United States EPA Science Advisory EPA-SAB-EC-03-003
Environmental Board (1400A) December 2002
Protection Agency Washington DC www.epa.gov/sab
&EPA RECOMMENDATIONS ON
THE FY2001 SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
(STAA) NOMINATIONS: AN
SAB REPORT
A REPORT BY THE SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE EPA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Embargoed Version
List of Recommended Awardees (Appendix A) is Not
Included.
The Full Report with Appendix A will be posted and available
after January 31, 2003 in order to give ORD time to process
the Awards.
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
December 20, 2002
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
EPA-SAB-EC-03-003
Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Recommendations on the FY2001 Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards (STAA) Award Nominations: An SAB Report
Dear Governor Whitman:
The EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards (STAA) Subcommittee has completed its review of the nominations submitted by the
Agency for the FY2001 awards program. The Subcommittee conducted its review in closed
session on July 10-12, 2002 in Washington, DC. The results of the Subcommittee's efforts were
reviewed and approved by the EPA Science Advisory Board's Executive Committee at a public
teleconference meeting held on December 5, 2002.
The STAA program is sponsored by the Office of Research and Development (ORD),
which continues to do a creditable job in soliciting and assembling these nominations. Each year
(except for 1995 during the government-wide shutdown) the Board convenes a special panel to
review nominated papers published by Agency researchers. Our recommendations for awards
and further improvements in the STAA program are discussed in the enclosed report. We
delayed final completion of this report in order to give ORD Staff ample time to process the 76
awards involving some 180 staff across the Agency.
The Agency solicited nominations in eleven categories this year: Control Systems &
Technology (CS), Ecology & Ecosystem Risk Assessment & Ecosystem Protection (ER), Health
Effects & Health Risk Assessment (HE), Monitoring & Measurement Methods (MM), Transport
& Fate (TF), Review Articles (RA), Risk Management and Policy Formulation (RM), Integrated
Risk Management (IR), Social Sciences (SS), Environmental Trends for Drivers of Future Risk
-------
(EF), and Environmental Education (EE). Agency scientists and engineers submitted a total of
140 nominations from among the first nine categories. Nominations were not submitted for the
last two categories this year (EF and EE). We recommend a total of 37 for a cash award, and
recommend an additional 39 for Honorable Mention.
We have included recommendations for awards in eight of the nine categories for which
nominations were submitted. In addition, the Subcommittee is recommending 39 papers for
Honorable Mention. The authors whose papers were recommended for awards this year
represent the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI), and 11 research laboratories
and centers within the Office of Research and Development.
The Subcommittee continues to encourage the Agency to nominate peer-reviewed papers
from all programs and areas of scientific and technological research because scientific and
technological achievements in these areas should not be limited to ORD laboratories. As we
have pointed out in each of our recent reports, the Subcommittee notes the continuing lack of a
significant number of nominations from Program areas other than ORD. Last year, for instance,
we recommended awards for papers from ORD, OPEI, OPPTS, OSWER, OAR, and Region
VIII. This year, only papers from ORD and OPEI were recommended, and just one from OPEI.
The process of publishing high quality EPA scientific findings in peer reviewed journals
enhances the rigor of the science and the reputation of the Agency and its programs. Managers
should encourage and provide the opportunities for their program scientists and engineers to
conduct challenging investigations and publish the data and technical analysis which address
aspects of the Agency's policies and regulations. We commend the staff of ORD for
administering the STAA program. The ORD staff has made significant improvements in the
program and in the nomination packages which have facilitated the Subcommittee's review
procedures. The Subcommittee strongly recommends that ORD management continue to solicit
participation of other Agency scientists and engineers as part of the Agency's goals to improve
its scientific underpinnings and peer review of regulatory science. We recommend that ORD
continue to announce this program early and that additional efforts be made to advertise it even
more broadly next year to ensure greater participation by all program areas of the Agency.
