United States
Environmental
EPA Science Advisory
Board (1400A)
EPA-SAB-02-002
December 2001
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
FY 2001 ANNUAL STAFF REPORT
-------
Cover Art: Spiral by Stephanie Sanzone
-------
Expanding Expertise and Experience
EPA Science Advisory Board's
FY 2001 Annual Staff Report
Ms. Vickie Richardson, Ms. Patricia Thomas and Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson,
Editors
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
This report is a summary of activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Science Advisory Board Staff for Fiscal Year 2001, with projections
for Fiscal Year 2002. This report has not been reviewed by the Board or the
Agency, and should not be construed as representing the views of either
organization.
-------
Annual Report page i
FOREWORD: EXPANDING EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE
Social scientists tell us that organizations, like the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), are
subject to certain "laws" that govern their growth and development. These organizational
laws are akin to the biological laws that impact the growth and development of the organisms that are
the subject of study by biological scientists. In both cases, the entities under study
(organisms/organizations) require inputs (food/resources) in order to generate outputs
(movement/products). They encounter planned and unplanned experiences from which (if they are to
survive) they learn, grow, and adapt. And the most successful of them incorporate new assets/products
to meet the challenges of the changing environment in which they live.
In FY 2001, the SAB organization certainly did a lot and learned a lot. In addition to generating
an impressive, but prosaic, box score of 67 meetings held and 28 reports transmitted to the
Administrator, the Board learned a lot from expanding its expertise and its experiences. Some of the
learning was planned; e.g., the Strategic Planning Retreat of the Executive Committee. Some of it was
serendipitous; e.g., demonstrators at the November meeting of the Dioxin Reassessment Review
Subcommittee. Some of it was pleasant; e.g., the retrospective look at the SAB through letters of
testimony submitted to mark the retirement of Dr. Mort Lippmann following his roughly two decades
of service. Some of it was less pleasant; i.e., being the subject of a year-long investigation by the
General Accounting Office is not the unalloyed joy that some have cracked it up to be.
The experience of new leadership at the Agency and new leadership at the Board has enabled us
to look at the SAB with fresh eyes. Reaching out to incorporate new types of expertise is broadening
the Board's vision. By expanding its experience and expertise, the SAB is better-prepared to respond to
the challenges that now present themselves to the Agency, the Board, and the environment in this first
year of the 2 1st century.
Donald G. Barnes, PhD
SAB Staff Director
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page ii Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function 1
1.2 SAB Organization and Membership 2
1.3 SAB Activities 5
1.4 SAB Products 5
1.4 Content of the Report 6
2.0 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR: "EXPANDING EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE" 10
2.1 Expanding Expertise 10
2.2 Expanding Experience 11
2.2.1 The Experience of a New Chair 11
2.2.2 The Experience of a New Strategic Planning Retreat 11
2.2.3 The Experience of a More Involved Executive Committee 12
2.2.4 The Experience with a New Administrator and Deputy Administrator 13
2.2.5 The Experience of New Approaches for Giving Advice 13
2.2.6 The Experience of New Interactions with Interest Groups 14
2.2.7 The Experience with Different Offices in the Agency 14
3.0 FY 2001 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES IS
3.1 Executive Committee (EC) 16
3.1.1 Background 16
3.1.2 Activities 17
3.1.3 Products 18
3.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL) 19
3.2.1 Background 19
3.2.2 Activities 19
3.2.3 Products 19
3.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 20
3.3.1 Background 20
3.3.2 Activities 21
3.3.3 Products 21
3.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC) 22
3.4.1 Background 22
3.4.2 Activities 22
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page Hi
3.4.3 Products 23
3.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) 23
3.5.1 Background 23
3.5.2 Activities 24
3.5.3 Products 24
3.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) 24
3.6.1 Background 25
3.6.2 Activities 25
3.6.3 Products 25
3.7 Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) 25
3.7.1. Background 26
3.7.2 Activities 26
3.7.3 Products 25
3.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC) 27
3.8.1 Background 27
3.8.2 Activities 27
3.8.3 Products 27
3.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) 28
3.9.1 Overview 28
3.9.2 Activities 28
3.9.3 Products 28
3.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAG) 29
3.10.1 Background 29
3.10.2 Activities 29
3.10.3 Products 30
3.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) 30
3.11.1 Background 30
3.11.2 Activities 31
3.11.3 Products 31
4.0 PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 33
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SAB's STRUCTURE & AUTHORITIES A-l
Al Organizational Chart A-2
A2 Introduction to Charters A-3
A2.1 United States Environmental Protection Agency Charter
EPA Science Advisory Board A-4
A2.2 United States Environmental Protection Agency Charter
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee A-7
A2.3 United States Environmental Protection Agency Charter
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis A-10
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page iv Annual Report
APPENDIX B - SAB ACTIVITIES & PRODUCTS B-1
Bl SAB Meetings for FY 2001 B-2
B2 SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1996-2001 B-6
B3 SAB FY 2001 Products B-10
B4 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, Commentaries and Workshop Reports B-13
BS Time- to- Completion B-30
B6 SAB Reports and Notification of SAB Meetings B-36
B7 Abstracts of the SAB Lecture Series
"Science & the Human Side of Environmental Protection" B-37
APPENDIX C - SAB PEOPLE C-l
Cl SAB Staff Organization Chart C-2
C2 FY 2001 Staff Committee Alignment C-3
C3 SAB Committee Chairs C-4
C4 Guidelines For Service on The EPA Science Advisory Board C-9
CS Types Of Affiliation With The SAB C-16
C6 SAB Members for FY 2001 C-18
C7 FY 2001 Member Transitions C-23
C8 SAB Consultants for FY 2001 C-24
C9 Biographical Sketches of the SAB Staff C-38
CIO FY 2001 Staff Transitions C-60
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page v
DEDICATION TO DR. MORTON LIPPMANN
In FY01, Dr. Morton Lippmann, Professor at the Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, a
part of the Medical Center of New York University, completed nearly two decades of service
as a Member of the EPA Science Advisory Board*. In a career that covered the Board's
nascent, adolescent, and maturation phases, Dr. Lippmann served with distinction on CASAC, IHEC, and
EC, including terms as Chair of each. Throughout, he demonstrated uncommon capacity, availability, and
commitment to the SAB's cause of enhancing the production and use of science at EPA. He will be
remembered, missed, and -- we can only hope -- emulated by others who will follow in his steps.
*Guidelines for Terms of Service on the SAB, adopted with Dr. Lippmann's support, make it unlikely
that any future SAB Member will have a record of continuous service in excess of 10 years.
-------
Annual Report
pagel
1.0 INTRODUCTION
>-j-
-------
page 2
Annual Report
to evaluate the soundness of the technical basis
of the science policy position adopted by the
Agency.
In 1997 the Board declared its mission
to be "making a positive difference in the
production and use of science at EPA".
Therefore, in addition to generating high-
quality peer reviews, the Board's activities also
include providing counsel early in the Agency's
product development process, advice on needed
research, unsolicited advice on technical topics
that the Board feels should be brought to the
Administrator's attention, and
forums/workshops/seminars for broadening and
leavening the Agency's thinking.
1.2 SAB ORGANIZATION AND
MEMBERSHIP
T:
Agency has continually and
successfully recruited top technical
talent to fill its leadership positions. Those
scientists and engineers who have led the SAB
(and predecessor organizations) for the past 24
years are listed in Figure 1. Appendix C3
contains a list of the distinguished scientists,
engineers, and economists who served as Chairs
of the SAB Committees in FY 2001.
Figure 1. SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades
Executive Committee Chairs
2001-Present Dr. William Glaze
University of North Carolina
2001- 2001 Dr. Morton Lippmann (Interim Chair)
New York University
1997-2001 *Dr. Joan Daisey
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1993-1997 Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Johns Hopkins University
1988-1993 Dr. Raymond Loehr
University of Texas-Austin
1983-1988 Dr. Norton Nelson
New York University
1981-1983 Dr. Earnest Gloyna
University of Texas-Austin
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
pageS
1979-1981
1974-1978
*deceased February, 2001
Dr. John Cantlon
Michigan State University
Dr. Emil Mrak
University of California
SAB Staff Office Directors
• 1988- Present
1981-1988
• 1978-1981
1975-1977
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Thomas Bath
The Executive Committee (EC) serves
as the focal point to coordinate the activities of
the Board's 10 standing committees. The
organization of the SAB is depicted on Appendix
Al. The EC regularly meets to act on Agency
requests for reviews, to hear briefings on
pertinent issues, to initiate actions /reviews by
the Board which it feels are appropriate, and to
approve final reports prior to transmittal to the
Administrator. Reports from the separately
chartered CASAC and the Council are
submitted directly to the Administrator,
without need for prior Executive Committee
review or approval. The charters for SAB,
CASAC, and Council are found in Appendix A2.
Five Committees have historically
conducted most of the EPA Science Advisory
Board reviews:
(a) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC):
Mandated by the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments
(b) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC)
(c) Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
(d) Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
(e) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Between 1986 and 1990, five additional
committees were added:
(a) Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 4
Annual Report
(IHEC): Mandated by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
in FY 1986
(b) Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC): Requested by the
Administrator in response to the
Board's Future Risk report in FY 1988
(c) Drinking Water Committee (DWC):
Evolved from the EHC in FY 1990.
(d) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council): Mandated by the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(e) Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC): Requested by the
Administrator in response to the Board's
Reducing Risk report in FY 1990
The Board supplements the activities of
these Committees by establishing a variety of
ad hoc Subcommittees as needed.
The Members of the SAB constitute a
distinguished body of scientists, engineers, and
economists and other social scientists who are
recognized, non-federal experts in their
respective fields. These individuals are drawn
from academia, industry, state government, and
environmental communities throughout the
United States and, in some limited cases, other
countries. As needed, the SAB also accesses
experts via the route of Federal Expert and
Invited Expert. These categories are described
in greater detail in Appendix CS, "Types of
Affiliation with the SAB."
The number of Members is flexible. In
FY 2001, SAB consisted of 112 members
appointed by the Administrator for two-year
terms, renewable twice. Service as
Committee Chair can lead to as much as an
additional four years of continuous service. A
formal guideline on Membership service was
adopted by the Executive Committee in FY
1993 and has been followed by the
Administrator in making appointments (see
Appendix C4).
More than 300 technical experts,
invited by the Staff Director, serve on an "as
needed" basis as Consultants to the Board on
various issues where their expertise is relevant.
The number of Consultants is flexible, and their
one-year terms can be renewed indefinitely.
Consultants are required to meet the same
standards of technical expertise as do the
Members. In FY 2001, the SAB utilized the
services of 68 Consultants.
Appendices C6 and C7 contain a list of
the FY 2001 SAB Members and Consultants
(M/C), respectively. The M/Cs serve as
Special Government Employees (SGEs) and are
subject to all relevant Federal requirements,
including compliance with the conflict of
interest statutes (18 U.S.C. Section 202-209).
The activities of the 400 M/Cs are
supported by the SAB Staff which, during FY
2001, consisted of 22 people: a Staff Director,
Deputy Staff Director, Special Assistant, two
Team Leaders (Committee Operations Staff
(who also serves as a Designated Federal Officer
(DFO), and the Committee Evaluation and
Support Staff); six scientists/engineers who
serve as DFOs, three administrative staff, five
support staff, one detailee, one intern, and a
National Older Workers Career Center Office
Assistant (see Appendix C8 for Staff Biographies
and Staff Transitions).
The SAB Staff works with the Agency
to identify potential issues for SAB attention,
focuses questions for review, works with the
Board to identify and enlist appropriate
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 5
Members and Consultants, interfaces between
the Board and the Agency as well as with the
public, coordinates logistics for reviews, and
produces drafts of minutes and reports for
submission to the Administrator.
1.3 SAB ACTIVITIES
A;
s shown in Table I, the SAB's
.budget in FY 2001 totaled more
than $2.7 million. Table II and Table III show
that these resources enabled the Board to
conduct 59 meetings and to issue 20 reports (see
Appendices B1 - B4). The increase in total costs
over the years reflects an increase in the
number of Board Members, increases in Federal
pay and allowances, and general increases in the
cost of
airline travel, hotel and meeting
accommodations.
The types of projects, as well as the
range of subject matter, undertaken by the SAB
continue to grow. The Board takes on activities
at the request of Congress, the Administrator,
and EPA's various program offices, as well as on
its own initiative. In general, the trend over
time has been for more SAB reviews,
addressing more varied subjects, requested by a
wider range of individuals and organizations.
SAB reports most often present the
findings of peer reviews of nearly-completed
Agency projects and contain considerable detail
about the findings and recommendations of the
Board. An SAB report is generally structured as
a response to a formal Charge to the Board.
The Charge is a set of specific questions,
negotiated by the Agency and the SAB, that
guide, but do not constrain, the review.
1.4 SAB PRODUCTS
Tables I , II and III display the SAB's
operating expenses, meeting activity, report
production, and staffing for the past five fiscal
years (1997-2001).
In recent years the SAB has worked
with the Agency to produce more timely advice
that is focused at the front-end of the Agency's
involvement with an issue. First, the Board can
conduct the "Consultation" as a means of
conferring, as a group of knowledgeable
individuals, in public session with the Agency on
a technical matter, before the Agency has begun
substantive work on that issue. The goal is to
leaven EPA's thinking by brainstorming a
variety of approaches to the problem very early
in the development process. There is no
attempt or intent to express an SAB consensus
or to generate a formal SAB position. The
Board, via a brief letter, simply notifies the
Administrator that a Consultation has taken
place.
Second, the Board may conduct an
"Advisory" as a means of providing, via a formal
SAB consensus report, critical input on technical
issues during the Agency's position
development process. In most instances, the
topic of the Advisory will later be the subject of
an SAB report, once the Agency has completed
its work.
Third, most "Reports" are full-fledged
peer reviews of essentially completed Agency
products. "Letter" reports are similar in
origin, content, and purpose to full reports.
They are simply shorter; thereby generally
resulting in more rapid advice to the Agency.
Periodically the SAB will issue the results of a
de novo other-than-peer-review project as an
SAB report; cf "Toward Integrated
Environmental Decision Making" in FY2000.
Fourth, the "Commentary" is a short
communication that provides unsolicited SAB
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 6
advice about a technical issue the Board feels
should be drawn to the Administrator's
attention.
Fifth, the "Workshop" denotes SAB
Workshop seminars.
Appendix B2 details meeting activity
and report preparation by Committee during
FY01.
1.5 CONTENT OF THIS REPORT
This Report consists of four principal
Annual Report
sections, plus appendices supplementing the
discussion in the main sections. Following this
Introduction (Section 1), Section 2 summarizes
the Board's highlights of the year; Section 3
focuses on SAB Committee activities during FY
2001; and Section 4 provides insights on the
Board's plans for the future.
The Appendices contain important
information, such as organizational charts,
membership lists, abstracts of SAB reports, and
summaries of SAB seminars.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
Figure 2. SAB's Estimated Expenses ($K) for Fiscal Year 2001
page?
]M/C Compensation
22%
Staff Compcnsationa
53%
Table I
Budget Totals for Fiscal Years 1997 - 2001*
(In thousands of dollars)
Fiscal
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001*
*Estimated
Staff
Compensation
1,170
1,250
1,318
1,488
1,505
Figure
M/C
Comp ensation
555
600
630
603
615
Total
1,725
1,850
1,948
2,091
2,120
3. SAB Activities for
Travel
282
285
308
290
310
Fiscal Year
,r+ nfi-ha ETPA
Other
Expenses
212
281
298
312
365
2001
Total
2,219
2,416
2,554
2,693
2,795
, RnorW Cfoff
-------
pageS
Annual Report
Closed Meeting
2%
Public Telecon
57%
Table II
SAB Activities for Fiscal Years 1997 - 2001
Fiscal Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Public
Meeting
34
42
33
32
24
Public
Teleconference
21(38%)
8(16%)
14(29%)
22(40%)
34(58%)
Closed
Meeting
1
1
1
1
1
Total
56
51
48
55
59
Rpnnrtnfthp FPA Sripnrp Arivknrv Rrarr/ Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 9
Figure 4. Committee Reports for Fiscal Years 1997 - 2001
Notification of
Consultation
17%
Table III
Committee Reports and Staffing for Fiscal Years 1997 - 2001
Fiscal
Years
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Committee Reports
Full Reports Short Total
Reports
11 18 29
11 10 21
19 21 40
17 20 37
8 12 20
Notifications
of
Consultations
2
9
8
8
8
Staffing
Members Federal Staff
(Full Time
Equivalents, FTEs)
97 17.6
102 19.7
105 19.7
104 18.8
112 18.8
-------
page 10.
Annual Report
K
2.0 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR:
"EXPANDING EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE"
-iscal Year 2001 will likely be remembered in the nation's history for the attacks on New York City and
Washington, D.C. by terrorists. But for those whojbcus their attention on what the SAB did during the
year, they will be struck by the variety of innovations, individuals, and process changes introduced during the year that
significantly expanded the Board's expertise and experience. These changes resulted, in part, from creativity and a
desire to "make a good operation even better" and, in part, from the publication of a year-long investigation by the
General Accounting Office (GAO) into the SAB's process and procedures Jbr insuring that a) SAB panels are populated
by individuals who do not have conflicts-of-interests, b) SAB panels are balanced in terms of the biases that individuals
inevitably bring to the table, and c) the public is adequately informed and participating in the panel selection process.
2.1 EXPANDING EXPERTISE
T!
•
-------
Annual Report.
page 11
biosketches of the NARRO WCAST group on
the SAB Website and soliciting public input
about CO I concerns they might have about any
individuals or BOB concerns about the panel in
toto.
In addition, the Staff is exploring ways
to improve and expand its current procedures
for gathering/sharing/evaluating information
about candidates. For example, the Staff is
developing procedures to insure that future SAB
panels will be marked by more uniform and
informative introductions by panel members.
The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has
been particularly helpful to the Staff in re-
examining the processes by which COI issues
are addressed and documented.
While not without significant cost,
these administrative steps should address many
of the concerns raised by GAO.
2.2 EXPANDING EXPERIENCE
2.2.1 THE EXPERIENCE OF A
NEW CHAIR
i;
[n November, 2000, Dr. William
Glaze of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill was appointed by the
EPA Administrator as the Chair of the SAB
Executive Committee. Dr. Glaze had previous
SAB experience as Member, then Chair, of the
Drinking Water Committee and, by virtue of
that office, as Member of the Executive
Committee in the 1990s. Since assuming his
new position,
Dr. Glaze has pushed the SAB to re-examine
itself and its operations, with an eye toward
being more responsive to its customer (the
Administrator), more experimental in carrying
out its work, and more reflective in defining its
mission. All of these new experiences promise
an SAB that will be even more effective in
helping the Agency to meet its challenges.
