form CASAC subcommittees or workgroups for any purpose consistent with this charter.
Such subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the chartered committee.
Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered committee nor
can they report directly to the Agency.
lulv 11. 2003
Agency Approval Date
August 6. 2003
Date Filed with Congress
A-9
-------
A2.3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CHARTER
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
2. Authority:
This charter renews the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council) in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.
App. § 9 (c). The Council is in the public interest and supports the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in performing its duties and responsibilities. The Council was specifically directed
under § 812 of the Clean Air Act, as amended on November IS, 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
The Council will provide advice, information and recommendations on technical and
economic aspects of analyses and reports which EPA prepares concerning the impacts of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) on the public health, economy, and environment of the United States.
The major objectives required of the Council by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
November IS, 1990 are:
(a) Review data to be used for any analysis required under section 812 and make
recommendations on its use.
(b) Review the methodology used to analyze such data and make recommendations on
x ' CV J
the use of such methodology.
(c) Prior to the issuance of a report to Congress required under Section 812, review
the findings of the report and make recommendations concerning the validity and
o 1 o J
utility of such findings.
At EPA s request, the Council will:
(a) Review other reports and studies prepared by EPA relating to the benefits and
costs of the CAA.
A-10
-------
(b) Provide advice on areas where additional knowledge is necessary to fully evaluate
the impacts of the CAA and the research efforts necessary to provide such
information.
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of the Council are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will report to, and provide advice and recommendations to, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this
support will be provided by the Science Advisory Board (SAB).
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the Council is $199,000 which includes 1.7 work-years of
support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The Council expects to meet approximately two (2) to four (4) times a year. Meetings
will likely occur approximately once every three (3) to six (6) months, or as needed and approved
by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses as
determined necessary and appropriate by the DFO. A full-time or permanent part-time EPA employee will
be appointed as DFO. The DFO or a designee will be present at all meetings, and each meeting will be
conducted in accordance with an agenda approved in advance by the DFO. The DFO is authorized to
adjourn any meeting when he or she determines it in the public interest to do so. Among other things, FACA
requires open meetings and an opportunity for interested persons to file comments before or after such
meetings, or to make statements to the extent that time
permits.
9. Duration and Termination:
_The Council will be needed on a continuing basis, and may be renewed upon the
expiration of each successive two year period following the date of enactment of the CAA (as
amended on November IS, 1990), as authorized in accordance with § 14 of FACA.
10. Member Composition:
The Council will be composed of at least 9 members. Most members will serve as Special
Government Employees (SGE), subject to conflict-of-interest restrictions. Members will be selected from
A-ll
-------
among, but are not limited to, recognized experts from the fields of health and environmental effects of air
pollution, economics analysis, environmental sciences.
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form Council subcommittees or workgroups for any purpose consistent with
this charter. Such subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the chartered committee.
Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered committee nor
can they report directly to the Agency.
November 26. 2002
Agency Approval Date
lanuary 10. 2003
Date Filed with Congress
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B
SAB ACTIVITIES & PRODUCTS
Bl. SAB FACA Meetings for FY 2002
B2. SAB FY 2002 Products
B3. Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories and Commentaries
B4. Accessing SAB Reports and Notification of SAB Meetings
B5. Abstracts of the SAB Lecture Series - Science & the Human Side of
Environmental Protection
B-l
-------
Bl
SAB MEETINGS FOR FY 2002
Glossary of Acronyms for the EPA Science Advisory Board
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
COUNCIL Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
AQMS Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee
HEES Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee
o
DWC Drinking Water Committee
EC Executive Committee
EEAC Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
EEC Environmental Engineering Committee
EHC Environmental Health Committee
EPEC Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
IHEC Integrated Human Exposure Committee
IRP Integrated Risk Project
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RROS Risk Reduction Options Subcommittee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Note: indicates teleconferences; all other meetings arejace tojace.
All meeting were held in Washington, DC unless otherwise noted.
First Quarter
October 1
October 16-17
October 24-26
November 7
November 14
November 28-29
November 30
Committee
CASAC
RSAC
EEC
EEC
EC
EC
EEAC
Topic(s)
Methodology for Measuring
Coarse
Particles
Multi-Year Plans for Pollution Prevention
and Water Quality
Surface Impoundments
Review and Approval
Review Meeting
Review Meeting
Premature Mortality Valuation
B-2
-------
December 10-12
DWC
Second Quarter
January 11
January 28
January 30
February 1
February 8
February 11-12
February 20-21
February 27
March 6-7
March 13
March 27
Committee
EC
CASAC
EEC
EEC
EPEC
EC Subc.
RSAC
CASAC
EC
EEC
EC Subc
Stage II Disinfection/Disinfectant By-
Product Rule Proposal; and Long-
Terrn Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule Proposal
Topic(s)
Review Meeting
Continuous Monitoring
Implementation Plan
EEC Review of Subcommittee Reports on:
1) Surface Impoundments Study;
and 2) RROS
Surface Impoundments Study Review
Framework for Reporting on Ecological
Conditions
PM Centers Review
FY2003 S&T Budget Review
o
Particulate Matter Risk Assessment
Methodology; and CASAC Review
of Subcommittee Report on
Continuous Monitoring
o
Implementation Plan
Review Meeting
Review of Surface Impoundments Draft
Report
PM Centers Review
Third Quarter
April 8
April 23-25
May 8
May 9
May 20-21
June 5
Committee
RAC
RAC
EC
EC
EC
EHC
Topic(s)
Multi-Agency Radiological
Laboratory Analytic
Protocols
Multi-Agency Radiological
Laboratory Analytic
Protocols
Review Meeting
Benefits, Costs and Impacts of
RCRA Subtitle C & UST
Programs
Benefits, Cost and Impacts of
RCRA Subtitle C & UST
Programs
Trichloroethylene Health Risk
Assessment
B-3
-------
June 11
June 13
June 18
June 18-19
June 27
DWC
EEAC
EC
EHC
RAC
Candidate Contaminants List
Follow-up; 6-year Review
Process; and Planning
Affordability; and OW Trading Policy
Benefits, Costs and Impacts of RCRA
Subtitle C & UST Programs
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Health Risk
Assessment
Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory
Analytic Protocols
Fourth Quarter
JulyS
July 10-12
July 16
July 18
July 18-19
August 8
Compounds
August 12
August IS
August 28
August 29
o
September 10-12
September 24-26
September 26
Committee
EC
EC
EC
EC Subc.
EHC
EC Subc.
EEAC
EC Subc.
CASAC Subc.
EC Subc.
EC Subc.
RAC Subc.
RAC
Topic(s)
Policy and Procedures Subcommittee
Discussion
STAA Review
Review Meeting
Benefits, Costs and Impacts of RCRA
Subtitle C & UST Programs
Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment
PBT/Evaluation of Metals & Metal
Affordability
Evaluation of Metals & Metal Compounds
Particulate Matter Criteria Document
Review-Ill
Evaluation of Metals & Metal Compounds
Evaluation of Metals & Metal Compounds
MARSSIM & MARLAP II
Review Meeting
B-4
-------
B2
SAB FY 2002 PRODUCTS
| FULL REPORTS |
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-001
EPA-SAB-EC-02-002
EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-003
EPA-SAB-EHC/IHEC-02-004
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-OOS
EPA-SAB-DWC-02-006
EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-007
EPA-SAB-EC-02-008
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009a
EPA-SAB-EC-02-010
Review of the Science to Archieve Results (STAR)
Water and Watersheds Extramural Grants
Program
SAB FY 2001 Annual Report
Review of the U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development s Water Quailty and Pollution
Prevention Multiyear Plans: An SAB Report
Review of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air s
draft Methodology for ranking Indoor Air Toxics:
An SAB Report
Planning for Ecological Risk Assessment:
Developing Management Objectives: An SAB
Report
Candidates Contaminant List Research Plan
(CCLRP): An SAB Report
FY2003 Presidential Science and Technology
cv
Budget Request for the Environmental Protection
PM Center Review
A Framework for the Reporting on Ecological
Condition: An SAB Report
A Framework for the Reporting on Ecological
1 o o
Condition: An Executive Summary
Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the
Environmental Protection Agency Science
Advisory Board
B-5
-------
LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-001
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-02-002
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-003
Review of the Agency s Continuous Monitoring
o J o
Implementation Plan
Southeastern Ecological Framework: An SAB
o
Review
Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for
Particulate Matter: Third External Review Draft
(EPA 600/P-99/002aC): A CASAC Review
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-02-001
EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-02-002
NATA - Evaluating the national Scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data: An AB Advisory
Review of the Agency s draft Proposed
Methodology for Particulate matter Risk Analysis
for Selected Urban Areas; An Advisory by the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-02-001
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-02-002
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-02-003
Importance of Maintaining the Annual Pollution
Abatement Cost and Expenditures (PACE) Survey
Industrial Ecology: A Commentary by the EPA
cv J J
Sciences Advisory Board
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Panel
Formation Process: Immediate Steps to improve
Policies and Procedures
WORKSHOP REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) /EPA
Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in
Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing
Best Estimates of Dose-Response Functions
CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-02-001
EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-02-002
EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-02-003
Agency s Proposed Methodology for Measuring
Coarse Particulate Matter: A CASAC Notification
of a Consultation
Market Incentives: An EPA Science Advisory
Board Notification of a Consultation
An Approach to Developing a Research Agenda for
Environmental Economics: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Notification of a Consultation
B-6
-------
B3
FULL REPORTS
Review of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
Water and Watersheds Extramural Grants Program
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-001
The STAR Water and Watersheds Review Panel of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
reviewed the Water and Watersheds (WW) component of the Agency s Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program. STAR WW is an extramural grants program designed to complement the Agency s work on
ecosystem assessment and restoration. The specific objectives of STAR WW are to: a) develop an improved
understanding of the natural and anthropogenic processes that govern the quantity, quality, and availability
of water resources in natural and human-dominated systems; b) develop an understanding of the structure,
function, and dynamics of the terrestrial and aquatic systems that comprise watersheds; and c) promote
integration across the biological, physical, and social sciences in the area of watershed management.
Sincel996, approximately $36 million in Water and Watershed grants has been awarded to academic
researchers. These grants have required that the researchers use interdisciplinary teams (representing
biological, physical, and social sciences) to address watershed research questions. The Panel concluded that
some, but not all, of the STAR WW program s objectives have been met. The report recommends that the
STAR WW program be continued and recommends mid-course corrections to enhance the effectiveness of
the grants. Chief among these are recommendations that the Agency identify known information gaps that
limit effective watershed management and target these for research under future RFAs; retain some, but not
exclusive, emphasis on interdisciplinary projects; and far more aggressively pursue Agency plans to produce
State of the Science reports that review and analyze the collective findings of STAR-funded research.
EPA Science Advisory Board FY2001 Annual Report
EPA-SAB-EC-02-002
The EPA Science Advisory Board Staff s Annual Report captures the SAB s activities for FY 2001.
Review of the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Developments
Water Quality and Pollution Prevention Multiyear Plans: An SAB Report
EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-003
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met
October 16 and 1 / , 2001 to review the Water Quality and Pollution Prevention Multiyear Plans of the
Office of Research and Development. The objective was to: a) evaluate available illustrative MYPs from a
B-7
-------
strategic standpoint; b) to understand the extent to which major issues were being addressed, particularly in
the context of the overall EPA science and research strategy; c) to identify how annual performance goals
were intended to relate to measures of performance; and d) more importantly, to identify topics, themes,
emerging issues, and lessons learned that could help increase the understanding and usefulness of the MYPs
that are being and will be developed. The RSAC review of these two illustrative MYPs revealed a number of
items and points that should be considered as these MYPs are completed and as the other MYPs are written
and finalized. These included contextual information about how the particukr multiyear strategy fits in the
broader ORD strategy and complements the other multiyear plans, a discussion of specific measurement
issues and advances that will be addressed by the strategy, information about the particular advantages of
EPA s efforts in each of the broader research areas, and the relationship of the activities to be accomplished
to complementary efforts conducted outside of the Agency. The Committee also felt that MYPs should
explicitly address the areas of research for which they were designed and that information be included in
each MYP that indicates how the efforts and deliverables are to be accomplished (e.g., by grants, contracts,
in-house, etc.). Similarly, each plan would benefit from a careful consideration and clear discussion of how
the long-term goals can more likely be met by addressing the most important areas of scientific uncertainty.
Planners are encouraged to develop long-term goals that are not open-ended, because annual goals cannot
logically meet long-term goals where desired outcomes are not clearly articulated.
Overall, RSAC found great value in these MYPs, recognizes the thoughtful and dedicated efforts
that have been spent in preparing them, and considers them to be a sound and essential part of both EPA and
ORD research and budget planning. RSAC strongly encourages ORD to consider seriously the comments in
this report and to use them to finalize and implement these two MYPs and the remaining MYPs.
Review of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air s draft
Methodology for Ranking Indoor Air Toxics: An SAB Report
EPA-SAB-EHC/IHEC-02-004
A Joint Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board met on July 19, 2001, to review a draft
methodology for generating a ranking of indoor air toxics. The methodology was developed by EPA s
cv o o o cv 1 J
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
The Joint Committee found that the methodology used in the Ranking document appears to be
appropriate for the purpose of providing a preliminary order-of-magnitude screening-level ranking for
selected indoor air toxics. However, due to limitations in the available data used to generate the specific
rankings, data were not avaikble for a number of prevalent indoor air pollutants (carbon monoxide, radon,
asbestos, fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and environmental tobacco smoke), and pesticides
appeared to be under-represented. If the Agency makes the decision to apply the methodology, the utility
of the ranking results will be limited to the chemicals included. Nevertheless, even an uncertain and
unstable preliminary ranking system, limited to a subset of pollutants, would usually be preferable to no
ranking system use at all (random choice of pollutants for study) or a system that depends on the
chemical-of-the-week syndrome or some other non-risk bases set of criteria, unless information gaps
significantly bias the ultimate conclusions
The Joint Committee suggested also suggested that EPA should: state dearly the specific purposes
B-8
-------
for which the methodology can be used be made clear; give special consideration to sensitive populations;
perform a sensitivity analysis to identify factors having the greatest influence on the ranking; state clearly
that lack of data for a given compound should not be taken to mean that the compound is of lesser or greater
risk than compounds for which data were provided; should perform some measure of validation; and
perform periodic reviews to take advantage of newly published data.
Planning for Ecological Risk Assessment: Developing Management
Objectives: An SAB Report
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-005
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board
reviewed the Agency s draft: PlanningJbr Ecological Risk Assessment: Developing Management Objectives
(EPA/630/R-01/001A, June 2001). This draft guidance document is designed to help decision-makers
work with risk assessors, stakeholders, and other analysts to plan ecological risk assessments that will
effectively inform the decisions they make.
The Committee was asked to responded to the following charge questions: a) usefulness of the
draft and its ability to help decision-makers improve planning of ecological risk assessments; b) whether
steps outlined in setting management objectives are clear, the process is logical, and key concepts are well
defined; c) whether the depth of discussion and level of technical detail is appropriate; d) flexibility of the
guidance; and e) effectiveness of the graphics and tables used in the draft.
While the Committee found the document to be generally useful, it provided the following
recommendations for improvement: a) In order to be of optimal value to decision-makers, the focus of the
document needs better definition; b) Although the general procedure that is outlined appears fundamentally
sound, the description of each step and the relationships among the steps should be presented more clearly
and succinctly; c) The distinction between planning in preparation for the risk assessment (which involves
a wide range of participants in addition to the risk manager) and problem formulation within the risk
assessment itself (which involves the risk assessor in consultation with the risk manager) should be clarified;
d) The Agency should either delete or substantially redraft the section that provides advice regarding the
types of ecological attributes that the objectives should consider; e) The authors should request that
experienced risk managers in each of the Program offices lend their expertise and perspective to ensure the
document reflects their principles and experience in developing management objectives; and f) The Agency
should identify whether and how future guidance in ecological risk management will be developed.
In light of these needs and the Committee s strong support for this initiative, the Committee asked
to review the revised document.
Candidates Contaminant List Research Plan (CCLRP): An SAB Report
EPA-SAB-DWC-02-006
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of EPA s Science Advisory Board (SAB) met on June 12-13,
2001 to complete its review of the Environmental Protection Agency s draft Research Planjbr the Drinking
B-9
-------
Water Contaminant Candidate List dated February 21, 2001. The charge to the Drinking Water Committee
asked if the two-phase decision process described in the research pkn has a high probability of providing
information appropriate for the Office of Water s regulatory determinations for CCL contaminants.
Further, it asked if the Science Advisory Board had any suggestions for improving the integrated pknning of
research on unregulated contaminants.
o
The Panel believes that the two-phase process described in the plan was understandable and has a
high probability of producing appropriate information for the Office of Water s regulatory determinations
on CCL contaminants. However, to be successfully implemented, more complete operational definitions
will be required for many terms, concepts and criteria that are incorporated within the process. In
particular, more explicit criteria need to be identified for ranking and evaluating contaminants. With regard
to the critical need for criteria, EPA should begin their development by tying them to the general statutory
criteria for regulatory decision making mentioned above. Finally, it will be necessary for the
Implementation Team, envisioned in the plan, to have the authority, resources, time and administrative
support needed to play its coordinating role.