The Subcommittee continues to feel that the STAA program is an important mechanism
for recognizing and promoting high quality, peer-reviewed work published in top scientific and
technological journals. This is even more critical as Agency programs continue to improve their
overall commitment to, and compliance with the Agency's Peer Review Policy and the Peer
Review Handbook. Furthermore, it supports your emphasis on sound science forming the basis
for sound decisions.
We would appreciate being informed of the final disposition of awards and the
mechanisms by which EPA advertises these awards to the Agency at large and the overall
scientific community. This has been a long standing request by the Subcommittee and was the
subject of a separate Commentary last year.
-------
We are pleased to have participated in this process once again and believe it is
appropriate for the Board to continue this annual review function. We look forward to serving
the Agency again in this important activity.
Sincerely,
/Signed/ /Signed/
Dr. William Glaze, Chair Dr. C. H. Ward, Chair
EPA Science Advisory Board Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards Subcommittee
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board,
a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the
Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is
structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing
the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the
contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
Distribution and Availability: This EPA Science Advisory Board report is provided to the EPA
Administrator, senior Agency management, appropriate program staff, interested members of the
public, and is posted on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/sab). Information on its availability is
also provided in the SAB's monthly newsletter {Happenings at the Science Advisory Board).
Additional copies and further information are available from the SAB Staff [US EPA Science
Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; 202-
564-4533].
-------
ABSTRACT
This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding the FY2001 EPA Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Program. The STAA Program is an Agency-wide
competition to promote and recognize scientific and technological achievements by EPA
employees, fostering a greater exposure of EPA research to the public. The Program was
initiated in 1980 and is managed by the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The Agency submitted for review 140 nominations from the first nine of the eleven
award categories this year (Control Systems & Technology, Ecology & Ecosystem Risk
Assessment & Ecosystem protection, Health Effects & Health Risk Assessment, Monitoring &
Measurement Methods, Transport & Fate, Review Articles, Risk Management and Policy
Formulation, Integrated Risk Management, Social Sciences, Environmental Trends for Drivers
of Future Risk, and Environmental Education). Of these, the Subcommittee recommended 37
nominations (26 percent of the nominations) for awards, and also recommended that 39
additional nominations be recognized with Honorable Mention. The authors whose papers were
recommended for awards this year represent the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
(OPEI), and 11 research laboratories and centers within the Office of Research and Development
The Subcommittee encouraged the Agency to continue support for the STAA program as
a mechanism for recognizing and promoting high quality research in support of the Agency's
mission. The Subcommittee also strongly encouraged that EPA broadly acknowledge the results
of the award competition.
KEY WORDS: Awards, Technology, Scientific Achievements, Peer-Review
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
2001 Scientific And Technological Achievement Awards Subcommittee*
CHAIR
Dr. C. Herb Ward, Director, Energy Environmental Systems, Inc., Rice University, Houston, TX
EC MEMBERS
Dr. William H. Smith, Clifton R. Musser Professor Emeritus of Forest Biology, Yale University, Center
Harbor, NH Also Member: Research Strategies Advisory Committee
CONSULTANTS
Dr. Roger Cochran, Staff Toxicologist, Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA
Dr. Richard A. Conway, Environmental Consultant, Charleston, WV
Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Medicine, Medical
School, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Dr. Richard Di Giulio, Professor, Levine Science Research Center, Nicholas School of the Environment,
Duke University, Durham, NC
Dr. Allan Legge, President, Biosphere Solutions, Calgary, Alberta, CANADA
Dr. John Maney, President, Environmental Measurements Assessment, Gloucester, MA
Dr. Frederick Pohland, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Michael Trehy, Senior Research Specialist, Solutia, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Dr. Judith S. Weis, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Mr. A. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
Ms. Mary Winston, Management Assistant, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
* Members of this SAB Panel consist of
a) SAB Members: Experts appointed by the Administrator to serve on one of the SAB Standing Committees.
b) SAB Consultants: Experts appointed by the SAB Staff Director to a one-year term to serve on ad hoc Panels formed to
address a particular issue.
Ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 2
2.1 Request for EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review 2
2.2 Subcommittee Review Procedures 3
3. EVALUATION OF THE FY2001 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD NOMINATIONS 6
3.1 General Findings of the Subcommittee 6
3.2 STAA Program Administrative Recommendations 7
3.3 Award Recommendations 8
3.3.1 Level I Awards 9
3.3.2 Level II Awards 9
3.3.3 Level III Awards 10
3.3.4 Honorable Mention 10
Appendix A - Nominations Recommended for Awards A - 1
TABLES
Table I - Example of how Initial Individual Reviewer Rankings are Compiled 4
Table II - Comparison of Level I & II Awards over Time 6
Table III - Summary of 20010 Award Recommendations 9
IV
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Subcommittee of the
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed and evaluated the 140 nominations for the
FY2001 program that were submitted by EPA research laboratory directors and program office
directors. The Subcommittee met in Washington, DC, on July 10-12, 2002, to determine award
recommendations.
The STAA review program is a long-standing partnership between the Agency and the
EPA Science Advisory Board. Each year since 1980 Agency scientists and engineers have
submitted nominated scientific and technological papers through an internal Agency review
process managed by the Office of Research and Development (ORD). (Note: The Agency did
not conduct the STAA Program during 1995 when there was a government-wide shutdown.)
This review process ensures that the best scientific papers are submitted to the SAB for
evaluation in the awards process. The SAB convenes an experienced group of scientists and
engineers who meet in a closed meeting to review and evaluate the nominations. The SAB
review panel produces a set of award recommendations which ORD uses in preparing the actual
awards.
This year, the Subcommittee recommended 37 nominations for awards and recommended
that 39 additional papers be recognized with Honorable Mention. The Subcommittee applied the
evaluation criteria evenly across all nomination categories, without attempting to ensure equal
numbers or percentages of awards in each category. The offices from which papers were
recommended for awards this year are the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI),
and 11 research laboratories and centers within the Office of Research and Development
The Subcommittee recommends that continued attention be paid to providing
opportunities for EPA's scientists, engineers, and other technical personnel to conduct
challenging, soundly based studies that result in peer-reviewed papers having high impact on
important scientific issues and issues of specific importance to EPA.
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Request for EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review
At the request of the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), the EPA Science
Advisory Board convened a subcommittee to review and evaluate scientific and technological
papers published in peer-reviewed journals by EPA authors and nominated for the FY2001 EPA
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) program. The STAA Subcommittee
was asked to evaluate nominated papers for awards based on the rules developed by ORD. In
January 2002, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) provided the SAB with copies of
140 nominations. The Subcommittee used the 2001 STAA Nomination Procedures and
Guidelines, which describes the award levels, eligibility criteria (including the minimum EPA
contribution and employer status of the principal author), and the criteria the SAB should use to
evaluate the nominations. Although there are eleven nomination categories, ORD only received
nominations in nine categories this year. ORD grouped the papers into these nine categories of
science and technology1, and screened the papers for conformance with the nomination
guidelines. No nominations were submitted in the other two categories this year.2
As described in the 2002 STAA Nomination Procedures and Guidelines, the SAB was
asked to recommend papers for each of three Levels of Award.
a) Level I awards - are for nominees who have accomplished an exceptionally
high-quality research or technological effort. The nomination should recognize
the creation or general revision of scientific or technological principle or
procedure, or a highly significant improvement in the value of a device, activity,
program, or service to the public. It must be at least of national significance or
have high impact on a broad area of science/technology. The nomination must be
of far reaching consequences and recognizable as a major scientific/technological
achievement within its discipline or field of study.
b) Level II awards - are for nominees who have accomplished a notably excellent
research or technological effort that has qualities and values similar to, but to a
lesser degree, than those described under Level I. It must have timely
consequences and contribute as an important scientific/technological achievement
within its discipline or field of study.