2.2.2 THE EXPERIENCE OF A
NEW STRATEGIC PLANNING
RETREAT
o;
>n April 9-11, 2001, members of
the SAB Executive Committee
held a Strategic Planning Retreat at the College
of Preachers in Washington, D.C. The agenda
addressed five key questions: (a) How can the
Board be most effective?; (b) What should be
the Board's work?; (c) How can the
membership process work so the SAB is most
effective?;
(d) How can the Board improve the quality of
its work?; and (e) How should the Board
evaluate success?
To help frame the discussions, SAB Staff
conducted interviews with eleven clients and
stakeholders and compiled the information in a
background document. In the interviews, staff
asked: (a) Where has the Board made a positive
difference in the production and use of science
at EPA and what are the reasons why you
believe it to have been successful? ; (b) What
do/did you need from the Board? Are you
getting it/did you get it?; (c)What do you do
with the Board's product?; (d) What has been
lacking from our products in the past?; (e)
What is your view of how the Board operates in
practice?; and (f) What new issues are on
the horizon that you think the Board should
address? On the first day of the retreat, EC
Members also interacted with a panel of clients,
stakeholders, old and new EC Members on
these issues. The panel included: Dr. Peter
DeFur (Virginia Commonwealth University);
Dr. Carl Mazza (EPA's Office of Air and
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 12.
Annual Report
Radiation); Mr. Jim Solyst (American
Chemistry Council); Dr. Larry Reiter (EPA,
Office of Research and Development);
Dr. Mort Lippmann (SAB); and Dr. Roger
Kasperson (SAB).
At the retreat, EC members made the
following strategic decisions:
1. They reaffirmed the vision in the 1997 SAB
Strategic Plan ("Making a positive
difference in the production and use of
science at EPA") and committed
themselves to consider changes in
operations that may make the Board
more effective.
2. They decided to be more active in
developing
strategies to achieve that vision. This
activity was to include:
a. A commitment to work with Agency
leadership to identify strategic areas
where the Board's advice will be
important.
b. A commitment to select and manage
the portfolio of SAB projects so that the
Board can deliver advice in strategic
areas and also maintain and improve
peer review of Agency projects.
c. Exploration of new options for
organizing the Board and ways to make
Board operations more effective and
responsive to customer needs.
Members also identified potential self-
initiated projects for the Board in the following
areas:
a. Developing an Interagency Research Agenda
Derived from a Systematic Consideration of
Key Data Gaps in a Variety Related Fields of
Environmental Sciences;
b. Industrial Ecology;
c. New "Reducing Risk Project;"
d. Energy, Environment and Policy;
e. Global/Transboundary Science and
Technology Issues;
f. Precautionary Principle
The Executive Committee also charged a
subgroup, chaired by Dr. Roger Kasperson, to
make recommendations regarding the role of
behavioral, economic and social sciences in SAB
structure and function, including examples of
how this would work.
2.2.3 THE EXPERIENCE OF A
MORE INVOLVED EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
Stemming from steps taken at the Strategic
Planning Retreat, the EC has become
more actively involved in shaping the activities
and direction of the Board. In addition to the
direct outputs of the Retreat, the EC has
demonstrated this activity in a number of
different ways. For example, the EC now
reviews more of the reports from its
Committees through conference calls (34 such
meetings in FY 2001) than at face-to-face
meetings (25 such meetings in FY 2001). This
process results in quicker final action by the EC
than would otherwise be the case. Also, the EC
has been more involved in discussing FY 2002
projects than it has in previous years, both
through reviewing the Agency's requests and in
developing more formalized descriptions of
proposed self-initiated projects. The EC is
pursuing this matter through meetings between
the EC Chair and the Agency's Deputy
Administrator and a meeting between the EC
Chair and the Agency's Science Policy Council.
Finally, the EC has established a Policies and
Procedures Subcommittee (PPS) to review and
advise the SAB Staff in developing and
implementing responses to the GAO report.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 13
2.2.4 THE EXPERIENCE WITH A
NEW ADMINISTRATOR AND
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
Shortly after becoming Administrator of
EPA, Governor Christine Todd Whitman
met with the SAB Executive Committee to
begin charting a course that will align the Board
with the needs of the new Administration. In
separate meetings with Deputy Administrator
Linda Fisher, Dr. Glaze has explored an agenda
of new approaches -- experiences -- by which
the Board's expertise can be focused on the most
important environmental challenges facing the
Agency.
The Board was able to respond quickly and
successfully to a particular request from the
Governor to review the Agency's benefit
assessment of the controversial arsenic drinking
water rule.
2.2.5 THE EXPERIENCE OF NEW
APPROACHES FOR GIVING ADVICE
Historically, the SAB has provided its
advice to the Administrator via written
reports that summarize deliberations featured at
public meetings. While this work continues to
form the bulk of SAB activity, the Board has
branched out in recent years to consider
additional avenues for providing advice. In FY
2001 the SAB introduced a new "product line"
by issuing its first report of a jointly-sponsored
workshop, "Understanding Public Values and
Attitudes Related to Ecological Risk
Management: An SAB Workshop Report",
(EPA-SAB-EC-WKSP-01-001) that summarized
the discussion at a workshop held on May 23-24,
2001. The event focused on how researchers
using analytical methods, tools, and approaches
from the social sciences could assist decision
makers by improving understanding of public
values and attitudes related to specific threats to
ecological resources, such as Tampa Bay
Estuary, the focus of the workshop.
FY 2001 also saw a continuation in the
Board being asked to provide input to Congress.
This advice came by the way of participation in
formal hearings, as well as a briefing for
Congressional Staff:
a. House Science Committee Hearing on HR 64
that would establish a position of
Deputy Administrator of Science at
EPA:
1) Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, testifying on
behalf of the NRC
2) Dr. William Glaze, providing an
SAB perspective.
b. House Science Committee: Hearing on
Science and Technology Budget Request
for FY 2002 at EPA, October 3, 2000:
1) Dr. Philip Hopke, providing a
summary of the Board's Advisory on the
USEPA's Draft Case Study Analysis of
the Residual Risk of Secondary Lead
Smelters, EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-00-OOS
2) Dr. Morton Lippmann, providing a
comparison of the risks from hazardous
air pollutants and criteria air pollutants.
c. American Chemical Society (ACS)/Society
for Risk Analysis (SRA): Briefing for
Congressional Staff on H.R. 64 --
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr.
d. ACS/SRA Briefing for Congressional Staff
on the General Accounting Office's
(GAO) report on the SAB.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 14.
Annual Report
e. Dr. Donald Barnes provided OSAB's
response as part of a panel of folks from
GAO, Natural Resources Defense
Council
(NRDC), and American Chemistry
Council (ACC).
2.2.6 THE EXPERIENCE OF
NEW INTERACTIONS WITH
INTEREST GROUPS
i;
[n FY 2001 the SAB reviewed a
number of controversial issues; e.g.,
dioxin reassessment and benefits of arsenic
reduction. In the dioxin case, members of the
public demonstrated graphically, but quietly, at
the public meeting to express concerns about
the make-up of the panel. These actions
supplemented concerns raised in letters to the
Administrator, Congress, and the SAB Staff
Director. As a result, OSAB initiated a series
of meetings with individuals from industry and
the NGO community to explore these
concerns. In the arsenic case, elements of the
NGO community were active and direct in
providing input to the panel selection process.
While this input did not have a direct bearing
on the process, its presence further encouraged
OSAB to expand its process for seeking and
acting on suggestions from members of the
public (See 2.2.5 above.)
2.2.7 THE EXPERIENCE WITH
DIFFERENT OFFICES IN THE
AGENCY
Stemming in part from receipt of the
GAO report, OSAB has been in
greater contact with the Office of the General
Counsel (OGC) who provide advice to Agency
offices on matters such as the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) and ethical issues. A
close working relationship is developing
between OSAB Staff and OGC staff, principally
Ken Wernick (ethics) and Marilyn Kuray
(FACA), both of whom joined the Agency in FY
2001. With their assistance, OSAB is
developing procedures to document more
carefully decisions on conflict-of-interest and to
address nettlesome issues, such as the
Emolument Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
For the first time, in FY 2001
operational contacts have been established with
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The
OIG may be of assistance in evaluating the
adequacy of the OSAB response to the GAO
report. On a separate track, OIG has conferred
twice with the SAB (RSAC), seeking
input/assistance in a major project they have
envisioned to analyze the impact of science on
decision-making at EPA. If OIG goes forward
with their plan, the SAB may serve a continuing
advisory role.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 15
3.0 FY 2001 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
T!
ihe main activity of the SAB are the projects undertaken by its various Committees. In the
face of more requests than current resources can address, the Board has had to be selective
about its choice of projects. In selecting projects, the SAB has generally been guided by criteria that
were originally generated in a "self study" retreat in 1989 and updated at a Strategic Planning Retreat of
the Executive Committee in 1997. Provided below is a list of the SAB criteria.
1. General Criterion
a. Provides an opportunity to make a difference in Agency Operations.
2. Client-related Criteria
a. Supports major regulatory or risk management initiatives.
b. Serves leadership interest such as those of the EPA Administrator or Congress.
c. Support strategic themes of current interest.
3. Science-driven Criteria
a. Involves scientific approaches that are new to the Agency.
b. Deal with areas of substantial uncertainty.
4. Problem-driven Criteria
a. Involves major environmental risks.
b. Relates to emerging environmental issues.
c. Exhibits long-term outlook.
5. Organizational-related Criteria
a. Serves as a model for future Agency methods.
b. Requires the commitment of substantial resources to scientific or technological development.
c. Transcends organizational boundaries, within or outside EPA (includes international
boundaries).
d. Strengthens the Agency's basic capability.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 16.
Annual Report
3.1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (EC)
EC Members
Chair: Dr. William Glaze, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dr. Henry Anderson
Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services
Dr. Trudy Cameron
University of California-Los Angeles
Dr. Kenneth Cummins
Humboldt State University
Dr. Linda Greer
Natural Resources Defense Council
Dr. Philip Hopke
Clarkson University
Dr. Hilary Inyang
University of North Carolina-Charlotte
Dr. Janet Johnson
Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Dr. Roger Kasperson
Stockholm Environment Institute
Dr. Morton Lippmann
New York University Medical Center
Dr. Raymond Loehr
University of Texas -Austin
Dr. M. Granger Morgan
Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. William Smith
Yale University
Dr. Robert Stavins
Harvard University
Dr. R. Rhodes Trussell
Montgomery Watson Harza Engineering
Dr. Mark Utell
University of Rochester Medical Center
Dr. Terry Young
Environmental Defense
Liaison from Other FACA Committees
Board of Scientific Counselors
Dr Gerald Schnoor
University of Iowa
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
Dr. Ronald Kendall
Texas Tech University
Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee
Dr. Joel Bender
Monsanto Company
3.1.1 BACKGROUND
T:
ihe EC coordinates the work of 10
standing Committees and numerous
ad hoc subcommittees. The EC had 4 active
subcommittees during the year.
(a) Benefits and Costs of Arsenic Reduction
Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. Maureen Cropper
The World Bank
(b) Dioxin Reassessment Review Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. Morton Lippmann
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 17
New York University
(c) National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. Mitchell Small
Carnegie Mellon University
(d) Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards (STAA) Subcommittee
Chair: Dr. H. C. Ward
Rice University
With a Membership consisting of a
Chair, the Chairs of the 10 standing
Committees, and four At-large Members, this
FACA-chartered institution is the nerve center
of SAB activity, reviewing reports from the
standing Committees (with the exception of
reports from the separately chartered CASAC
and Council), discussing proposals from standing
Committees, and directing the work of ad hoc
subcommittees that address complex issues
calling for multi-disciplinary expertise.
3.1.2 ACTIVITIES
i;
[n FY 2001, the EC met four times in
face-to-face FACA meetings, plus one
non-FACA Strategic Planning Retreat. In
addition, the EC conducted four publicly
accessible conference calls to review formally
reports from SAB committees and
subcommittees.
The EC's four subcommittees
introduced in the previous subsection
collectively met face-to-face four times and five
times by publicly accessible conference call. In
addition, the subcommittees conducted another
five non-FACA conference calls to work on
aspects of reports that were later reviewed in
public session. In these activities, the EC
utilized the services of 30 Consultants.
In addition, the EC authorized the
continuation of SAB lecture series, "Science and
the Human Side of Environmental Protection"
(see Appendix B7), held at the Agency. The
second year program consisted of the following
noted speakers:
(a) Dr. Larry Susskind, Ford Professor of Urban
and Environmental Planning and
Head, Environmental Policy Group
at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) and Director,
MIT-Harvard Public Disputes
Program
"'Who Says So?' The Uses and
Organization of Environmental
Policy Studies"
September 22, 2000
(b) Dr. Roger Kasperson, Executive Director of
the Stockholm Environment Institute
" Human Vulnerability to Global
Environmental Change"
December 6, 2000
(c) Dr. Caron Chess, Director of the Center for
Environmental Communications at
Rutgers University
"Evaluating Public Participation;
Feedback for Mid-Course
Corrections"
February 22, 2001
(d) Dr. Ortwin Renn, Director of the Center
of Technology Assessment, in Baden
Wurttenberg, Germany and Chair
of Environmental Sociology at the
University of Stuttgart.
"Analytic-deliberative Processes in Risk
Management; Opportunities,
Problems, and Practical Experiences
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 18.
Annual Report
from a Risk-Management
Perspective."
March 13, 2001
(e) Dr. Robin Gregory, senior researcher at
Decision Research (Eugene,
Oregon) and Associate Director of
the Eco-Risk Research Unit,
University of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
"Decision Aiding, Not Consensus: Using
Structured Decision Processes to
Link Consultation and Analysis"
April 4, 2001
Finally, the EC also sponsored a workshop in
conjunction with Agency program offices on
Understanding Public Values and Attitudes Related to
Ecological Risk Management (see Appendix B4 for
details). A workshop activity from FY 2001 on
Science and Stakeholder Involvement was
completed through one publicly accessible
conference call to discuss a report that
summarized the lessons learned through the
workshop experience.
3.1.3 PRODUCTS
T
he EC's efforts resulted in the following
advice being sent to the Administrator in
FY2001:
(a) Dioxin Reassessment: An SAB Review of
the Office of Research and
Development's Reassessment of Dioxin
(EPA-SAB-EC-01-006)
(b) Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards (STAA): Recommendations on
the FY 2000 Nominations: An SAB
Report
(EPA-SAB-EC-01-007)
(c) Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: An SAB
Review
(EPA-SAB-EC-01-008)
In addition to these three reports, the
EC generated one Commentary in FY 2001:
(a) Improving Science-Based Environmental
Stakeholder Processes: An SAB
Commentary
(EPA-SAB-EC-COM-01-006)
The EC also conducted one Consultation
during FY 2001:
(a) Notification of a Consultation on the
Agency's Plans for a Cumulative Risk
Framework
(EPA-SAB-EC-CON-01-004)
Appendix B4 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 19
3.2 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
(COUNCIL)
COUNCIL Members
Chair: Dr. Trudy Cameron, University of California
Ms. Lauraine Chestnut
Stratus Consulting Inc.
Dr. Maureen L. Cropper
The World Bank
Dr. Don Fullerton
University of Texas
Dr. Lawrence Goulder
Stanford University
Dr. Jane Hall
California State University
Dr. James Hammit
Harvard University
Dr. Charles Kolstad
University of California
Dr. Lester B. Lave
Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. Paul Lioy
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Dr. Paulette Middleton
RAND Environment, Inc.
Dr. V. Kerry Smith
North Carolina State University
3.2.1 BACKGROUND
T:
ihe Council has its origin in the
requirements of Section 812 of the
Clean Act Amendments of 1990. That section
mandated that a Council be established to
provide independent advice on technical and
economic aspects of analyses and reports that the
Agency prepares concerning the impacts of the
Clean Air Act on public health, the economy,
and the environment of the United States; i.e.,
overall costs and benefits.
3.2.2 ACTIVITIES
i;
[n FY 2001, the Agency asked the
Council to review its draft analytical
blueprint for the second prospective analysis of
the costs and benefits of implementation of the
Clean Air Act, projected over the period
2000-2020. A special panel of the Council,
which included members of its Health and
Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES) and its
Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee (AQMS),
provided the Administrator with advice to
strengthen the proposed analysis.
The Council conducted one meeting and
two publicly accessible teleconferences in FY
2001. The AQMS and HEES each conducted one
publicly accessible teleconference.
The Committee used 13 Consultants in
FY2001.
3.2.3 PRODUCTS
The Council generated the following
Advisory in FY 2001:
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 20.
Annual Report
(a) Review of the Draft Analytical Plan for
EPA's Second Prospective Analysis -
Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act
1990- 2020
(EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-01-004)
Appendix B4 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available
on the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
3.3 CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CASAC)
CASAC Members
Chair: Dr. Philip Hopke, Clarkson University
Dr. John Elston
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Dr. Frederick Miller
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Dr. Arthur Upton
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
3.3.1 BACKGROUND
T:
CASAC is a separately chartered
Federal advisory committee that is
administratively housed within the offices of the
SAB. As an independent advisory committee,
the Committee reports directly to the EPA
Administrator. The Chair of CASAC serves as a
Member of the SAB Executive Committee, and
the Members of CASAC are also Members of
the SAB.
The CASAC has a statutorily mandated
responsibility (under the 1977 and 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments) to review and offer
scientific and technical advice to the
Administrator on the air quality criteria and
regulatory documents which form the basis for
Dr. Sverre Vedal
University of British Columbia
Dr. Barbara Zielinska
Desert Research Institute
the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). NAAQS have been established for
lead, particulate matter (PM), ozone and other
photochemical oxidants (O3), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides
(SOx). The CASAC process includes a peer
review of the Office of Research and
Development's Air Quality Criteria Document
(CD) for a given NAAQS, followed by peer
review of the Office of Air and Radiation's Staff
Paper (SP) for that NAAQS. The CD contains
all the relevant scientific and technical
information on the pollutant, while the SP is the
bridge between the science in the CD and the
policy decision that has to be made by the EPA
1 J J
Administrator. When asked by EPA, the
Committee also reviews the scientific and
technical issues in the regulatory proposal for a
NAAQS prior to its promulgation. The
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 21
Committee also offers research
recommendations for individual NAAQS
pollutants on a periodic basis, often in
conjunction with a review of the Agency's
Strategic Research Plan for that pollutant.