The Panel believes that one of the research plan s strengths is in its integration of both the research
decision making process with the Contaminant Candidate Listing regulatory process that it supports. This is
an improvement in research planning even though it contributes to the complexity of the plan. Integration
clearly shows that the two processes, regulatory and research, are inextricably linked and that the criteria to
be met to move forward in the regulatory process will significantly influence the criteria for determining
research needs and priorities. Because of the link between progress in the research program and movement
in the regulatory program there is a need for a richer articulation of how the research and regulatory
o J 1 o o J
components of the overall process interact. Terms used to describe the critical decision points that are built
into the processes need to be defined and criteria need to be developed for how those decisions are made in
the regulatory and research components of the overall process. The Panel believes that developing
operational definitions for these key terms, concepts and criteria will contribute to the achievement of the
objectives of the research plan.
The Panel also recommended that in carrying out its CCL responsibilities, the Agency use current
J o 1 ' o J
science research and established science policies to evaluate the basis for its regulatory concerns, employ a
transparent decision-making approach, and make an effective use of public participation. EPA should also
indicate how the research planning process will balance short-term and long-term investments to maximize
public health protection;
FY2003 Presidential Science and Technology Budget
Request for the Environmental Protection
EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-007
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met
February 20 and 21, 2002 to review the Science and Technology portion of the FY 2002 Presidential Budget
Request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Committee notes that both EPA and ORD
have specific Strategic Plans that continue to increasingly guide their research activities. It also notes that
EPA has made much progress identifying major programmatic needs, and that improvement in coordination
B-10
-------
between ORD and the Program Offices continues. RSAC observes that there has been satisfactory progress
in accounting for the impact of research efforts, and that initial progress has been made to define short-term
and intermediate outcomes of the EPA ORD research activities.
RSAC is encouraged by the success of the ORD post doctoral program, but is deeply concerned with
the transfer of funds that support the STAR Fellowship program to another Agency. RSAC urges the
Agency and Congress to find approaches to continue funding of the STAR Fellowship Program at EPA. The
other RSAC recommendations are that:
a) EPA continue with its Science Inventory efforts which catalogue science projects and products, so
as to capture and identify the extent of science being done at EPA.
b) EPA identify specific non-regulatory driven issues of high importance to protecting human health,
the environment, and ecosystems and in the next budget (FY 2004) request adequate S&T
funds to address approaches to mitigate such risks.
c) if Congress adds specific projects or programs for EPA, Congress should also appropriate the
funds needed for the successful completion of the projects or programs it adds on to the
S&T program budget as was done in the current fiscal year appropriations.
RSAC encourages EPA ID maintain and increase the investment in research needed to meet the needs
of the Agency. This is particularly important in emerging scientific areas such as genomics, proteomics and
bioinformatics. RSAC continues to recommend that the Agency be vigilant in defining and maintaining the
core research needed to achieve a balanced S&T research program. Further, the Committee urges the
Agency to clearly explain to OMB and Congress that the only way it will be possible to meet its expanded
responsibilities while improving the quality of the science used, is for the S&T budget to be maintained and
increased over time.
PM Centers Review
EPA-SAB-EC-02-008
The PM Centers Interim Review Panel (Panel) of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) met on
February 11-12, 2002 to review the Agency s PM Research Centers program as a mechanism for generating
research results that can inform Agency decision-making. Its major findings and recommendations were as
O J O J O
follows:
1. Overall, the Panel found that the program merits continuation beyond FY04 — through a new,
fully-competitive round of applications -- as one part of a diverse PM research portfolio at the Agency.
2. The Panel identified several specific advantages that the Centers approach offers over more
traditional research mechanisms, including enhanced flexibility and adaptability leading to improved
timeliness, ability to conduct higher-risk pilot and validation efforts, study designs enhanced by intra-center
multi-disciplinary integration, and improved leveraging of the Agency's and the Centers research resources.
3. The Panel identified several ways in which a new round of Center grants could be enhanced,
either by expanding upon activities already underway or by undertaking new efforts. Importantly, the Panel
B-ll
-------
noted that while there are evident benefits of integration within and across Centers, there are also challenges
to insure that the work of the Centers does not become isolated from that of other researchers within the
Agency and in the academic community.
A Framework for Reporting on Ecological Condition: An SAB Report
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board
reviewed the framework for assessing and reporting on ecological conditions. To accomplish these tasks, the
Agency would benefit from development of a systematic framework for assessing and reporting on
ecological condition. The framework would: help assure that the required information is measured
systematically by the Agency s programs; provide a template for assembling information across Agency
programs and from other agencies; and provide an organizing tool for synthesizing large numbers of
1 o o 7 1 o o J o o
indicators into a scientifically defensible, yet understandable, report on ecological condition.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Agency with a sample framework that may serve as a
guide for designing a system to assess, and then report on, ecological condition at a local, regional, or
o o o y ' i 7 o 7o7
national scale. The sample framework is intended as an organizing tool that may help the Agency decide
what ecological attributes to measure and how to aggregate those measurements into an understandable
picture of ecological integrity.
The SAB framework provides a checklist of ecological attributes that should be considered when
evaluating the health of ecological systems. It also provides an organizational scheme for assembling
hundreds of individual parameters into a few understandable attributes. We hope that the SAB framework
will foster more systematic collection of ecological information by the Agency, provide a locus for
integrating that information among programs both within and outside the Agency, and catalyze a trend
towards environmental reporting that addresses the essential attributes of ecological systems.
Ecological systems are complex, and it has proved extremely difficult to answer the holistic questions
that people ask about them How healthy is my watershed? Will native species be here for my children and
grandchildren to enjoy? With this report, we provide a way to integrate scientific data into the information
necessary to answer these questions, and ultimately to foster improved management and protection of
ecological systems. We look forward to your response to this report, and we would welcome the
opportunity to discuss these issues further with you as the Agency moves forward with a report on the state
of the environment.
A Framework for Reporting on Ecological Condition: Executive Summary
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009a
This report is the Executive Summary for A Framework for Reporting on Ecological Condition.
There is no abstract for this report.
B-12
-------
Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science
Advisory Board
EPA-SAB-EC-02-010
This booklet provides a general introduction to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1 o o J x '
Science Advisory Board (SAB) and one key part of its advisory process: forming advisory panels and making
decisions about conflict of interest and balance among panelists. Although each SAB project is different, the
process of panel formation follows the same basic steps.
The SAB also plans to develop companion booklets that will give an overview of the other key steps
in the advisory process, such as choosing projects; panel deliberations and report writing; the respective
roles of the Executive Committee, standing committees, and special panels; the role of the SAB Staff; and
communication.
The Board plans to provide more detailed information on each of those topics. It is planning to
develop more detailed information for panel chairs; members of the public interested in participating in the
SAB advisory process; and Agency staff interested in working with the SAB on topics of special interest to
them.
LETTER REPORTS
Review of the Agency s Continuous Monitoring Implementation Plan
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-001
The Subcommittee on Particle Monitoring of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
reviewed the draft document Continuous Monitoring Implementation Plan prepared by EPA s Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and provided advice on implementation of EPA s continuous PM
monitoring program. The CASAC was asked to respond to the following charge: a) program strengths; b)
areas of concern; and c) any recommendations that might optimize implementation of the PM continuous
mass program.
After discussion between the Subcommittee, the OAQPS staff, and others present at the meeting, we
agreed that the document presented a reasonable framework for the use of continuous monitors. However,
the Subcommittee is concerned that the process as currently outlined puts a heavy burden on the state or
local air quality agencies to demonstrate REM. This effort may be more than can be mounted by many such
organizations. The Subcommittee suggested an interim approach that can be used as EPA evaluates this
process.
The Subcommittee would like to compliment the OAQPS staff for their efforts in developing the
present document. It is clear that we are all working at finding approaches that will permit the use of
continuous monitors that will provide more detailed data while ensuring that we are continuing to provide
rigorous tests of air quality with respect to attainment of the PM2 5 NAAQS.
B-13
-------
Southeastern Ecological Framework: An SAB Review
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-02-002
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board
established a panel to review Region s 4 Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEE). This document is a
decision support system intended to identify remaining natural areas in the southeastern U.S. of highest
value for conserving regional biodiversity.
The Committee was asked to respond to the following charge questions: a) whether the Florida
Ecological Network approach is consistent with modeling an ecological framework for a region; b) whether
the data layers used in developing the Southeastern Ecological Framework sufficient to indicate ecological
integrity; c) would a similar model or approach be applicable for developing a framework for the U.S.; d)
would additional or alternate data layers will be needed for a national framework; e) modifications needed
to increase the utility of the approach as a decision support tool in meeting EPA s program activities and
GPRA goals; f) discuss what linkages between various indicators and EPA programs or control authorities
may help to elevate the use of SEF as a decision support tool.
While the Panel recognizes and praises the significant efforts that have gone into the Southeastern
Ecological Framework, the Panel provided the following recommendations for improvements: a) the Panel
recommends that the SEF be enhanced to include a wider range of ecological attributes that are important to
regional ecological integrity; b) the Panel recommends that the process for setting criteria to select priority
lands be made explicit and that the criteria and the individual data layers used in the SEF receive additional
peer review; c) with the caveats noted, the Panel agrees that application of the SEF approach would be
beneficial in other regions of the U.S., although different data layers and/or different criteria for selecting
o ' o J o
priority areas likely would be needed.
The Panel applauds the designers of the Southeastern Ecological Framework for an important effort.
We recommend that the Agency consider additional enhancements and peer review o f the product to
further improve its utility to Agency decisions in EPA Region 4.
Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter:
Third External Review Draft (EPA 600/P-99/002aC): A CASAC Review
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-003
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviewed the two-volume April 2002 draft
document, Air Quality Criteria Jor Paniculate Matter - Third External Review Draft in a public meeting in
Research Triangle Park, NC on July 18-19, 2002.
While noting that the this draft of the Criteria Document is a significant improvement over prior
versions, the CASAC could not come to complete closure on this draft document (although some chapters
of the draft were tentatively closed) and requested that the Agency revise the draft for another review.
Areas of Committee concern include the following: a) the statistical problems that have recently been
identified with some of the epidemiological studies, specifically the daily time-series studies of both
B-14
-------
morbidity and mortality using generalized additive models (GAMs); b) the evaluation of the epidemiology;
c) chapter summaries are too much of a point-by-point recapitulation of the material in the chapters rather
than a summary of the key points; d) the avoidance of any substantive discussion of the close relationship
between light extinction and fine particle mass concentrations; d) the need for a better discussion of
visibility, climate change; and economic evaluation; e) the need for additional literature citations and
discussion in a number of areas noted in the CASAC report; and f) with respect to Chapter 9 (Integrative
Summary), the National Research Council (NRC) committee paradigm is presented, but the chapter is
organized to address the PM Committee s questions rather than its paradigm.
COMMENTARIES
Importance of Maintaining the Annual Pollution Abatement
Cost and Expenditures (PACE) Survey
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-02-001
This Commentary was developed by the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of
the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) subsequent to a discussion with staff of the U.S. EPA s National
Center for Environmental Economics and other Agency officials at the EEAC s public meeting on November
30, 2001.
The EEAC noted their concern that time and resource constraints might prevent or delay
implementation of the next PACE cycle. This was considered to be linked to the need for an evaluation of
the PACE Survey instrument, the concurrent need to begin the next data collection cycle, and the
limitations on resources available to conduct the survey. The Committee noted its views on the importance
of maintaining an uninterrupted, annual PACE Survey, to provide continuous plant-level data. The EEAC
further noted that the PACE Survey has significant spill-over benefits affecting the various program offices in
the Agency, and a number of other agencies and suggested that the cost of the Survey should be shared with
offices across and even outside of EPA.
Industrial Ecology: A Commentary by the EPA Science Advisory Board
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-02-002
This commentary on Industrial Ecology was prepared by the Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board.
The commentary addresses Industrial Ecology, a systems approach to environmental analysis.
Industrial ecology seeks to address not just industrial emissions, and not just specific products, but the
complex networks of services, products, and activities that make up our economy. It emphasizes
opportunities for new technologies, new processes, and economically beneficial efficiencies.
B-15
-------
The purpose of this Commentary is two-fold: first, to bring industrial ecology to the attention of a
wider audience within EPA and other agencies as an approach to meeting their missions, and second, to
articulate key research needs. The SAB believes that industrial ecology could help EPA to address some of
the core challenges of environmental policy, from climate change to waste management to land use policy.
Achieving this potential will require rigorous research and a firm grounding in science and engineering.
This identifies the need for better understanding of the potential and limitations of a range of
promising approaches including:
a) technological innovation
b) voluntary and cooperative approaches to environmental management
c) substitution of services for products
d) recycling and reuse
e) reduction in the amounts of materials used in products
f) substitution of scarce resources with those that are plentiful
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Panel Formation Process:
Immediate Steps to Improve Policies and Procedure
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-02-003
This Commentary informs the Administrator and the public of new processes that the SAB will be
using for panel formation. The new procedures are designed to ensure that SAB panelists are independent
and that the panels are properly balanced; designed to make the panel formation process more transparent
to the public, and designed to gain the benefit of public involvement in forming panels at the SAB.
ADVISORIES
NAT A-Evaluating the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data: An SAB Advisory
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-02-001
This advisory provides a response to a request by the Agency to the EPA Science Advisory Board s
(SAB) Executive Committee, to review the initial (for the year 1996) National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) developed by the EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). The major review
meeting took place on March 20 & 21, 2001, with public teleconferences held prior to and following this
meeting.
o
B-16
-------
The Panel found that the Agency has done a very good job in assembling and using available data and
models for the 1996 NAT A, and that the integration of this information represents a significant advancement
in the national capability for air toxics assessment, and provides focus and motivation for ongoing
improvements. However, the limitations in the available data and scientific understanding are such that the
NATA results cannot yet be used for regulatory purposes. Topics reviewed in the advisory deal with the
National Toxics Inventory (NTI), model issues (specifically for ASPEN and HAPEM4), dose-response
information, risk characterization, diesel emissions, uncertainty analysis, communication of results, use in
future benefits assessments, and future research priorities. The Panel provided advice and recommendations
for the 1996 NATA, as well as for the 1999 and subsequent NATAs, including 56 specific recommendations
that can be used by the Agency to track its response to this advisory. The Panel emphasized that an
expanded set of measurements and research is needed to further advance, evaluate and develop confidence
in the models and the associated exposure and risk estimates.
Review of the Agency s draft Proposed Methodology for
Particular Matter Risk Analysis for Selected Urban Areas;
An Advisory by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-02-002
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Particulate Matter Review Panel reviewed
the EPA draft document Proposed Methodology for Particulate Matter Risk Analysis for Selected Urban Areas that
outlines part of the procedures to be used in preparing the human health risk assessment for PM2 s that will
accompany the Staff Paper on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter
(PM) that will be released later this year.
In its review, the Panel noted the importance that this risk analysis has in the primary standard setting
process for PM. The Panel concluded that the general methodology as described in the report is
appropriate. It recognizes the need to use concentration/response functions to obtain risk estimates in a
series of locations. The Panel offered a number of comments that relate to the details of application of the
method.
The Panel believes that the basic process is sound and provides a number of suggestions in this report
and in the appendix to refine the analyses that are to be done.
B-17
-------
WORKSHOP REPORTS
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)/EPA Workshop on the
Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Developing Best Estimates of Dose-Response Functions
EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001
On June 22 and 23, 2000, EPA and the Science Advisory Board co-sponsored a public Workshop on
"the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing Best Estimates of
Dose-Response Functions." The workshop was not an advisory committee meeting, organized with the
purpose of providing advice to the Agency. Instead, it was a public meeting designed to explore possible
new methods for monetizing benefits of reducing exposures to hazardous air pollutants, a class of pollutants
identified in the Clean Air Act as known to cause or suspected of causing cancer or other serious human
health effects, such as birth defects, neurological damage, and respiratory disease. EPA explicitly sought a
broad spectrum of views at the workshop and did not seek a consensus recommendation from workshop
participants
The workshop was chaired by Dr. Michael Kleinman from the College of Medicine, University of
California, Irvine, California and brought together expert discussants in the fields of economics, health
science, and risk assessment. The workshop took a case study approach that showcased possible new ways
of providing risk assessment information for benzene, perchloroethylene, and manganese. Many specific
options emerged in the white papers presented for those chemicals and in the discussion that followed, but
no consensus was reached on methods that would satisfy the concerns of health scientists and risk assessors,
yet meet the needs of economists for benefits assessment. The report includes the full text of the white
papers developed for the three chemicals discussed and the white paper documenting the information needs
of benefits assessors. The report also documents the major strategies identified for bridging the gaps
between economists and health scientists and the written comments provided by the expert panelists.
B-18
-------
B4
SAB REPORTS AND NOTIFICATION OF SAB MEETINGS
Single copies of any SAB report, including, this document can be obtained by writing or faxing your request
O 1 J 1 ' O7 J O O J 1
to:
EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A)
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202)501-0256
You can also find copies of this document and other SAB documents on the SAB Website at URL:
http://www.epa.gov/sab.
In addition, you can subscribe to the SAB Listserver and automatically receive copies of all Federal
Register notices announcing SAB Meetings, together with brief descriptions of topics to be covered at the
meetings. These notices will be mailed to you within 24 hours of their publication in the Federal Register.