These categories are: Control Systems & Technology (CS), Ecology & Ecosystem Risk Assessment (ER), Health
Effects & Health Risk Assessment (HE), Monitoring & Measurement Methods (MM), Transport & Fate (TF), Review Articles (RA),
Risk Management and Policy Formulation (RM), Integrated Risk Management (IR), and Social Sciences (SS)
These categories are: Environmental Education (EE) and Environmental Trends for Drivers of Future Risk (EF).
-------
c) Level III awards - are for nominees who have accomplished an unusually notable
research or technological effort. The nomination can be for a substantial revision
or modification of a scientific/technological principle or procedure, or an
important improvement to the value of a device, activity, program, or service to
the public. It must relate to a mission or organizational component of the EPA, or
significantly affect a relevant area of science/technology.
d) Honorable Mention - The Subcommittee has also added a fourth non-cash level
award for nominations which are noteworthy but which do not warrant a Level I,
II or III award. Honorable Mention applies to nominations that: (1) may not quite
reach the level described for a Level III award; (2) show a promising area of
research that the Subcommittee wants to encourage; or (3) show an area of
research that the Subcommittees feels is too preliminary to warrant an award
recommendation (yet).
2.2 Subcommittee Review Procedures
The Review Panel was convened as an ad hoc subcommittee of the EPA Science
Advisory Board (SAB). Membership included a significant number of returning STAA
panelists; consequently, the level of experience with the process matched the level of scientific
and technical expertise. In addition, many panelists hold editorial positions on highly regarded
scientific journals.
Copies of all nominations/papers and the award program guidelines and nomination
evaluation criteria were provided to Subcommittee members in advance of the review meeting.
Subcommittee members selected nominations/papers to review based on their expertise, being
sure to select, when appropriate, papers from across all nomination categories. Typically, each
Subcommittee member chose at least 35 nominations to review. Members were encouraged to
include nominations from areas of general expertise as well as areas in which they were most
familiar. As part of the evaluation, Subcommittee members were asked to rank their own
expertise in the field of science and technology addressed by each nomination they selected for
review. These rankings were considered by the Subcommittee during the evaluation of each
nomination. Each nomination was reviewed by at least three qualified Subcommittee members
and then presented to the full Subcommittee and discussed during the review and evaluation
meeting that was held in Washington, DC on July 10-12, 2002. Nominations judged to merit an
award at some level were reviewed a second time by the Subcommittee, and in most cases, a
third time, to ensure that a complete evaluation had been made and that the appropriate award
level was recommended. Nominations that were initially not recommended for an award were
also re-reviewed to determine if the nomination might merit either an Honorable Mention or
numerical award.
In reviewing the nominations, the Subcommittee members qualitatively considered
evaluation criteria factors such as: the overall impact of the nominated paper(s) on scientific
-------
knowledge or technology relevant to environmental issues; the level of effort; the creativity,
originality, initiative, and problem solving exhibited by the researchers; the beneficial impacts of
the accomplishments and the recognition of the results outside the Agency; the extent to which
an Agency function, mission, program, activity, or service is improved; and the nature and extent
of the peer review, including the stature of the journal.3
Prior to the review and evaluation meeting, Subcommittee members forwarded the results
of their review to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Subcommittee. The initial
ranking along with the self-professed expertise of each reviewer for that particular nomination
was compiled by the DFO in a tabular format (see Table I for an example) and then
Table I - Example of how Initial Individual Reviewer Rankings are Compiled
(Data for illustration purposes only)
Nomination
Number
HE0019
ER0122
RA0098
Title of
Nomination
Health Assessment:
Trinitrochicken
wire
Ecological Impacts
of Trinitrochicken
wire
Trinitrochicken
wire - A Review
Reviewer
Name
Dr. Smith
Dr. Jones
Dr. Adams
Dr. Smith
Dr. Jones
Dr. Adams
Dr. Williams
Dr. Black
Dr. Green
Dr. Jackson
Dr. White
Expertise *
2
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
2
1
Initial
Individual
Ranking
NR
III
NR
HM
III
NR
III
I
I
II
III
Final Ranking
(at meeting)
NR
III
I
* Expertise levels are rated as follows: 1 = not related to major discipline of reviewer; 2 = general
knowledge of research area; 3 = general knowledge of active research; and 4 = specific area of active
research. NR = Not Recommended for an award; HM = Honorable Mention; I, II, III = Award Levels
used at the review and evaluation meeting to help focus the discussion on each individual
nomination. Initial individual rankings were subject to change based on discussions at the
review and evaluation meeting. The final ranking agreed to at that meeting is a consensus
ranking. The examples given in Table I are illustrative. All nominations receiving a
recommendation for a Level I, II or III award or an Honorable Mention are listed in Appendix A.