3.3.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
ihe CASAC met four times during
FY 2001 - two face-to-face
meetings, one publicly accessible conference
call, and one face-to-face meeting of the CASAC
Subcommittee on Particle Monitoring. A total
of 19 Consultants participated in CASAC
activities during the year.
More detailed information on CASAC
NAAQS-specific activities are found in Appendix
B3.
3.3.3 PRODUCTS
T
he CASAC issued the following
reports during FY 2001
(a) Review of EPA's Health Assessment
Document for Diesel Exhaust
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-01-003)
(b) Review of the EPA Air Quality Criteria for
Particular Matter
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-01-001)
(c) Commentary on Exploring Opportunities for
Accommodating Emerging Technologies
for Continuous Monitoring in Routine
Air Monitoring Networks
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-01-003)
(d) Consultation on the Agency's Preliminary
Staff Paper and Risk Assessment Scoping
Plan for Particulate Matter
(EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-01-OOS)
Appendix B4 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 22.
Annual Report
3.4 DRINKING WATER COMMITTEE (DWC)
DWC Members
Chair: Dr. R. Rhodes Trussell, Montgomery Watson Harza Engineering
Dr. David Baker
Heidelberg College
Dr. Richard Bull
MoBull Consulting
Dr. Mary Davis
West Virginia University
Dr. Ricardo DeLeon
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Dr. Yvonne Dragan
Ohio State University
Dr. John Evans
Harvard University
Dr. Sidney Green
Howard University
Dr. Barbara Harper
Yakama Indian Nation
Dr. Lee D. McMullen
Des Moines Water Works
Dr. Christine Moe
Emory University
Dr. Philip Singer
University of North Carolina
Dr. Gary Toranzos
University of Puerto Rico
3.4.1 BACKGROUND
Tl
A a
DWC provides independent
advice and peer reviews to EPA's
Administrator on the technical aspects of
problems and issues associated with the drinking
water program, including the research that
supports the program. Consequently, the
primary clients for the Committee are EPA's
Office of Water (OW) and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
The importance of SAB interactions with
the Agency was reinforced in the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments which requires Agency
consultation with the SAB on many Drinking
Water actions.
3.4.2 ACTIVITIES
T
he DWC conducted two face-to-face
meetings during the year. Topics
discussed during the meetings included:
(a) Contaminant Candidate List Research Plan
(b) Proposed Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
and Stage 2 Disinfection/ Disinfectant
Byproduct Rule (S2DBPR)
(c) Proposed Arsenic Drinking Water Standard
The DWC used one consultant in FY 2001.
3.4.3 PRODUCTS
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 23
T
A
efforts resulted in the following
advice being sent to the EPA
Administrator during the year:
(a) EPA Arsenic Proposed Drinking Water
(EPA-SAB-DWC-01 -001)
(b) Revised Microbial Risk Assessment
Framework: An EPA Science Advisory
Board Notification of a Consultation
(EPA-SAB-DWC-CON-01-008)
Appendix B4 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available
on the Sab Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
3.5 ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS COMMITTEE (EPEC)
EPEC Members
Chair: Terry Young, Environmental Defense
Dr. Miguel Acevedo
University of North Texas
Dr. Steven Bartell
Cadmus Group
Dr. Gregory Biddinger
Exxon Mobil
Dr. Kenneth Cummins
Humboldt State University
Dr. Virgina Dale
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Dr. Ivan Fernandez
University of Maine
Dr. Cynthia Gilmour
Academy of Natural Sciences
Dr. Lawrence Master
Association for Biodiversity Information
Dr. Paul Montagna
University of Texas
Dr. Charles Pittinger
Procter & Gamble, Co.1
Dr. Frieda Taub
University of Washington
Joined SoBran, Inc. during this year
3.5.1 BACKGROUND
T:
ihe EPEC is the primary committee
responsible for reviews and advice
relating to ecological issues, including
environmental monitoring and assessment,
ecological risk assessment, and ecological
criteria. Traditionally, the Committee has
sought to elevate the Agency's attention to non-
chemical stressors (e.g., habitat issues, physical
alterations of ecosystems, and introduced
species) and to raise the visibility of ecological
risks in an Agency often preoccupied with human
health concerns.
3.5.2 ACTIVITIES
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 24.
Annual Report
T:
ihe EPEC held two face-to-face
meetings and two teleconference
meetings in FY 2001. The topics addressed at
the meetings include the following:
(a) Review of the STAR Water and Watersheds
Program
(b) Review of draft guidance, "Planning for
Ecological Risk Assessment: Developing
Management Objectives"
(c) Review of the Southeastern Ecological
Framework
(d) Framework for Reporting on Ecological
Condition
A total of two consultants were involved in
these
activities
3.5.3 PRODUCTS
T:
ihe Committee's final report is
scheduled for release in Spring 2002,
will discuss six ecological attributes and include
case examples to illustrate potential applications
of the reporting framework for EPA programs
and projects.
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (EEAC)
EEAC Members
Chair: Dr. Robert Stavins, Harvard University
Dr. Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future
Dr. Lawrence Goulder
Stanford University
Dr. Michael Hanemann
University of California
Dr. Gloria Hefland
University of Michigan
Dr. Dale Jorgenson
Harvard University
Dr. Paul Joskow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Catherine Klin
Iowa State University
Dr. Richard Norgaard
University of California-Berkeley
Dr. Richard Revesz,
New York University
Dr. Jason Shogren
University of Wyoming
Dr. Hilary Sigman
Rutgers University
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 25
3.6.1 BACKGROUND
T:
ihe EEAC provides advice to the
Administrator on cross-cutting
guidance for EPA's office that conduct analyses
of economics, cost, and benefits of
environmental regulations. The Committee
also advises the Agency on its economic
research efforts. On occasion, the Committee
provides independent advice and peer reviews
to EPA's Administrator on the technical aspects
of specific economic analyses that are used in the
development of regulations or other Agency
initiatives. All parts of the Agency are
potentially clients for the Committee.
3.6.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
ihe EEAC held one face-to-face
meeting in FY2001.
Topics during the meeting included:
(a) Discussion of Premature Mortality
Valuation (PMV) Issues
b) EPA's Plans for Implementing
Executive Order 13141 Environmental
Review of Trade Agreements
A total of two consultants were
involved in these activities.
3.6.3 PRODUCTS
T
he Committee issued a Notification
of Consultation
(a) Trade and the Environment, An EPA Science
Advisory Board Notification of a
Consultation
(EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-01-003)
3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE (EEC)
EEC Members
Chair: Dr. Hilary Inyang, University of North Carolina-Charlotte
Dr. H. Barry Dellinger
Louisana State University
Dr. Terry Foecke
Waste Reduction Institute
Dr. Domenico Grasso
Smith College
Dr. Michael Kavanaugh
Malcolm Pirnie Inc.
Dr. Byung Kim
Ford Motor Company
Dr. John Maney
Environmental Measurements Assessment
Dr. Michael McFarland
Utah State University
Dr. Thomas Theis
Clarkson University
Dr. Valerie Thomas
Princeton University
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 26.
Annual Report
3.7.1. BACKGROUND
T!
ihe EEC is one of the original five
SAB committees. The interests/
responsibilities of this interdisciplinary
Committee, anchored by the presence and
leadership of environmental engineers, have
grown to include such cross-Agency issues as
industrial ecology, technology diffusion, and
implementation of the Quality System.
3.7.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
ihe EEC and its Subcommittees
conducted two face-to-face meetings
and 13 publicly accessible conference calls. The
EEC used 13 consultants in FY 2001.
3.7.3 PRODUCTS
T
he EEC's work resulted in the
following advice being submitted to
the Administrator:
(a) Monitored Natural Attenuation: USEPA
Research Program — An EPA Science
Advisory Board Review
(EPA-SAB-EEC-01-004)
(b) EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
Commentary Resulting from a
Workshop on the Diffusion and Adoption
of Innovations in Environmental
Protection
(EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-001)
(c) Measures of Environmental Technology
Performance: a Commentary by the
EPA Science Advisory Board
(EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-OOS)
(d) Notification of a Consultation on
Environmental Systems Management
Research
(EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-01-006)
Appendix BS contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB Website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 27
3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE (EHC)
EHC Members
Chair: Dr. Mark Utell, University of Rochester Medical Center
Dr. Cynthia Bearer
Case Western Reserve University
Dr. John Doull
University of Kansas Medical Center
Dr. Paul Foster
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Dr. David Hoel
University of South Carolina
Dr. Abby Li
Monsanto Life Sciences
Dr. George Lambert
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson University
Dr. Grace Lemasters
University of Cincinnati
Dr. Ulrike Luderer
University of California-Irvine
Dr. Roy Shore
New York University
3.8.1 BACKGROUND
T!
ihe EHC, one of the original five
SAB Committees, now shares
responsibilities for the review of health effects-
related issues with several Committees of the
Board (DWC, IHEC, RAG, and CASAC). Over
the past several years, the principal focus for the
EHC has been on issues related to development
and use of guidelines for health risk
assessments, rather than the review of agent-
specific
assessments which had previously been a major
activity.
3.8.2 ACTIVITIES
T
he EHC, in conjunction with the
IHEC, conducted 1 face-to-face
meeting during FY 2001. The Joint
Committees reviewed the Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air's (ORIA) draft methodology to
generate an "order-of-magnitude" screening-
level ranking and selection of key air toxics
indoors. 1 Consultant was used for this review.
3.8.3 PRODUCTS
T
he report for the above referenced
meeting is in preparation.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 28.
Annual Report
3.9 INTEGRATED HUMAN EXPOSURE COMMITTEE (IHEC)
IHEC Members
Chair: Dr. Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services
Dr. Annette Guiseppi-Elie
DuPont Engineering
Dr. Robert Harley
University of California
Dr. Michael Jayjock
Rohm and Haas Co.
Dr. Lovell Jones
University of Texas
Dr. Michael Lebowitz
University of Arizona
Dr. Randy Maddalena
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Dr. Rebecca Parkin
The George Washington University
Dr. Barbara Petersen
Novigen Sciences, Inc.
Dr. Jed M. Waldman
Calfornia Department of Health Services
Dr. David Wallinga
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Dr. Charles Weschler
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
3.9.1 OVERVIEW
i:
[n 1996, the Executive Committee
established the Integrated Human
Exposure Committee (IHEC) in growing
recognition of the need for the Agency -- and
the Board -- to consider risk factors, including
exposure, in a more holistic fashion. The IHEC
was essentially a re-naming of the Indoor Air
Quality Committee (IAQC) that was formed in
response to a Congressional determination
(Superfund Act of 1986) that the actual
exposure, including indoor air, of the human
population to various environmental agents is a
key factor in determining the nature and extent
of possible health risks.
3.9.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
IHEC, in conjunction with the
EHC, conducted 1 face-to-face
meeting during FY 2001. The Joint Committees
reviewed the Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air's (ORIA) draft methodology to generate an
"order-of-magnitude" screening-level ranking
and selection of key air toxics indoors. One
Consultant was used for this review.
3.9.3 PRODUCTS
T
he report for the above referenced
meeting is in preparation.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report.
page 29
3.10 RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dr. Lynn Anspaugh
University of Utah
Dr.VickiBier1
University of Wisconsin
Dr. Bruce Boecker
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Dr. Gilles Bussod
Consultant
Dr. Thomas F. Gesell
Idaho State University
RAC Members
Chair: Dr. Janet Johnson, Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Dr. Richard Hornung
University of Cincinnati
Dr. Jill Lipoti
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Dr. John Poston
Texas A&M University
Dr. Genevieve Roessler
Consultant
3.10.1 BACKGROUND
T!
ihe RAC is one of the original SAB
Committees. Throughout its
history, the RAC has had the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air as a principal customer.
Over the years, the emphasis given to radiation
issues at the Agency has slackened. At the same
time, there has been an increase in the attention
that the Agency gives to inter-agency aspects of
radiation protection. As a consequence, EPA is
actively involved in a number of joint projects
with other significant players in the radiation
field; e.g., the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Department of Energy, and
the Department of Defense. The products of
several of these inter-agency efforts have been
jointly brought to the RAC for critical,
independent peer review.
3.10.2 ACTIVITIES
T,
[-n FY 2001, the RAC conducted 1 face-
.to-face meeting. The Committee
involved 5 Consultants in their work during the
course of the year.
This meeting addressed the following
issues:
(a) The Interagency Steering Committee on
Radiation Standards' (ISCORS) draft
guidance document for sewage
treatment plant operators on dealing
with radioactive material in sewage
sludge.
(b) Planning for review of the Multi-Agency
Radiological Laboratory Protocols
(MARLAP) review
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 30.
3.10.3 PRODUCTS
T
hree reports were submitted to the
EPA Administrator in FY 2001:
(a) Advisory on EPA's Proposed Approach for
Evaluating Occurrence and Risks of
Technologically Enhanced Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material
(TENORM)
(EPA-SAB-RAC- AD V-01-001)
(b) Advisory on ORIA's Use and Adaptation of
The GENII Version 2 Environmental
Annual Report
Radiation Dosimetry System
(EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-01-002)
(c) Advisory on the Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards'
(ISCORS) Proposed Sewage Sludge
Dose Modeling Scenarios
(EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-01-003)
Appendix BS contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available on
the SAB website, http://ww.epa.gov/sab.
3.11 RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RSAC)
RSAC Members
Dr. Raymond Loehr, University of Texas
Dr. William Adams
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.
Dr. Richard Bull
MoBull Consulting
Dr. Philip Hopke
Clarkson University
Dr. Alan Maki
EXXON Mobil
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Maria Morandi
University of Texas
Dr. Ishwar Murarka
ISH, Inc.
Dr. William Seeker
General Electric Energy & Env Research Corp
Dr. William Smith
Yale University
Dr. Mark Utell
University of Rochester Medical Center
Dr. James E. Watson
University of North Carolina
Dr. Lauren Zeise
3.11.1 BACKGROUND
T:
RSAC advises the Agency and
Congress on the overall EPA Science
and Technology (S&T) Budget, as well as the
Agency's overarching science programs and
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
policies (e.g., STAR program, peer review
policy, etc.). Each spring RSAC conducts its
review of the President's budget request for the
following fiscal year and testifies before the
House Committee on Science and Technology's
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.
RSAC also provides advice to EPA as requested.
An important RSAC role is to be a
"Dutch Uncle" and "spokesperson" for long-term
science at EPA. Being both a regulatory and
science Agency, RSAC helps the Agency find
ways to use science for its immediate and
intermediate needs and also helps it maintain a
long-term science program by providing advice
and reminders about the need to stay the course
on key areas of science.
All natural science SAB Committees are
represented on RSAC. Generally, RSAC
members serve or have served on other SAB
Committees and tend to be more senior than
the members of other SAB committees. This
experience insures that the Committee is
familiar with EPA operations, its science needs,
and how " Big" science is budgeted and
conducted.
3.11.2 ACTIVITIES
T:
RSAC conducted 5 face-to-face
meetings and 1 teleconference
meeting during the year. There were no
Consultants involved in these efforts.
Among the issues addressed at these
meetings were the following:
(a) EPA's Peer Review Process
(b) Research Partnerships
(c) Performance Aspects of Multi-Year
Plans
(d) The President's FY 2002 Science and
page 31
Technology Budget for EPA
(e) National Program Directors
In May, Dr. Randall Seeker, RSAC
Member, testified before the Subcommittee on
Environment, Technology, and Standards of the
House Science Committee on the RSAC's
review of the President's Budget Request for
Science and Technology at USEPA.
3.11.3 PRODUCTS
T:
ihe RSAC efforts resulted in 2 full
reports, 1 commentary and 3
consultations being submitted to the EPA
Administrator in FY 2001:
(a) FY 2002 Presidential Science and Technology
Budget Request for the Environmental
Protection Agency: An SAB Report
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-01-005)
(b) Implementation of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Peer Review
Program: An SAB Evaluation of Three
Reviews
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-01-009)
(c) Commentary on National Program Directors
in ORD for Managing Large
Crosscutting Programs
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-01-002)
(d) Consultation on Office of Research and
Development's National Program
Director Program
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-01-001)
(e) Consultation on Multi-year Planning and
Performance Metrics for Science at EPA
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-01-002)
(f) Office of Inspector General's Pilot Project to
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 32.
Improve the Use of Science for
Decisions: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Notification of
Consultation
(EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-01-007)
Annual Report
Appendix B4 contains abstracts of these
documents; complete documents are available
on the SAB website, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report,
M
page 33
4.0 PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
of FY 2002 will revolve around
SAB's reaction to the GAO
report. The SAB Staff is working with a
subcommittee of the Executive Committee [the
Policies and Procedures Subcommittee (PPS)] on
a first draft of operating procedures that are
being put into place. These steps are outlined on
the SAB website (www.epa.gov/SAB) and
include but are not limited to the following:
a. A more public -- and more extensive
-- solicitation of names of candidates for
membership on SAB panels and
committees.
b. A more open and public process for
getting input on potential members
before final selections are made.
c. A more thorough examination,
consideration, and documentation of
possible COI issues.
d. A more uniform and informative
process for informing SAB panels and the
public about backgrounds of SAB panel
members.
Some of these steps have already been
introduced in FY 2001. It is clear from this
experience that these procedures -- coupled with
greater scrutiny by the SAB EC (cf., its PPS
subcommittee) and the public -- will be an added,
but necessary, burden for the Staff. This added
administrative load is projected to reduce the
output of the SAB by as much as 30%.
At the same time, there is the promise
that FY 2002 will see more systematic, high-level
engagement in the setting of SAB's agenda. For
example, the EC believes that the current process
can be improved, reflecting a growing concern
that the right projects might not be coming to the
SAB, per se, and that the Board's agenda lacks a
compelling, integrating strategic structure. The
Agency's Science Policy Council (SPC) is
understanding of the problem. They share the
concern that increased administrative burdens
amplify the need to insure that limited resources
of the Board are focused on the most important
issues. The intent is to have a session with
Dr. Glaze early in the year in order to anticipate
future SAB projects and the kinds of expertise
needed to address those future projects.