To subscribe, simply send the following message, inserting your name,
Subscribe epa-sab FIRST NAME LAST NAME
to
listserver(5)unixmail.rtpnc.epa.pov
^—-^ 1 1 O
B-19
-------
B5
ABSTRACTS OF THE SAB LECTURE SERIES
CIENCE & THE HUMAN SIDE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Summary of Activities 2001-2002
In Fiscal Year 2002, the EPA Science Advisory Board hosted a lecture series, "Science and the
Human Side of Environmental Protection." The Board began the series in 1999 to strengthen the capacity
o o 1 J
of EPA and to use social sciences to address environmental protection problems. The series aimed to
highlight how the social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. Each session featured a
lecture, followed by a discussion led by a senior Agency manager.
2001-2002
Speaker
Dr. Douglas MacLean,
University of North
Carolina
Dr. Elinor Ostrom,
Indiana University
Dr. Susan L. Cutter,
University of South
Carolina
Dr. Robin Cantor,
LECG, Washington, DC
Topic
Successes and Failures of
Environmental Ethics:
How Do Environmental
Values Apply to
Environmental Decisions?
Ecological Diversity and
the Need for Institutional
Diversity
Geographical Dimensions
of Environmental
Inequities
Issues in the Economic
Appraisal of Ecological
Value and Damages
Social or
Behavioral
Science
Philosophy
Political
Science
Geography
Economics
Agency Commenter
Mr. Thomas Gibson, Office
of Policy, Economics and
Innovation
Mr. John Meagher,
Office of Water
Mr. Charles Lee, Office of
Environmental Justice, and
Mr. David Wolf, Office of
Environmental Information
Dr. Angela Nugent, Science
Advisory Board, leading a
group discussion of the
planned Board Project
Valuing the Protection of
Ecological Systems and
Services
B-20
-------
DR. DOUGLAS MACLEAN
"THE SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: How Do ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES APPLY
TO ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS?"
On November 16, 2001, the SAB hosted the first lecture in the third year of its series, "Science and
the Human Side of Environmental Protection." The presenter was Dr. Douglas MacLean, Professor of
Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and participant in the Carolina Environmental
Program, an interdisciplinary initiative of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill designed to
promote innovative approaches to the study of the environment. Dr. MacLean spoke on the topic "The
Successes and Failures of Environmental Ethics: How Do Environmental Values Apply to Environmental
Decisions?" Fifteen people from five Headquarters Offices and one region participated.
Dr. MacLean began his presentation by describing the appreciation he gained for economic methods
through his work on the Valuation Committee that contributed to the SAB report, Towards Integrated
Environmental Decision Making. Criticism of economic methods may be popular, but it is difficult to
identify alternatives useful to decision making. He linked this experience to the focus of his talk, the failures
and potential successes of environmental ethics for decision making. The SAB experience led to his interest
in deepening his understanding of environmental values behind different views and in decision making.
To start his talk, he proposed as "a given" that it is a shared view that decision making should reflect
environmental values. It is difficult, however, in his view, to articukte these values. In addition,
philosophers have complicated the discussion in ways that have not proved useful for decision makers. One
view of values, as characterized by philosophers, can be described as "naive anthropomorphism," which
views the benefit of humans as the sole justification for environmental protection. Benefit-cost analysis is a
legacy of this view, even though it has increased in sophistication to address "existence values" for ecological
o J 7 o 1 o
resources, as well as "use values." Other views of values are: "biocentric views" (which consider sentient
beings that "can suffer" as having value); views thatidentify non-conscious living things (such as water
resources) as having intrinsic value; or views based in "deep ecology" (which identifies "things of nature" as
having intrinsic value). All these views present an assortment of problems for decision makers. Of great
interest to Dr. MacLean is the way in which different views detach what is valued (or what is "cared about")
from the reasons for caring. These reasons, he argued, provide the rich information about values that is
most useful for decision makers. Different reasons behind values have different importance and can provide
important inputs for decision making. Humans have reason and the need to explain why we care and care in
different ways.
He argued that the distinction drawn by many philosophers between inherent and instrumental
values is a false dichotomy and introduces confusion into the policy discussion. "Things" can be valued as
ends, but that does not necessarily mean that they are valued for their intrinsic worth. Why they are valued
may differ: something, like labels or pencils, may be valued, but for reasons an individual cannot explain in
ways understood by others (fetishistic value); something may be valued for reasons that can be understood
but not shared (e.g., collecting coffee makers); and something can valued in ways that are commonly
understood and shared (for which most people feel a "pull;" and for those who don't, society feels
"something is missing", e.g., valuing a car so one could help others). These differences in the reasons
behind values are important. They differentiate "values" from preferences and provide policy makers with
B-21
-------
insights for making decisions.
The major policy implication of this insight is that decision makers need to ask people why they value
things the way they do and to listen to their answers. He also discussed other policy applications. Policy
makers need to recognize, emphasize and communicate that a decision expressed as a "willingness to pay" X
number of dollars for something, doesn't establish a "value" of X dollars. Policy makers also need to
recognize that the values that they express carry symbolic weight in the society, so that the reasons for the
values associated with their decisions need to be especially clear. Finally, he called for policy makers to
develop procedures for public deliberation about environmental values. He saw a need for public dialogue
on the reasons for caring about environmental protection. Procedures for deliberation would allow
participants to express the reasons behind their values and assist with collective decision making. Progress in
this area, he believed, would also help benefit-cost analysis become a more effective tool.
Mr. Thomas Gibson, Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
(OPEI), started the post-presentation conversation with several questions. He asked how the approach Dr.
MacLean described would work in the EPA context, where most decisions involved pollution control
issues, subject to statutory standards, as opposed to natural resource management. Dr. MacLean responded
that values associated with protecting health might be more clear cut than values associated with ecological
resources, where the ethical issues were more complex.
Mr. Gibson then asked Dr. MacLean to comment on the Executive Order requirements to use
cost/benefit analysis and whether he saw cost/benefit as being used for making public policy decisions. Dr.
MacLean saw the issue of how to use cost/benefit analysis as a key question. Is it to be used appropriately as
an algorithm or as an aid to decision makers? He cautioned against using cost/benefit analysis to envelope
all considerations of values. People resist it; they are skeptical of its limits; and if the analytical tool begins
to lay claim to incorporating all values, it will be difficult to resist its being used as an algorithm. Instead, he
suggested using the tool for capturing benefits most amenable to monetization and acknowledging that it
isn't being used to capture the whole moral universe.
Mr. Gibson asked about the gap between expert assessments of risks and the values the public places
on risk. He asked about the government obligation to help with reducing this gap. Dr. MacLean responded
that it is appropriate to consider the mission of the Agency. Is the mission to "protect the public" or "satisfy
the public"? He referred to the psychological literature on how people leam and how they assign risks. He
stated that the Agency has "an important job" in public education to direct attention to "what is not so
visible." Where there are public processes, "you can't be neutral administrators." There is a need for
education, for help in processing complex information in the right way.
Mr. Gibson then asked abouthow the public participation model introduces biases into a decision
making process and how those biases compared with the biases of cost-benefit analyses. Dr. MacLean
acknowledged that stakeholder groups have biases, but that there were approaches used by pollsters and
others that ensure random samples. Their expert methods could be used in designing processes for value
elicitation. In addition, steps must be taken, as well, to protect against biases introduced by "framing" and
elicitations for the willingness-to-pay information used in cost-benefit analysis.
The broader group then joined the discussion. Staff from OPEI commented that Dr. MacLean's talk
B-22
-------
suggested that the Agency may benefit from taking a more structured approach when talking about values
with the public. Staff from the Office of Water asked about different values expressed toward natural and
man-made hazards. Dr. MacLean responded that it may be useful to probe to understand these reasons
better. SAB Staff asked about how to foster better communications between ecologists and economists. Dr.
MacLean answered that it may be useful to involve specialists from other disciplines, who can often make
the discussion more productive by facilitating the conversation between the two groups.
The group touched on several other questions. One member pointed out the potential usefulness of
Lester Brown's planned work at the new Earth Policy Institute that has resulted in the book "Eco-Economy:
Building an Economy for the Earth." Another member asked about where the "moral imperative" was in
the context of Dr. MacLean's discussion. Dr. MacLean responded that he has sympathy for views that
challenge Americans to increase reverence for natural resources and view themselves as part of a natural
environment. Another participant asked about how EPA might communicate its limits to address values that
might be different from those established in the Agency's governing laws. Dr. MacLean answered that the
Agency should communicate very clearly the values and reasons behind the choices made. He emphasized
again the symbolic importance of the choices and values expressed by the Agency and the need for a strong
Agency role in public education. In response to questions, Dr. MacLean acknowledged areas he did not
discuss in this talk, including professional ethics and environmental justice. Dr. MacLean closed the
discussion by stating a personal goal that environmental professionals at EPA step back and think about
environmental values and how to bring them into discussion. He reiterated that moral values are not easily
quantifiable and they are attached to reasons we give for caring in the ways we do. He encouraged the
Agency to find procedures for people to express the reasons behind those values, and to explore where
those reasons lead.
Dr. MacLean provided a brief bibliography of related articles that may be of interest to EPA staff
interested in pursing ideas discussed during the lecture and discussion:
1 o o
"The Ethics of Cost-Benefit Analysis: Incommensurable, Incompatible, and Incomparable Values," in
Democracy, Social Values, and Public Policy, ed. M. Carrow, R.P. Churchill, and J. Cordes, (Westport,
CT: Praeger, 1998), pages 107-122.
"Environmental Ethics and Human Values," in Handbook for Environmental Risk Decision Making:
Values, Perceptions, and Ethics, ed. C. Richard Cothern (Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1995), pages
177-193.
"Cost-Benefit Analysis and Procedural Values," Analyse & Kritik 16 (1994): 166-180.
"Environmental Values and Economic Tradeoffs," in Environmental Risk, Environmental Values, and
Political Choices, ed. J. Gillroy, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993).
"Conservatism, Efficiency, and the Value of Life," (co-authored with Claudia Mills) in Nothing to
Fear: Risks and Hazards in American Society, edited by Andrew Kirby, (Tucson: University of Arizona
Press, 1990), pages 53-74.
"Comparing Values in Environmental Policies: Moral Issues and Moral Arguments," in Valuing
Health Risks, Costs, and Benefits for Environmental Policy Making, edited by P. Brett Hammond and Rob
Coppock, (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press, 1990): 83-106.
B-23
-------
DR. ELINOR OSTROM
"ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY"
On February 22, 2002, the U.S. Environmental Science Advisory Board (SAB) hosted the third
lecture in the third year of its series, "Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection." The
presenter was Dr. Elinor Ostrom, Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science, at the Center for the
Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change and the Workshop in Political Theory and
Policy Analysis at Indiana University, Bloomington. She spoke on the topic "Ecological Diversity and the
Need for Institutional Diversity." Thirty people from four Headquarters Offices, four regions, and two
ORD laboratories participated, as well as three invited guests from outside the Agency.
Dr. Ostrom began her talk by acknowledging the growth of serious and appropriate interest in
preserving diversity of ecological systems. Less well known, she slated, was research documenting the
success of local efforts to use resources and preserve biodiversity (e.g., farmer-managed irrigation projects,
in-shore fisheries, forest plans) that have been designed by users. In addition, national efforts to address
biodiversity issues have sometimes caused major problems. She called fora serious effort to conserve
"institutional diversity" as policy makers consider how to preserve ecological diversity.
In her view, the working assumptions of contemporary policy draw on a "narrow model of the
individual" for representing public attitudes and a contrasting "enlightened model" for public policy makers.
She argued, in contrast, that empirical research shows neither that the public fits the model of Homo
Economicus (a norm free, short-term maximer of selfish gains), nor that public policy makers know how to
maximize public interest through designing optimal rules that work in the public interest. She stated that
research shows the assumptions underlying the "Tragedy of the Commons," where an unregulated pool of
common resources is assumed to be overused or destroyed if it is not subject to government control or
privatization, are incorrect and a poor foundation for public policy.
The Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis has collected thousands of cases that show how
local users sustainably manage local resources. The Workshop has also documented local cases of failure.
Where users have been successful, they have developed a secure relationship with biological resources
through organizing their own rules, rules that frequently are "invisible" to outsiders who do not see how
they are embedded in local culture and practice.
To build on this body of research for policymaking, Dr. Ostrom argued that scholars and decision
makers should build and use a "better model of the individual." Instead of envisioning the public as a simple
Homo Economicus, policy makers should have an understanding of the public as "boundedly rational," with
a capability to learn social rules; where reciprocity is a key norm supported by trust and understandings of
reputation; and where legal rules can enhance reciprocity.
The case studies suggest that there are attributes of resources and of the appropriators of resources
that are linked to the successful sustainable management of those resources: 1) the resources must be
perceived as feasible to be improved (i.e., resource units are not at a point of deterioration such that is
useless to organize to improve their use, or they are so underutilized that there is little advantage from
o 1 ' J o
organizing); 2) reliable and valid indicators of the condition of the resource system are available at relatively
B-24
-------
low cost; 3) the flow of resource units is relatively predictable; and 4) the resource system is sufficiently
small, given the transportation and communication technology in use, that appropriators can develop
accurate knowledge of them
In cases where successful management occurs, appropriators (i.e., users) of the resource are most
likely to have these characteristics: 1) to be dependent on the resource system for a major portion of their
livelihood or value it highly for other purposes; 2) to share an image of how the resource system operations
and how their actions affect each other and the resource system; 3) to use a low discount rate in relation to
future benefits to be achieved from the resource; 4) to include powerful individuals among those adversely
affected by a lack of coordinated patterns of appropriation and use; 5) to trust one another to keep
promises; 6) to have the autonomy needed to determine rules without external authorities countermanding
them; and 6) to have some prior organizational experience.
Dr. Ostrom described how her workshop has modeled these characteristics mathematically and
combined them into models of benefits and costs that describe different cases. She stated that the greatest
scientific challenge is to develop accurate measures of the characteristics of resource and people involved in
cases. One way the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University is meeting this
challenge is by laboratory experiments on groups. A key finding of those experiments, as well as the case
studies they have collected, is that communication is the biggest factor that affects people's abilities to
manage common pool resources. When information exchange and communication happen, appropriators of
resources can establish successful rules.
Dr. Ostrom then turned to the topic of how "larger regimes" interact with local systems to manage
resources. She suggested that larger regimes would have more success if they acknowledged the long-term
oo o o J o o
benefits of locally established systems; if they facilitated exchanges within and between local systems; if they
supported monitoring of local resources and respected local knowledge about the resource. She
acknowledged the necessity of "polycentric" regimes that would operate at multiple levels and there is a
need to study empirically what leads to successful outcomes when local, regional, national, and global
entities interact to manage common resources.
She concluded her presentation with a set of challenges for researchers, policy makers, and resource
users.
She called on researchers to conduct in-depth case studies to understand complex interactions in field
setting. She emphasized the importance of studies with a large number of cases to test the relative
importance of different variables. She called for experimental studies in the laboratory and long-term
studies of individual cases.
She stated that policy makers need to develop: 1) legal environments that enable people to take
responsibility; 2) sources of accurate information about resource conditions; 3) fair, low-cost courts that
allow quick resolution of differences; 4) policies and programs that enhance benefits for local users; and 5)
efforts to find mutual interests across national, state, and local levels.
She called on resource users to: 1) create associations to share information; 2) to search for ways of
increasing the benefits of working together and find ways of reducing the costs; and 3) draw on local
O O O J O ' '
B-25
-------
knowledge to find innovative institutions that fit local conditions.
Mr. John Meagher, Director of the Wetlands Division in EPA's Office of Water, who had been asked
to begin the discussion with his comments, made several observations. He commented first on the cyclical
nature of policies to protect water quality. After World War II, the nation had turned to national programs
involving engineering solutions to address water pollution problems that local and state governments had
not solved. In the last 10 years, he noted a growing sense that the nation has reached the limits of those
national programs and is turning to watershed management to address problems that ranged from runoff
from farms to sprawl. The U.S. EPA is part of this effort, promoting watershed management against the
backdrop of the Clean Water Act.
To make local efforts work within a national and global context, he noted, was a real problem. How
do local efforts relate, for example, to global scale problems like Global Warming? Where are global
approaches appropriate? Whaling issues came to mind. Can Dr. Ostrom's model work when local needs
are extremely basic, so low on Mazloffs hierarchy of needs that people cannot meet their basic physiological
needs? How can local users be educated about endangered species that might be seen by them as external to
o 1 o J
the use of local resources? How can governments promote the use of good information for decisions, given
local conflicts about the data and information on which decisions are based, such as the disputes between
Virginia and Maryland on local fisheries issues?
o J
Dr. Ostrom responded that a key to some of these local issues is empirical information. For
example, actual information about who owns lands and how they use it for different purposes may help to
solve problems. Assumptions about local values and behavior may not match reality. In Indiana, for
example, there was a policy issue regarding chopping large tracts of land into small plots. Researchers in her
Department surveyed a sample of 250 landowners who owned more than 5 acres. The research showed that
individuals who owned fairly large amounts of land (50-1000 acres) were more responsive to price
fluctuations in the timber market; they were land rich and cash poor. Holders of small amounts of land,
5-10 acres, tended to be owned by professional people who managed the land in an ecologically sensitive
way.
She suggested that often policy makers have a simplistic view of landholding alternatives as either
state forests or industrial uses. She encouraged decision makers to set up systems, like ecologically friendly
zoning, that respond to private needs.
