September 30, 1999
EPA-SAB-EC-99-017
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Award Recommendations for the 1998
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Program
Dear Ms. Browner:
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards
(STAA) Subcommittee has completed its review of the nominations submitted by the Agency for
this year's (1998) awards program. As you are aware, 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.
The Agency solicited nominations in eleven categories this year: Control Systems &
Technology (CS), Ecology & Ecosystem Risk Assessment (EC), 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 Science Research (SS), Environmental Education (EE), and Environmental Trends
for Drivers of Future Risk (ET). Agency scientists and engineers submitted a total of 94
nominations from among the first nine categories. Nominations were not submitted for the last
two categories this year (EE, and ET). During its review, the Subcommittee combined several
individual nominations and re-categorized several others, reducing the final number of
nominations to 89 of which 32 were recommended for an award.
During its September 30, 1998 peer review of this report from its ad hoc STAA
Subcommittee, the SAB's Executive Committee recommended that the Agency consider adding a
twelfth nomination category — Exposure Assessment. Clearly some of the nominations submitted
-------
this year, as well as in previous years', have addressed exposure assessment in some form. In
light of the importance of this type of research to the Agency, it seems appropriate to highlight
this work with its own category.
Recommendations are included for awards in seven of the nine categories for which
nominations were submitted. Several nominations were submitted in the Social Science Research
and Integrated Risk Assessment categories, and while awards were not recommended for these
nominations, the Subcommittee was encouraged to see nominations in these categories and hopes
to see additional nominations in the future. In addition, the Subcommittee is recommending ten
papers for Honorable Mention. The authors recommended for awards this year are from 14
research laboratories and centers within the Office of Research and Development, Office of Air
and Radiation, Office of Water, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, and Regions II and VII.
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 should not be limited to ORD or to EPA laboratories. The process of
publishing 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.
As we have pointed out in each of our recent reports, the Subcommittee noted with great
disappointment, the lack of a significant number of nominations from Program areas other than
ORD. With the exception of two nominations from OPPT, all of the nominations submitted this
year were from ORD. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee commends 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 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 your Peer Review Policy and the Agency's Peer
Review Handbook. Furthermore, it supports your emphasis on sound science forming the basis
for sound decisions.
-------
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 would appreciate being
-------
informed of the final disposition of awards. We look forward to serving the Agency again in this
important activity.
Sincerely,
/signed/ /signed/
Dr. Joan Daisey, Chair Dr. C. H. Ward, Chair
Science Advisory Board Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards Subcommittee
Science Advisory Board
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a
public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide
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 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.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding the 1998 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 94 nominations from the first nine of the eleven award
categories this year (Control Systems & Technology, Ecology & Ecosystem Risk Assessment,
Health Effects & Health Risk Assessment, Monitoring & Measurement Methods, Transport &
Fate, Review Articles, Risk Management and Policy Formulation, Integrated Risk Management,
Social Science Research, Environmental Education, and Environmental Trends for Drivers of
Future Risk). After review, the STAA Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board revised the
number of nominations to 89. Of these, the Subcommittee recommended 32 nominations (36
percent of the nominations) for awards at three levels and also recommended that ten additional
papers be recognized with Honorable Mention. The Subcommittee recommended awards for 30
nominations submitted by 14 research laboratories and centers within the Office of Research and
Development and two nominations submitted by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
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.
KEY WORDS: Awards, Technology, Scientific Achievements, Peer-Review
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1998 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ROSTER
July 21-22, 1999 Meeting
CHAIR
Dr. C. H. (Herb) Ward, Foyt Family Chair of Engineering, Director, Energy & Environmental
Systems Institute, Professor, Departments of Environmental Science & Engineering and
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Rice University, Houston, TX
MEMBERS/CONSULTANTS ATTENDING THE MEETING
Dr. Roger Cochran, Staff Toxicologist, Medical Toxicology Branch, Department of Pesticide
Regulation, California EPA, Sacramento, CA
Mr. Richard A. Conway, Senior Corporate Fellow (Retired), Union Carbide Corp., Charleston,
WV
Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Professor, Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and Chair,
Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester Medical School,
Rochester, NY
Dr. Richard T. Di Giulio, Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University,
Durham, NC
Dr. Allan Legge, President, Biosphere Solutions, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dr. William Smith, Professor, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University,
New Haven, CT
Dr. Michael Trehy, Senior Research Specialist, Solutia Inc., St. Louis, MO
Dr. Judith S. Weis, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark,
NJ
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Mr. A. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal Officer, Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC 20460
Mrs. Mary Winston, Management Assistant, Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC 20460
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 2
2.1 Request for Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review 2
2.2 Subcommittee Review Procedures 3
3. EVALUATION OF THE 1998 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 9
3.3.1 Level I Awards 10
3.3.2 Level II Awards 10
3.3.3 Level III Awards 11
3.3.4 Honorable Mention 11
Appendix A - Re-Categorized Nominations A-l
Appendix B - Nominations Recommended for Awards B-l
TABLES
Table I - Example of how Initial Individual Reviewer Rankings are Compiled 4
Table II - Summary of 1998 Award Recommendations 9
IV
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Subcommittee of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed and evaluated the 94 nominations for the 1998 program that
were submitted by EPA research laboratory directors and program office directors. After review,
the Subcommittee revised the number of nominations to 89 (including over 100 individual
scientific and technical papers). The Subcommittee met in Washington, DC, on July 21-22, 1999,
to determine award recommendations.