Following up on discussions at the
Strategic Planning Retreat in FY 2001, Dr. Glaze
intends to explore possible options for a structure
of the Board that will more closely align with the
needs of the Agency and will deliver advise in a
more timely manner. Options include, but are
not limited to, the following:
a. Developing "clusters" of related
activities, rather than reiving solely on
J o J
static committees.
b. Conducting more ad hoc panels (some
of which may have an on-going function;
cf. , Environmental Models
Subcommittee), and
c. Initiating more self-initiated activities
that move the Agency beyond current
realm of thinking.
On the Staff front, FY 2002 will see
hardware changes (e.g., acquisition of laptops for
DFO use) and software changes (e.g., further
refinement of the Lotus Notes-based People
DataBase). For the benefit of the M/Cs and the
public, as well as the Staff, the much-used and
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 34.
Annual Report
increasingly crowded SAB website will be
redesignedto provide more information in a more
accessible arrangement. This change will be the
secondmajor redesign of the SAB website since its
introduction in 1995, and bespeaks of the growth
in the utilization and effectiveness of this maturing
technology. In addition, plans are underway to
capitalize on "meeting-at-a-distance" options
presented by the Internet and associated advances
in software capability. The intent is to reduce the
rigors and expense of travel on already weary
M/Cs, without sacrificing the quality transfer of
technical information. In addition, we seek to
minimize the inevitable reduction in benefits of
social interaction and to maximize the extent of
public participation.
The Staff has also targeted improvement
of files management and completion of its Quality
Management Plan for FY 2002.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page A-1
APPENDIX A
SAB's STRUCTURE & AUTHORITIES
Al. Organizational Chart
A2. Introduction to Charters
A2.1 EPA Science Advisory Board Charter
A2.2 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Charter
A2.3 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Charter
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-2
Annual Report
Al
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Qjt jtiti jai:r Gcrta1. Cfeairal tnJrr Sabai
139 rf CM. if 1977
idatizL by Ti-Jt IV of
f-SL
COUNCIL
\
rrrrr"'
L^,LL\_^
CASAC
\
DWC
/
/
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
/ Cta^^BBMA-.m
EPEC
IHEC:
EEAC
/
- EHC
\
RAC RSAG
-- PJ A Fifi-^ci m 1 •> 3S
—T'^in.ui AJixeif .lumwa-h T1-S*il—f.-
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~ page A-3
A2
INTRODUCTION TO CHARTERS
The EPA Science Advisory Board was formally chartered in 1978 by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA). The Board is a Federal Advisory
Committee and must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The SAB is a
Congressionally mandated and a FACA-chartered advisory committee, currently consisting of 10
Committees (Appendix B), coordinated by an Executive Committee.
The Charter requires formation of an Executive Committee and inclusion of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
(COUNCIL) (Appendix A). Otherwise, the Board may organize itself as needed to meet its
responsibilities. It must comply with FACA (5 U.S.C.) and related regulations. The charters must be
renewed every two years, announce its meetings in the Federal Register, and provide opportunities for
public comment on issues before the Board. CASAC and COUNCIL are independently chartered FACA
committees. As such, they report directly to the Administrator. However, they are administratively
housed within the SAB and their Chairs participate as fully integrated members of the SAB Executive
Committee.
An advisory committee charter is intended to provide a description of a committee's mission,
goals, and objectives. It also provides a basis for evaluating a committee's progress and its effectiveness.
The advisory committee charter must contain the following information:
(1) The committee's official designation;
(2) The objectives and the scope of the committee's activity
(3) The period of time necessary to carry out the committee's purpose(s)
(4) The agency or official to whom the committee reports
(5) The agency responsible for providing the necessary support to the committee
(6) A description of the duties for which the committee is responsible and specification of the
authority for any non-advisory functions
(7) The established annual operation costs to operate the committee in dollars and person
years
(8) The estimated number and frequency of committee meetings
(9) The planned termination date, if less than 2 years from the date of establishment of the
committee
(10) The name of the individual and/or organization responsible for fulfilling the provisions of
section 6(b) of FACA, which requires a report to the Congress one year after a
Presidential advisory committee provides public recommendations to the President;
and
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageA-4 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_ Annual Report
(11) The date the committee charter is filed.
A2.1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CHARTER
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
EPA Science Advisory Board
2. Authority:
This charter renews the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App § 9 (c). SAB is in the public interest and
supports EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities. The former EPA Science Advisory Board,
administratively established by the Administrator of EPA on January 11. 1974. was terminated in 1978
J J -J J
when the Congress created the statutorily mandated EPA Science Advisory Board by the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA) of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 4365.
The EPA Science Advisory Board charter was renewed October 31, 1979; November 19, 1981;
November 3, 1983; October 25, 1985; November 6, 1987; November 8, 1989, November 8, 1991,
November 8, 1993, November 8, 1995, and November 7, 1997.
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
The objective of the Board is to provide independent advice and peer review to EPA's
Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental problems and issues. While the
Board reports to the Administrator, it may also be requested to provide advice to U. S. Senate
Committees and Subcommittees and U.S. House Committees and Subcommittees, as appropriate. The
Board will review scientific issues, provide independent scientific and technical advice on EPA's major
programs, and perform special assignments as requested by Agency officials and as required by the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~ page A-5
The major objectives are to review and provide EPA advice and recommendations on:
a. The adequacy and scientific basis of any proposed criteria document, standard, limitation,
or regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or any other authority of the Administrator
b. The scientific and technical adequacy of Agency programs, guidelines, documents,
methodologies, protocols, and tests
c. New or revised scientific criteria or standards for protection of human health and the
environment
d. Matters as required under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 and 1990, through the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis
e. New information needs and the quality of Agency plans and programs for research,
development and demonstration
f. The relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic pollution sources
As appropriate, the SAB consults and coordinates with:
a. The Scientific Advisory Panel established by the Administrator pursuant to section 21 (b)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended; and other Agency
FACA Committees; and
b. Other Federal advisory groups, as appropriate, to conduct the business of the Board
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of the SAB are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will report with its advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this support will
be provided by the Office of the Administrator.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageA-6 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_ Annual Report
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the SAB is $2,143,900 which includes 16.70
work-years of support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
There will be approximately fifty (SO) meetings of SAB's standing committees and specialized
subcommittees each year. Meetings may occur approximately four (4) to five (5) times a month, or as
needed and approved by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). EPA may pay travel and per diem
expenses when determined necessary and appropriate. A full-time or permanent part-time employee of
EPA will be appointed as the (DFO). The DFO or a designee will be present at all meetings and each
meeting will be conducted in accordance with an agenda approved in advance by the DFO. The DFO is
authorized to adjourn any meeting when he or she determines it in the public interest to do so. Among
other things, FACA requires open meetings and an opportunity for interested persons to file comments
before or after such meetings, or to make statements to the extent that time permits.
9. Duration and Termination:
The SAB will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective until November 8,
2001, at which time it may be renewed for another two-year period.
10. Member Composition:
The SAB's Executive Committee will be composed of approximately seventeen (17) members,
who are the chairs of SAB's standing committees, chairs from the separately chartered Advisory Council
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, and at-large
members. Most members will serve as Special Government Employees. Members will be selected from
among, but are not limited to; independent scientists, engineers, and economists to provide a range of
expertise required to assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues.
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form SAB subcommittees or workgroups for any purpose consistent with this charter.
Such subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the chartered committee.
Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered committee
nor can they report directly to the Agency.
November 2, 1999
Agency Approval Date
November 8, 1999
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page A-7
Date Filed with Congress
A2.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
2. Authority:
This charter renews the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) in accordance with
the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2
§ 9 (c). CASAC is in the public interest and supports EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities.
EPA was specifically directed by law on August 7, 1977 under § 109 of the Clean Air Act, as amended
[ACT], 42 U.S.C. 7409) to establish this committee. The charter has been renewed every two years,
with the last renewal on August 6, 1999.
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
CASAC will provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical
aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, source of
air pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality.
The major objectives are to:
a. Not later than January 1, 1980, and at five year intervals thereafter, complete a review
of the criteria published under § 108 of the Clean Air Act and the national primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards and recommend to the Administrator any new
national ambient air quality standards or revision of existing criteria and standards as may
be appropriate
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageA-8 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_ Annual Report
Advise the Administrator of areas where additional knowledge is required concerning the
adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised national ambient air quality standards
Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information
d. Advise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of
natural as well as anthropogenic activity
e) Advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or
energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance
of such national ambient air quality standards
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of CASAC are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will submit advice and recommendations and report to the EPA Administrator.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this support will
be provided by the EPA Science Advisory Board, Office of the Administrator.
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the CASAC is $396,372 which includes 1.9
work-years of support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The committee expects to meet approximately three (3) to six (6) times a year. Meetings may
occur approximately once every two (2) to four (4) months or as needed and approved by the Designated
Federal Officer (DEO). EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses when determined necessary and
appropriate. A full-time or permanent part-time employee of EPA will be appointed as the (DEO). The
DEO or a designee will be present at all meetings and each meeting will be conducted in accordance with
an agenda approved in advance by the DEO. The DEO is authorized to adjourn any meeting when he or
she determines it is in the public interest to do so. As required by FACA, CASAC will hold open
meetings unless the Administrator determines that a meeting or a portion of a meeting may be closed to
the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section SS2b of title 5, United States Code. Interested
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~ page A-9
persons are permitted to attend meetings, appear before the committee, or file comments with
CASAC.
9. Duration and Termination:
CASAC will be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be in effect for two years from
the date it is filed with Congress. After this two-year period, the charter may be renewed in accordance
with Section 14 of FACA (5 U.S.C. App.2 § 14).
10. Member Composition:
CASAC will be composed of seven (7) members. The Administrator will appoint a Chairperson
and six members including at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and
one person representing State air pollution control agencies. Members shall be persons who have
demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in the scientific/technical fields
relevant to air pollution and air quality issues. Most members will serve as Special Government
Employees (SGE).
11. Subgroups:
CASAC, on its own initiative or at EPA's request, may form subcommittees or workgroups for
any purpose consistent with this charter. Such subcommittees or workgroups may not work
independently of the chartered committee. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make
decisions on behalf of the chartered committee nor can they report directly to the Agency.
August3, 2001
Agency Approval Date
August 17. 2001
Date Filed with Congress
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-10 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_ Annual Report
A2.3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CHARTER
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
1. Committee's Official Designation (Title):
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
2. Authority:
This charter renews the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council) in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.
App. § 9 (c). The Council is in the public interest and supports the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in performing its duties and responsibilities. The Council was specifically directed
under § 812 of the Clean Air Act, as amended on November IS, 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.).
3. Objectives and Scope of Activities:
The Council will provide advice, information and recommendations on technical and
economic aspects of analyses and reports which EPA prepares concerning the impacts of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) on the public health, economy, and environment of the United States.
The major objectives required of the Council by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
November IS, 1990 are:
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~ page A-l 1
a. Review data to be used for any analysis required under section 812 and make
recommendations on its use.
b. Review the methodology used to analyze such data and make recommendations on
the use of such methodology.
c. Prior to the issuance of a report to Congress required under Section 812, review
the findings of the report and make recommendations concerning the validity and
utility of such findings.
At EPA's request, the Council will:
d. Review other reports and studies prepared by EPA relating to the benefits and
costs of the CAA.
e. Provide advice on areas where additional knowledge is necessary to fully evaluate
the impacts of the CAA and the research efforts necessary to provide such
information.
4. Description of Committees Duties:
The duties of the Council are solely advisory in nature.
5. Official(s) to Whom the Committee Reports:
The Committee will report to, and provide advice and recommendations to, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Agency Responsible for Providing the Necessary Support:
EPA will be responsible for financial and administrative support. Within EPA, this
support will be provided by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB).
7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Work Years:
The estimated annual operating cost of the Council is $199,000 which includes 1.7 work-years of
support.
8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The Council expects to meet approximately two (2) to four (4) times a year. Meetings
will likely occur approximately once every three (3) to six (6) months, or as needed and approved
by the Designated Federal Officer (DEO). EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses as
determined necessary and appropriate by the DEO. A full-time or permanent part-time EPA employee
will be appointed as DEO. The DEO or a designee will be present at all meetings, and each meeting will
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page A-12 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_ Annual Report
be conducted in accordance with an agenda approved in advance by the DFO. The DFO is
authorized to adjourn any meeting when he or she determines it in the public interest to do so.
Among other things, FACA requires open meetings and an opportunity for interested persons to
file comments before or after such meetings, or to make statements to the extent that time
permits.
9. Duration and Termination:
The Council will be needed on a continuing basis, and may be renewed upon the
expiration of each successive two year period following the date of enactment of the CAA (as
amended on November IS, 1990), as authorized in accordance with § 14 of FACA.
10. Member Composition:
The Council will be composed of at least 9 members. Most members will serve as Special
Government Employees (SGE), subject to conflict-of-interest restrictions. Members will be selected
from among, but are not limited to, recognized experts from the fields of health and environmental
effects of air pollution, economics analysis, environmental sciences.
11. Subgroups:
EPA may form Council subcommittees or workgroups for any purpose consistent with
this charter. Such subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the chartered
committee. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the
chartered committee nor can they report directly to the Agency.
November 6. 2000
Agency Approval Date
November 27. 2000
Date Filed with Congress
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page B-l
APPENDIX B
SAB ACTIVITIES & PRODUCTS
B1. SAB FACA Meetings for FY 2001
B2. SAB Activities for Fiscal Years 1997 - 2001
B3. SAB FY 2001 Products
B4. Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories and Commentaries
B5. Time-to-Completion
B6. Accessing SAB Reports and Notification of SAB Meetings
B7. Abstracts of the SAB Lecture Series - "Science & the Human Side of
Environmental Protection"
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-2
Annual Report
El
SAB MEETINGS FOR FY 2001
Glossary of Acronyms for the EPA Science
Advisory Board
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
COUNCIL Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis
AQMS Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee
HEES Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee
DWC Drinking Water Committee
EC Executive Committee
EEAC Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
EEC Environmental Engineering Committee
EHC Environmental Health Committee
EPEC Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
IHEC Integrated Human Exposure Committee
IRP Integrated Risk Project
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RROS Risk Reduction Options Subcommittee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Note: * mdcatES teleconferences; all other meetings are face to face.
Alliwetings were held in V&hcngon, DC unless otherwise noted
First Quarter
October 12-13
• October 25
• October 27
November 1-2
November 1-2
December 5-7
December 12-13
December 12-14
Committee
CASAC
EEC
RSAC
EC
EC Subcomm.
EEC
RSAC
RAC
Topicfs)
Diesel Health Assessment II
Natural Attenuation
Budget Preparation & Peer Review
Implementation
Review Meeting & Science and
Stakeholder Involvement
Dioxin
Committee Planning
ORD Strategic Plan 2000, Peer Review
Implementation & Committee
Planning
MARLAP Planning & ISCORS Draft
Sewage Sludge Modeling Report
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
Second Quarter
* January 10
January 22
-* J
* January 23
• February 1
February 5-6
* February 21
• March 1
March 6-7
March 7
March 20-21
March 22
March 21-23
Third Quarter
• April 3
April 9-11
• April 18
April 20
• April 23
• April 24
May 1-2
• May 2
• May 14
May 14
May IS
Committee
EEC
CASAC
EC Subcommittee
EC
EC
EC Subcommittee
EEC
RSAC
EEC
EC Subcommittee
EC Subcommittee
EEC
Committee
EPEC
EC
EEC
EPEC
EC Subcommittee
EC Subcommittee
RSAC
EEC
CASAC
EC Subcommittee
EC
B-3
Topicfs)
Industrial Ecology, Environmental
Systems Management Research
& Contaminated Sediments
Particle Monitoring Program
2,3,7,8 -Tetracholorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
Review Meeting
Review Meeting
NATA
Industrial Ecology & Environmental
Systems Management Research
Peer Review Policy Implementation,
Science Plan, Strategic Plan
2000, Budget Review
Preparation & Performance
Metrics
Risk Reduction Options & Committee
Planning
NATA
Science and Stakeholder Involvement
Industrial Ecology & Environmental
Systems Management Research
Topicfs)
STAR Waters and Watersheds
SAB Strategic Retreat (Non-FACA)
Industrial Ecology & Environmental
Systems Management Research
STAR Waters and Watersheds
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
(Non-FACA)
NATA (Non-FACA)
Budget Review
Briefings and Updates on Subcommittee
Activities
Fine Particle Report from the CASAC
Technical Subcommittee on Fine
Particle Monitoring &
Committee Planning
NATA (Non-FACA)
Review Meeting (2,3,7,8-
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-4
May 22
May 23
May 23-24
May 25
May 25
June 1
June 11-12
June 12-13
• June 13
• June 22
• June 25
• June 26
June 26-27
Fourth Quarter
• July 2
July 9-10
July 10
July 11
July 17-18
July 18-20
July 19
July 19-20
July 19-20
EEC Subcommittee
EC
EC Subcommittee
EC Subcommittee
EEAC
EPEC
EC Subcommittee
DWC
EC Subcommittee
COUNCIL
COUNCIL/HEES
EEC
RSAC
Committee
COUNCIL/AQMS
COUNCIL
EEC Subcommittee
EEC
EC
EPEC
EEC
IHEC/EHC
EC Subcommittee
Annual Report
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin &
RSAC Budget Review)
Industrial Ecology
Review Meeting (ISCORS Sewage
Sludge, GENII Version 2.0 &
Science and Stakeholder
Involvement Workshop)
Understanding Public Values and
Attitudes Related to Ecological
Risk Management (Non-FACA)
NATA (Non-FACA)
The Benefits of Premature Morality Risk
Reduction, Trade and
Environment & BEN Model
STAR Waters and Watersheds
Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards (STAA)
Candidate Contaminant List (CCL)
Research Plan & Microbial
Risk Assessment Paradigm
NATA
Section 812 Study - Planning Meeting
Section 812 Study
Surface Impoundments
Science Plan & Strategic Plan 2000
Topicfs)
Section 812 Study of the CAAA 1990
Planning Meeting
Review of Analytic Blueprint for the
Clean Air Act (CAA) 812
Section 812 Drafts Costs and
Benefits Report to Congress
Industrial Ecology
Review Meeting
Review Meeting & Cumulative Risk
Assessment Framework
Ecological Management Objectives &
Southeastern Ecological Framework
Surface Impoundment
Indoor Air Toxics Ranking
Arsenic Benefits Rule
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
July 23-24
• July 31
• August 9
• August 14
• August 27
August 27
August 29
August 29
September 5
September 17
September 17
September 25
September 26
CASAC
EC Subcommittee
COUNCIL
EC Subcommittee
EC
EEC
EC Subcommittee
RSAC
EEC
EC
EEC
DWC
DWC
B-5
Particulate Matter (PM) Criteria
Document & PM Staff Paper
NATA (Non-FACA)
Section 812 Study
Arsenic Benefits Rule
Review Meeting (Arsenic Benefits Rule,
STAA Commentary & Peer
Review Program)
Surface Impoundments
NATA
Characteristics of Science used in Agency
Rulemaking
Industrial Ecology & Risk Reduction
Options
Review Meeting (NATA Assessment,
Eco Mgmt. Objectives, STAR
Watersheds & Indoor Air Toxics)
Surface Impoundments
Stage II Disinfection/Disinfectant By-
Product Rule Proposal
Long-Term Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule Proposal
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-6
Annual Report
B2
SAB ACTIVITIES BY COMMITTEE FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997 - 2001
Committee
EC
^ww"^-vwv"v^*^.^^.^^^v
EC/ad hoc
Subcomm.