The broader group then joined the discussion. The first question addressed the experience of other
countries: has any one other country "got this right?" Dr. Ostrom suggested that the United States could
learn a lot from Switzerknd, which has sustained a rich mix of public and private institutions for managing
resources for 1,000 years. A contrast would be the experience in Canada, where the Canadian Government
dismissed local fishermen's concerns about the loss of small fish. Canada is now trying to rebuild local
confidence in government data, by sending harvesters out on scientific boats on a regular basis
o 7 J o o
The next question concerned how the characteristics and attributes Dr. Ostrom described related to
experience in urban areas and neighborhoods. Dr. Ostrom replied that she had conducted research on
urban policing as a production function of a local public good. She conducted this research in response to a
proposal in the 1 960's for a massive consolidation of policing within metropolitan areas. Her research
B-26
-------
showed that complex systems, involving locally provided police services, outperformed simple systems
where policing functions were consolidated.
1 o
The next question asked about the relationship of environmental issues and policies to the classic
resource" problems addressed by Dr. Ostrom's research. Within Dr. Ostrom's framework, environmental
groups were hard to characterize; they were both resource users and decision makers. Dr. Ostrom agreed
that environmental groups are indeed hard to classify and would benefit from analysis to understand better
what they are and how they work. Dr. Nives Dolsak, a colleague of Dr. Ostrom at Indiana University, who
had conducted research on collective action to address environmental issues, stated that her work suggests
that it is easier to develop successful institutions to address resource concerns than to manage the "bads" of
pollution. There were, however, many cases where users have organized themselves to address pollution;
she suggested that a key example is the effort of North East States to address ground-level ozone pollution.
The final question concerned where work on large-scale systems was successful. EPA staff suggested
that the Great Lakes National Program Office has been effective working at a regional and international scale
and that the Chesapeake Bay Program has made progress on air issues. Dr. Ostrom responded that Dr.
1 J o 1 o 1
Mark Sprool Jones at McMaster University had studied the Great Lakes experience in detail.
DR. SUSAN L. CUTTER
"GEOGRAPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUITIES"
On January 24, 2001, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) hosted the second lecture in the third
year of its series, "Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection." The presenter was Dr. Susan
L. Cutter, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of South Carolina. Dr. Cutter
7 o o 1 J J
spoke on the topic "Geographical Dimensions of Environmental Inequities." Forty-four people from five
Headquarters Offices and six regions participated, along with two invited guests in regional offices.
Dr. Cutter began her presentation by distinguishing between environmental equity, a study of the
disproportional effects of environmental degradation on people and places; environmental justice, a political
charged term relating to the need to act to correct an injustice imposed on a specific group; and
environmental racism, which refers to discrimination in policy making, enforcement, or environmental
leadership. She stated that her talk was focused on identifying environmental inequity -- and on answering
the question "What are the causes of environmental inequity?" Those causes might be "outcome"-related
(i.e., the sources of environmental threats might be located in communities because they were poor,
minority, or politically weak) or result from different "processes" (i.e., threats that arose in communities
with little reference to race or economic status and then the demographics changed).
o 1 o '
In her view, analyses of environmental justice have historically focused primarily on race and income
categories as the primary ways to study environmental inequities. She suggested that environmental
inequity can take many different forms. It can appear as different impacts by age, gender, or other social
categories; it can appear as impacts that differ across generations; and it could be caused by "procedural"
issues, when different groups are affected disproportionately by policies or have different access to remedial
B-27
-------
procedures.
Geographic analysis can help understand the nature of environmental inequities. Dr. Cutter's own
work has focused what "Dumping in Dixie" really means. Geographic analysis can show the source of
exposures; it can illustrate demographic changes over time and space that show how a population may have
changed in terms of income, race or age; and it can highlight different exposures in different places.
Proving environmental injustice, however, presents significant analytical challenges. Much of the
analysis depends on precise location of environmental threats. Available environmental data often have
imprecise geographical coordinates and are interpreted imprecisely. Environmental exposures can differ
markedly, for example, when the site of a corporate headquarters, rather than a facility is used for analysis.
Even how one identifies the borders of these exposures can have a profound effect on the analysis -- whether
one uses a model that bounds exposures by arbitrary boundaries developed for pre-existing purposes (e.g., a
"host/non host model"); the more commonly-used buffering concept; or the "buffering with distance decay
of exposure" approach that her team uses.
The historical literature analyzing environmental justice shows the need to be precise and consistent
in identifying the environmental threat of interest. Exposures for people of color and lower income appear
to be different, when Dr. Cutter's team mapped Toxic Release Inventory reports for those populations and
compared that data with exposures to acute releases for the same populations. She suggested that it was
important for policymakers to understand the nature of the environmental threats analyzed, and to put
them in context with other environmental threats with possible different impacts.
An additional challenge to anyone analyzing environmental inequities is the choice of appropriate
geographic scale. Demographic data often, but not always, is released at the census-block scale, but
environmental release data often are not available in units that small. Scaling-up data introduces
o 1
uncertainties that need to be considered in any conclusions drawn from the data.
Geographic analysis of inequities also depends on the subpopulations selected for focus. There are
methods for analyzing differential environmental impacts on areas with high percentages of children as part
of the population. In Dr. Cutter's view, "all too often we get mired in looking only at communities of color
and low income and forget other social groups."
Meaningful geographic analysis also depends on a critical examination of the time frame of the data
used in the analysis. Analysts need to compare the history of introduction of environmental threats with the
historical demography of a place to see how a community has changed. Cause and effect can only be
understood when historical sequencing is clear. During the 1970's for example, there was a conscious effort
to locate industries in low income areas as part of economic development efforts; thirty years later, these
social policies intended to address effects of racism have created environmental inequities. In addition,
historical use of terms, such as "communities of color," and census classifications have changed in major
ways. Analysts must take care to understand the meaning of those terms and the data linked to them in
historical context.
Finally, Dr. Cutter suggested the greatest issue in understanding "geographical dimensions of
environmental inequities" involves understanding the relative hazardousness of different space. A major
B-28
-------
challenge for geographers is how to deal with toxicity. Not all emissions are equal. Not all TRI emitters are
the same. And so geographers need magnitude estimators, toxicity indicators and spatial indicators. Given
the lack of a robust, accepted approach, she cautioned anyone using analyses of environme ntal inequities to
"be skeptical" if you read literature that draws conclusions about relative geographic toxicities.
In conclusion, Dr. Cutter emphasized the challenges facing any analyst conducting geographic
analyses. In her view, policy makers need to be aware of these issues. And finally, she stated, that public
concern about environmental inequities may be as important to environmental decision making as any
analytical finding that may or may not be made.
The two Co-chairs of the Agency's "National Environmental Justice Mapping Tool Workgroup," Mr.
Charles Lee, Deputy Director of the Office of Environmental Justice, and Mr. David Wolf, Manager of
Geoservices, Office of Environmental Information, had been invited to provide some brief reflections on
Dr. Cutter's presentation.
Mr. Lee opened with some historical observations. In researching his 1987 book Toxic Waste and
i O
Race, he noted a key study by Dr. Cutter that documented environmental perceptions in Chicago that
showed high levels of concerns among different popuktion groups around the environment. In his view,
improvements in geospatial analysis have stimulated work on environmental justice. Although geographic
tools may be "blunt," they bring important issues into sharper release. EPA's new workgroup is aiming to
develop a nationally consistent mapping tool for doing more nationally consistent geographic analyses.
He said that Dr. Cutter's opening remarks and her final conclusions were key. If one did have
1 o J
"proof of environmental inequity, one must ask "what's the point? what comes next?" Spatial analysis is
part of a greater question: what actions need to be taken?
Mr. Wolf then provided his perspective. In his view, EPA's application of Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) for environmental justice is one of the most important applications of GIS. The Agency is
trying to introduce true geographic analysis, not just mapping. Despite amazing improvements in abilities to
process information, however, EPA has not experienced a comparable "huge shift in data quality." Critics
can rightly say that GIS may help us "get the wrong conclusion more quickly" if the Agency does not move
more quickly to improve the spatial component of its data. He noted that EPA was not alone.
Demographic data available from the census data use "old GPS coordinates." In his view, the country's
geospatial infrastructure needs continued improvement. He concluded with a reaction to Mr. Lee's question
about "what's the point?" of geographic analysis. He asked if the Agency is interested in relating risk and
population and "coming to some decision." If that truly is to be part of the environmental justice policy, he
stated that it would be "hard to do and something new for the Agency."
o o J
Dr. Cutter responded that "connecting the proximity surface to the risk surface is what communities
want" and should be the direction for the Agency. She suggested that providing available risk information
may work to allay fears in communities about environmental risks. She acknowledged the methodological
J J o o
questions of modeling exposure surfaces and toxicity surfaces.
B-29
-------
The broader group also joined the discussion. The first question concerned the issue of uncertainty.
If geographical analysis involving risk is so difficult, then is it worth the major investment in such
O O 1 J O 7 J
complexity? And if people's concerns are the major issue, what's the point of the more detailed analysis?
Dr. Cutter responded that there are practical applications of geographic analyses that she foresees. She saw
a potential to develop understandings of geographic areas as "risk sheds" that would allow decision makers
to evaluate total risks for an area. Using geographic analysis could help decide how to make decisions about
whether to site additional facilities. She also believed that communicating geographic information about
differential inequities could have an impact on people's perceptions of risk.
In response to other questions, Dr. Cutter talked about the potential of geographic analyses in
helping the Agency make major more holistic decisions that would break down artificial barriers created by
media-specific approaches. She discussed the need to develop a multimedia exposure model that could be
used in such geographic analysis.
One question related to whether geographers had conducted modeling efforts, where they kept all
variables except one parameter constant. Dr. Cutter responded that it has been hard to get funding for such
studies involving large geographic data sets, and that the approach described had not been the focus of a
consistent targeted research effort. She also saw value in the questioner's suggestion that research should
compare simple vs. complex data systems to conduct sensitivity analyses demonstrating the value added by
more complex elements.
Finally, in response to a question about the state of current geographical research on
transgenerational equity, Dr. Cutter stated that analysis has focused primarily on protecting natural
resources, rather than looking at human health resource projections, with all their uncertainties, for future
generations.
B-30
-------
DR. ROBIN CANTOR
SSUES IN THE ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF ECOLOGICAL VALUE AND DAMAGES
On June 6, 2002, the U.S. Environmental Science Advisory Board (SAB) hosted the fourth lecture in
the third year of its series, Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection. The presenter was
Dr. Robin Cantor, a member of the SAB s Research Strategies Advisory Committee and a Principal and
Managing Director at LECG, LLC. She spoke on the topic "Issues in the Economic Appraisal of Ecological
Value and Damages." Thirty-five people from six Headquarters Offices, four regions (including one invited
guest from the New York Academy of Sciences), and one SAB member participated in the audience.
Dr. Cantor introduced her talk by providing a brief background on her work with LECG, an
J 1 o o 7
economics consulting firm that provides analyses to private clients, analysis primarily used in litigation.
Clients are interested in whether one activity or choice, involving ecological resources is better than
another, and are interested in the topic of compensation for injury to resources. She proposed ID outline the
kinds of data and methods used for these questions; their potential for valuing protection of ecological
systems and services by EPA; and their relevance to a planned SAB project on that topic to be discussed later
in the lecture and discussion to follow.
From her vantage point, there has been a recent change in the reasons why people are interested in
valuing ecological assets and a change in how they are valuing them. As a result, there is increased
information that can be used in understanding the values placed on ecological assets. In addition to old
reasons [litigation to support Natural Resource Damage (NRD) cases that focused on the dollar value of
resources, support for regulatory decisions, and academic curiosity], there are some new reasons. In NRD
cases, responsible parties are increasingly willing to settle with trustees and these settlements provide a
body of information that can be used. There is also a body of literature emerging from: mitigation banking
J J o o o o
(e.g., for wetlands); liability transfers (where private entities sell damaged properties from their portfolios
and calculate environmental damages into the equation); Supplemental Environmental Projects, where
acceptable trades are established for damages; and environmental easements. In her experience, since she
joined LECG in 1996, large companies are considering the ecological capabilities of their properties as
important as the production component of these properties.
As background for her discussion of the changes in how people now are valuing ecological assets, she
discussed some basic principles of economics and how they have applied to the question of measuring
economic value of ecological assets. She said that economists feel strongly about markets, because markets
reveal individual preferences. Value, in economic terms, is defined by human use and human appreciation
of existence. For ecological assets, a key problem is that ecological resources don t have price tags. Asa
result, there is often frustration between economists and others who believe that values are holistic and
intrinsic and not revealed by the market. Frustration also crops up when the convention wisdom about
worth (i.e., Anything worth doing is worth doing well) meets the economic commitment to marginal
analysis ( Anything worth doing is worth doing up to the point where the marginal benefit equals the
marginal cost ).
Dr. Cantor sketched out the tools that have been used for measuring economic value. They have
o J
B-31
-------
measured either revealed sources of economic values (markets); expressed sources (through direct
elicitation); or imputed values (avoided costs). She provided a thumbnail sketch of some of the tools that
have been used (e.g., survey tools, such as contingent valuation and conjoint analysis; productivity
modeling; travel cost models; hedonic price analysis; benefit transfer; and damage cost models).
Dr. Cantor then described in more detail, the changes that have been taking place in why people are
interested in valuing ecological assets and how they are valuing them. One major driver of change has been
the NRD process, which establishes the value of damaged natural resources removed from public use. At
the start of this program, the focus of NRD Trustees, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Department of Interior, was on monetary compensation for goods and direct
services. Assessment of damages did not include ecosystem services or capabilities. As the NRD process has
matured, there has been a shift in the analyses done by Trustees, who now consider the ecological capabilities
lost as part of the damages to be assessed. They increasingly emphasize restoration, rehabilitation,
replacement, or acquiring the equivalent of the damaged resources. Increasingly, the goal of the NRD
process is to convince the Trustees that the public is being made whole from a biophysical point of view
and that there is an acceptable nexus between the lost resources and compensation. The database generated
as a result of these new NRD settlements provides, in her view, a rich source of information to be used in
assessing value of ecological assets.
Analytical techniques have also evolved to support this shift in perspective. Habitat Equivalency
Analysis and Scaling have accompanied the shift from a use-based theory of value to a resource-based
theory of value. A review of how these tools have been used, however, shows that NRD settlements often
do not account well for inequalities in ecological capabilities, and also do not account for the different
development potential of ecological resources traded or changes in preferences that affect welfare (for
example, changes in recreational preferences). Scoring methods have developed to bridge the gap. These
methods account for bio-physical attributes, bio-physical functions and production of goods and services,
and also accounts for key economic features, such as interdependencies with landscape influences (local
market conditions and adjacent conditions); temporal and spacial boundaries; scarcity and substitutability;
and uncertainty.
Dr. Cantor saw the private market in ecological assets evolving in parallel. Brokers have emerged
to facilitate trades by providing information and expertise on ecological assets and to help to make deals
between Potentially Responsible Parties and Trustees. She cited a recent New Jersey study of wetland
mitigation and ecological quality as a cautionary note, indicating that a high proportion of ecological asset
trades may be occurring at a low cost and quality and she mentioned that public sector involvement might
offset this market dynamic, by increasing regulatory pressures that may increase demand.
Dr. Cantor urged the Agency to look at the suite of new empirical data sources that could provide
new information and methods for valuation. She recommended that the Agency consider information
available about NRD settlements; information from EPA s own Supplemental Environmental Projects (and
the trades they deem acceptable for injuries to environmental resources); and the increasing body of
information available from businesses that are valuing land for its capabilities to produce ecological goods
and services (e.g., valuation for environmental liabilities for converting insurance coverage; valuation
associated with easements or donated property, and wetland mitigation banking).
B-32
-------
Dr. Cantor suggested that the Science Advisory Board s new project Valuing the Protection of
Ecological Systems and Services consider the merits of some of these scoring methods; gather and evaluate
o J o ' o
information on actual trades; consider whether valuation might follow the residential or commercial
analogue for establishing valuing (e.g., whether traces can be understood as fairly homogenous, as in the
case of residential properties, or whether the characteristics of individual trades involve many complex,
distinguishing features that need independent analysis, as generally in the case of commercial properties.)
Dr. Angela Nugent, in EPA s Science Advisory Board Staff, briefly introduced the new SAB project,
which is being planned. This multi-year project, endorsed by the SAB Executive Committee at its March
2002 meeting, is entitled Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services and is intended to
enhance the tools available for analyzing the value of protecting ecological systems and services and to
strengthen the Agency s use of them for decision making. She described how the project was immediately
stimulated by the controversy among members of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis s
Panel to Review the Draft Analytical Plan for EPA s Second Prospective Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of
the Clean Air Act. In the work of that panel, ecologists and economists disagreed on how to advise the
Agency on quantifying the benefits of protection ecological systems and services as a result of implementing
the Clean Air Act. The new project was also linked to the SAB s past interest in strengthening the Agency s
tools for ecological protection and analysis of the benefits and value of ecological protection, as described in
such SAB reports as Reducing Risk and Toward Integrated Environmental Decision Making, SAB s workshop in
2001, Understanding Public Values and Attitudes Related to Ecological Risk Management: an EPA Workshop Report of
an EPA/SAB Workshop, that focused on the real-life example of valuation issues associated with air
deposition of nitrogen in Tampa Bay.