The STAA review program is a long-standing partnership between the Agency and the
Science Advisory Board. Each year since 1980 Agency scientists and engineers submit 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 32 nominations for awards and recommended
that ten 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 Subcommittee recommended awards for
30 nominations from 14 research laboratories and centers within the Office of Research and
Development, and two nominations submitted by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Authors honored by the recommendations include representatives of 14 research laboratories and
centers within the Office of Research and Development, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Water, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and Regions II and VII.
The Subcommittee recommends that additional 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.
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Request for Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review
At the request of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the 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 1998 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 1999,
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) provided the SAB with copies of 94 nominations
(later reduced to 89 nominations by the Subcommittee). The Subcommittee used the 1998 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 1998 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 with national significance. These
awards recognize the initiation or general revision of scientific/technological
principles or procedures, or 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. The cash
award for this level is $5,000 divided among the EPA eligible authors, based on
their individual level of effort as defined in the nomination.
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
These categories are: Control Systems & Technology (CS), Ecology & Ecosystem Risk Assessment (EC), Health Effects &
Health Risk Assessment (HE), Monitoring & Measurement Methods (MM), Transport & Fate (TF), Review Articles (RA), Risk
Management and Policy Formulation (RM), Social Science Research, and Integrated Risk Management (IR).
2
These categories are: Environmental Education (EE) and Environmental Trends for Drivers of Future Risk (ET).
-------
within its discipline or field of study. The cash award for this level is $2,500
divided among the EPA eligible authors, based on their individual level of effort as
defined in the nomination.
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.
Research for this award must relate to a mission or organizational component of
the EPA, or significantly affect a relevant area of science/technology. The cash
award for this level is $1,000 divided among the EPA eligible authors, based on
their individual level of effort as defined in the nomination.
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 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
member choose at least 30 nominations to review. Members were encouraged to include
nominations from areas outside of their own expertise as well as areas with which they were more
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 two (and usually more - often by five or
six) 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 21-22, 1999.
Nominations judged to merit an award at some level were reviewed a second time by the
Subcommittee, and in some cases, a third time, to ensure that a complete evaluation had been
-------
made. 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 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
Table I - Example of how Initial Individual Reviewer Rankings are Compiled
(Data for illustration purposes only)
Nomination
Number
HE9999
EC9999
RA9999
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
m
NR
NR
m
m
m
i
i
n
NR
Final Ranking
(at meeting)
NR
m
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.
These criteria are discussed more fully in section VII ofthe1998 Nomination Procedures and Guidelinesprovided to the
Subcommittee by the Agency.
-------
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 B.
The Subcommittee met on July 21-22, 1999, in Washington, DC in a closed session due to
the discussions of individual performance and potential cash awards. Consistent 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 except for one who
participated via teleconference. The Subcommittee developed preliminary ratings for papers in
each category, including discussion of each nominated paper. The Subcommittee made note of
papers that had been incorrectly categorized, so that the final report recommendations would
accurately reflect the subject areas of the nominated papers (see Appendix A). 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) via mail review. For that review, the Subcommittee report, less the actual award
recommendations (Appendix B), was made available to the EC and the interested public.
4 64(125) Federal Register35150, June 30, 1999.
-------
3. EVALUATION OF THE 1998 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD NOMINATIONS
3.1 General Findings of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee felt that the overall quality of the papers nominated this year was not
comparable to previous years. Hence, the Agency should view this report as a possible early
warning that efforts are needed to improve the quality of its in-house research. The ST AA
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 14 research laboratories
and centers within the Office of Research and Development, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Water, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and Regions II and VII.
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; however, the increase to five
nominations was an improvement over last year. While we recognize that most of the in-house
research is conducted by ORD scientists in ORD laboratories, we want the submission process to
encourage submissions from outside of ORD.
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 through 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, and within the limitations suggested in Section 3.2a),
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 a paper in the Risk Management
and Policy Formulation category for an award. 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 that 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 and 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; several were recognized this year, one of which was in the control system category.
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.
The following recommendations are directed to the ORD staff and managers that work with the
STAA program, and to the authors of the nominated papers. Some of these recommendations
reiterate earlier recommendations of the Subcommittee, but are included here for emphasis.
a) As we requested last year, nominations should not contain any more than three
relevant papers (part of a set or series) to be included as part of the nomination.