^^V^-^^^^*V^-Vw%*«V^
COUNCIL
^AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA,
Fisca
1
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
•"w^^-V-V"^-.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
«w%*-^-^^^^..
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
•NAAAAAA/W
Committee Activities1
Meetings Teleconferences
Total
3
3
3
3
4
^•V^-V^V^-V^-V^
17
8
9
7
4
^^^^^V^^^^v
1
3
4
0
1
/WWNA/VSA/VSA/W
3
5
6
7
4
^vww^vv^-w-^^^vww^
10
0
1
2
6
^^^^•V^.^^^^^V.^^^^'V
6
0
2
2
4
A/WVWNA/WWSA/VWW
6
8
9
10
8
^•^•"w^^-V-V-^-V^
27
8
10
9
10
^•Vw%*-^^^^^^-
7
3
6
2
5
AAAAAAAAAAAA/
Number of Reports2
Full Short Total
0
0
0
0
0
^•^•"w-^-^-v.^
2
2
6
8
3
^•Vw^^^^-V
0
0
0
0
0
AAA/V\A/VNA/^
4
0
0
4
1
^^-V^.Wft-V-^.^'W
0
0
4
4
1
^.^^^^^^^^^/^^.^^^
3
2
3
3
1
^/VNA/VNA/VNA/V\A/V
4
0
0
4
1
^^^•-^^•vvwvv^^
2
2
10
12
4
^^•v^-^v^^^^v^
3
2
3
3
1
^AAAAA/VWWS^/S,
Report of tAe EPA Stimce Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report
B-7
SAB ACTIVITIES BY COMMITTEE FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997 - 2001
(CONTINUED)
Committee
CASAC
DWC
'X/WN/WN/SXWS/WS/VSS*
EPEC
'S'^rAi'N/S/VN/S/VXi'S/S/VS/V'iu'V''
EEAC
^A/VWWW^AAAAAAA/'
Fiscal
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
*\XS/WSX\XSXN*V^
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
****V>*S****i*S***>SV
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
^/VSAAA/VSAA*
Committee Activities1
Meetings Teleconferences
Total
1
3
3
4
3
1
2
2
3
1
'WN/\XSXN/V\/W\/VW
2
2
2
2
2
OV^^W^^IH'I.^^VI.^^W
0
2
2
2
1
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA*
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
2
/VS*^rA/VV%/S/Si'S/\li%/S/VVS«^lA/^»
0
0
1
0
0
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/
1
3
4
7
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
^V^^'D^^w^^i'V^^i''
0
2
3
2
1
AAAAAAA/VSAAAS
Number of Reports2
Full Short Total
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
fWNXWNSWSXSi
2
2
1
2
0
^vwV^^i>^V<^<,^>
0
1
2
2
0
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA/
Report of the EPA Stimce Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-8
Annual Report
SAB ACTIVITIES BY COMMITTEE FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997- 2001
(CONTINUED)
Committee
EEC
^^V^^^^-V^W-^.^^
EHC
IHEC
Fiscal
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
*s*s***s*s*s****s*.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Committee Activities1
Meetings Teleconferences
Total
3
6
4
4
2
^^V.^^W-^-^^-^v
1
3
0
1
.5
2
2
1
1
.5
0
0
1
8
14
^•^^•V^^^^^-^V.^^.^^'V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
5
12
16
r****s^sv^i****fxi*s*s
1
3
0
1
.5
2
2
1
1
.5
Number of Reports2
Full Short Total
3
4
1
1
1
^•Vw-^^^^-V
2
1
4
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
5
2
2
^^•^•^^v.^^v^^-v
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
4
5
6
3
3
^^•v^-^v^«^^^v^
3
1
4
1
0
1
2
4
1
0
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report
B-9
SAB ACTIVITIES BY COMMITTEE FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997 - 2001
(CONTINUED)
Committee
RAC
RSAC
Fiscal
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Committee Activities1
Meetings Teleconferences
Total
4
6
2
2
1
0
3
2
2
5
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
8
3
3
1
0
3
2
3
6
Number of Reports2
Full Short Total
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
1
4
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
6
1
3
0
2
1
2
3
EC
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
EEC
EHC
EPEC
IHEC
RAC
RSAC
Executive Committee
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Drinking Water Committee
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Environmental Health Committee
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Radiation Advisory Committee
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
1 Indicates face-to-face meetings and public teleconferences requiring notice in the Federal Register.
2 Reports are entered as Full Reports or Short Reports (which includes Letter Reports, Commentaries, and Advisories).
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-10-
Annual Report
B3
SAB FY 2001 PRODUCTS
FULL REPORTS
EPA-SAB-DWC-0 1-001
EPA-SAB-0 1-002
EPA-SAB-CASAC-0 1-003
EPA-SAB-EEC-0 1-004
EPA-SAB-RSAC-0 1-005
EPA-SAB-EC-0 1-006
EPA-SAB-EC-0 1-007
EPA-SAB-EC-0 1-008
EPA-SAB-RSAC-0 1-009
EPA Arsenic Proposed Drinking Water
Regulation: A EPA Science Advisory Board
Review of Certain Elements of the Proposal
EPA Science Advisory Board FY 2000 Annual
Report: Making Science Real
Review of EPA' s Health Assessment Document
for Diesel Exhaust (EPA 600/8-90-OS7E)
Monitored Natural Attenuation: USEPA Research
Program—An EPA Science Advisory Board
Review
FY 2002 Presidential Science and Technology
Budget Request for the Environmental Protection
Agency
Dioxin Reassessment - An SAB Review of the
Office of Research and Development's
Reassessment of Dioxin
Recommendations on the FY2000 Scientific and
Technological Achievement Award (STAA)
Nominations: An SAB Report
Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Review
Implementation of the EPA's Peer Review
Program : An SAB Evaluation of Three Reviews
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report
B-ll
SAB FY 2001 PRODUCTS (CONTINUED)
LETTER REPORT
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-0 1-001
Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document
for Particulate Matter (Second External Review
Draft) EPA 600/P-99/002bB: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Report
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-0 1-001
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-0 1-002
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-0 1-003
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-0 1-004
TENORM: Evaluating Occurrence and Risks - An
SAB Advisory
GENII Version II Environmental Radiation
Dosimetry System: An SAB Advisory
Radionuclides in Sewage Sludge: An SAB
Advisory
Review of the Draft Analytical Plan for EPA's
Second Prospective Analysis - Benefits and Costs
of the Clean Air Act, 1990-2020: An Advisory by
the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-001
EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-01-002
EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-01-003
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-0 1-004
Commentary Resulting from a Workshop on the
Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in
Environmental Protection
Commentary on National Program Directors in
ORD for Managing Large Crosscutting Programs
Exploring Opportunities for Accommodating
Emerging Technologies for Continuous
Monitoring in Routine Air Monitoring Networks
- A Commentary Stemming from a
CASAC/ Agency Workshop
Recommendations to Improve Visibility of the
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards
(STAA) Program: An SAB Commentary
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-12-
Annual Report
SAB FY 2001 PRODUCTS ( CONTINUED)
COMMENTARIES (continued)
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-OOS
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-01-006
Measures of Environmental Technology
Performance: A Commentary by the EPA Science
Advisory Board
Improved Science-Based Environmental
Stakeholder Processes
WORKSHOP REPORT
EPA-SAB-EC- WKSP-0 1 -00 1
Understanding Public Values and Attitudes
Related to Ecological Risk Management: An SAB
Workshop Report of an EPA/ SAB Workshop
CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-0 1 -00 1
EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-01-002
EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-01-003
EPA-SAB-EC-CON-0 1-004
EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-01-OOS
EPA-SAB-EEC-CON-01-006
EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-01-007
EPA-SAB-DWC-CON-01-008
Consultation on Office of Research and
Development's National Program Director
Program
Consultation on Multi-year Planning and
Performance Metrics for Science at EPA
Trade and the Environment, An EPA Science
Advisory Board Notification of a Consultation
Consultation on the Agency's Plans for a
Cumulative Risk Framework
Consultation on the Agency's Preliminary Staff
Paper and Risk Assessment Scoping Plan for
Particular Matter
Consultation on Environmental Systems
Management Research
Notification of a Consultation on the Office of the
Inspector General's Pilot Project to Improve the
Use of Science for Decisions
Revised Microbial Risk Assessment Framework:
An SAB Notification of a Consultation
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-13
B4
ABSTRACTS OF SAB REPORTS, ADVISORIES, COMMENTARIES
AND WORKSHOP REPORTS
FULL REPORTS
EPA Arsenic Proposed Drinking Water Regulation:
A EPA Science Advisory Board Review of Certain Elements of the Proposal
EPA-SAB-DWC-01 -001
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) met from June 5-7, 2000 and again on August 8, 2000 to
consider components of the Agency's proposal for a new Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic
in drinking water. The review was conducted by a panel (referred to in this report as the Panel)
composed of the twelve members of the SAB's Drinking Water Committee (DWC) to which was added
five consultants who provided expertise to supplement that possessed by the DWC members. The
current MCL for arsenic is SO mg/L, and the proposed rule would lower that to 5 mg/L. The proposal
also requests comments on alternatives of 3, 10 and 20 mg/L.
This report has two parts. The basic report provides the majority opinion supported by most of
the Panel members and consultants. The second is a minority report prepared after the Panel attempted
but was unable to agree on a single document that would provide a combined message giving both the
majority and minority views.
The major source document on arsenic's health effects used by the Panel was the 1999 National
Research Council's report on arsenic in drinking water (NRC, 1999). The Panel agreed with the major
conclusions in the 1999 NRC document, but it did go beyond the NRC conclusions in a few instances
where new information provided additional insight since the NRC review was completed. The SAB Panel
agreed that:
a) the existing national arsenic standard for drinking water (SO mg/L) is too high and should be
decreased;
b) setting a specific standard involves factors beyond just science issues, therefore, it is not
appropriate for the science advisors to determine such levels;
c) data from the ecological study conducted in Taiwan, though not ideal for risk assessment, are the
best available at this time for determining arsenic's carcinogenic dose-response;
d) the Agency should conduct a formal risk assessment that considers additional epidemiology studies
and population factors to the extent practicable, in order to improve the validity of the U.S.
assessment of arsenic risk from drinking water;
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-14 Annual Report
e) there is not now sufficient evidence for the Agency to abandon the linear-at-low-dose model,
although most data suggest that mechanisms that have been associated with arsenic are indeed
sub linear.
The report includes Attachments in which dissenting views are given by a consultant and a
member of the review Panel and comments entered into the official record by one member of the SAB
Executive Committee for a member of the public who served on the NRC Subcommittee.
In general, the Panel concluded that:
a) determining the forms of arsenic responsible for producing adverse effects has become more
complex since the publication of the NRC report thus focusing on total arsenic makes sense and
that determining the relative importance of food versus drinking water sources of arsenic is even
more difficult than in the past;
b) that EPA appears to have taken the modeling activity in the NRC report as being prescriptive
despite the clearly stated NRC intention that their efforts were illustrative and that conducting a
formal risk assessment with information on important factors not yet considered will be
important as will the results of well-designed epidemiology studies that measure exposure for
individuals in the study population;
c) the contribution of lung cancer to overall risk is about the same as that of arsenic's bladder cancer
risks;
d) that model selection for risk estimation influences the risk level obtained significantly as does that
the comparison population used in epidemiology studies;
e) that issuance of a health advisory to mothers who might use arsenic containing drinking water to
mix formula for their young infants was a policy decision for EPA and that if the choice is to go
forward, there are a number of considerations that will be important to obtaining the positive
result from the advisory that EPA intends;
f) that the Agency cost of compliance estimates appear low and might be higher if disposal options
assumed in the Agency analysis are not correct;
g) the technologies identified as best available technologies (BAT) have not been implemented or
optimized for arsenic removal at treatment plant scale and the outcome of their optimization for
arsenic removal is not clear;
h) that the technological and risk uncertainties could give EPA a reason to consider using an adaptive
management approach to arsenic regulation in drinking water;
i) that the cost of implementing the rule might make it difficult for small communities to make
overall risk tradeoffs to maximize public health activities having implications both for the risk
assessment in the U.S. (i.e., sensitive subpopulations) and for the risk management decision as
well (i.e., in terms of overall use of resources to maximize public health gains).
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report B-15
The minority view referred to above opposed a number of the reports provisions because of a belief that
if the advice were to be followed EPA actions would not protect children as expeditiously as possible.
EPA Science Advisory Board FY2000 Annual Staff Report
EPA-SAB-01-002
The EPA Science Advisory Board Staff's annual report captures the SAB's activities for FY 2000.
Review of EPA's Health Assessment Document for
Diesel Exhaust (EPA 600/8-90-057E)
EPA-SAB-CASAC-01 -003
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board
reviewed the July 2000 draft document, Health Assessment Document Jor Diesel Exhaust (EPA 600/8-
90/OS7E). This review followed reviews of previous drafts in 1995, 1998, and 1999. The Committee
found the July 2000 draft, pending key revisions agreed upon at the meeting (summarized below) and
numerous minor editorial changes, to be an adequate summary of current knowledge concerning the
health effects of diesel engine emissions.
The Panel approved of the general framework of the document. Two of the key issues raised at
the last review were satisfactorily addressed in accordance with the Committee's guidance. First, the
revision eliminated the use of a different health effect, immunological responses, as a basis for adjusting
the reference concentration (RfC) for non-cancer effects based on lung pathology. Second, the revision
changed the descriptive characterization of cancer hazard from long term environmental exposures from
"highly likely" to "likely".
It was agreed that two approaches would be taken to characterizing the level of long-term
environmental exposure considered acceptably free from significant non-cancer health risk. An RfC
would be derived as before, but including a factor for uncertainty in interspecies extrapolation and
resulting in a value of approximately 5 jig/m3. It was agreed that linkages between risks from diesel
particulate matter (DPM) and ambient PM would also be discussed, concluding that an annual NAAQS for
PM2 s would be considered adequately protective for ambient DPM.
The inclusion of a range of cancer risk values to provide a perspective on the possible range of
lung cancer risk from environmental exposures was debated. There were concerns that inclusion of the
range could be perceived as inconsistent with the decision not to adopt a unit risk value for cancer, and for
the likely misuse of the values despite Agency disclaimers. It was agreed that the range would be
included, but accompanied by clear caveats and disclaimers concerning the uncertainty of risk, the use of
the risk perspective values, and the fact that the possible lower end of the risk range includes zero.
With mixed recommendations from its consultants, the Committee reached unanimous closure
on the document, pending assurances that the above key revisions would be made and attention would be
given to incorporating numerous more minor changes suggested in the individual Panelist's comments.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-16 Annual Report
Monitored Natural Attenuation: USEPA Research Program-
An EPA Science Advisory Board Review
EPA-SAB-EEC-01 -004
MNA is a knowledge-based remedy where a proper engineering analysis informs the
understanding, monitoring, predicting, and documenting of the natural processes. The EPA Science
Advisory Board reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's research program for monitored
natural attenuation (MNA) of contaminants in groundwater, soils, and sediments; evaluated ORD's
research in terms of its scientific quality and its effectiveness and utility for promoting sound decisions
about the use of MNA as a remedy at specific sites; and assessed the applicability and limitations of the
EPA's guidance as expressed in the!998 Technical Protocol on MNA. In its review, the Subcommittee
made extensive use of the recent Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation (2000) published by
National Academy Press.
MNA is widely used for the remediation of contaminated sites. Scrupulous attention to site-
specific studies is required to document that processes that destroy or immobilize contaminants are well
understood and sufficiently documented to ensure an acceptable remedy.
Specifically, the Subcommittee found that the Agency's present research program is well-
established and scientifically sound. EPA research has contributed substantially to an improved
understanding of MNA and its applications. However, a great deal remains unknown and the EPA's
present research program is incommensurate with support of the widespread application of this remedy.
Significant additional focused research is needed to support the evaluation of MNA for application to
chlorinated solvents, fuel additives, inorganic compounds, and contaminated sediments or to soils and
sediments.
The Subcommittee's report provides recommendations to strengthen the science base through
the EPA research program on chlorinated solvents, fuel additives, inorganics, and sediments. The
improvement in the science basis should lead to improvement of frameworks and guidance.
FY 2002 Presidential Science and Technology Budget
Request for the Environmental Protection Agency
EPA-SAB-RSAC-01 -005
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
met May 1 and 2, 2001 to review the Science and Technology portion of the FY 2002 Presidential Budget
Request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The S&T component of the total Agency
budget has remained approximately 9% for more than a decade. RSAC notes that the current and future
environmental and health problems have become increasingly complex and multi-media. RSAC
recommends, therefore, that the Agency and Congress consider increasing the S&T share of the total
Agency budget by a modest but important additional 1% per year for the next three years from its
current level of 9% of the total Agency budget to 12% of the Agency's budget in FY '04. The
Presidential Science and Technology (S&T) budget request is similar to the level requested in the last
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report B-l 7
three years, and it is $39 million less than last year's enacted budget due to the EPA policy of not
requesting Congressional add-ons (earmarks). RSAC strongly recommends that if Congress adds specific
projects and programs for EPA, Congress also appropriate the funds needed for the successful completion
of those projects and programs as was done in the current fiscal year appropriations. RSAC commends
ORD on the development and implementation of its planning structure for research. The use of National
Program Directors to serve as a focus for coordination and developing strategy for addressing major issues
has been very effective and RSAC endorses continuation of this approach. RSAC recommends that the
criteria used for the classification of research activities as "core" or "problem-driven" should be clearly
stated and applied consistently. RSAC strongly recommends that the Agency be vigilant in defining and
maintaining core research needed to achieve a balanced S&T research program. RSAC notes that nearly
50% of the ORD workforce is over the age of SO, and to remain vital, the Agency must assemble the
next generation of its scientists and engineers. An important approach to accomplishing this is the post-
doctoral program, but it appears that this approach may be limited by the FTE ceiling imposed on ORD.