The Subcommittee met on July 10-12, 2002, in Washington, DC in a closed session due
to the discussions of issues concerning personal privacy and potential cash awards. Consistent
These criteria are discussed more fully in section VII of the 1998 Nomination Procedures and Guidelines provided to
the Subcommittee by the Agency.
-------
with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) 5 U.S.C.
App.2, and sections 552(b)(2) and (b)(6) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
552(b)(2) and 552(b)(6), this closed meeting was announced in a Federal Register4 notice signed
by the EPA Administrator. All Subcommittee members were present at the meeting. The
Subcommittee developed preliminary ratings for papers in each category, including discussion of
each nominated paper. After completing all preliminary evaluations, the Subcommittee revisited
the recommendations category by category to resolve any final issues and ensure consistency in
applying the award criteria across categories.
This Subcommittee report was reviewed and approved by the SAB's Executive
Committee (EC) at its public teleconference meeting on December 5, 2002 in Washington, DC.
For that review, the Subcommittee report, less the actual award recommendations (Appendix A),
was made available to the EC and the interested public.
4 67 Federal Register 44200, July 1, 2002.
-------
3. EVALUATION OF THE FY2001 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD NOMINATIONS
3.1 General Findings of the Subcommittee
In recent years, based on the continuing decline in the number of our recommendations
for Level I and Level II awards (see Table II - Comparison of Level I & II Awards over Time),
the Subcommittee has felt that the overall quality of the papers nominated has been declining.
This year, we are happy to report, has shown an increase in Level I (from two to four) awards.
Table II - Comparison of Level I & II Awards over Time
Award Level
Level I
Level II
Total Level I & II
FY1996
4
16
20
FY1997
3
11
14
FY1998
1
7
8
FY1999
0
5
5
FY2000
2
11
13
FY2001
4
7
11
We hope this is indicative of rise in the overall quality of submitted nominations and will be a
continuing trend in the coming years. The STAA program is an important mechanism for
recognizing and promoting high quality, peer-reviewed work published in top scientific and
technological journals. The STAA Program can also serve as a benchmark for the quality of the
research produced by the Agency since the same metrics and level and breadth of expertise of
reviewers (Subcommittee members) are used each year. The authors whose papers were
recommended for awards this year represent the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
(OPEI), and 11 research laboratories and centers within the Office of Research and
Development.
The Subcommittee recommends that ORD continue to request the submission of
nominations early, and that ORD advertise the program more aggressively, so that Regional and
Program offices have adequate time to prepare their nominations. The limited number of
nominations from outside of ORD was again a disappointment to the Subcommittee; especially
the decrease from six to one nominations over last year. While we recognize that most of the in-
house research is conducted by ORD scientists in ORD laboratories, the submission process
needs to encourage submissions from outside of ORD as well.