Where appropriate, additional materials may be included, such as copies of
-------
previously published background work. We believe that this helped to streamline
the process and we again encourage limiting each nomination to three relevant
papers.
b) Again, work that is nominated should be published within the past three years,
although the work might actually have been completed within the past five years.
(This is now reflected in the 1998 ORD STAA Program guidance and should
continue.)
c) Review articles (Category RA) should continue to include a synthesis and an
analysis, not just a summary of relevant literature. This recommendation was also
made by the Subcommittee last year. It is clear from the number of Review
Articles that garnered awards this year (four out of the six submitted) that the
quality of these papers has improved.
d) Although a paper should stand on its own merits, work should be published in
journals that are relevant to the field of work. Publishing sound scientific work in
an inappropriate or second-rate journal weakens the nomination. In addition, peer
review of conference or workshop proceedings or chapters in books is often
considered less rigorous than the peer review process used by first-rate journals.
e) Regarding the application form itself - the section on "Justification" has eight
numbered sections for information relevant to the author or the nomination. In
previous recommendations, we have suggested certain areas of emphasis and
limitation for these sections. We now note that the prose is usually duplicative and
is growing longer each year. In an effort to limit the time and effort expended on
preparing the justification section and to make it more relevant for the
Subcommittee review process, we suggest that the following information be used
in the future (about one page total):
(1) The significance or impact of the research and its relevance to EPA's
mission; and
(2) Since such an interest has been taken concerning the Peer Review activities
at EPA, and considering that EPA has an established Peer Review Policy
and a Peer Review Handbook for guidance, the Subcommittee would like
to see a strong statement that reflects the degree to which the nominated
paper(s) have gone through internal and/or external peer review.
f) To reduce privacy concerns, the Subcommittee requests that the nominations
submitted for SAB review not contain social security numbers.
-------
g) The Subcommittee again noted that nominating laboratories and program offices
appear to have different screening procedures for selecting nominations for the
STAA program. The Subcommittee encourages ORD to provide guidance to all
EPA laboratories and program offices regarding the criteria for selecting nominees
to the STAA program.
h) The Subcommittee recommends that the STAA nomination form include
information on the total number of peer-reviewed publications produced by the
nominating organization during the nomination year and during the preceding two
years. The total number of publications screened for submission to the STAA
program should also be identified along with the total number submitted. It was
not clear to the Subcommittee if the nominations submitted to the SAB were a
subset of all nominations received by ORD or if the SAB received all of the
nominations to review.
i) The suggested citations provided for many of the nominations need to reflect the
value of the work to the Agency. Most 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. More attention needs to be given to this
matter.
j) Finally, the Subcommittee again 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.
3.3 Award Recommendations
The EPA authors recommended for awards include scientists and engineers from 14 research
laboratories and centers within the Office of Research and Development, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Water, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and Regions II and VII. While this may seem like a good representation
across the Agency, only three nominations (two from OPPT; one from ORD) accounted for the
representatives from the organizations other than ORD. See the detailed breakout of authors in
Appendix B for further clarification.
Awards were recommended in seven of the eleven nomination categories, and for seven of
the nine categories for which nominations were submitted. A total of 32 nominations were
recommended for awards. A summary of the distribution of award recommendations among
-------
categories is presented in Table II (see next page). There were originally 94 nominations with
over 100 individual papers submitted. The Subcommittee combined several individual
nominations and re-categorized several others, reducing the final number of nominations to 89, of
which 42 were recommended for an award (32) or honorable mention (10). Re-categorized
nominations are identified in Appendix A. The full list of award recommendations is contained in
Appendix B. Eligible authors are noted in boldface in Appendix B. The percentage figure
following their names reflects their individual level of effort on a given nomination as provided by
EPA.
TABLE II - Summary of 1998 Award Recommendations
Nomination Categories *
Control Systems & Technology
Ecology, Ecosystem Risk Assessment &
Protection
Health Effects, Health Risk Assessment
Monitoring & Measurement Methods
Transport and Fate
Review Articles
Risk Management & Policy
Formulation
Integrated Risk Assessment
Social Science Research
TOTALS:
#
Nom,
16
20
18
15
9
6
2
2
1
89
Award Levels
I
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
II
2
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
III
3
6
5
2
3
4
1
0
0
24
Tot
6
9
5
4
3
4
1
0
0
32
%
38%
45%
28%
27%
33%
67%
50%
0
0
36%
Hon.
Men.
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
10
* Categories listed in the "1998 Nomination Procedures and Guidelines."
3.3.1 Level I Awards
One Level I award was recommended this year to one scientist/engineer from an EPA
research laboratory. Please see page B-l for details.