RSAC recommends that EPA explore possibilities to have the ORD FTE limits not apply to the number
of post-doctoral fellows who can be hired under this program. RSAC recognizes that there is more
science being conducted at EPA than is identified in the S&T budget. RSAC recommends that EPA
continue with its Science Inventory efforts which catalogue science projects and products, so as to capture
and identify the extent of science being done at EPA and expand the planning process to include
development of an overall science planning process for the Agency that uses the Science Inventory as a
reference. This inventory that should be updated at least annually, with appropriate adjustments to
multiyear plans, would make the Agency's direction in its research program much more understandable.
Dioxin Reassessment - An SAB Review of the Office of
Research and Development's Reassessment of Dioxin
EPA-SAB-EC-01-006
The SAB Dioxin Reassessment Review Subcommittee (DRRS) (of the SAB Executive
Committee) met on November 1 and 2, 2000 to review revised sections of the EPA draft document
Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds
(in addition, the DRRS met via public teleconference on January 23 and on April 23, 2001, to discuss
several issues that needed further resolution).
The DRRS concluded that EPA Staff provided a careful, thorough review of the voluminous
literature and it commended EPA for their efforts. The report addresses each of the specific charge
questions, provides suggestions for final revisions to the reassessment document, and points out
uncertainties that limit EPA's ability to communicate the magnitude of the health risks associated with
dioxin and related compounds. The Subcommittee believes that additional research is unlikely to bridge
many of the important data gaps in the foreseeable future, and recommends that the Agency proceed
expeditiously to complete and release its Risk Assessment, taking appropriate note of the findings and
recommendations of this DRRS report and other public comments.
Consistent with basic environmental policy, and recognizing the very long biological and
environmental persistence of dioxins, the Subcommittee believes that it is important that EPA continue
to try to limit emissions (and human exposure) to this class of chemicals. It is also critical for EPA to
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-18 Annual Report
closely examine current data and modeling gaps, and to develop a research plan to remedy them.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-19
Recommendations on the FY2000 Scientific and Technological
Achievement Award (STAA) Nominations: An SAB Report
EPA-SAB-EC-01-007
This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's EPA Science Advisory Board regarding the FY2000 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 126 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, Environmental Trends
for Drivers of Future Risk, Social Science Research, and Environmental Education). Of these, the
Subcommittee recommended 42 nominations (33 percent of the nominations) for awards, and also
recommended that 21 additional nominations be recognized with Honorable Mention. The authors whose
papers were recommended for awards this year represent the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI), Region VIII,
and IS 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.
Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: An EPA Science Advisory Board Review
EPA-SAB-EC-01-008
On July 19-20 and again in an August 14 meeting, the Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel
(ARBRP), a sub-committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board Executive Committee, reviewed the
report Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis. EPA asked the SAB to provide advice on how it
should address: (a) the latency of arsenic's cancer risks, (b) health endpoints other than bladder and lung
cancer that are poorly understood, (c) total benefits and costs and incremental benefits and costs, and (d)
uncertainties in the analysis. It also asked if it should evaluate reduction/elimination of exposure as a
separate benefits category, in addition to or in conjunction with mortality and morbidity reduction.
The Panel's report concluded that: (1) In regard to latency, the appropriate concept is the
cessation-lag between a reduction in exposure and a reduction in risk. The length of the cessation-lag
determines the number of cancer cases avoided each year after a policy is implemented. In the report,
the Panel suggested ways in which the length of the cessation-lag could be estimated and noted that the
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-20 Annual Report
assumption of a zero cessation-lag should be identified as yielding as upper bound to cancer cases avoided
by the regulation. (2) It
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-21
appears to be possible to quantify additional health endpoints including, mortality from ischemic heart
disease, diabetes mellitus, and skin cancer, and that the evidence is strong relating arsenic to these
endpoints. Although the strength of evidence is lower, the Panel recommends serious consideration be
given to quantification of benefits from reductions in prostate cancer, nephritis and nephrosis,
hypertension, hypertensive heart disease and non-malignant respiratory disease. (3) There are no data to
permit EPA to consider exposure reduction as a separate category of benefits in a benefit cost analysis for
arsenic. (4) In the primary analysis, benefits and costs should be calculated on a water supply system
basis, with the results summarized in a format that breaks them down by system size. Benefits associated
with different maximum contaminant levels should be presented in terms of cases of morbidity and
mortality avoided as well as in monetary terms, and the age distribution of cases avoided should be
presented whenever possible. (5) In the analysis of model uncertainty it is appropriate to rely on
sensitivity analysis; the assumptions underlying each sensitivity analysis should be clearly spelled out when
presenting results. For parameters for which it is possible to specify a probability distribution, a Monte
Carlo analysis is desirable.
The Panel also made a number of recommendations for improving the computation of benefits and
costs and for the presentation of results of the analyses by the Agency.
Implementation on the EPA's Peer Review Program Review:
An SAB Evaluation of Three Reviews
EPA-SAB-RSAC-01 -009
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
met June 25 and 26, 2001 to review examples that indicated the implementation of EPA's peer review
program. The committee was asked to address timeliness of the reviews, whether they make a
difference, to what extent the review comments are responded to and acted upon, and whether the
RSAC has additional comments or guidance for the Agency to improve the effectiveness of the peer
review process.
Based on its evaluation of the three examples and detailed discussion with EPA staff and
participants, the RSAC found that peer review is being extensively conducted by the Agency and is
clearly making a difference in those examples that were examined. For the three examples examined,
the RSAC found no obvious examples of lack of independence in the reviewers. An area of potential
improvement is the need to develop a uniform process for collecting, documenting and archiving
information on responses to peer review comments. The RSAC observed that while this was not the
focus of this review, there are important products which are not being peer reviewed. Among the
recommendations made, the RSAC recommended that the Agency develop an ongoing in-depth analysis
to more fully examine trends in the use of peer review at EPA, evaluate the impacts of the peer review
on decision making and explore additional opportunities for improving the benefits of the peer review
process over time at the Agency.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-22 Annual Report
LETTER REPORT
Review of the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter
(Second External Review Draft) EPA 600/P-99/002bB:
An EPA Science Advisory Board Report
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-01 -001
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviewed the March 2001 draft
document, Air Quality CriteriaJor Particulate Matter - Second External Review Draji. This was the second
CASAC review of the draft Criteria Document (CD) for particulate matter (PM) in the current cycle for
reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM. CASAC review of this
document is required by section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
The Committee was impressed with the revised version of the Draft Criteria Document as
compared to the version that it reviewed in December 1999. It is clear that the comments provided by
the Committee on the prior draft were seriously considered and efforts made to address the issues and
concerns that were raised. A large body of new literature has been published in the intervening time and
the staff has clearly made a substantial effort to incorporate as much of it as appropriate. The CASAC felt
that this version of the Draft represented a significant step toward achieving an acceptable summary of
the available science. The Committee was unanimous in its view that the document was not yet ready
for closure, but it was its opinion that appropriate modifications to the present document should permit
closure.
ADVISORIES
TENORM: Evaluating Occurrence and Risks: An SAB Advisory
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-01 -001
On April 25 - 27, 2000 the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAG) of the EPA Science Advisory
Board (SAB) reviewed three issue papers which describe Office of Radiation and Indoor Air's (ORIAs)
approach to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM). Issue
Paper #1 describes ORIA's general approach to TENORM; Issue Paper #2 provides a proposed outline
for a specific source, uranium mining; and Issue Paper #3 presents the proposed risk assessment
methodology. ORIA requested advice on the adequacy of its proposed approach, the application of the
approach to uranium mining, as described in Issue Paper #2, and its risk assessment methodology.
The RAC had difficulty responding to the questions posed by ORIA because the intent behind the
TENORM effort was not clear. With that reservation, the RAC agrees with ORIA's general approach.
However, the RAC recommends that ORIA provide a clear mission statement for the TENORM
program and define the types of materials to be included in its TENORM assessments, i.e., wastes only
or wastes and products. The RAC supports a broader interpretation of ORIA's mission and recommends
that it include products as well as wastes in TENORM assessments. Specific issues of concern include the
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^
-------
Annual Report B-23
lack of peer-reviewed publications regarding use of the PRESTO-EPA models for risk assessment,
differentiation between variability and uncertainty in the analyses, lack of inclusion of a recreational
scenario in the risk assessment, and potential interactions between hazardous materials and radionuclides
that may be present in TENORM sources.
GENII Version 2 Environmental Radiation Dosimetry System: An SAB Advisory
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-01 -002
At the request of the EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), the Radiation Advisory
Committee (RAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the GENII v.2 computer code
developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to perform dose and risk assessments of
environmental releases of radionuclides. The code builds a conceptual site model linking modules through
the FRAMES platform. The RAC found the GENII v.2 code to include appropriate modules and
concluded that FRAMES provides a reasonable and flexible platform. However, the RAC recommended
adding newer models to the GENII v.2 code, specifically for air dispersion and ground and surface water
transport of radionuclides as well as models capable of handling emergency conditions. The RAC was
concerned about the potential for non-transparent and unrealistically conservative (i.e., higher than more
realistic assumptions might produce) risk estimates.
The RAC commended ORIA for including the capability of providing stochastic estimates of risk
through the Sensitivity/Uncertainty Multimedia Modeling Module (SUM3) driver but questioned its
ability to investigate the degree of conservatism in the code, identify the importance of input parameters,
and provide useful measures of uncertainty.
In general, the RAC found the GENII v.2 code to be a useful addition to the dose and risk
assessment toolbox. The RAC suggested several strategies for making the code more user friendly,
including improvement in the documentation and User's Guide as well as providing training for potential
users. The RAC encouraged ORIA to develop a vision and an attendant mission statement for FRAMES
and GENII v.2 as a basis for evaluating these tools.
Radionuclides in Sewage Sludge: An SAB Advisory
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-01 -003
On December 12-14, 2000, the Radionuclides in Sewage Sludge Subcommittee (RSSS) of the
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) reviewed the dose modeling report of the Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards, Sewage Sludge Subcommittee (ISSS). This included advice on dose
modeling methodology, model selection, scenarios, approaches to obtaining modeling parameters and
distributions, and approaches for uncertainty.
The RSSS accepted the ISSS's decision to use the model RESRAD, but supported the use of other
radiation dose models for bench marking RESRAD's application to sewage sludge dose modeling. The
RSSS also accepted ISSS's use of radiation dose quantities, rather than risk, to express the impact of
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-24 Annual Report
radionuclides in sewage sludge. The RSSS recommended that the revised dose coefficients published in
ICRP 72 be used if feasible or, at a minimum, the possible effects of age on dose be considered. While
commending the ISSS for identifying a range of plausible radiation exposure scenarios, the RSSS identified
several exposure pathways that were not considered and recommended that regulatory requirements
concerning sludge disposition be integrated into the modeling effort to prevent use of unrealistic scenarios
or parameters. The RSSS recommended that the selection of parameters and their distributions, as well
as the sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, be better described and that a two-dimensional uncertainty
J J J J
analysis, addressing both variability and uncertainty, be considered. The RSSS made recommendations
beyond the charge to consider exposure to liquid effluent from POTWs, and to use SI units. The RSSS
made a general recommendation to update FGR-11 to reflect values in ICRP Publication 72.
Review of the Draft Analytical Plan for EPA's Second
Prospective Analysis-Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990-2020:
An Advisory by the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-01 -004
In this Advisory, the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board's Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis reviews the Agency's draft analytical plan for the second prospective analysis of the
costs and benefits of implementing the Clean Air Act for the period 2000 to 2020. The Agency has
undertaken this analysis as mandated by Section 812 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The Advisory comments on how to improve the Agency's process for developing 812 analyses.
These analyses are models for federal assessments of costs and benefits. The Advisory identifies areas for
key methodological enhancements in the analysis, including: a) the treatment of benefits to ecosystem
services, especially non-market services (beyond just commercially exploited natural resources); b)
assessment of the social costs of compliance (costs that go beyond just the direct compliance costs to
regulated entities); c) evaluation of the benefits and costs of regulating hazardous air pollutants; and d)
further disaggregation of benefits and costs.
The Advisory provides advice on how the Agency might disaggregate costs and benefits to best
inform policy decisions. The Panel applauds the Agency's efforts to incorporate uncertainty analyses with
respect to both benefits and costs and suggests approaches for conducting uncertainty analyses. Finally,
the Advisory identifies important areas in the analysis that could benefit from research, including credible
methods to quantify and monetize the effects of marginal changes in air pollution on ecosystem processes.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report B-25
COMMENTARIES
Commentary Resulting from a Workshop on the Diffusion and
Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01 -001
This Commentary reflects advice developed at an SAB Consultative Workshop held on June 28,
2000, by the Environmental Engineering Committee's Subcommittee on the Diffusion and Adoption of
Innovations in Environmental Protection. The purpose of the workshop was to provide specific advice to
the Office of Water and Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to identify how the use of data,
theories, and research methods derived from the study of the social process of diffusion and adoption of
innovations may improve the adoption of innovative approaches to environmental protection: a) within
EPA; b) by state, tribal, and local government partners; and c) by corporate and non-governmental
organization partners in environmental protection.
The Commentary goes beyond the specific advice provided to those program areas to address
more generally: a) the different frameworks and approaches available for understanding the diffusion
process at EPA; b) the principal barriers to diffusion and adoption of innovations; and c) how EPA can
effectively measure the success of its diffusion and dissemination efforts.
The Commentary states that the Agency would benefit substantially from a modest research and
demonstration effort aimed at utilizing current knowledge in the social sciences concerning strategies and
techniques of diffusing innovations.
Commentary on National Program Directors in ORD
for Managing Large Crosscutting Programs
EPA-SAB-RS AC-COM-01 -002
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
met on March 7, 2001 to conduct a consultation on the topic of the National Program Directors (NPDs) in
the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Based on this discussion, the RSAC decided to prepare
a commentary to provide our assessment and advice regarding the National Program Directors in ORD.
RSAC found that the management structure utilizing National Program Directors with a lead executive,
while fairly new, is well organized and efficient. The committee noted that there were differences in
the functioning of the National Program Directors among different programs, and it thinks that this
flexibility and tailoring of NPD activities is a good attribute that ORD should continue to cultivate.
RSAC recommends that the Agency establish a set of defined criteria and standards to implement a
transparent process to decide when a National Program Director is needed and when one is not
necessary. RSAC recommends that additional staff support be provided for the NPDs and be adequate for
their assigned tasks and it recommends that ORD allocate limited budget authority to the NPDs
consistent with the management needs of the particular program. Overall, the committee strongly
endorses the continuing use of National Program Directors and for strengthening some aspects of this
management structure.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-26 Annual Report
Exploring Opportunities for Accommodating Emerging Technologies
for Continuous Monitoring in Routine Air Monitoring Networks:
A Commentary Stemming from a CASAC/Agency Workshop
EPA-SAB-CASAC-COM-01 -003
The Subcommittee on Particle Monitoring of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) held a public workshop to explore opportunities for accommodating emerging technologies into
routine air monitoring networks. The workshop was convened to provide states and associations of
states, vendors and manufacturers of monitoring equipment, and EPA staff with an opportunity to share
information and discuss emerging technologies and the implications of considering continuous monitoring
in EPA's regulatory monitoring program.
As a result of discussions at the workshop, the Subcommittee concluded that EPA should move
aggressively forward to bring continuous monitoring into the regulatory monitoring program. The
CASAC endorsed the Subcommittee recommendations, including:
(1) Perform a statistical analysis following a Data Quality Objectives (DQO) type
process to ascertain what level of precision will be required in the continuous
monitors to yield the same information on area-wide average concentrations as a
minimum Federal Reference Sample (FRM) PM2 s sampler network;
(2) Develop an approach to empower and encourage states or associations of states to
qualify continuous samples on a local to regional basis;
(3) Involve the states/local agencies in the determination of the cost savings for
various options while ensuring that the data quality is appropriate for making
critical management decisions;
(4) Whenever possible, site the continuous monitor/FRM pairs at speciation sites;
(5) Ensure that the outcome of these analyses can be appropriately applied to future
monitoring needs.
(6) Make full use of the results of the ongoing supersite activities as they become
available.
Recommendations to Improve Visibility of the Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Program: An SAB Commentary
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-01 -004
This Commentary represents the observations and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding improving the effectiveness and visibility of the
Agency's Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Program. The STAA Program is an
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^
-------
Annual Report B-27
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 Subcommittee has offered a number of observations and recommendations are offered to
improve visibility, to improve the overall process, and to encourage 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. Recommendations are made in the areas of a) the general quality of the work being
done; b) strengths and weaknesses of the program; c) improvements in the way EPA advertises success;
and d) the importance of strong leadership.
Measures of Environmental Technology Performance:
A Commentary by the EPA Science Advisory Board
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01 -005
The Agency has an important role in evaluating and describing the performance of environmental
technologies, especially for emerging technologies. The Environmental Engineering Committee of the
EPA Science Advisory Board recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency consider improving
the information conveyed in its technology evaluation reports. The Agency should employ a broader and
more comprehensive suite of measures that describe technology performance under a variety of realistic
and likely circumstances.
In preparing this commentary, the Committee has used the expertise of individual members and
consultants; experience gained reviewing EPA's Technology Innovation Strategy (EPA-SAB-EEC-9S-013),
Verification Strategies for EnTICE (EPA-SAB-EEC-016), and the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program (EPA-SAB-EEC-97-OOS); presentations by EPA staff and managers of other
relevant national programs; and collegial discussion.
The Committee finds that, within the limits the Agency has set for itself, EPA generally conducts
technology evaluations with skill and credibility. Yet, significant improvement is still possible.
Technology performance needs to be defined by all key variables, so that decision-makers are fully
informed. The Agency can take several actions to assure this, including requiring use of a systematic
planning process in performance testing, identifying all key variables that affect performance,
determining the ruggedness of a technology with respect to these variables, and requiring that evaluation
reports convey information valuable to decision-makers by having stakeholder involvement and peer
reviews.