The Subcommittee also encourages the Agency to continue to broaden the scope of
nominated papers and to promote multi-disciplinary research that directly supports risk
management and policy decisions. In evaluating nominations for awards, the Subcommittee
looked for papers with well-developed hypotheses, good sampling or experimental design, and
where the theoretical basis is verified by field validation or thorough testing of a model. We also
looked for innovative applications of theories from other disciplines and collaborations of
-------
interdisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers. In addition, the Subcommittee encourages
the submission of nominations which address exposure assessment.
In order to evaluate papers that present incremental results in a series of published works,
the Subcommittee recommends that the nomination guidelines prepared by ORD explicitly
require discussion of related research published previously by the lead author(s), including
information on any STAA awards given. When possible, nominations should include all papers
in a series, providing they are within the time limit. This would allow a series of incremental
studies to be evaluated for an award as a package.
Once again this year, the Subcommittee has recommended awards (including one Level I
and one Level II award) in the Risk Management and Policy Formulation (RM) category. The
Subcommittee hopes to see more peer reviewed papers nominated in this category next year, as
this is an important area of research for the Agency. In addition, one paper was submitted in the
Integrated Risk Assessment category, and while an award was not recommended, the
Subcommittee was encouraged to see a nomination in this category and hopes to see additional
nominations in the future. The Subcommittee feels that the process of converting Agency policy
analysis and the technical foundations of its rule making into scientific articles for peer review is
essential to maintain the quality in its science. This is also an important way to improve the
Agency's reputation for scientific achievement. Laboratory directors and program managers
should encourage the authors of policy formulation papers and regulatory impact analyses to
develop technical articles for peer reviewed literature.
The focus of nominated papers should be on investigation and the creation of new
technology and scientific and technical knowledge and information, rather than the reporting and
communication of existing information, such as describing environmental regulations or current
methods for pollution control. While such papers are extremely valuable and important for the
agency, and the articles may be well-written and effective, they do not really fit within the
purview of achievements in science and technology. The STAA Program is designed to
recognize accomplishments in science and technology, hence, nominations in these fields and
others should be focused on the new significant scientific knowledge developed by the Agency
in these fields. Review articles with new and useful analysis and synthesis of existing
information also are important; and in fact, several were recognized this year.
Finally, the Subcommittee believes that the STAA program provides one view of the
technical and scientific progress that the Agency is making in various areas of research. This
year's activities represent strengths in a variety of technological assessments, analytical
measurements, and in certain areas of human health effects research.
3.2 STAA Program Administrative Recommendations
The Subcommittee commends the staff of ORD for administering the STAA program.
The staff has made significant improvements in the program and the nomination packages that
-------
have facilitated the Subcommittee's review procedures. The Subcommittee recommends that
ORD management continue to solicit participation of other Agency scientists and engineers as
part of the Agency's goals to improve its scientific underpinnings and peer review of regulatory
science.
In the last few years, the Subcommittee has made a number of recommendations to ORD
staff and managers that work with the STAA program, and through them, to the authors of the
nominated papers. We are pleased to see that many of these recommendations have already been
implemented. We appreciate the effort to accommodate our recommendations and, as a result,
look forward to an even more improved program next year. We reiterate the following
recommendations and/or comments:
a) Review articles (Category RA) must include a synthesis and an analysis, not just a
summary of relevant literature.
b) The suggested citations provided for many of the nominations need to reflect the
value of the work to the Agency. Once again, as was the case last year, many of
this year's submissions merely contained a statement that reflected the nature of
the research without any indication of the value of the work to EPA.
c) The Subcommittee again strongly urges the Agency to publicize the names of the
award winning scientists and engineers and their papers both within the Agency
and outside the Agency in a variety of ways. For example, the Agency should
announce these winners by placing the title and abstract of their papers, along
with the source of the paper, on the Agency's Website. The Agency should also
develop press releases or letters from the Administrator that are targeted toward
the journal that published the articles, professional society newsletters, and local
newspapers in the vicinity of the scientist/engineer's research facility.
d) Subcommittee has requested, but has yet to receive any feedback from the
Agency regarding how the Agency has handled the announcement of award
winners or the general approach EPA has taken to present the awards themselves.