3.3.2 Level II Awards
Seven Level II awards were recommended for a total of 16 scientists and engineers
representing seven (7) EPA research laboratories and centers. Please see pages B-2 through B-4
of Appendix B for details.
10
-------
3.3.3 Level III Awards
Twenty-four Level III awards were recommended for a total of 57 scientists and engineers
representing 10 EPA research laboratories and centers, the Office of Air and Radiation, the Office
of Water, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and Regions II and VII. Please see pages B-5 through B-10 of Appendix
B for details.
3.3.4 Honorable Mention
Ten nominations were judged as being worthy of an Honorable Mention. Honorable
Mentions included 18 scientists and engineers from five (5) EPA research laboratories. Please see
pages B-l Ithrough B-12 of Appendix B for details.
A list of acronyms used in Table B is on page B-12.
11
-------
Appendix A - Re-Categorized Nominations
Original New
Nomination Number(s) Category Remarks
EC0018 no change Combined into a
EC0031 no change single Nomination
MM0058 Changed to asECOOlS
EC0058
EC0021 no change Combined into a single
EC0025 no change Nomination as EC0021
HE0042 Canceled Duplicate of RA0081
IR0089 Canceled Duplicate of IR0088
A-l
-------
Appendix B - Nominations Recommended for Awards
This Appendix identifies the 32 nominations recommended for Level I, II, and III awards and
the 10 nominations recommended for an Honorable Mention. This Appendix is divided into four
parts. The first part (page B-l) provides information on the Level I award recommendations.
The second part (pages B-2 to B-4) provides information on the Level II award
recommendations. The third part (pages B-5 to B-10) provides information on the Level III
award recommendations. The fourth part (pages B-l 1 to B-12) 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 (in
boldface type) 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.
-------
United States Science Advisory EPA-SAB-EC-99-017
Environmental Board (1400A) September 1999
C
&EPA AN SAB REPORT:
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
1998 SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMEI
AWARD (STAA) NOMINATIONS
PREPARED BY THE SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENT
AWARDS (STAA) SUBCOMMITTEE OF 1
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB)
-------
Appendix B -
FY1998 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA)
Nominations Recommended for Awards
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
Nominations Recommended for a Level I Award ($5,000) - Total of one
CS0006
The effect of cofiring high-sulfur coal
with municipal waste on formation of
polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and
polychlorinated dibenzofuran. Environ.
Engineering Science . 15:59-70 (1998)
Dr. Brian K. Gullett (80%)
NRMRL, RTF, NC
LEVEL I
Research on the effect of sulfur in preventing
formation of chlorinated dioxins and furans.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-1
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
Nominations Recommended for a Level II Award ($2,500) - Total of seven
CS0002
Fine particle emissions from heavy fuel
oil combustion in a firetube package
boiler. Combustion Science and
Technology. 134:477-502 (1998)
Dr. C. Andrew Miller (35%)
Dr. William P. Linak (35%)
NRMRL, RTF, NC
LEVEL II
For contributing to a better understanding of the
characteristics of paniculate matter from heavy oil
combustion.
CS0015
Methanol production from biomass and
natural gas as transportation fuel.
Industrial Engineering Chemistry
Research. 37:3760-3767 (1993)
Mr. Robert H. Borgwardt (100%)
NRMRL, RTF, NC
LEVEL II
Identifying and evaluating cost-effective co-control
technology for mobile sources of greenhouse gas an
air-pollution emissions.
(EC0018) Soil atmosphere fluxes of
carbon monoxide during early stages of
postfire succession in upland Canadian
boreal forests. Journal of Geophysical
Research. 102:29301-29311 (1997)
Dr. Richard G. Zepp (40%)
Dr. Roger A. Burke (35%)
NERL, Athens, GA
EC0018
EC0031
MM0058
(Recommend
combining
into a single
nomination)
(EC0031) Effect of fire on soil-
atmosphere exchange of methane and
carbon dioxide in Canadian boreal
forests. Journal of Geophysical
Research. 102:29289-29300 (1997)
Dr. Roger A. Burke (40%)
Dr. Richard G. Zepp (35%)
NERL, Athens, GA
Contribution to knowledge of the global carbon
cycle by evaluating CO production in burned areas
of boreal forests.