The SAB is seeking a person to chair to lead this new multi-disciplinary effort, which will encompass
ecological, economic, social, and technological analyses. SAB staff will be meeting with a coordinating
o777 o y o o
group that will include the National Center for Environmental Economics, the Office of Water and the
Office of Air and Radiation. Dr. Nugent welcomed the ideas and participation of others in this effort.
Questions then came from the general audience. The first question came from the SAB member
participating by teleconference and concerned whether there were enough data available from wetland
trading for conclusive analysis of the value of such trades. Dr. Cantor responded that there were enough
transactions, but it was unclear whether there were sufficient data. The states of Florida and New Jersey
have been the most systematic in collecting data, and that New Jersey had collected the most biophysical
data. Both Dr. Cantor and the questioner agreed that EPA could help further systematize and characterize
the data states collected and that EPA and others would benefit from the resulting data set.
A question from a regional participant pertained to whether the SAB project had been engaging
EPA s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). Dr. Nugent replied that NCEE was
involved and welcomed Region 4's participation in planning, as lead region for the Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation.
Several questions then followed pertaining to the nature and availability of data sets Dr. Cantor had
described. In regard ID Supplementary Environmental Projects; Dr. Cantor emphasized the potential
usefulness of information gathered by EPA in developing Supplementary Environmental Projects; EPA s
website suggests a rich source of information. Another question concerned the recent New Jersey study of
B-33
-------
wetlands mitigation banking and the low efficiency described for the trades studied. The questioner asked
whether this report would have a negative effect on future trades. Dr. Cantor replied that the New Jersey
wetlands mitigation program was perceived as a leader and the impact of its recent report is unclear. She
suggested that regulatory pressures might increase demand for higher ecological quality trades in the future.
Another set of questions concerned the concept of value. On question referred to the frustration
that Dr. Cantor had described as a theme for many past interactions between economists and others on this
topic. The questioner pointed out that many believe that market valuation isn t the only element in
establishing value. Dr. Cantor agreed and responded that she has used the term economic appraisal, not
economic valuation in her talk. The questioner then asked about the scope of the SAB project and whether
it would address whether discounting was appropriate for valuation. Dr. Nugent responded that the Board
intended to look at a wide range of kinds of environmental decisions and is planning to consider a wide
range of tools. It is likely that the Board will focus on identifying where different tools may be most
o J J o J
appropriate, and undoubtedly the issue of discounting will arise. Dr. Cantor echoed this view and suggested
that the SAB should involve and learn from the climate change program, where there has been controversy
over discounting. She also suggested that there were tools used by other social scientists for establishing
o oo J o
social, rather than individual preferences that the Agency might benefit from considering.
7 1 o J o o
The final set of questions concerned whether there are international resources that the Agency might
use in strengthening its approach to valuing ecological resources. Dr. Cantor identified an Australian
website in New South Wales that contained a huge collection of valuation literature that addresses ecological
assets and services. She also urged the Agency to review: (1) the resources and discussions undertaken as
part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); (2) the work of Engknd, France and the
Netherlands regarding trading programs for carbon dioxide; (3) England s program for granting credits to
encourage renewable energy; and (4) information from the World Bank program forgiving debt where
environmental investments were made.
B-34
-------
APPENDIX C
SAB PEOPLE
C1. Staff Organization Chart
C2. SAB Committee Chairs
C3. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
C4. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
C5. SAB Members for FY 2002
C6. SAB Consultations for FY 2002
C7. Staff Biographical Sketches
C-l
-------
Cl
SAB STAFF ORGANIZATION CHART
Some of the following positions were filled by two people during the year as changes in personnel or
staff alignments were made. On the Staff Committee Alignment chart (next page), where two people
occupied a position during the year, both are listed. The first person listed was the incumbent at the close of
FY2002.
C-2
-------
C2
SAB COMMITTEE CHAIRS
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. William Glaze
Professor, Environmental Science and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Professor, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, National Academies Board of Environmental Science & Toxicology
Member, Board of Directors, Green Chemistry Institute, ACS
Member, Governor's Board of Advisors, NC Museum of Natural Sciences
Editor-in-Chief, Environmental Science and Technology
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
Dr. Trudy Cameron
Raymond F. Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon
Professor, University of California, Los Angeles (on leave)
Member, Econometric Society
Member, American Economic Association
Member, American Statistical Association
Member, Association of Environmental Resource Economists
Member, American Agricultural Economics Association
Member, International Society for Ecological Economics
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Dr. Philip Hopke
Bayard D. Clarkson Distinguished Professor, Departments of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, and
Director of the Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science, Ckrkson University
Member, American Association for Aerosol Research, Vice President, 2002-2003,
Vice President Elect, 2001-2002
Member, American Chemical Society and the Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology and the
Division of Environmental Chemistry
Member, American Physical Society and the Division of Nuclear Physics
Member, Air & Waste Management Association
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, International Chemometrics Society
Member, Gesellshaft fur Aerosolforschung
Member, International Society of Exposure Assessment
Member, International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate
C-3
-------
Editor-in-Chief, Aerosol Science and Technology
Editorial Board, Atmospheric Environment
Member, Advisory Committee, NIEHS funded Program Project Cardiac Vulnerability Related to
Particulate Matter at Harvard School of Public Health
Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Dr. R. Rhodes Trussell
Senior Vice President, MWH, Inc.
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Member, Sigma Xi
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, Magazine Editorial Board, ES&T
Member, National Association of Corrosion Engineers
Life Member, American Water Works Association
Member, Water Environment Federation
Member, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Member, Association Programme Committee
Member, Strategic Council
Member, Editorial Board for Aqua
Member, National Academy of Engineers
Member of NRC Water Science & Technology Board
Member NAE Peer Committee, Section 4
Member, National Research Council Committee Indicators For WaterbornePathogens
Chair, Industrial Advisory Board, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UCLA
Member, Industrial Advisory Council to the Dean, College of Engineering, UC Riverside
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Terry Young
Senior Consulting Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CA
Member, Advisory Committee to the University California Salinity/Drainage Program
Expert Testimony for EDF before U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittees, California State Water
Resources Control Board, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. Robert Stavins
Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, and Faculty Chair, Environment and Natural Resources
Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
University Fellow, Resources for the Future
Member, EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Member, Board of Directors, Robert and Renee Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Member, Executive Committee, Harvard University Committee on Environment
C-4
-------
Member, Board of Academic Advisors, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
Member Editorial Council, The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Member, Board of Editors, Resource and Energy Economics
Member, Advisory Board, Environmental Economics Abstracts
Member, Editorial Board, Economic Issues
Contributing Editor, Environment
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Dr. Domenico Grasso
Chair, Rosemary Bradford Hewlett
Professor, Picker Engineering Program, Smith College
7 o o o ' o
Editor-in-Chief, Environmental Science
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Henry Anderson
Chief Medical Officer and State Environmental and Occupational Health Epidemiologist, Wisconsin
Division of Public Health
Adjunct Professor, Department of Population Health, Univeristy Wisconsin Medical School
Certified in Preventive Medicine, American Board of Preventative Medicine
Certified Specialist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American Board of Preventative Medicine
Fellow, American College of Epidemiology
7 o 1 cv
Fellow, American Association for Advancement of Science
Member, American Public Health Association
Member, American College of Epidemiology
7 o 1 cv
Member, American Medical Association
Member, American Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association
Member, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Member, International Society of Environmental Epidemiology
Member, Collegium Ramazzini
Member, Editorial Board, Cancer Prevention International
Associate Editor, American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
Dr. Ken Sexton
Bond Professor, University of Minnesota
Director, Center for Environment and Health Policy, University of Minnesota
Member, International Society of Exposure Analysis
Member, Society of Risk Analysis
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
C-5
-------
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Dr. Janet A. Johnson
Senior Technical Advisor, MFG, Inc.
Member, Fellow, and Past Board Member, Health Physics Society
Past President, Radon Section, Health Physics Society
Member, Colorado Radiation Advisory Committee
Member, American Academy of Health Physics
Member, American Industrial Hygiene Association
Member, American Academy of Industrial Hygiene
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Dr. Raymond Loehr
H. M. Alharthy Chair and Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Member, National Academy of Engineering
President, American Academy of Environmental Engineers
Licensed Professional Engineer and Certified Environmental Engineer
Chair, EPA NACEPT Superfund Evaluation Subcommittee
Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Member, Water Environment Federation
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Member, National Research Council Review Committee
Member, Environmental Management Advisory Board, Department of Energy
Member, Environmental Science and Technology Advisory Committee, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Member, Advisory Committee, Hazardous Substance Research Center, Louisiana State University
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, Strategic Science Research Review Team, American Chemistry Council
Member, Environmental Technologies Advisory Board, Alcoa
Member, Management Board, The RETEC Group, Inc., Concord, MA
C-6
-------
C3
GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE ON
THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Background
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the Administrator. In 1978 the SAB
received a Congressional mandate to serve as an independent source of scientific and engineering advice to
the EPA Administrator.
The SAB consists of approximately 100 Members, who are appointed by the Administrator. These
members serve on specific standing committees. The Chairs of the Committees also serve as members of
the Executive Committee, which oversees all of the activities of the Board.
In many of its activities, the members of the Board are supplemented by Consultants, who are
appointed by the SAB Staff Director after conferring with the Chair of the Committee on which the
consultant is to serve. Also, on occasion, Panels will be supplemented by "liaison members" from other
governmental agencies. These people are invited by the Staff Director to participate in an ad hoc manner in
order to bring their particular expertise to bear on a matter before the Board.
Both the Executive Committee and the permanent Committees may choose to conduct issue-
specific business through Subcommittees that are chaired by SAB members. Reports from Subcommittees
are reviewed by the respective permanent Committees. The Executive Committee reviews all reports,
independent of their origin, prior to formal transmission to the Administrator. The sole exceptions are
reports from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis, which are separately chartered Federal Advisory Committees operating within the
SAB structure.
Criteria for Selection of Members and Consultants
The SAB is chartered as a Federal Advisory Committee, subject to the rules and regulations of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463). The charter provides guidance and
restrictions on selection of SAB members. The four most significant of which are:
a) Members must be qualified by education, training and experience to evaluate scientific and
technical information on matters referred to the Board.
b) The composition of Board committees, subcommittees and panels must be "balanced",
representing a range of legitimate technical opinion on the matter.
c) No member of the Board may be a full-time government employee.
C-7
-------
d) Members are subject to conflict-of-interest regulations.
The scientific and technical quality and the credibility of those selected is a paramount
consideration. Secondary factors considered include the geographic, ethnic, gender, and academic/private
sector balance of committees. Other factors that contribute to, but do not determine, the selection include
demonstrated ability to work well in a committee process, write well, and complete assignments
punctually.
Nominations for membership/consultantship on the Board are accepted at any time. On a biannual
basis, the SAB Staff Office publishes a notice in the Federal Register formally soliciting the names of
candidates for SAB activities.
Terms of Appointment
Members serve at the pleasure and by appointment of the Administrator. In order to provide
suitable terms of service and to insure the infusion of new talent, the following guidelines are generally
7 o o o J
followed:
Members are generally appointed in October for two-year terms which may be renewed for two
additional consecutive terms. Chairs of the standing committees are also appointed for two-yearterms
which may be renewed for one additional term. If a member is appointed as Chair, this term of service (2-4
years) is added to whatever term of service he/she may accrue as a member. For example,
Years as member Followed by years as Chair Followed by year as member Total years
20 02
2 2 or 4 0 or 2 4-6
4 2 or 4 0 6-8
6 2or4 0 8-10
Reappointment as a member is possible after a two-year hiatus from the SAB, during which time the
individual may be called upon to serve as a consultant for a specific issue.
Consultants are appointed to provide the necessary expertise for specific issues. Their terms of
appointment are for one year, beginning at any time, and are renewable annually. Their formal
appointments may be continued beyond completion of a given project so that their expertise can be quickly
assessed in future with a minimum of paperwork.
In general, interagency liaisons participate for the term of issue resolution only.
Member and Consultant Selection Process
C-8
-------
Members are appointed by the Administrator based on nominations forwarded by the SAB Staff
Director and the Chair of the Executive Committee. These nominations, in turn, are based on
recommendations made by the Designated Federal Official (DFO the member of the SAB Staff with
principal responsibility for servicing standing Committees) and the Chairs of the standing Committees. The
DFO has the responsibility for developing a list of candidates, utilizing all credible sources, including
members of the SAB, other DFOs, EPA staff, staff at the National Academy of SciencesXNational Research
Council, trade groups, environmental groups, professional organizations, scientific societies, regulated
industries, and the informed public.
On occasion, an ad hoc Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee has been established
to assist in the selection process. This group is consulted about possible names and used as a "sounding
board" when decisions are being made about appointments. The Membership Subcommittee's principal role
is to maintain the integrity of the process and to probe the extent to which objective selection criteria and
procedures are being followed. They also raise questions about adherence to the Statement of Intent on
Women and Minorities, adopted by the Executive Committee in 1990, which was designed to increase the
representation of these groups on the Board.
Consultants are appointed by the Staff Director following a similar procedure.
Panel Selection Process
In general, once the Board and the Agency have agreed upon a topic for SAB review, the subject is
assigned to one of the standing Committees. The Committee Chair and the DFO have primary
responsibility for forming a review Panel (the full Committee or a Subcommittee, as the case may be.) The
Panel will contain some or all members of the Committee. In many instances, consultants may also be
added to the Panel in order to obtain specialized expertise on the particular issue under discussion.
A key aspect in the Panel selection process is the "charge", the mutually agreed upon description of
what the Agency would like the review to accomplish and/or what the SAB expects to focus upon. The
most helpful charge is one that prescribes specific areas/questions that need attention and/or answers. At a
minimum, the elements of the charge should be sufficiently precise that the SAB can determine what
additional consultant expertise is needed to conduct the most helpful review.
Often the DFO begins by soliciting ideas about potential members from the Agency staff who are
intimately acquainted with the issue and will therefore are often aware of the most informed people. A
conscious effort is made to avoid selecting individuals who have had a substantive hand in the development
of the document to be reviewed. At the same time, experience has shown the utility of having some
representation from individuals/groups who may have been involved in prior reviews of the issue or the
document. The goal is to minimize the appearance or practice of an individual's reviewing his/her own
work, while at the same time, maintaining an historical link to earlier deliberations surrounding the
document/issue. Once the Agency staff has suggested nominees and provided background information on
the individuals, their direct role in the panel selection process is complete. Agency staff, the requesting
office, and others may be consulted at a later stage for information about nominees received from other
sources.
C-9
-------
The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an independent assessment of the
technical matters before the Board. Discrete inquiries about the nominees are made with a number of
different sources. This might include, for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters,
professional colleagues, and experts who are on "the other side" of the issue. As time and resources permit
and controversy demands, names of nominees will be investigated via computer search of their publications
and pronouncements in public meetings.
Frequently, a determining factor for selection is the availability of the individual to participate in the
public review. In the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the SAB may enlist the assistance of a particularly
skilled consultant who cannot attend all meetings, but who is willing to do additional homework and/or
participate via conference call.
In some cases, the Panel Chair consults with key members of the Panel for their advice before
completing the empaneling process. The final selections for consultants are compiled by the DFO in
conjunction with the Chair of the Panel and are submitted to the SAB Staff Director for discussion and
appointment.
Conflict-of-interest and Public Disclosure
The intent of FACA is to construct a panel of knowledgeable individuals who are free of conflicts-
1 o
of-interest. In this regard, each Panel member must complete a confidential financial information form that
is reviewed by the Deputy Ethics Officer, Donald Barnes, to determine whether there are any obvious
conflicts-of-interest.
Legal conflict-of-interests generally arise in connection with particular party matters (A particular
matter is any activity in which an employee participates in an official capacity, where he or other persons
have a financial interest, if the direct activity --particular matter-- will have a direct and predictable effect on
his own or that person s financial interests.) In general, the SAB (in contrast with the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP)) does not get involved in particular party matters, hence, legal conflicts-of-interest
are rare on the SAB. However, technical conflicts-of-interest can arise, particularly for participants from
academic institutions, in connection with Committee recommendations for additional research studies. In
most such cases, the DFO's work with the Committee members to apply for waivers from the conflict-of-
interest concerns on this matter. The requests for waivers are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by EPA's
Office of the General Counsel. (The Agency generally determines that the benefits to the country derived
from these experts' recommendations for additional research, outweigh any technical conflict-of-interest
that might be involved.)
However, the Board is also concerned about apparent conflicts-of-interest. Consequently,
Members and Consultants to the Panel are generally selected from the broad middle spectrum of opinion
on the technical issue under discussion. Experience has shown that achieving balance through equal
representation of extreme views reduces the chance of achieving a workable consensus—pro or con--that the
Agency needs to more forward.
The public disclosure (see Attached) process (a standard part of all SAB Committee meetings) is a
mechanism aimed resolving the apparent conflicts-of-interest issues. This procedure involves an oral
C-10
-------
statement (sometimes Board members supplement this with a written document) that lays out the
individual's connection with the issue under discussion; e.g., his/her area of expertise, length of experience
with the issue, sources of research grants, previous appearance in public forms where he/she might have
expressed an opinion, etc. This recitation of prior and/or continuing contacts on the issue assists the public,
the Agency, and fellow Panel members understand the background from which particular individual's
comments spring, so that those comments can be evaluated accordingly.