3.3 Award Recommendations
The EPA authors recommended for awards include scientists and engineers from the
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI), and 11 research laboratories and centers
within the Office of Research and Development. See the detailed breakout of authors in
Appendix A for further clarification.
Awards were recommended in eight of the eleven nomination categories, and for eight of
the nine categories for which nominations were submitted. A total of 37 nominations were
recommended for awards. A summary of the distribution of award recommendations
-------
among categories is presented in Table III. There were 140 nominations with over 150
individual papers submitted. Of those submitted, 76 were recommended for an award (37) or
TABLE III - Summary of FY2001 Award Recommendations
Nomination Categories *
Control Systems & Technology (CS)
Ecology, Ecosystem Risk Assessment
& Protection (ER)
Health Effects, Health Risk
Assessment (HE)
Monitoring & Measurement Methods
(MM)
Transport and Fate (TF)
Review Articles (RA)
Risk Management & Policy
Formulation (RM)
Social Sciences (SS)
Integrated Risk Assessment (IR)
TOTALS:
Total
Nom.
17
26
17
35
20
19
3
2
1
140
Award Levels
I
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
4
II
1
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
7
III
0
3
4
10
3
5
0
1
0
26
Tot
1
3
5
13
5
7
2
1
0
37
Award
%
6%
12%
29%
37%
25%
37%
67%
50%
0%
26%
Hon.
Men.
7
11
1
11
3
4
1
0
1
39
* Categories listed in the "1998 Nomination Procedures and Guidelines."
honorable mention (39). There were no re-categorized or combined nominations identified this
year. The full list of award recommendations is contained in Appendix A. Eligible authors are
noted in boldface in Appendix A. The percentage figure following their names reflects their
individual level of effort on a given nomination as provided by EPA.
3.3.1 Level I Awards
Four Level I awards were recommended this year. Please see pages A-2 through A-6 of
Appendix A for details.
3.3.2 Level II Awards
Seven Level II awards were recommended. Please see pages A-6 through A-8 of
Appendix A for details.
-------
3.3.3 Level III Awards
Twenty-six Level III awards were recommended. Please see pages A-8 through A-16 of
Appendix A for details.
3.3.4 Honorable Mention
Thirty-nine nominations were judged as being worthy of an Honorable Mention. Please
see pages A-16 through A-25 of Appendix A for details.
A list of acronyms used in Table A is on page A-25.
10
-------
Appendix A - Nominations Recommended for Awards
This Appendix identifies the 37 nominations recommended for Level I, II, and III awards
and the 39 nominations recommended for an Honorable Mention. This Appendix is divided into
four parts. The first part (pages A-2 through A-6) provides information on the Level I award
recommendations. The second part (pages A-6 through A-8) provides information on the Level
II award recommendations. The third part (pages A-8 through A-16) provides information on
the Level III award recommendations. The fourth part (pages A-16 through A-25) provides
information on the Honorable Mention recommendations.
The first column (Nom. #) gives the nomination number as provided by EPA in the
original submission. The second column (Titles and Citations of Submitted Papers) provides
the full title and citation of all papers submitted as part of a given nomination. The third column
(Authors and Nominating Organization) provides the name(s) of the EPA eligible authors
along with their level of effort (percentage) on the nomination. The primary nominating
organization is also listed. The fourth column (Recommended Award Level) indicates which
award is recommended (Level I, II, or III or Honorable Mention). The last column (Suggested
Citation from Nominating Organization) reflects the language of the citation that was
provided to the Subcommittee by the Agency. These are not Subcommittee citations.
Appendix A of this report is embargoed until Jan 31, 2003
A- 1
------- |