LEVEL II
(MM0058) Distribution, flux, and
photochemical production of carbon
monoxide in a boreal beaver
impoundment. Journal of Geophysical
Research. 102:29321-29329 (1997)
Dr. Richard G. Zepp (40%)
NERL, Athens, GA
Contribution to understanding the global carbon
cycle by demonstrating high photoproduction rates
of CO in a boreal pond.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-2
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
EC0021
EC0025
(Recommend
combining
into a single
nomination)
(EC0021) Technical basis and proposal
for deriving sediment quality criteria for
metals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
15:2056-2066 (1996)
Dr. Gerald T. Ankley (25%)
Mr. David J. Hansen (25%)
Mr. Walter T. Berry (25%)
NHEERL, Duluth, MN
Development of sediment quality criteria for metals
(EC0025) a) Predicting the toxicity of
metal-contaminated field sediments
using interstitial concentrations of metals
and acid-volatile sulfide normalizations.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15:2080-2094
(1996)
b) Chronic effect of cadmium in
sediments on colonization by benthic
marine organisms: An evaluation of the
role of interstitial cadmium and acid-
volatile sulfide in biological availability.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15:2126-2137
(1996)
Mr. David J. Hansen (30%)
Dr. Warren S. Boothman (5%)
Dr. Gerald T. Ankley (10%)
Ms. Carol Pesch (5%)
LEVEL II
Technical basis of equilibrium partitioning-derived
sediment guidelines for metals.
NHEERL, Narragansett, RI
EC0026
Using lake sediment mercury flux ratios
to evaluate the regional and continental
dimensions of mercury deposition in
arctic and boreal ecosystems. Atmosp.
Environ. 32:919-928 (1998)
Dr. Dixon H. Landers (75%)
NHEERL, Corvallis, OR
LEVEL II
For outstanding contributions to the understanding
of spatial contamination by mercury of arctic and
boreal communities.
MM0067
Fine and coarse particles: Concentration
relationships relevant to epidemiological
studies. J. Air and Waste Management
Assoc. 47:1238-1249 (1997)
Dr. William E. Wilson (80%)
NCEA, RTF, NC
LEVEL II
For providing scientific support for PM2 5 standards
by analyses of exposure metrics used in
epidemiologic studies.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-3
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
MM0068
a) Identification of pollutants in a
municipal well using high resolution
mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 68:553-
560 (1998)
b) A mass peak profile generation model
to facilitate determination of elemental
composition of ions based on exact
masses and isotopic abundances.
Journal of the American Society for
Mass Spectrometry. 8:170-182 (1997)
c) Determination of elemental
compositions from mass peak profiles of
the molecular ion (M) and the M+l and
M+2 ions. Rapid Communications in
Mass Spectrometry. 12:1161-1169
(1996)
Dr. Andrew J. Grange
Dr. G. Wayne Sovocool
Dr. William C. Brumley
Dr. Donald F. Gurka
(total percentages are not reported
here since the nomination included
different individual percentages for
each author for each of the three
papers included in the nomination ~
these percentages ranged from 2% to
90%)
NERL, Las Vegas, NV
LEVEL II
Mass peak profiling from selected ion recording dat
and a profile generation model for identifying
compounds.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-4
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
Nominations Recommended for a Level III Award ($1,000) - Total of twenty-four
CSOOOl
a) Combined laboratory/field study on
the use of nitrate for in situ
bioremediation of a fuel-contaminated
aquifer. Environ. Sci. and Technol.
32:1832-1840(1998)
b) Effect of nitrate-based bioremediation
on contaminant distribution and
sediment toxicity - column study.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:349-361
(1998)
Dr. Stephen R. Hutchins (75%)
Mr. Dennis E. Miller (10%)
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH
LEVEL III
For laboratory and field research on enhanced
anaerobic bioremediation of fuel-contaminated
aquifers.
CS0003
The use of aeration for corrosion control.
J.Amer. Water Works Assoc. 90:74-88
(1998)
Mr. Darren Lytle (50%)
Mr. Michael Schock (40%)
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH
LEVEL III
The application of aeration to reduce lead and
copper in waters with suitable pH and carbon
dioxide levels is discussed and demonstrated.
CS0014
Chlorine demand and TTHM formation
kinetics: A second-order model. J.
Environ. Engineering. 124:16-24 (1998)
Dr. Robert M. Clark (100%)
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH
LEVEL III
This paper represents a unique and original model
that provides the basis for a metric that can be used
to balance the relative risks associated with the
formation of TTHMs and the use of chlorine for
preventing microbial contamination in drinking
water.
EC0019
Use of auxiliary data for spatial
interpolation of ozone exposures in
southeastern forests. Environmetrics.
8:43-61 (1997)
Dr. Donald L. Phillips (50%)
Dr. E. Henry Lee (15%)
Dr. William E. Hogsett (10%)
Dr. David T. Tingey (10%)
NHEERL, Corvallis, OR
LEVEL III
Use of spatial statistics to improve estimates of
ozone exposure for assessment of risk to forests.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-5
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
EC0027
Predicting modes of toxic action from
chemical structure: Acute toxicity in the
fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas).
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16:948-967
(1997)
Ms. Christine L. Russom (20%)
Dr. Stephen P. Bradbury (20%)
Dr. Stephen J. Broderius (20%)
Mr. Dean Hammermeister (20%)
Mr. Robert Drummond (20%)
NHEERL, Duluth, MN
LEVEL III
The development of a knowledge base for use in
predicting the acute mode of action and toxicity of
organic chemicals.