Improved Science-Based Environmental Stakeholder Processes
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-01 -006
This Commentary is based on a series of workshops and deliberations conducted by the Executive
Committee on EPA's Science Advisory Board with the objective of addressing two questions. How well
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-28 Annual Report
is scientific and technical knowledge being developed and used in group stakeholder processes? What
strategies might allow such knowledge to be better developed and used in these processes in support of
high-quality science-based environmental decisions?
The Executive Committee finds that properly conducted, stakeholder processes of the types
considered can be valuable in supporting high-quality science-based decisions. They are most useful when
they are employed to define or frame a problem; to obtain feedback in order to better inform decision-
makers about proposed alternative courses of action; or to develop and elaborate a range of options
and/or criteria for good decision-making that a decision-maker might employ.
The report makes seven specific findings and then recommends that the Administrator would be
well advised to take the following two actions: a) develop brief guidance, related to the Board's findings,
on the appropriate use of stakeholder processes and b) direct the Office of Research and Development, in
collaboration with the Program in Decision, Risk and Management Science at the National Science
Foundation, to undertake an extramural research program designed to develop improved methods and
tools for the use and evaluation of science-based environmental stakeholder processes.
WORKSHOP REPORT
Understanding Public Values and Attitudes Related to Ecological Risk Management:
An SAB Workshop Report of an EPA/SAB Workshop
EPA-SAB-EC-WKSP-01 -001
On May 23 and 24, 2001, EPA and the EPA Science Advisory Board co-sponsored a public
Workshop on "Understanding Public Values and Attitudes Related to Ecological Risk Management."
The workshop was not an advisory committee meeting, organized with the purpose of providing advice to
the Agency. Instead, it was a public meeting designed to demonstrate how researchers using different
kinds of analytical methods, tools and approaches from the social sciences can mutually inform each other
and risk managers in understanding: (a) public values and attitudes related to specific threats to ecological
resources, such as Tampa Bay Estuary, a water body threatened with nitrogen deposition and (b) the
significance of those values to decision makers.
The workshop was chaired by Dr. Baruch Fischhoff of Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Milton
Russell, of the University of Tennessee described how the workshop was linked to the EPA Science
Advisory Board's report, Toward Integrated Environmental Decision -Making and how it was designed to
address persistent problems that risk managers face in protecting ecological resources. The Senior
Scientist from Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Ms. Holly Greening, characterized the risk assessment and
risk management problems facing the Bay. Four researchers from different social science traditions then
presented research strategies to aid managers in understanding the values and attitudes of people
interested in and affected by the bay, and specifically by the problem of air deposition of nitrogen to the
bay. Presenters were:
Dr. Terry Daniel, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Dr. Robin
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report B-29
Gregory, Decision Research, North Vancouver, B.C., Canada; Dr. Willett Kempton, College of Marine
Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware; and Dr. James Opaluch, Department of
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.
A managers' panel on the second day then addressed the question of the opportunities and issues
presented by the research proposals described. The panel consisted of managers from local and state
governments and from EPA headquarters and EPA's Region 4, the region for Tampa Bay.
The chair of the workshop has prepared a " Sense of the Meeting Summary" which identifies the
different themes, issues and action items discussed during the panel and audience discussions. The
summary organizes points in the following areas: environmental science; social, economic and behavioral
sciences; policymakers; stakeholders; research development and research needs.
The Workshop was co-sponsored by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation; the National Center for
Environmental Economics in the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation; the Office of Research and
Development, the Office of Water; and the Office of the EPA Science Advisory Board. One hundred and
eleven people participated in the workshop in the course of the two-day event.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-30 Annual Report
B5
TIME- TO- COMPLETION
The EPA Science Advisory Board's goal is to provide a written report to the Administrator
within 4 months after the end of the last substantive public meeting (deliberative session, not editing
session). As seen in Figure 5, the target of 4 months was met in 14 of 19 (roughly 75%) of the cases.
This record comes close, but misses the Government Performance Review Act (GPRA) goal of 80% or
better of the reports being completed within 4 months of the meeting. However, the record is
somewhat better than what appears on the surface. That is, in many cases draft reports were available to
the Agency and the public on the SAB Website within 4 months and, in most cases, the remainder of the
time was devoted to working out details of the report. There is still room for improvement through
learning lessons from the reports that were so long in the Committee and Executive Committee
processing queue.
Note: The reports not included in the table below were internal reviews.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report
B-31
FIGURE 5
TIME-TO-COMPLETION
IHdtll Til
Af ir MHY . li Ji i . h jl Ai jjj Sup il i ;l Ni
Flnnl C.nmiTilttnn Mnntlnrj
n r.nmmittnr:
A ;-v;-^ •.•;-.-^
-S A.S5-C J4
C.nmmlttnn Prnnn^r-il
I o tl"i* ^sclminictrwto
LH A-^F AU-L.LCT-U1 -
Flnol c oiTiR"itt1:oe Mcctlnq
f: C.nmmlttrbn
1 I I IAS
L_:,:ecLrt:ive Committee Processing
SrESrQI Sf I
Mny i li jn , li Ji Ai jf( Fir-.jnt Ont i'Jnv r^nn • iran Fnti Mnr Apr Mny • li jn i ti Jl Ai j
Legend
h iniiI C Jnmmittnn Mnntmp
OurnrnilLww Prutrwsfsirn.1
Executive committee Processing
i M IMi : ,".Mrrnrii: ,lrh ir
Report of tAe EPA 5de^ce Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-32-
Annual Report
FIGURE 5 (CONT'D)
TIME-TO-COMPLETION
Drfj-s m>-ft ill c*
2OOO
Apr May Jun Jul Aug
2OO1
Oot Nov U-eo Jan I ela Mar Apr May Jun Jul Augj l^e-pt
FP.A-
l Ojn srnsLlfcifct MttwlH ly
ii Jt ii ;, in in nl I , :, : Pr , „ :, :: -:: ,i, iy
trtlvc iiommittcc ProcoocM
1 inffll Committee Meetinci
e^J ^MlJUuniriiilLuu Pruuw^^i! iy
EPA EC 01 DOS
Flnnl '."nmmlttnn Mnntlnp
'f^rsr nrssflf^'MW irripirsrnrsrsfffsfinn
LP A-^f AU-KVAC-UI -UUV
l
-------
Annual Report
B-33
FIGURE 5 (CONT'D)
TIME-TO-COMPLETION
Apr M-ay Jun Jul
2OO1
Nov L>«so J-nsn 1 eto Mar ^Spr May Jun Jul
»*pt
I
KM H/\/^'^^ CPi il«PI !
Flnol C omKTftt
Coi-niTirttee p
Tu Ihw Adrni
- Mcctlnci
LPA siiMJ NLAI;
Fii i^l ':~:i iriirnilliHM Mi^Mlii
l_:.:eci.n:ive Comifirttes Hroces aincj
ni rflvn C.nminHtnn Prnn
. sn %£*8>w?
i£/!t€!:
Flnrsl r.nmiTilttnr: Mnrrtl
C'onninrttce Hrocessinci
txwuuLiv^
-------
B-34-
Annual Report
FIGURE 5 (CONT'D)
TIME-TO-COMPLETION
.
Mq.nTh« An>r M*iy vim i jm Auy Ktwi Out NUY Lteu -J"=ai i
Apr lV1=3
-------
Annual Report
B-35
FIGURE 5 (CONT'D)
TIME-TO-COMPLETION
Pa&s. Bat*
P^if*,1
M-g.rii.hg
S^ftt fftrty ,Iu
ziiuu
, 11 j| ^kuiji Xwcil < >i :i fvli IV I >wi : .!>,
Final Committee Meetlncf
."ii irnnnlli :i : Pr i n :i :: •:: .:n rn
I-KMI :ulivM < ;i inimilliHM Mr i u ;w>:>;n ty
1^i^K,iir*isi nf Fiv^lrr^iiii^^ivt^i
er* A-S> me-EEC -c OM-OI -
Fn MJ| ."ii irnnnlli :i : Mi :i :ln nq
.;-:, .rnr, nil .-.--, Pr i ,i ;W>:>;ii ty
Silence
C -c
Fiiiul r:, irnrMill, :, : Mi:i:lhiy
f, '.i in iri ill 1 HM l-'ri if :M:-;:-:» ly
l_x«outiv* (joi-niTTirttae Hro
UU U,'-»J
I if ISeO I
l -is-M'S I
i:l Nnv Di:i: ,ii.
Ai .nj f^i :j il
fi C" n nil mitt ft ft Rrnr.fi:=.
Tn th«i ArlmlnlRtitnii"
Report of tAe EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-36 Annual Report
B6
SAB REPORTS AND NOTIFICATION OF SAB MEETINGS
Single copies of any SAB report, including, this document can be obtained by writing or faxing your
request to:
EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A)
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Fax:(202)501-0256
You can also find copies of this document and other SAB documents on the SAB Website at URL:
http://www.epa.gov/sab.
In addition, you can subscribe to the SAB Listserver and automatically receive copies of all
Federal Register notices announcing SAB Meetings, together with brief descriptions of topics to be
covered at the meetings. These notices will be mailed to you within 24 hours of their publication in the
Federal Register.
To subscribe, simply send the following message, inserting your name,
Subscribe epa-sab FIRST NAME LAST NAME
to
lists er ver @unixmail. r tpnc .epa.gov
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-37
B7
ABSTRACTS OF THE SAB LECTURE SERIES
"SCIENCE & THE HUMAN SIDE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'
The FY02 SAB Lecture Series included noted social scientists—three from outside
the
United States. Their substantive and environmental-oriented presentations are
summarized below.
Dr. Larry Susskind
Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning and Head, Environmental
Policy Croup at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Director,
MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program
"Who Says So?" The Uses and Organization of Environmental Policy Studies"
»n Friday, September 22, 2000, the SAB began the second year of its lecture series,
"Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection." Dr. Larry Susskind spoke on
the topic of his forthcoming book to be published by Island Press, currently in draft under the title,
"Who Says So?' The Uses and Organization of Environmental Policy Studies." Twenty-five people from
eight Headquarters Offices and five regions participated in the session.
Dr. Susskind started his presentation by describing how his experiences at the not-for-profit
Consensus Building Institute mediating multi-party and multi-issue disputes at the local, regional,
national and international levels (see http://www.cbi-web.org/ for more information) had interested
him in developing protocols for science-intensive policy disputes. He was particularly curious about
disputes marked by a "clash of interests" and by a "need to be grounded in deep understandings of systems
natural and social.. .where scientific and technical analysis needed to be brought into the conversation."
His research was sparked by the observation that opposing interests generally discredited
research and information developed to help address a problem when they lacked capacity to create or
influence that research or information. He undertook his research project to identify characteristics of
policy studies that had success in influencing policy makers. He led a team that conducted case studies of
six policy studies at the federal level that were identified as especially important by leaders in policy
circles in Washington. His study analyzes the origins, organization, implementation, and utilization of
the following policy studies:
1. Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delany Paradox by the Board on Agriculture of the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
2. Costs and Benefits of Reducing Lead in Gasoline by the US EPA's Office of Policy Analysis
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-3& Annual Report
3. Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production by the Office of
Technology Assessment
4. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection by the EPA
Science Advisory Board of the EPA
5. New Farm and Forest Products: Responses to the Challenges and Opportunities Facing
American Agriculture by the Task Force on New Farm and Forest Products
6. Alternatives for Management of Late-Successional Forests of the Pacific Northwest by the
Scientific Panel on Late Forest Ecosystems.
Dr. Susskind noted that these successful studies did not follow the conventional approach taken
by most policy analyses. They were remarkable instead for the following features: (1) they defined the
policy problem in a helpful way to stakeholders; (2) they described a full range of policy responses, not
just the sponsor's understanding of current authorities; (3) they helped overcome Agency resistence to
change; (4) they provided important opportunities to engage stakeholders; (5) they provided information
that enhanced the legitimacy of a particular action but did not prescribe the action; and (6) they
addressed resource priorities. He concluded that the studies did not isolate analysts from policy makers
and stakeholders; instead analysts interacted with policy makers and decision makers throughout the
process of development.
Dr. Susskind focused most of his presentation on the key phase in designing policy studies when
stakeholders and decision makers initially engage the science and analysis. He recommended a course of
action for sponsoring Agencies to pursue. He suggested that sponsoring Agencies engage professional
"neutrals" to identify "categories" of stakeholders with interests in the policy issue and work with groups
within those "categories" to identify participants. He described a process where these "neutrals" would
work with stakeholders to develop a map of the conflict which would plot categories of stakeholders and
their interests. The "neutral" would gain the sponsor's understanding of this "map" and then develop a
process for engaging the issues and involving the stakeholders. He acknowledged that this approach
expands on EPA's current use of"facilitators and mediators" and makes use of EPA's existing roster of
"neutrals" available on the web.
Dr. Albert McGartland, Director of the National Center for Environmental Economics, had
been previously invited to open the discussion with observations and questions. He noted that his first-
hand knowledge of two of the cases gave him an appreciation of the accuracy and careful documentation
of the case studies. Although Dr. Susskind had joked that the "keys" to effective policy studies might
seem self-evident, Dr. McGartland compared them to the "7 Habits of Highly Effective People,"
behaviors often overlooked or forgotten.
In terms of policy recommendations, he noted that the Agency had recently invested in building
its internal capacity for policy analysis by authorizing hiring of economists in his office. He noted that
but there may be justification for a broader investment in other kinds of internal Agency policy capacity
and that this topic may be an issue for the Agency's Science Policy Council and Regulatory Policy
Council. He suggested that Dr. Susskind might consider how specific kinds of "drivers" for policy
analysis (such as the legislative and congressional drivers requiring economics analysis) influence the
kinds of policy analyses that do and do not get done. He also noted that the "reality base" supporting
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report B-39
policy work may have an impact on how effective analyses are in influencing decisions. He observed that
the Administrator preferred to cite cases avoided by a given environmental option, rather than refer to
levels above or below a safe range as suggested by Reference Doses (RfDs) for non-cancer health
effects. He concluded that Dr. Susskind's presentation framed economic analysis within the context of
political economy and underscored the importance of designing policy studies appropriately to address
institutional and stakeholder needs.
Dr. Susskind responded that his study includes a chapter on selecting methods for policy
analyses. He observed that adopting multiple methods is often very helpful; his document contrasts
different approaches and discusses how choices might be made among them.
Questions then came from the general audience. A question from Region 7 concerned how
analytical processes can rebound from situations where missing information or missing stakeholders have
been identified. Dr. Susskind responded that ongoing interactions with stakeholders would allow for a
"neutral's" reconvening a stakeholder group to advise on how to factor in new information. Similarly,
where there is a contention that a stakeholder has been omitted from the process, the "mediator" would
ask the individual to differentiate their concerns from the categories already identified on the "map"
initially identifying stakeholders, and to make their case that their interest is sufficiently distinct from
groups currently engaged to the general stakeholder group. In response to another question from region
about the length of time involved in conducting high-quality policy studies, Dr. Susskind responded that
it is important to be explicit at the start about the time-frame involved in a process and to build in steps
for organizational and public learning about the results of the study into the process.
Then followed a discussion of the importance of having a customer truly interested in the results
of a study and poised to act on the results.
The next topic addressed the relationship between the analytic aspects of policy work and the
deliberative process - should they be distinct or interwoven. Dr. Susskind advocated that conversations
need to happen throughout the process. Problem identification requires stakeholders and the choice of
analytical approaches depend on the risk management options. He suggested that "radically wrong
results" were more likely to happen if stakeholders were not in the room, than if they were there.
A headquarters participant then raised the issue of stakeholder identification at the federal level.
EPA wrestles with different "mental models" of what this term may mean. One model includes all
interested and affected parties, basically everyone, since everyone has an interest in the environment.
Another model is limited to only the Congress, Office of Management and Budget and the Agency.
Finally, the third model limits itself to lobbyists or Trade Associations. Dr. Susskind responded that this
J J 1
question arises because since the 1960's American society has adopted many different kinds of
consultative processes, but hasn't spelled out how these processes are to work - either singly or
together. He suggested that three different models were in play: (1) a "public hearing model" where
"everyone can have a say;" (2) the official, representative-democratic, electoral model, with
acknowledged rules and accountability; and (3) the consultative model, which currently involves ad hoc
convening of legitimate stakeholders. He suggested that his current study suggests some protocols for
providing structure for this third model. A question then followed about how this third model could
engage "diffuse" interests like housewives and consumers, who typically do not organize themselves
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-40 Annual Report
well. Dr. Susskind suggested that mechanisms were available to address their needs. Neutrals could
identify existing organizations that met certain criteria for representing these "diffuse" groups; they
could cause a new group to be created to represent them; or they could adopt the devise of a "stand-in"
to act as a guardian of the group's interest
Conversation then turned to the usefulness of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) as a
tool for generating the kinds of effective advice described in Dr. Susskind's manuscript. Dr. Susskind
suggested that it is possible, but awkward, to implement the kinds of processes he recommends within
the FACA framework. He suggested that, given a choice, he would prefer a substitute for FACA,
where Agencies would develop explicit guidance that would implement the processes he described in his
book. He suggested that policy studies would be more effective if they were generated by committees
that were driven by stakeholders' interests, rather than by committee members' credentials.
Final points in the discussion reiterated the importance of impartial peer review to effective
policy studies and the importance of sponsoring Agencies remaining engaged as stakeholders throughout
the process of developing policy studies.
The SAB plans to host lectures on the social sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the
social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. If you have suggestions for future speakers
or topics, please contact Angela Nugent (202-564-4562 or nugent.angela@epa.gov).
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-41
Dr. Roger Kasperson
Executive Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute
"Human Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change"
n Wednesday, December 6, 2000, the SAB hosted the second lecture this fall in its series,
"Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection." Dr. Roger Kasperson spoke
on the topic of his current research, "Human Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change." Twenty-
seven people from eight Headquarters Offices and two regions participated in the session.
Dr. Kasperson began the lecture by highlighting the importance of vulnerability and fragility on
the international environmental agenda in the year 2000. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) focused on vulnerability and called for future assessments to address the
vulnerability of specific places. Similarly, environmental justice programs have a strong orientation to
differential exposure and vulnerability and call for a more comprehensive approach to risk assessment.
Emerging work on place-based risks, food security, and fresh water will all likely involve consideration
of vulnerability.
To frame his presentation, he offered a concept of vulnerability that fit into a model of the
"Integrated Risk Assessment of Regional Environmental Change." Vulnerability included both human
and ecosystem receptors' reactions to environmental changes resulting from human driving forces and
natural variability. Conditions of vulnerability plus environmental change together determine impacts.