Conclusion
These Guidelines are intended to assist the SAB in adhering to the mandates and spirit of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. By following these Guidelines the Board should be well-positioned to provide
technically-sound, independent, balanced advice to the Agency. At the same time, they provide assurance
that there will be adequate participation by and renewal with well-qualified experts from the various
communities served by the Board.
Prepared: Oct 14, 1991
Revised: Nov 26, 1991
Revised: Oct. 12, 1994
Revised: Nov 12, 1996
ATTACHMENT
C-ll
-------
ATTACHMENT
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AT SAB MEETINGS
Background
Conflict-of-interest (COI) statutes and regulations are aimed at preventing individuals from
(knowingly or unknowingly) bringing inappropriate influence to bear on Agency decisions which might
affect the financial interests of those individuals. The SAB contributes to the decision-making process of the
Agency by evaluating the technical underpinnings upon which rules and regulations are built. SAB Members
and consultants (M/Cs) carry our their duties as Special Government Employees (SGE's) and are subject to
the COI regulations.
o
Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the advisory process itself and the reputations of those
involved, procedures have been established to prevent actual COI and minimize the possibility of perceived
COI. These procedures include the following:
1 o
a) Having M/C's file, at the time of appointment, OGE Form 450, Confidential State-
ment of Employment and Financial Interest. This form is a legal requirement and is
maintained by the Agency as a confidential document.
b) Providing M/C's with written material; e.g. copies of the Effect of Special Government
Employee Status on Applicability of Criminal Conflict of Interest Statutes and Other
Ethics Related Provisions, the Standard of Ethical Conduct Synopsis and Ethics Adviso-
ries 97-01 and 96-18.
c) Delivering briefings to M/C's on COI issues on a regular basis.
/ o o o
The following is a description of an additional voluntary1 procedure that is designed to allow both
fellow M/Cs and the observing public to learn more about the backgrounds that M/C's bring to a discussion
o 1 o o
of a particular issue. In this way, all parties will gain a broader understanding of "where people are coming
from" and provide additional insights to help observers and participants evaluate comments made during the
discussion.
Procedure
When an agenda item is introduced that has the potential for COI actual or perceived—the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) will ask each M/C on the panel to speak for the record on his/her
background, experience, and interests that rekte to the issue at hand. The following items are examples of
the type of material that is appropriate to mention in such a disclosure:
a) Research conducted on the matter.
Note: The disclosure procedure is voluntary, and members/consultants are not obligated to reveal information contained in their Form 450 that would
otherwise remain confidential.
C-12
-------
b) Previous pronouncements made on the matter.
c) Interests of employer in the matter.
d) A general description of any other financial interests in the matter: e.g., having
investments that might be directly affected by the matter.
e) Other links: e.g., research grants from parties—including EPA—that would be affected
by the matter.
The DFO will also publicly refer to any waivers from the COI regulations which have been granted
for the purposes of the meeting.
The DFO will assure that the minutes of the meeting reflect that fact such disclosures were made
and, if possible, the nature of the disclosures. In addition, the minutes should describe any situations in
which, in the opinion of the DFO, an actual or perceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
C-13
-------
C4
TYPES OF AFFILIATION WITH THE SAB
1. SAB Members
SAB members are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the Deputy
Administrator for two-year terms. Members participate fully in their review committees, which are
generally conducted in a collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as members on relevant
rosters and generated reports.
Note that SAB reports are formally endorsed by SAB members by action of the Executive
Committee.
2. SAB Consultants
SAB Consultants are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the SAB
Staff Director for one-year terms. Generally, Consultants are appointed in order to augment the expertise
for a particular review and/or for mutual exploration of future membership on the Board. Consultants
participate fully in their review panels and committees, which are generally conducted in a collegial,
consensus-building style. Their names appear as Consultants on relevant rosters and generated reports.
3. Federal Experts
The SAB charter precludes Federal employees from being members of the Board. However, in
some instances, certain Federal experts have technical knowledge and expertise that can add significant value
of the work of the SAB.
In order to access that expertise for the benefit of the Board and the Administrator, the SAB staff
will work with the Office of the General Counsel to identify appropriate mechanisms for assessing the
potential for conflicts of interest.
The SAB Staff Director can invite Federal experts who do not have a real or apparent conflict-of-
interest (either personally or through their agencies) to service on an SAB committee for the duration of a
particular the review/study. Federal Experts participate fully on the committees, which are generally
conducted in a collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as Federal Experts on relevant
rosters and generated reports.
4. Invited Expert Resource
In some situations, there are individuals (both Federal employees and non-Federal employees) who
have expertise and/or knowledge of data that bears on an SAB review but who also have real or perceived
C-14
-------
COIs that would preclude their participation as Members or Consultants. There people can attend the SAB
meeting as Invited Expert Resources. The SAB pays travel expenses, if needed.
For example, the person could be the author of a key study of PCBs when the EHC is reviewing the
Agency's reference dose for PCBs. The SAB would fund the travel expenses for the person. This person
could be either Federal or non-Federal employee. The intent is to have a source real-time, authoritative
feedback available during the SAB discussion of the issue. The person would not be asked to serve as a
consultant in this case, due to a professional conflict-of-interest; i.e., he would be placed in the position of
reviewing his own work.
o
Another example would be a researcher who has access to some important data, alternative analysis,
etc. at another agency, but that is germane to the SAB review. The person would not be asked to serve as a
consultant in this case because of a real or apparent conflict-of-interest; e.g., works for an organization
(private or Federal) that would be so directly impacted by the Agency's position as to cause a M/C from
such an organization to ask for a recusal.
Invited Expert Resources have limited participation in SAB reviews. They are available to answer
questions of the SAB committee panel, provide invited presentations, and enlighten the discussion with
pertinent pieces of information. Their names are listed as Invited Expert Resources on rosters and reports,
with an explanatory footnote recording their presence and role at the meeting. They are not a part of the
Board's consensus/decision about the report. The intent is to indicate that such experts were available
during the meeting, but that they were not a party to the judgment.
C-15
-------
C5
SAB MEMBERS FOR FY 2002
William Adams
Kennecott Utah Copper
Corporation
Magna, UT 84044
Henry Anderson
Wisconsin Division of Public
Health
Madison, WI 53701
Lynn Anspaugh
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84117
David Baker
Heidelberg College
Tiffin, OH 44883
Steven Bartell
Cadmus Group, Inc
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Gregory Biddinger
Exxon Mobile Refining and
Supply Company
Fairfax, VA 22037
Bruce Boecker
Lovelace Respritory Research
Institute
Albuquerque, NM 87108
Timothy Buckley
John Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21205
Richard Bull
MoBull Consulting
Kennewick, WA 99336
Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC 20036
Gilles Bussod
Science Network
International, Inc.
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Trudy Cameron
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
Robin Cantor
LECG, LLC
Washington, DC 20006
Lauraine Chestnut
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO 80306
Kenneth Cummins
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521
Virginia Dale
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Mary Davis
West Virginia University
Health Sciences Center
Morgantown, WV 26506
Michael DeBaun
Washington University
o J
School of Medicine
St. Louis, MO 63110
Ricardo DeLeon
Metropolitan Water District
La Verne, CA91750
H. Barry Dellinger
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
John Evans
Harvard University
Boston, MA 02115
IvanJ. Fernandez
University of Maine
Orono, ME 04469
Paul Foster
Apex, NC 27509
Donald Fullerton
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
Thomas F. Gesell
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID 83209
Cynthia Gilmour
The Academy of Natural
Sciences
St. Leonard, MD 20685
C-16
-------
William Glaze
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Lawrence Goulder
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Domenico Grasso
Smith College
o
Northampton, MA 01063
Sidney Green
Howard University
Washington, DC 20059
Linda Greer
Natural Resources Defense
Council
Washington, DC 20005
Helen Ann Grogan
Cascade Scientific, Inc.
Bend, OR 97701
Annette Guiseppi-Elie
DuPont Engineering
Richmond, VA 23261
Jane Hall
California State University
Fullerton, CA 92834
James Hammitt
Harvard University
Boston, MA 02115
W. Michael Hanemann
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Robert A. Harley
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Barbara Harper
Yakama Indian Nation
West Richland, WA 99353
Dale Hattis
Clark University
Worchester, MA 01610
Charles Hawkins
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322
Gloria Helfand
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Irva Hertz-Picciotto
University of California-Davis
Davis, CA95616
David Hoel
Medical University of South
Carolina
Charleston, SC 29425
Philip Hopke
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY 13699
Richard Hornung
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45267
Hilary Inyang
University of North Carolina
at Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
Janet A. Johnson
Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Lovell Jones
University of Texas
Houston, TX 77030
Paul Joskow
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
Roger E. Kasperson
Stockholm Environment
Institute
Stockholm, Sweden 06281
Michael Kavanaugh
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Emeryville, CA 94608
Byung Kim
J o
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, MI 48323
Catherine Kling
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Charles Kolstad
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
George Lambert
Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ 08855
Lester B. Lave
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Grace LeMasters
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45267
Abby Li
Monsanto Company
St. Louis, MO 63167
PaulJ. Lioy
UMDNJ- Robert Wood
C-17
-------
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Jill Lipoti
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ 08625
Raymond C. Loehr
The University of Texas at
Austin
Austin, TX 78712
George W. Lucier
o
Consultant
Pittsboro, NC27312
Ulrike Luderer
university of California at
Irvine
Irvine, CA92612
Randy Maddalena
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720
Alan Maki
Exxon Mobile
Anchorage, AK 99503
John P. Maney
Environmental Measurements
Assessment
Gloucester, MA 01930
Lawrence L. Master
NatureServe
Boston, MA 02111
Genevieve Matanoski
John Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21202
Michael J. McFarland
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322
Lee D. McMullen
Des Moines Water Works
DesMoines, IA 50321
Judith L. Meyer
University of Georgia
Anthens, GA 30322
Paulette Middleton
RAND Environment, Inc.
Boulder, CO 80304
Frederick J. Miller
CUT Centers for Health
Research
Research Triangle, NC 27709
William Mitsch
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210
Christine Moe
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
Maria Morandi
University of Texas-Health
Sciences Center
Houston, TX 77030
M. Granger Morgan
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Michael C. Newman
College of William & Mary
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
Richard Norgaard
o
University of California at
Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
Rebecca Parkin
George Washington
University
Washington, DC 20037
Charles A. Pittinger
SoBran, Inc.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Richard L. Poirot
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Waterbury, VT05671
Stephen Polasky
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
Richard Revesz
New York University
New York, NY 10012
Bruce E. Rittmann
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL 60208
Genevieve Roessler
University of Florida
Elysian, MN 56028
Ken Sexton
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Jason Shogren
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071
C-18
-------
Roy Shore
News York University Sdiool
of Medicine
New York, NY 10016
Hilary Sigrnan
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
C-19
-------
C6
SAB CONSULTANTS
Miguel Acevedo
University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203-5279
E. Eric Adams
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
Roy Albert
University of Cincinnati
Medical Center
Cincinnati, OH 45267
Richard Albertini
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05401
George Alexeeff
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Sacramento, CA 95814
Herbert Allen
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Lisa Alvarez-Cohen
University of California-
Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
Mary Anderson
University of Wisconsin-
Madison
Madison, WI 53706
Yolanda Anderson
North Carolina Central
University
Durham, NC 27707
Stephen Ayres
Medical College of Virgina
Commonwealth
University
Richmond, VA 23284
Tina Bahadori
Electric Power Research
Institute
Menlo Park, CA 94025
John Bailar
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637
William Bair
Battelle Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
Richland, WA 99352
Scott Barrett
John Hopkins University
Washington, DC 20036
Michael Beck
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-2152
Barbara Bedford
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Mark Benjamin
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-2700
Edgar Berkey
Concurrent Technologies
Corporation
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1819
L. Mark Berliner
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210
Frances Berry
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Vicki Bier
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
William Bishop
Proctor & Gamble
Cincinnati, OH 45253-8707
Nancy Bockstael
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Donald Boesch
University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD 21613
James Bond
Toxcon
Durham, NC 27713
C-20
-------
Susan J. Borghoff
CUT Centers for Health
Research
Research Triangle, NC 27709
Anne Bostrom
Georgia Institute of
o
Technologies
Atlanta, GA 30332
Paul Boulos
MWH Soft, Inc.
Broomfield, CO 80021
Dorothy Bowers
Merck & Company, Inc
Whitehouse Station, NJ
08889
Michael Brauer
The University of British
Columbia
Vancouver, BC V6T1Z3
David Brown
North East States for
Coordinated Air Use
Management
Westport, CT 06880
Gardner Brown
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Linfield Brown
Tufts University
Medford, MA 02155
Stephen Brown
Risks of Radiation
Chemical Compound
(R2C2)
Oakland, CA 94605
Bert Brunekreef
Utrecht University
Utrecht,
Robert Buchsbaum
Massachustes Audubon
Society
Wenham, MA 01984
A. Sonia Buist
Oregon Health Sciences
University
Portland, OR 97201
Thomas Burke
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21205
Gary Carlson
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Peter Chapman
EVS Environment
Consultants
N Vancouver, BC V7P2R4
Randall J. Charbeneau
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
Caron Chess
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Calvin Chien
E.I. DuPont Company
Wilmington, DE 19880
David Chock
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, MI 48121
Russell Christman
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Richard Clapp
Boston University
Boston, MA 02118
Lenore Clesceri
Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institution
Troy, NY 12181
Roger Cochran
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Sacramento, CA 95812
Theodora E. Colborn
World Wildlife Fund
Washington, DC 20037
Steven Colome
University of California at
Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Timothy J. Considine
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Richard A. Conway
Environmental Consultant
Charleston, WV 25314
William E. Cooper
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Robert Coppock
Consultant
Falls Church, VA 2 2 046
C-21
-------
Deborah Cory-Slechta
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14642
Robert Costanza
University of Maryland
Solomons Island, MD 20688
Maureen L. Cropper
The World Bank
Washington, DC 20433
Kenny Crump
ICF Consulting
Ruston, LA 71270
Ronald G. Cummings
o
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303
Thomas Dahms
St. Louis University
St. Louis, MO 63110
Michael Daniels
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
George Daston
Proctor & Gamble
Cincinnati, OH 45253
J. Clarence Davies
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC 20036
James Dearing
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Christopher D Elia
University of Albany, State
University of New York
Albany, NY 12222
Richard Denison
Environmental Defence
Boston, MA 02109
Richard Di Giulio
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
David Diaz-Sanchez
University of California at
Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Kenneth Dickson
University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203
Kim Dietrich
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45267
Thomas Dietz
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Douglas Dockery
Harvard University
Boston, MA 02115
Kenneth Donaldson
Napier University
Edinburgh EH 105DT
Scotland
Philip B. Dorn
Equilon Enterprises, LLC
Houston, TX 77082
John Doull
University of Kansas Medical
Center
Kansas City, KS 66160
Michael Dourson
Toxicology Excellence for
Risk Assessment
Cincinnati, OH 45223
Yvonne P. Dragan
o
Ohio State University
Dublin, OH 43017
Patricia Durbin-Heavey
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720
Mary Durfee
Michigan Technological
University
Houghton, MI 49931
David Dzombak
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Richard Ediger
o
The Perkin-Elmer
Corporation
Norwalk, CT 06859
Lutz Edler
German Cancer Research
Center
Heidelberg, Germany
D-69120
Rebecca A. Efroymson
Oak Ridge National
o
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
John Elston
State of New Jersey
Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ 08625
C-22
-------
Lois Epstein
Trustees for Alaska
Anchorage, AK 99501
June Fabryka-Martin
Los Alamos National
Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Brendlyn Faison
Hampton University
Hampton, VA 23668
Anna Fan-Cheuk
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Oakland, CA94612
Elaine Faustman
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
Nancy Fiedler
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Lawrence Fischer
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Baruch Fischhoff
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Terry Foecke
Materials Productivity, LLC
Richfield, MN 55423
Robert W. Frantz
General Electric Company
Cincinnati, OH 45215
A. Myrick Freeman
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011
Nina Bergen French
SKY + Ltd
Napa, CA94581
H. Christopher Frey
North Carolina State
University
Raleigh, NC 27695
Roger Fujioka
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
John Gallagher
University of Delaware
Lewes, DE 19958
Michael Gallo
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ 08855
Eric Garshick
Harvard Medical School
West Roxbury, MA 02132
Thomas A. Gasiewicz
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14642
Kenneth Geiser
University of Massachusetts at
Lowell
Lowell, MA 01854
Thomas J. Gentile
New York State Department
of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, NY 12233
Bradford S. Gentry
Yale University
New Haven, CT 06511
Panos Georgopoulos
UMUNJ-Robert Johnson
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Charles P. Gerba
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
James Gibson
Dow AgroSciences
Indianapolis, IN 46268
John P. Giesy
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Richard O. Gilbert
Battelle Memorial Institute
Washington, DC 20024
Michael Ginevan
M.E. Ginevan & Associates
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Arthur Gold
University of Rhode Isknd
Kensington, RI02881
Bernard Goldstein
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15261
Robert A. Goldstein
Electric Power Research
Institute
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
C-23
-------
Ricardo Gonzalez-Mendez
University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, PR 00936
Theodore Gordon
Consultant
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Samuel Gorovitz
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13244
John Gowdy
Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute
Troy, NY 12180
Robert Goyer
Consultant
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
John D. Graham
Harvard University
Boston, MA 021 IS
Philippe Grandjean
Boston University
Boston, MA 02118
Daniel Greenbaum
Health Effects Institute
Boston, MA 02129
William Greenlee
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
Research Triangle, NC 27709
Peter Groer
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37669
Philip Guzelian
University of Colorado
Health Sciences Center
Englewood, CO 80262
George Hallberg
o o
The Cadmus group, Inc.