EC0029
Application of toxicity-based
fractionation techniques and structure-
activity relationship models for the
identification of phototoxic poly cyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment pore
water. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
17:1021-1033 (1998)
Ms. Patricia A. Kosian (25%)
Ms. Elizabeth A. Makynen (20%)
Dr. David Mount (15%)
Dr. Gerald Ankley (15%)
NHEERL, Duluth, MN
LEVEL III
Adaptation and application of fractionation
techniques and QSAR models to identify phototoxic
PAHs in sediment.
EC0030
Sediment microbial respiration in a
synoptic survey of mid-Atlantic region
streams. Freshwater Biology. 39:493-
501 (1998)
Dr. Brian H. Hill (75%)
NHEERL, Cincinnati, OH
LEVEL III
For advances in the application of ecosystem
indicators at a regional scale.
EC0034
Revised approach to toxicity test
acceptability criteria using a statistical
performance assessment. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 16:1322-1329 (1997)
Dr. Glen Thursby (70%)
NHEERL, Narragansett, RI
LEVEL III
Toxicity Test Acceptance Criteria.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-6
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
EC0037
a) Regional, habitat, and human
development influences on coastal
wetland and beach fish assemblages in
Green Bay, Lake Michigan. J. Great
Lakes Res. 23:36-51(1997)
b) Patterns in fish assemblages from
coastal wetland and beach habitats in
Green Bay, Lake Michigan: a
multivariate analysis of abiotic and biotic
forcing factors. J. Fisheries Aquatic Sci.
54:1743-1761 (1997)
c) Relative abundance and distribution of
ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) in a
Lake Superior coastal wetland fish
assemblage. J. Great Lakes Res. 24:293-
303 (1998)
Dr. John Brazner (80%)
Mr. Danny K. Tanner (10%)
LEVEL III
Elucidating abiotic and biotic influences on Great
Lakes coastal wetland fish assemblages.
NHEERL, Duluth, MN
HE0038
a) Age- and gender-related differences in
the time-course of behavioral and
biochemical effects produced by oral
chlorpyrifos in rats. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharm. 149:107-119 (1998)
b) Age- and gender-related differences in
sensitivity to chlorpyrifos in the rat
reflect developmental profiles of esterase
activities. Toxicol. Sci. 46:in press
(1998)
c) Rat brain acetylcholinesterase activity:
Developmental profile and maturational
sensitivity to carbamate and
organophosphorus inhibitors. Toxicology
125:13-19(1998)
Dr. Stephanie Padilla (36.5%)
Dr. Virginia Moser (36.5%)
LEVEL III
For research to increase understanding of the age-
related differences in sensitivity to chlorpyrifos-
induced neurotoxicity.
NHEERL, RTF, NC
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-7
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
HE0040
a) Determination of parameters
responsible for pharmacokinetic behavior
of TCDD in female Sprague-Dawley
rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 147:151-168
(1997)
b) A pharmacodynamic analysis of
TCDD-induced cytochrome P450 gene
expression in multiple tissues: dose- and
time-dependent effects. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharm. 151:294-310(19981
Dr. Marina V. Evans i
Ms. Vickie M. Richardson (20%)
Ms. Janet J. Diliberto (5%)
Dr. Linda S. Birnbaum (10%)
LEVEL III
A critical approach to pharmacokinetic and
pharmacodynamic modeling of TCDD.
NHEERL, RTF, NC
HE0048
Arsenic alters cytosine methylation
patterns of the promoter of the tumor
suppressor gene p53 in human lung
cells: a model for a mechanism of
carcinogenesis.. Mutation Research.
386:263-277 (1997)
Dr. Marc J. Mass (80%)
NHEERL, RTF, NC
LEVEL III
In recognition of significant contributions to the
understanding of a potential role for alterations of
DNA methylation in arsenic carcinogenesis.
HE0052
a) Disruption of normal iron homeostatis
after bronchial instillation of an iron-
coated particle. Am. Jour. Physiol.
274:L396-L403 (1998)
b) Metal-dependent expression of ferritin
and lactoferrin by respiratory epithelial
cells. Am. Jour. Physiol. 274:L728-L736
(1998)
c) Metal storage and transport proteins
increase after exposure of the rat lung to
an air pollution particle. Toxicology
Pathology. 26:388-394 (1998)
Dr. Andrew J. Ohio (40%)
Ms. Jacqueline Carter (15%)
Dr. Robert Devlin (15%)
Ms. Lisa A. Dailey (15%)
Ms. Judy Richards (15%)
LEVEL III
The role of lactoferrin and ferritin in injury after
particle exposure.
NHEERL, RTF, NC
MM0060
Measurement of hydroxyl radical activity
in soil slurry using the spin trap «-(4-
Pyridyl-1 -Oxide)-N-tert-butylnitrone.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:3436-3441
(1998)
Dr. Scott G. Huling (85%)
NRMRL, Ada, OK
LEVEL III
Measurement of hydroxyl radical activity using 4-
POBN - significance of available Fe, OH
scavenging, and non-productive reactions.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-8
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
MM0063
Using GC-MS/Combustion/IRMS to
determine the 13C/12C ratios of individual
hydrocarbons produced from the
combustion of biomass materials-
application to biomass burning. Organic
Geochemistry. 27:567-581 (1997)
Dr. Roger A. Burke (45%)
NERL, Athens, GA
LEVEL III
Using GC-MS/Combustion/IRMS to determine
isotope ratios of hydrocarbons produced by biomass
burning.
TF0072
Estimating subsurface fissure apertures
in karst aquifers from equilibrium
activities. Environmental and
Engineering Geoscience. IV:145-159
(1998)
Dr. Malcolm S. Field (90%)
NCEA, Washington, DC
LEVEL III
Scientific and Technological Achievement Award
for pioneering the use of the environmental isotope
222Rn as a tool for characterizing karst fissure
apertures.
TF0074
Environmental screening modeling of
mercury in the upper Everglades of
South Florida. Environmental Health
and Science. A33:497-525 (1998)
Mr. Robert B. Ambrose (50%)
NERL, Athens, GA
LEVEL III
For development of the first predictive screening
models of mercury transformation and transport in
the Everglades.
TF0078
Comparison of two models for predicting
bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic
chemicals in a Great Lakes food web.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:383-393
(1998)
Mr. Lawrence P. Burkhard (100%)
NHEERL, Duluth, MN
LEVEL III
Evaluation of uncertainties in predicting
concentrations of bioaccumulative chemicals in
aquatic organisms using food web models.
RA0080
Emission factors for the disposal of
energetic materials by open burning and
open detonation (OB/OD). EPA
Research Report # EPA/600/R-98/103.
133 pgs (1998)
Dr. William J. Mitchell (80%)
Dr. Jack C. Suggs (20%)
NERL, RTF, NC
LEVEL III
In recognition of their achievements in substantially
increasing our knowledge of the impact that open
burning and open detonation disposal practices hav
on human health and the environment and in
helping the Department of Defense avoid developin
disposal techniques that were not needed.
RA0081
Assessing the cancer risk from
environmental PCBs. Environ. Health
Perspect. 106:317-323 (1998)
Dr. Vincent James Cogliano (100%)
NCEA, Washington, DC
LEVEL III
For an innovative and authoritative assessment of
the cancer risk from environmental PCBs.
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-9
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
RA0083
Drinking water disinfection by-products.
Encyclopedia of Environmental Analysis
& Remediation, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc. Robert A. Meyers, Ed., New York,
NY. Vol. 3. pp 1398-1421 (1998)
Dr. Susan D. Richardson (100%)
NERL, Athens, GA
LEVEL III
Comprehensive state-of-science identification and
assessment of potential human health risks of
drinking water DPBs.
RA0086
a) Stream temperature simulation of
forested riparian areas: I. Watershed
scale model development. J. Environ.
Engineering. 124:304-315 (1998)
b) Stream temperature simulation of
forested riparian areas: II. Model
application. J. Environ. Engineering.
124:316-328(1998)
Dr. Steven C. McCutcheon (25%)
Mr. Robert F. Carousel (10%)
Mr. Douglas J. Norton (10%)
NERL, Athens, GA
LEVEL III
For establishing the state of the practice in
simulating watershed stream temperature dynamics
for TMDLs.
RA0093
Assessing risks to ecological systems
from chemicals. Handbook of
Environmental Risk Assessment and
Management. Peter Calow, Ed., pp 24-
90 (1998)
Dr. Jerry C. Smrchek (50%)
Dr. Maurice G. Zeeman (50%)
Risk Assessment Div. OPPT,
Washington, DC
LEVEL III
Review of ecological hazard and risk assessment
methods.
HE0094
a) Integrated exposure uptake biokinetic
model for lead in children: Empirical
comparisons with epidemiological data.
Environ. Health Per sped. Suppl. 106:1-
11 (1998)
b) Integrated exposure uptake biokinetic
model for lead in children: Independent
validation and verification. Environ.
Health Perspect. Suppl. 106:1-9 (1998)
c) The conceptual structure of the
integrated exposure uptake biokinetic
model for lead in children. Environ.
Health Perspect. Suppl. 106:1-18 (1998)
Dr. Barbara Davis (9%)
Dr. Robert Elias (6%)
Ms. Karen Hogan (22%)
Dr. Mark Maddaloni (6%)
Dr. Allan Marcus (12%)
Dr. Roy Smith (5%)
Ms. Patricia Valentine (8%)
Mr. Paul White (22%)
Dr. Larry Zaragoza (10%)
Risk Assessment Div. OPPT,
Washington, DC
LEVEL III
Substantiating Risk Assessment Predictions for Lea
in Children
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-10
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
Nominations Recommended for Honorable Mention (no cash award) - Total often
CS0005
DDT, ODD, and DDE dechlorination by
zero-valent iron. Environ. Sci. Technol.