Watertown, MA 02472
Anna Harding
o
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Gregory Harrington
o J o
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Winston Harrington
o
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC 20036
Stuart Harris
Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation
Pendleton, OR 97801
Keith Harrison
Michigan Environmental
Science Board
Lansing, MI 4893 3
Rolf Hartung
Consultant
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Mark A. Harwell
University of Miami
Miami, FL33149
Robert Hazen
NJ Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ 08625
Clark Heath
American Cancer Society
Atlanta, GA 30329
Rogene Henderson
Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute
Albuquerque, NM 87108
Carol Henry
American Chemistry Council
Arlington, VA 22209
Janet Hering
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, CA91125
F. Owen Hoffman
SENES Oak Ridge, Inc.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Thomas Holsen
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY 13699
Joseph B. Hughes
Rice University
Houston, TX 77005
Shawki Ibrahim
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Co 80523
Jay S. Jacobson
Boyce Thompson Institute at
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14850
Joseph L. Jacobson
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
C-24
-------
James Jahnke
Source Technology Associates
RTF, NC 27709
Sheila Jasanoff
Harvard University
Canbridge, MA 02138
Michael Jayjock
Rohm and Haas Co.
Spring House, PA 19477
Harvey E. Jeffries
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
James H. Johnson
Howard University
Washington, DC 20059
Dale Jorgenson
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
Wayne M. Kachel
Mele Associates
Rockville, MD 20850
Bernd Kahn
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Jeffery Kahn
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
G. Graham Kalton
Westat
Rockville, MD 20850
Karl Kelsey
Harvard school of Public
Health
Boston, MA 02115
Nancy K. Kim
New York State Department
of Health
Troy, NY 12180
Gordon Kingsley
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Pat Kinney
Columbia University
New York, NY 10032
Curtis Klaassen
University of Kansas Medical
Center
Kansas City, KS 66160
James E. Klaunig
Indiana University
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Michael Klienman
University of California
Irvine, CA 92697
Lynda Knobelo ch
Wisconsin department of
Health and family Services
Madison, WI 53703
Debra Knopman
RAND Science and
Technology
Arlington, VA 22202
Maurice Knuckles
Meharry Medical College
Nashville, TN 37208
Jane Q. Koenig
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Petros Koutrakis
Harvard University
Boston, MA 02115
David K. Kreamer
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV 89154
Margaret Kripke
o 1
University of Texas
Houston, TX 77030
Alan J. Krupnick
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC 20036
Thomas W. La Point
University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203
Nan M. Laird
Harvard School of Public
Health
Boston, MA 02115
Guy Lanza
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA01003
Kinley Larntz
University of Minnesota
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Timothy V. Larson
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Debra L. Laskin
Rutgers University
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Victor Laties
University of Rochester
Medical Center
Rochester, NY 14642
C-25
-------
Brian P. Leaderer
Yale University School of
Medicine
New Haven, CT 06520
Michael Lebowitz
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85724
Allan Legge
oo
Biosphere solutions
Calgary, Alberta T2N1 HI
Arik Levinson
Georgetown University
Washington, DC 20057
Robert J. Lewis
Exxon Mobile Biomedical
Sciences, Inc.
Annandale, NJ 08801
Steven C. Lewis
Exxon Mobil Biomedical
Sciences, Inc.
Annandale, NJ 08801
Reid Lifset
Yale University
New Haven, CT 06511
Jo Ann S. Lighty
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Steve Lindberg
o
Oak Ridge national
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Morton Lippmann
New York University
Tuxedo, NY 10987
Kai-Shen Lui
California Department of
Health Services
Berkeley, CA 94704
Lawrence D. Longo
o
Loma Linda University
Loma Linda, CA 92350
John B. Loomis
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Karl R. Loos
Equilon Enterprises
Houston, TX 77082
Cecil Lue-Hing
o
Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District
Chicago, IL 60611
Wu-Seng Lung
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Richard G. Luthy
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Donald MacKay
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S1A4
Douglas E. MacLean
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 21250
David W. Major
GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc.
Guelph, Ontario N1G5B2
George Malindzak
Raleigh, NC 27613
Thomas Malone
University of Maryland
Cambridge, MA 21613
Ellen Mangione
Colorado Department of
Public Health
Denver, CO 80246
William Manning
o
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA01003
James Martin
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Melanie Marty
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Oakland, CA94612
Joe Mauderly
Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute
Albuquerque, NM 87108
Karen McBee
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078
Michael McClain
McClain Associates
Randolph, NJ 07869
Roger O. McClellan
Consultant
Albuquerque, NM 87123
Ernest McConnell
ToxPath, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27613
C-26
-------
David E. McCurdy
Duke Engineering and
Services
Marlborough, MA017S2
Leyla McCurdy
National Environmental
Education and Training
Foundation
Washington, DC 20006
Gordon McFeters
Montana State University
Bozeman, MTS9717
Thomas McKone
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Terrence McManus
Intel Corporation
(CHIO-22)
Chandler, AZ 85226
Peter McMurry
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Michele Medinsky
Toxcon
Durham, NC 27713
Arend Meijer
GCX, Inc.
Albuquerque, NM 87108
Paul I. Merges
J o
New York State Department
of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, NY 12233
Robert H. Meyer
Keystone Science
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Joseph S. Meyer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY82071
Michael Meyer
Wisconsin Department Of
National Resources
Rhinelander, WI54501
Jana Milford
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
Nicholas Molina
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Harrisburg, PA 54501
Paul Montagna
University of Texas at Austin
Port Aransas, TX 78373
Peter K. Mueller
TROPOCHEM
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ishwar Murarka
ISH, Inc.
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Issam Najm
Water Quality and
Treatment Solutions, Inc.
Chatworth, CA91311
Bruce A. napier
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Richland, WA99352
Thomas Natan
Environmental Information
Center
Washington, DC 20036
John S. Neuberger
J o
University of Kansas
Kansas City, KS66103
Nikolaos P. Nikolaidis
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269
D. Warner North
North Works, Inc.
Belmont, CA 94002
Charles Noss
Water Environme nt Research
Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314
Jerome Nriagu
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Gunter Obredorster
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14642
Richard T. Okita
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164
Adam Olivieri
EGA, Inc.
Oakland, CA94612
Charles O Melia
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
Gilbert Omenn
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
David M. Ozonoff
Boston University
Boston, MA 02118
C-27
-------
Frank L. Parker
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37235
David K. Parkinson
Long Island Occupational and
Environmental Health
Center
Port Jefferson, NY 11777
Dennis J. Paustenbach
Exponent
Menlo Park, CA 94025
John W. Payne
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
Marinelle Payton
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA 02115
William S, Pease
University of California-
Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
James Peeler
Emission Monitoring Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27612
Edo D. Pellizzari
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle, NC 27709
Gary H. Perdew
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802
Frederica Perera
Columbia University
New York, NY 10032
Richard Perritt
University of Southern Maine
Gorham, ME 04038
Barbara J. Petersen
Novigen Sciences, Inc.
Washington, DC 20036
Leif E. Peterson
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX 77030
Richard Peterson
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53705
Robert Pfahl
Motorola Advnced
Technology Center
Schaumburg, 1160196
Donald Pierce
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Henry C. Pitot
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Daniel Podkulski
Exxon Mobile Chemical
Baytown, TX 77522
Frederick Pohland
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15261
Robert B. Pojasek
Pojasek & Associates
East Arlington, MA 02474
John Poston
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
Joel Pounds
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48201
Alison G. Power
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Shankar Prasad
California Air Resources
Board
Sacramento, C A 95814
Kimberly Prather
University of California-San
Diego
Lajolla, CA 92093
Lynne Preslo
Earth Tech
Long Beach, CA90815
James Price
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
Austin, TX 78711
Leslie A. Real
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
Robert Repetto
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO 80306
Kenneth R. Reuhl
Rutgers University
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Hanadi S. Rifai
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204
C-28
-------
Knut Ring en
Stoneturn Consultants
Seattle, WA 98166
Paul G. Risser
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
James R. Rocco
Sage Risk Solutions LLC
Aurora, OH 44202
Howard Rockette
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15261
Everett Rogers
o
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Joan B. Rose
University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
John Rosen
Children s Hospital at
Montefiore
Bronx, NY 10467
Benjamin Ross
Disposal Safety Inc.
Washington, DC 20006
Robert D. Rowe
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO 80306
Clifford S. Russell
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37212
Milton Russell
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
Louise Ryan
Harvard School of Public
Health
Boston, MA 02115
Stephen H. Safe
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
Jonathan M. Samet
John Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21205
David A. Savitz
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Robert Sawyer
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Rita C. Schenck
Institute for Environmental
Research and Education
Vashon, WA 98070
Richard Schlesinger
o
New York University
Tuxedo, NY 10987
William Schull
University of Texas
Houston, TX 10987
Bobby R. Scott
Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute
Albuquerque, NM 87108
W. Randall Seeker
General Electric Energy and
Environmental Re search
Corp.
Irvine, CA92618
Kathleen Segerson
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269
Christian Seigneur
Atmospheric and
Environmental Research,
Inc.
San Ramon, CA 94583
Margaret Shannon
o
State University of New
York
Buffalo, NY 14226
Carl Shy
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Ellen Silbergeld
o
John Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21205
Warren Sinclair
National Council on
Radiation Protection
Bethesda, MD 20814
Sim Sitkin
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
Mitchell Small
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Gina Solomon
Natural Resources Defense
Council
San Francisco, C A 94105
Anne Spacie
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
C-29
-------
John D. Spengler
Harvard University
Boston, MA 02115
Douglas Splitstone
Splitstone and Associate
Murrysville, PA 15668
Laura Steinberg
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA 70118
Jan Stolwijk
Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520
Keith Stolzenbach
University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Judy Stout
Marine Environmental
Sciences Consortium
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
Makram Suidan
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221
lames A. Swenberg
J o
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Frieda B. Taub
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Mary Jane Teta
Exponent Inc.
Southbury, CT 06488
James M. Tiedje
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Thomas Tietenberg
o
Colby College
Waterville, ME 04901
Michael Toman
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC 20036
Bruce Tonn
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
Nga L. Tran
o
Exponent/AKA Novigen
Sciences
Washington, DC 20036
Michael Trehy
Solutia, Inc.
St. Louis, MO 63166
Michael G. Trulear
ChemTreat, Inc.
Richmond, VA 23261
Arthur C. Upton
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Jane Valentine
University of California at
Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90095
W. Kip Viscusi
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA 02138
Ian von Lindern
TerraGraphics Environmental
Engineering
Moscow, ID 83843
Herb C. Ward
Rice University
Houston, TX 77005
Judith S. Weis
Rutgers University
Newark, NJ 07102
Bernard Weiss
University of Rochester
Medical Center
Rochester, NY 14642
Christopher G. Whipple
ENVIRON
Emeryville, CA 94608
Ronald White
National Osteoporosis
Foundation
Washington, DC 20037
Warren H. White
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130
Robin Whyatt
Columba University
New York, NY 10027
Chris Wiant
Caring for Colorado
o
Foundation
Denver, CO 80222
C-30
-------
C7
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
OF
THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
C-31
-------
DR. DONALD G. BARNES
STAFF DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DR. DONALD G. BARNES assumed his position as Staff Director in 1988. Since arriving, he has
overseen a 25% growth in the Committees of the Board and a 50% increase in the membership of the
Board. During his tenure the Board has completed four major de novo reports [Future Risk (1988),
Reducing Risk (1990), Beyond the Horizon (1995), and Integrated Decisionmaking (1999)] and two self-
studies (1989 and 1994), in addition to more than 300 reports to the Administrator.
Dr. Barnes is active in Agency-wide issues associated with science and risk assessment. For
example, he serves on the Administrator's Science Policy Council and on the Steering committee for the
Council.
Dr. Barnes came to the SAB following ten years' service as Senior Science Advisor to the Assistant
o J
Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. In that role he became involved with a number of
controversial issues; e.g., pesticide re-registrations, the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA, and "dioxin",
for which he received two EPA Gold Medals for Superior Service.
He has been active in the area of risk assessment for nearly two decades as practitioner, reviewer
and instructor. For example, he participated in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy-
led effort to produce a consensus view of cancer in the Federal government; i.e., Cancer Principles. He has
been was active in the writing of a number of the Agency's risk assessment guide-lines; e.g., for cancer and
for mixtures. In a tangential activity he has worked with the government of Bulgaria to inculcate risk-based
decision making in their emerging environmental protection program, both at the ministry and regional
levels. He is on the editorial staff of a peer-review journal and serves as a reviewer for a second risk-related
journal.
Prior to coming to EPA, Dr. Barnes was Associate Professor and Science Division Chair at St.
Andrews Presbyterian College in North Carolina. His formal education includes a BA (chemistry) from the
College of Wooster, a PhD (physical chemistry, with a minor in physics) from the Institute of Molecular
Biophysics at Florida State University, and subsequent graduate courses in several health-related areas; i.e.,
pharmacology, toxicology, immunology and epidemiology.
1 cv ' cv 7 cv 1 cv
His real world education continues to be provided by Dr. Karen K. Barnes, their two sons (and
wives), and three grandsons.
C-32
-------
DR. JOHN R. JACK FowLElII
DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DR. JACK FOWLE joined the staff as Deputy Director in September 1995. In addition to duties
withwith the SAB staff, Dr. Fowle is interested in the use of science to inform policy and works with the
Agency'sAgency's Science Policy Council, cochairing efforts to implement EPA's Risk Characterization Policy.
HeHe is also a member of the Agency s Risk Assessment Forum (RAF), and he chairs the Public Policy
CommitteeCommittee for the Society for Risk Analysis.
Dr.Dr. Fowle was detailed from EPA to the U.S. Senate as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan s
Science Science Advisor from January 1992 until December 1994. While focusing on environmental legislation,
J J o o 7
hehe provided advice to the Senator and to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on a
widewide range of issues. He was the principal staff person working on Senator Moynihan s risk bills in the
102ndl02nd and 103rd Congresses.
BeforeBefore joining Senator Moynihan s staff, Dr. Fowle spent three years in Research Triangle Park,
NCNC as Associate Director of EPA s Health Effects Research Laboratory. He planned and managed EPA s
DrinkingDrinking Water Health Research Program, and coordinated EPA s R&D work efforts with the World
HealthHealth Organization.
Dr.Dr. Fowle first came to EPA in 1979 when he joined ORD s Carcinogen Assessment Group,
andand has served in a variety of other capacities since then. He managed the development of EPA s initial
BiotechnologyBiotechnology Research Program in 1983 and 1984 and was subsequently detailed to Congressman
Gore sGore s Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee, Committee on Science and Technology, as a Science
AdvisorAdvisor on Biotechnology issues. He directed the Environmental Health Research staff of the Office of
cv
HealthHealth Research in ORD at EPA headquarters from 1985 to 1987, and was Health Advisor to EPA s
AssistantAssistant Administrator for Research & Development in 1988 and 1989, and in 1995.
Dr.Dr. Fowle received both his baccalaureate and doctoral degrees in genetics from George
o o o
WashingtonWashington University in Washington, DC.
Dr.Dr. Fowle, a resident of Washington, DC, is an amateur musician. As a member of the
BOOGAGBOOGAG ( Bunch of Old Guys and Gals ) bicycle riding club puts in 40 to 60 miles each weekend
climbingclimbing the hills of western Maryland, northern Virginia and southern Pennsylvania. It s not a ride
unlessunless you climb over 1800 feet.
C-33
-------
DR. ANGELA NUGENT
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE STAFF DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
DR. ANGELA NUGENT is a historian who has found work at EPA as interesting as combing the
o o
archives for the history of public health, science and technology. Angela serves as the DFO for the Council
and its two subcommittees and for several ad-hoc panels of the SAB Executive Committee. She also serves
as Special Assistant to the Staff Director.
Angela holds a Ph.D. (1982) and M.A. (1976) from Brown University, where her research focused
on the history of industrial toxicology. She received a B.S.F.S. degree from Georgetown University's School
of Foreign Service in 1974.
o
Angela is married to Bruce Odessey, a writer-editor for the U.S. Department of State. She enjoys
most of all spending time with him and their seven-year old daughter, Rachel. Together, they like to
dance, sing, travel, and read.
C-34
-------
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
ACTING DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK serves as the Acting Deputy Director of the SAB, Team Leader of the
SAB Committee Operations Staff, and as Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC). Mr. Flaak was first associated with the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1978 when
he became the DFO for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) when the committee was
first chartered. Since then he has been the DFO forthe following SAB committees: CASAC (1978-1979;
1984-1991; 1995-2002); Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (now the Integrated
Human Exposure Committee) (1986-1993); Drinking Water Committee (1991-1993; 1995); ad hoc
Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Panel (1992-95); Environmental Futures Committee (1993-1 995); Research
Strategies Advisory Committee (1995-1998), and a host of SAB subcommittees and working groups
involved with issues such as global climate, biotechnology, and reducing risk. Mr. Flaak has also served in
several other SAB management positions including Acting Staff Director, and Assistant Staff Director.