3j_:3448-3454 (1997)
Dr. Gregory D. Sayles (50%)
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH
HONORABLE
MENTION
The first report of an approach to dechlorinate the
pesticides DDT, ODD, and DDE, using zero-valent
iron (iron powder).
CS0012
Enhanced formation of chlorinated PICs
by the addition of bromine. Combustion
Science and Technology. 134:367-388
(1998)
Dr. Paul M. Lemieux (70%)
Mr. Jeffrey V. Ryan (30%)
NRMRL, RTF, NC
HONORABLE
MENTION
For examining the enhanced formation of
chlorinated organics during combustion by the
addition of bromine.
EC0023
Effects of DDT sediment-contamination
on macrofaunal community structure and
composition in San Francisco Bay.
Marine Biology. 130:323-334 (1997)
Dr. Steven P. Ferraro (60%)
Ms. Faith A. Cole (40%)
NHEERL, Corvallis, OR
HONORABLE
MENTION
Ecological risk assessment of DDT sediment
contamination on San Francisco Bay macrofauna.
EC0024
Identification of acute toxicants in New
Bedford Harbor sediments. J. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 16:551-558 (1997)
Dr. Kay T. Ho (75%)
Mr. Rick McKinney (10%)
Ms. Ann Kuhn (5%)
Ms. Margaret Pelletier (5%)
Dr. Robert Burgess (5%)
NHEERL, Narragansett, RI
HONORABLE
MENTION
Identification of acute toxicants in sediments from a
marine industrial harbor.
HE0046
Thyroxine replacement therapy partially
alleviates the hypothyroidism and low-
frequency hearing loss in rats caused by
developmental exposure to Aroclor 1254.
ToxicologicalSciences. 45:94-105
(1998)
Dr. Ellen S. Goldey (50%)
Dr. Kevin M. Crofton (50%)
NHEERL, RTF, NC
HONORABLE
MENTION
For research on the role of thyroid hormones in the
developmental neurotoxicity of polychlorinated
biphenyls.
MM0057
a) Sensitive detection of transgenic plant
marker gene persistence in soil
microcosms. Molecular Ecology. 5:603-
613 (1996)
b) Quantification of transgenic plant
marker gene persistence in the field.
Molecular Ecology. 6:1-7 (1997)
Dr. RJ. Seidler (35%)
Dr. L.S. Watrud (5%)
NHEERL, Corvallis, OR
HONORABLE
MENTION
Detection of Recombinant DNA in soil/
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-11
-------
Nom. #
Titles and Citations of
Submitted Papers
Authors* and Nominating
Organization
Recommended
Award Level
Suggested Citation from Nominating
Organization
MM0061
Analysis of dissolved methane, ethane,
and ethylene in ground water by a
standard gas chromatograph technique.
J. Chromatographic Science. 36:253-256
(1998)
Dr. Don Kampbell (50%)
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH
HONORABLE
MENTION
Development of a widely adopted assay technique
for dissolved gases in ground water to identify
bioremediation processes.
TF0073
Effects of sediment homogenization on
interstitial water PCB geochemistry.
Arch. Environ. Contamin. and Toxicol.
33:125-129(1997)
Dr. Robert M. Burgess (95%)
Mr. Rick McKinney (5%)
NHEERL, Narragansett, RI
HONORABLE
MENTION
Artifacts to PCB geochemistry caused by sediment
homogenization.
TF0077
Effect of aqueous phase properties on
clay particle zeta potential and electro-
osmotic permeability: Implications for
electro-kinetic soil remediation
processes. J. Hazardous Materials. 55:1-
22 (1997)
Dr. Leland M. Vane (80%)
Ms. Gwen M. Zang (20%)
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH
HONORABLE
MENTION
Advances in electro-kinetic soil transport processes
RA0082
Tires, Open Burning. Encyclopedia of
Environmental Analysis & Remediation,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Robert A.
Meyers, Ed., New York, NY. pp 4813-
48321 (1998)
Dr. Paul M. Lemieux (40%)
Mr. Jeffrey V. Ryan (20%)
Dr. David M. DeMarini (20%)
NRMRL, RTF, NC
HONORABLE
MENTION
For investigation into the chemical composition anc
mutagenicity of emissions from the open burning of
scrap tires.
Key to Acronyms used in the above Table:
NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
RTF Research Triangle Park
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-12
-------
* NOTE: The percentages given after each name represent the percent of the total level of effort as documented in the EPA nomination . Page B-13
------- |