In addition to his duties with the Board, Mr. Fkak has continued his part-time detail to the Agency s
Science Policy Council (SPC) as a member of the Agency s Peer Review Advisory Group, and has become a
Member of the SPC Steering Committee. Since 1988, Mr. Flaak has assisted the General Services
Administration (GSA) in the development and presentation of its National training course on Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Management. During the past year he has worked with GSA on the
implementation of the revised regulations on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and on
performance measures for Federal advisory committees.
Mr. Flaak s academic training is in biological oceanography, especially phytoplankton dynamics and
bivalve maraculture. He graduated from the City College of New York (BS, Liberal Arts - Concentration in
Zoology); the University of Delaware s Graduate College of Marine Studies (MS, Marine Studies -
Concentration in Biology and Chemistry); and Central Michigan University s Institute for Professional and
Career Development (MA, Management and Supervision -- Concentration in Public Administration). Mr.
Flaak lives in Clifton, Virginia with his wife Dottie and their son Christopher.
C-35
-------
DR. K. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE , SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY AND ACHIEVEMENT
AWARDS COMMITTEE, MODELING
AND OTHER SAB EC AD Hoc ACTIVITIES
DR. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July, 1988. He has
served as Designated Federal Official (DFO) for a number of standing committees and panels, such as the
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC; 1988 through 1993), the Radiation Advisory Committee
(RAC; 1993 through 2000 and January, 2002 to the present), the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (Council; January 1994 through March of 1999), as well as the Council s
subcommittees. He currently is DFO for the RAC and various Ad Hoc Panels of the SAB s Executive
Committee (e.g., NATA Review Panel, UST/RCRA Benefits, Costs and Impacts Review Panel, 3MRA
Review Panel, and CREM), and assists with the STAA Committee. He brings to the SAB over 35 years of
engineering and professional experience, including over 28 years of diverse experience within EPA
Headquarters.
Prior to joining the SAB, Jack worked in the Office of Solid Waste (OSW; 1974 - 1976), the
Office of Water s Effluent Guidelines Division (1976 - 1979), and Agency s Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER; 1979 - 1988) where he was responsible for developing the multi-media
hazardous substance reportable quantity regulations, oil and hazardous substance pollution prevention
regulations, oil spill reporting requirements, as well as the oil and dispersant testing and registration
program under the National Contingency Plan.
Dr. Kooyoomjian received a BS (Mechanical Engineering) from the University of Massachusetts,
and a MS (Management Science) and a Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering, with a minor in Economics)
from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He is professionally active in the Water Environment Federation s
(WEF) local Member Association, the Federal Water Quality Association (FWQA). He received the
Arthur Sidney Bedell Award from WEF for extraordinary personal service in the water pollution control
field. He has served in numerous capacities in the FWQA, including President, and "Ambassador-at-
Large." He is currently Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee of the FWQA. He is listed in
"Who's Who in Science and Engineering," and "Who's Who in the Eastern United States." He is also
active in Armenian scientific and engineering circles, and currently serves since 1997 as Chairman of the
Organizing Committee of the Greater Metropolitan Washington Area Section (GMWAS) of the Armenian
Engineers and Scientists of America (AESA).
Closer to home, which he shares with his wife (Gerry) of 29 years, and Melissa (23), one of their
three daughters, Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous civic activities which focus on development,
land-use and environmental issues in his area. He has received the EPA Public Service Recognition Award
in 1988 and 1992 and several County Recognition Awards, and in 1995 a Virginia State Planning
J o ' o o
Association award for his civic involvement. In addition to his civic activities, since 1996 he has been
serving on the Board of Directors of the Prince William County Service Authority.
C-36
-------
MR. THOMAS MILLER
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE;
RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MR. TOM MILLER joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in June, 1996 as Designated
Federal Official (DFO) for the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) and the Environmental Economics
Advisory Committee (EEAC). Tom has worked at the Environmental Protection Agency in regulatory
J ^ ' O J O J
(pesticides, toxic substances), budget, and planning activities (research and development programs) since
1974.
Mr. Miller received a BS (Wildlife Management) in 1972 and an MS (Wildlife Management) in
1975, both from West Virginia University. For his Master s research, Mr. Mller conducted a radio-
telemetry study of black bear habitat utilization in the Monongahela National Forest of West Virginia. In
1993, Tom received a Masters of Public Policy from the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs.
Tom s major professional interest is the study of the ways that science and policy development interact to
identify and implement appropriate approaches to environmental management, and the role of citizens in
decisions leading to the selection of management approaches.
Tom is married and is the father of one daughter, Stephanie, and one son, Christopher, (who is a
University Junior). Tom is involved with leadership positions in his church, and he enjoys flyfishing,
skating, cross-country skiiing, backpacking, and woodworking.
C-37
-------
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE;
INTEGRATED HUMAN EXPOSURE COMMITTEE
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG retired from the Senior Executive Service (SES)in August, 1988 and
re-entered federal service in November 1988, when he joined the SAB staff. During his previous full and
fruitful career at EPA, he served as an Office Director and Associate Office Director in EP A's Office of
Research Development (ORD) and the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM).
Before joining EPA in 1974, Mr. Rondberg held research management, analytical, and policy
formulation positions with the Department of Transportation and the Veterans Administration's
Department of Medicine and Surgery. He also served in the US Army for two years, with the rank of
Captain. Most of his federal career has been devoted to advancing the use of analytic methodologies to
address public policy issues, and to improving the management of federal research activities. At EPA, he
has directed particular efforts to the complex problems and issues engendered by operating a research
program within the context of a regulatory agency—coordination between legal and scientific "cultures";
i o oyoy o '
maintaining a stable long-term program in the face of urgent and frequently changing needs for short-term
support; and maintaining an adequate resource base in the face of competition from regulatory programs
struggling to meet court or Congressionally mandated deadlines.
Mr. Rondberg pursued undergraduate (AB, 1959) and graduate studies at Washington University,
where he also served as a Teaching Assistant in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and as a Public
Health Service Fellow and Research Associate in the Medical School. In 1967, he was awarded a National
Institute of Public Administration Fellowship in Systematic Analysis at Stanford University and completed
a special interdisciplinary curriculum in the Schools of Engineering, Graduate Business, and the Depart-
ments of Economics and Computer Science.
Mr. Rondberg has authored publications in clinical psychology, research management, and the
applications of electronic systems and telemetry to urban transportation.
Sam s wife (Ruth) of 36 years is a Rehabilitation Counselor; they have one daughter, who
completed a Master's degree in Social Work. Sam attempts to find time to pursue interests in modern
history, the impacts of technology on society and culture, amateur radio, marine aquaria keeping, and an-
tique posters and advertising graphics as a reflection of our social history.
C-38
-------
Ms. STEPHANIE SANZONE
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS COMMITTEE
Ms. STEPHANIE SANZONE has been a Designated Federal Officer at the EPA Science Advisory
Board for 9 years, working primarily with the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. Ms. Sanzone
J 7 o 1 J o
received a B.A. in Biology, with a minor in chemistry, from the University of Virginia, and a M.S. in
Marine Science from the University of South Carolina. Prior to coming to SAB, she spent 4 years with
EPA's National Estuary Program, a program which assists states and local communities to manage and
protect bays and estuaries based on sound science. Ms. Sanzone has also worked to bring science to the
legislative process, serving as legislative staff at both the state and federal levels. Her professional interests
include ecological sciences, the role of science and risk assessment in policy making, and making science
and scientists intelligible to lay audiences (e.g., policy makers, managers and the public).
C-39
-------
Ms. KATHLEEN WHITE
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE (EEC)
MS. KATHLEEN WHITE received her BS and MS from Tufts University where she studied
biology, public health, and sanitary engineering. Between degrees she wrote for the Hartford Courant.
Her work as sanitary engineer first for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and later for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region I involved inspecting and trouble shooting problems
with water supplies, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants. She also reviewed plans, assisted with
outbreak investigations, proposed and provided training. During this time she chaired the Boston Section
of the Society of Women Engineers.
Ms. White left field work in New England for paper work at EPA Headquarters in Washington,
D.C. Her subsequent service as acting Director for two divisions in the Office of Health Research led to
her selection, in 1982, as a participant in the President's Executive Exchange Program. During her
exchange year she worked with an occupational health and safety unit at IBM. After returning to EPA, she
joined the Science Advisory Board staff as Deputy Director.
In 1989, after deciding to work less and enjoy life more, she resigned as Deputy, continuing to
work part_time as a Designated Federal Officer. In September 2002 she returned to work full-time. She
has supported the Environmental Engineering Committee as DFO since 1993. She is a visual arts
volunteer for Arlington County where she lives with her two younger sons, geriatric rabbit and
temperamental chow. Her eldest son is a student at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.
C-40
-------
Ms. DOROTHY MAXINE CLARK
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
Ms. DOROTHY CLARK is the Management Assistant who assists Samuel Rondberg with the
Environmental Health Committee, Integrated Human Exposure Committee and Radiation Advisory
Committee, with Jack Fowle the Research Strategies Advisory Committee and Robert Flaak, the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Dorothy joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) March 17,
1980, as a secretary for the Environmental Engineering Committee, High Level Radioactive Level
Subcommittee and several other Subcommittees and standing Committees. During her tenure at EPA,
o o '
Dorothy has worked for several SAB Committees. She enjoys working with committee members and
getting along with all levels of staff.
Last but not least, in Dorothy s spare time she enjoys reading, shopping, and most of all watching
the Washington Redskins play football.
C-41
-------
Ms. WANDA R. FIELDS
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
Ms. WANDA R. FIELDS is the Management Assistant who assists Mr. Thomas Miller with the
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee and the Drinking Water Committee as well as Dr. John
R. Fowle with the Research Strategies Advisory Committee. Wanda joined the EPA Science Advisory
Board in the spring of 1997 as a secretary for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee and the
Integrated Risk Project Steering Committee where she assisted Ms. Stephanie Sanzone. In 1998, her title
changed to management assistant. Prior to joining us she was a secretary with the Office of Water for nine
years here at the Environmental Protection Agency. During her tour with the Office of Water, she took a
tremendous amount of computer and administrative training. In 1997 she graduated with honors from a
career enhancement program that was offered by EPA. She is currently attending classes at the United
1 o J J o
States Department of Agriculture to receive a certification in financial management. She hopes to one day
obtain a career in finance as a Budget Analyst. She came to EPA in 1988 after leaving the Office of
Personnel Management where her government career began.
C-42
-------
Ms. RHONDA S. FORTSON
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
Ms. RHONDA S. FORTSON joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2001. She is the
Management Assistant for Mr. A. Robert Flaak on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
and Dr. Angela Nugent on the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL). Prior to
coming to the SAB she was a secretary for 9 years in the Environmental Protection Agency s Region 4
laboratory in Athens, GA. Before joining EPA she held various positions with the Department of Navy.
A native of Virginia, Rhonda was glad to return with her family to her home town this year. She
o ' o J J
enjoys spending time with her family, working on family genealogy and reading.
C-43
-------
Ms. MARY WINSTON
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MS. MARY L. WINSTON joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1988. Prior to joining us
she worked in the Test Rules and Development Branch here at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mary came to the Environmental Protection Agency after leaving the U.S. Coast Guard where she worked
for 14 years as a secretary. In May of 1998 her title changed from secretary to Management Assistant.
Before the reorganization she worked with Samuel Rondberg on the Environmental Health Committee
and with Thomas Miller on the Drinking Water Committee. Mary now assists Kathleen Conway with the
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC), also Stephanie Sanzone with the Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee (EPEC), and A. Robert Flaak with the Scientific & Technological Achievement Award
(STAA) Nominations.
Mary resides in Maryland where she enjoys quilt making, reading and knitting.
C-44
-------
Ms. BETTY FORTUNE
OFFICE ASSISTANT
MS. BETTY B. FORTUNE joined the Science Advisory Board in September 1993. Her job title
is Office Assistant in the Director's Office. She works closely with the Director, Program Specialist and the
Executive Committee. During her years with SAB, and several administrative changes, she has worked for
the entire staff and with other SAB committees. Betty came to SAB after completing a long tenure with the
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). She was the administrative assistant at Hardy Middle School
during the final years of her employment in DCPS. She had always worked in the field of Education and
o J 1 J J
has many pleasant memories of her work years with staff, parents, and students. She has received many
plaques, awards, and certificates. She is a member of the Senior Choir at her church which performs
excerpts from the Messiah during the Christmas season. She lives in DC and her family consists of two
children and four grand-children which she greatly enjoys.
C-45
-------
Ms. PATRICIA L. THOMAS
TEAM LEADER
COMMITTEE EVALUATION AND SUPPORT STAFF
Ms. PATRICIA THOMAS joined the Science Advisory Board in May 1994 as a Management Analyst.
Pat came to SAB from the Office of Research and Development where she held several positions. Her EPA
career started with the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in 1972, where she started as the
secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, and ended as a Management
Analyst in ORD s Office of Health Research (OHR). While with the OHR, Pat assisted the OHR
Director, who was the EPA Chairman for the Protection of Human Subjects, with the review of Human
Subject packages before they went sent to the EPA contracts and grants office. In addition, she was the
International Travel Coordinator, Freedom of Information Officer, and ADP and PC Site Coordinator.
Prior to coming to EPA, Pat worked 4 years with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pat
has 32 years of government service and has received numerous outstanding awards while at EPA, including
a Bronze Medal.
Pat has been the Team Leader of the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (CESS) since 1996.
The CESS is the administrative arm of the SAB, responsible for budget, personnel, payroll, web
development, and reports management, including the monthly Happenings newsletter, and the SAB
Annual Report. While with the SAB she devised several systems to assist the SAB staff in tracking
information on SAB Members and Consultants. In addition, she created a system that tracks the budget for
the ten SAB FACA committees. She is referred to in SAB as the keeper of the truth.
She spends most of her leisure time traveling.
1 o
C-46
-------
Ms. CAROLYN L. OSBORNE
PROJECT COORDINATOR
Ms. CAROLYN OSBORNE joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1973 as a Clerk typist and
has held several positions since then. She was assigned to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and
various subcommittees working closely with the Executive Secretary as a Staff Secretary. Her government
career started at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and also with the Food and Drug
Administration in 1969. Ms. Osborne is currently the Project Coordinator at the SAB s Committee
Evaluation and Support Staff where she is responsible for the budgeting, personnel and administrative
matters for more than 450 members and consultants. During Carolyn s tenure at the EPA, she has enjoyed
working with the SAB staff, members and consultants and is often referred to as the SAB Historian.
In Carolyn s past time she enjoys singing in the church choir, reading, traveling and spending time
J 1 J J O O 7 O7 O 1 O
with her family.
C-47
-------
Ms. VICKIE J. RICHARDSON
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
Ms. VICKIE J. RICHARDSON joined the Science Advisory Board in May 1994 as an Administrative
Clerk to the Committee Evaluation Support Staff (CESS). She has since been promoted to Management
Analyst where she performs multifaceted administrative and technical tasks for the Board. You may be
familiar with some her works, Happenings newsletter and the SAB Annual Staff Report. She began her
federal career in 1993 with the Department of Defense working for the Air Force Base Conversion Agency,
a department that was responsible for closing sparsely populated military facilities throughout the United
States. Outside the workplace Vickie believes in giving back to the community. She volunteers in
1 o o J
Everybody Wins an organization that provides mentoring and tutoring opportunities to underpriviledged
children in depressed areas in the District of Columbia.
Ms. Richardson received a B.A. in Speech Communications with a minor in Political Science from
Old Dominion University, and a Master in Public Administration from the George Washington University.
She resides in Maryland where she enjoys reading fictional materials to escape the realities of life.
C-48
-------
Ms. PRISCILLA Y. TILLERY-GADSON
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
PRISCILLA Y. TILLERY-GADSON joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) as the
Staff Secretary to the Director in March 1993. She participated in and completed the EPA s Goalsetters
Reaching for Opportunities (GRO) Program in 1996. In August 1998, she was reassigned and promoted as
a Program Specialist, and in May 2000, she has since been reassigned as an Information Management
Specialist on the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (CESS) providing administrative and technical
support to the Director, Deputy Director, and the Team Leader for CESS.
Ms. Tillery-Gadson came to us from EPA s Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of
Health Research (OHR) where she held several positions as Secretary for about 1SV2 years. She served as
OHR International Travel Coordinator and ORD s Headquarters Black Employment Program (BEP)
Representative. She also provided updates to the budgetary data in the Office of Research and
Development Information System (ORDIS). Prior to working with ORD, she worked with the EPA Office
of Pesticides Program (OPP), Registration Division, Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch as a Clerk-Typist and
Pesticide Products Clerk for about four years and 10 months. She compiled historical and statistical data
for answering inquiries containing scientific data from registrants who applied for registration of their
pesticide products.
Prior to coming to EPA, she worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for about 1-year
under a school/work program. As you can see, Ms. Tillery-Gadson brings a broad range of work
1 o J ' J o o
experience to SAB, especially the ability to work as a team with her co-workers. She has 30 years of
government services, and resides in the Maryland suburbs with her husband and her 28-year-old daughter.
She receives a joy in doing for others and has a special love for children.
C-49
------- |