He stated that populations don't begin from the same starting points; poor health, diet deficiencies, and
access to public health differ and help to determine differential impacts. To be meaningful, risk
assessments will need to and are going to give more attention to vulnerability and fragility.
The lecture then turned to the current state of academic science on the subject of vulnerability,
one of the topics addressed at a conference at Airlie House in the Spring of this year. In general, Dr.
Kasperson said that when researchers took an overview of the suite of tools available for understanding
vulnerability, "the cupboard wasn't bare, but it was in considerable disarray." There were non-
cumulative research results, different conceptual models and definitions of variability, and a significant
lack of conceptual integration, due to separate efforts in different social sciences, separation of social
science efforts from ecological efforts, intermittent funding, and the difficulty dealing with the complex
nature of the problem. The problem of vulnerability requires sensitivity to context and place, as well as
attention to multiple stressors and interactions at multiple scales of time, space, and social scales. The
topic requires new method to define and measure coping potential and adaptive capacity. And finally,
the topic is politically sensitive; researchers must be careful not to conduct, or appear to conduct,
advocate research.
Dr. Kasperson demonstrated the difficulties in coming to agreement about the basic
understanding of vulnerability. In terms of definitions, the IPCC sees vulnerability as a combination of
sensitivity (the degree to which a system will respond to a change in climatic conditions) and adaptability
(the degree to which adjustments are possible in practices, processes or structures of systems). Other
organizations and researchers had different definitions. Some models of vulnerability focused on how a
series of stressor events work as a process to change the baseline of vulnerability of a receptor. Others,
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-42 Annual Report
like the model analyzing causal structure of hunger (Millman and Kates, 1989 and Downing, 1989b),
focused on identifying the complex interactions within each of three elements of a framework and then
among the three elements, which are: (1) causes of stress (e.g., natural events, economic
performance, social status, poverty, wages, access to health services); (2) domains (national,
community, household, and individual); and (3) consequences (e.g., economic, political and social
instability, economic and social marginalization, economic impacts, morbidity and mortality). Finally,
he described a Marxist model that viewed socio-economic factors as determinants of vulnerability, and
thus risk impacts.
The challenge at the Airlie House meeting was to identify practical opportunities for researchers
on vulnerability and "impact assessors" to work together in the short term, despite the current lack of
conceptual integration, as well as to devise a longer-term strategy for research in vulnerability.
Dr. Kasperson offered several examples of efforts to analyze vulnerability in ways useful to
impact assessors. At Clark University, a team applied the "Hazards Causal Model," which incorporated
vulnerability analysis addressing resistance and resilience factors, to the problem of flood impacts in the
town of Revere, Massachusetts. Through the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) tools, the
group, led by George Clarke, then at Clark and now Regional Social Scientist in EPA Region 5, mapped
demographic and social data, along with information on flood events, and FEMA insurance rate maps of
coastal flood zones. The result is an analysis showing significant factors contributing to vulnerability in
flood events that the Clark team believes will help managers in Revere deal with those emergencies.
(Note: If you would like a copy of this research, please contact George Clarke by email at
clarke. george@epa. go v.)
A second example was design of a risk model incorporating vulnerability considerations for
understanding impacts of introducing developmental activities (transportation and dams) in the Mekong
River Basin. This model included attention to "hot spots," high risk ecological areas and high risk social
groups, and resulted in an information system to assist managers in thinking through how to manage
potential damages associated with new developmental activities.
Dr. Kasperson closed with a summary of the research strategies discussed at Airlie House to
strengthen vulnerability analysis. These included: (1) analysis of vulnerability relationships across scales;
(2) studying natural experiments for knowledge about vulnerability; (3) conducting case studies with goal
of developing a common conceptual framework that would make sense of available data; and (4)
developing a set of case studies that focus on best practices. A group is working at Clark and the
Stockholm Environment Institute, coordinated by Harvard, to conduct a literature review with an eye to
increasing conceptual integration. A priority at Airlie House was to develop a White Paper on what
researchers in area of vulnerability should do in the short term to help impact assessors.
Ms. Ann Goode, Director of the Office of Civil Rights, had been previously invited to open the
discussion with observations and questions. She began by noting that the presentation "bumps right up"
on issues raised by Title 6 Complaints dealing with "adverse disparate impacts." Issues raised by
communities involve considerations of economic disadvantages, access to health care, and multiple
stressors — issues that are not the "traditional" risk issues EPA has addressed.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-43
Her work on these issues has led her to conclude that it is difficult to get good data on traditional
risk impacts. She finds that meaningful data on race and social and economic status is difficult to get
aggregated at the right level to be meaningful in an analysis that would be responsive to concerns about
vulnerability.
In her view, the notion of vulnerability expands the risk paradigm, and changes how we look at
risk and even harder to get information useful for a vulnerability analysis. She asked how it can be done
— to take Title 6, environmental justice, and similar concerns related to sustainability-- and work them
through in a thoughtful way.
Questions then came from the general audience. The first question came from Region 5 and
concerned the difficulty of conducting vulnerability analyses that were satisfactory at different scales.
Medical literature provides information about individuals; aggregating that information at higher scales
seems necessary to understand health vulnerability but enormously complex. Dr. Kasperson responded
that the question was a key one and difficult. It would need to be worked out case-by-case in individual
communities.
Another question concerned the legal and policy basis for incorporating assessments of
differential exposure and resilience into risk assessment. The questioner accepted the relevance of
vulnerability analyses for environmental justice, planning, and multimedia projects, but asked about the
place of such an analysis in media programs. Would it change the paradigm of providing equal
protection? How would it relate to equity? Several participants responded. One mentioned that Office
of Water's efforts to protect the most sensitive sub population or the Office of Air's policy to protect
the highly exposed individual provided a basis for vulnerability analysis. Dr. Kasperson responded that
he would like to learn more about how vulnerability could be factored into media programs. He
emphasized the importance of looking at vulnerability to truly understanding risk impacts. He offered
the examples of Turkey and California in responding to earthquakes of similar severity. Just looking at
exposures would seriously underestimate environmental risks.
A comment about environmental justice followed. One participant commented that although
Title 6 complainants don't have a framework for vulnerability, their questions arise from an "innate"
sense of vulnerability. They find it difficult to communicate that they have a significant disparity,
because they don't know what "significant" means, for lack of a framework.
A participant from Region 8 asked whether vulnerability analysis could strengthen the social and
economic analyses conducted as part of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) conducted under the
National Environmental Protection Act. Dr. Kasperson responded that vulnerability assessments could
potentially have broader impacts than the EIS. They could be logically linked, but he didn't know about
the practice or how that would work.
The final discussion touched on a range of applications and research issues. In response to a
question about whether to emphasize resilience or recovery in vulnerability analysis, Dr. Kasperson
spoke about the importance of addressing long-term effects of an environmental stress, but emphasized
the ethical imperative involved in increasing resiliency to reduce impacts. There was a brief discussion
of the potential of vulnerability assessment for the Agency's Global Change Research program, and Dr.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-44 Annual Report
Kasperson spoke about the opportunity to demonstrate improvements to impact assessments in specific
places through the integration of vulnerability concerns. The final question concerned the identification
of factors enhancing resistence and whether the factor set included "civic capacity." Dr. Kasperson
responded that social capital was an intriguing idea to add to the set of factors underlying resilience and
would be especially important for community-based analysis. At present, he thought it was a "long
jump"; the factors were not yet well conceptualized for use with vulnerability assessments.
The SAB plans to host lectures on the social sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the
social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. If you have suggestions for future speakers
or topics, please contact Angela Nugent (202-564-4562 or nugent.angela@epa.gov).
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report B-45
Dr. Caron Chess
Director of the Center for Environmental Communications at Rutgers University
"Evaluating Public Participation; Feedback for Mid-Course Corrections"
n Thursday, February 22, the SAB hosted the third lecture in the second year of its series,
"Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection." Dr. Caron Chess spoke on the
topic, "Evaluating Public Participation; Feedback for Mid-Course Corrections." Forty-eight people from
7 Headquarters Offices, an ORD laboratory, 6 regions, and two not-for-profit groups, guests of a
regional office, participated.
Dr. Chess opened her talk with a reference to the long history of evaluation (to Genesis!) and
the short list of"systematic knowledge about what works in public participation," despite recent
advances represented by the major meta-data project recently completed by Resources for the Future.
Dr. Chess focused her talk on "formative evaluation," which provides feedback for mid-course
corrections. She identified key social science questions as: (1) why evaluate; (2) when to evaluate; (3)
what to evaluate; and (4) who defines goals. To explore those questions she examined case studies of
three efforts to conduct formative evaluations. First, she described the Department of Energy's (DOE)
efforts to improve the functioning of its Advisory Boards. DOE conducted a major study, designed to
improve not only the advice-giving process but also such outcomes as DOE's site decisions. DOE
defined success before starting the study, involved participants in designing what to evaluate, and
establishing consensus goals. The project was a multi-year study with both qualitative and quantitative
aspects and received peer review before completion.
The second example was "less robust:" a watershed management effort in Raritan, New Jersey,
that requested that an evaluation be designed and conducted in the first year of the project. The purpose
was to evaluate the processes and outcomes of meetings. Participants developed questions
collaboratively and now conduct all phases of evaluation. Findings addressed satisfaction with meeting
structure, participation and facilitation, concerns not voiced at meetings, and perceptions of progress.
The relatively small scale of this evaluation corresponded to the relatively small scale of the activity
being studied. Dr. Chess discussed the tradeoffs involved in participants' managing the evaluation
process themselves. She suggested that the possible loss of objectivity was balanced by greater "salience"
of the design of the evaluation and enhanced likelihood that the results would be used to improve
processes.
The third example involved pre-testing of environmental indicators developed by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The purpose of the pre-test was to enhance the
perceived effectiveness of the indicators outside the agency, improve current indicators, and develop a
process for developing other indicators. Dr. Chess reported that the pre-test assessed understanding,
credibility, "affective response," and perceptions of usefulness. The pre-test revealed people's needs for
information to be put into context by geographic area and environmental problem and resulted in a
brochure addressing public concerns.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-46 Annual Report
Dr. Chess concluded her talk by stressing that "formative evaluation" before and during public
participation efforts was very useful now as agencies are conducting more—and learning more about--
public participation processes. She suggested that environmental programs had much to learn from the
experience of welfare, education, and other social programs that had used evaluation to improve their
efforts. Their experience suggests that a principal barrier to evaluation is the reluctance of Agencies to
use results as a basis for change in programs. She suggested that evaluations of public participation
processes may face a double hurdle. Not only do evaluations in general have difficulty making an impact
on programs, but critics of public participation processes also specifically argue that Agencies are
reluctant to use information from public participation processes to change decisions.
She suggested that the next steps for Agencies were to pilot evaluation efforts, create databases
of public participation efforts, develop how-to guides for evaluation, along with templates and software
to encourage good practices, and to conduct research on how to evaluate public participation.
Mr. Stephen Johnson, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxic Substances opened the discussion with some intentionally provocative comments
and questions. He posed that EPA might be considered "master of the universe" because it operates in a
fish bowl, conducts public participation efforts that range from Advisory Committees to task forces to
public meetings to interagency teams. It invests contract dollars in doing may of these efforts very well
and documents the processes. He asked a series of questions: (1) whether all public participation
processes should be evaluated—or were many of them self correcting?; (2) how formative evaluation
would work in a regulatory agency, where information was subject to FOIA?; (3) what could EPA's
definition of success be for an evaluation?; and (4) were there different evaluations appropriate for
scientific vs. regulatory issues?
A discussion then followed as a regional participant suggested that EPA's public participation
efforts were "OK" on site-specific questions, but not perhaps on national-scale issues. Dr. Chess
inquired whether the Agency felt it had good information about how well its public participation
processes are doing. She noted that she was aware only of recent high-quality evaluative work that the
Superfund program had completed. Mr. Johnson responded that the Agency indeed had gone to great
length to evaluate and document processes in the pesticide program that would merit a case study. On
the other hand, there were no formal evaluations of some long-standing advisory committees.
A staff person from the Office of General Counsel mentioned that evaluation efforts faced
significant legal impediments from the Paperwork Reduction Act and possible FACA requirements. She
also suggested that the Agency should not consider public participation efforts as "self-correcting."
Critical comments usually come from people already engaged and knowledgeable about participatory
processes and more rarely from minorities and low income critics. Participants from both Headquarters
and Regional offices noted the need for improvements in methods for evaluating public participation that
involves minorities and native Americans
The leader of the Agency's public participation workgroup, Patricia Bonner, observed that the
Agency does not currently have a central repository of findings regarding public participation and
evaluation of public participation efforts. The successful efforts of Superfund, noted by Dr. Chess, are
not shared across the Agency. A regional participant seconded this thought, arguing that EPA needs to
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report B-47
"put steam behind" infrastructure support to encourage inter-program coordination, especially in areas of
evaluation and risk communication. Far from the Agency being a "master of the universe," he finds EPA
staff don't share information, don't build on each other's experience, and don't draw on relevant
literature.
A commenter from the Superfund program suggested that the Agency might be exemplary in
Peter Senge's term, in its "participatory openness," but that it fails in "reflective openness," i.e., taking
what has been heard at public meetings and factoring it into decision making.
Dr. Chess suggested that without conscious evaluation, participants' evaluations of their public
participation efforts are "like Rorschach tests"—everyone reacts with individual impressions, there is no
agreement on standards, and standards are necessary for organizational learning. She suggested that
there was a practical balance to be struck between the "impressionistic Rorschach approach" and a costly,
time-intensive evaluation effort that was greater than the environmental protection program being
evaluated. She contended that staff arguments to improve public participation processes could best be
made if those arguments were based on data obtained through evaluations
Mr. Johnson concluded the discussion with an appreciation for the challenges Dr. Chess
presented and an acknowledgment that without evaluations, EPA processes are not "self-correcting." He
acknowledged the tools, questions, and models she presented to improve how EPA evaluates public
participation processes in mid-course. He noted that public participation processes were very high on
Administrator Whitman's agenda because they had the promise to improve environmental outcomes.
Dr. Chess made available slides from her talk, a recent article related to the topic, "Evaluating
Environmental Public Participation: Methodological Questions," Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 43(6), 769-784, 2000, and the brochure Communicating with the Public; Ten Questions
Environmental Managers Should Ask. Please contact Angela Nugent (202-564-4562 or
nugent.angela@epa.gov) for copies. The SAB plans to host lectures on the social sciences on a periodic
basis to highlight how the social sciences can help solve actual environmental problems. If you have
suggestions for future speakers or topics, please contact Dr. Nugent.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-4& Annual Report
Dr. Ortwinn Renn
Director of the Center of Technology Assessment;
Chair of Environmental Sociology at the University of Stuttgart
"Analytic-deliberative Processes in Risk Management; Opportunities,
Problems, and Practical Experiences from a Risk-Management Perspective."
o:
>n Tuesday, March 13, 2001, the SAB hosted the fourth lecture in the second year of its
series, "Science and the Human Side of Environmental Protection." Dr. Ortwin Renn,
Director of the Center of Technology Assessment, a public foundation in Baden Wurttenberg devoted to
the study of the societal impacts of technological and social change, spoke on the topic of his research
"Analytic-deliberative Processes in Risk Management; Opportunities, Problems, and Practical
Experiences from a Risk-Management Perspective." Twenty-six people from 7 Headquarters Offices
and three regions, and guests from Germany participated.
Dr. Renn began his presentations with some definitions: of "deliberation" and of the challenges
deliberation faces in risk management. He linked interest in deliberation in Germany to Understanding
Risk, the 1996 report of the National Academy of Sciences, which he characterized as having
international impact. "Deliberation" refers to a style of reaching a common agreement or conclusion
where there is a mutual exchange of arguments and reflections among equals; all participants have equal
rights and duties; there is consensus on rules for verifying or falsifying claims; and a transparent
procedure of balancing pros and cons. In risk management, he suggested that deliberation encounters
three challenges: (1) complexity in causal relationships, where there are multiple causes, and multiple
effects, and where it is hard to relate a particular endpoint to a cause; (2) uncertainty, due to a variety of
causes (variation among individual targets, errors in measurement and inference, stochastic
relationships, and arbitrariness about system boundaries and ignorance about system effects); and (3)
ambiguity in interpreting results, because "meanings" imposed on data sets can differ depending on
values and perspectives.
He suggested that discourse about risk would be most successful if appropriate types of discourse
were matched to the three different types of challenges. (Success was defined in both subjective and
objective terms: where participants felt the process was effective, where participants learned
something they didn't know, and where the outcomes led to improved results.) Where the challenge is
complexity, cognitive-analytic discourse among "professional knowledge carriers" was most appropriate.
People in general 'Want to know what the experts say" and can accept good assessments of complex
problems (such as the effects of electro-magnetic fields or whether dioxin is causing cancer). He argued
that "common sense" and oversimplification were bad tools for resolving complexity.
In contrast, when the issue is uncertainty, "evaluative-reflective" discourse between those who
pay for the risk costs and those who pay for the risk abatement costs was most appropriate. If the issue
is the balance to be struck between over-regulation and under-regulation, a negotiated process was most
appropriate. Such a process might lead to negotiating intermediate risk management instruments, such
as "precautionary" tools like "confinement" of a possible stressor, until it is clearly established as a bad
or "not-so-bad" risk.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-49
Finally, where ambiguity is the issue, "participatory discourse" involving the major stakeholders
and affected citizens is the appropriate mode. Often such cases involve broad issues of legitimacy and
different values that need to be worked through.
He provided specific examples of where different models of dialogue (e.g., negotiated
rulemaking, citizen advisory groups, public panels or juries) could be used most effectively. He
contrasted these different models and types of dialogues in a diagram showing "the risk management
escalator." If all three types of challenges are involved in a risk issue, he proposed that the best
approach would be a hybrid model that would carefully adapt, plan, and sequence different types of
dialogue. He called such an approach "the Cooperative Discourse Model." He acknowledged that it was
expensive, time consuming, and often frustrating, and then detailed how it could be effective.
Dr. Renn described the application of the Cooperative Discourse Model to the siting of a
solid-waste management plan for Baden Wurttenburg. He described: (1) how stakeholders developed
"value trees" to generate lists of concerns and options for addressing the problem; (2) how the group
Delphi process was used to provide expert judgment on the concerns and options; and (3) how randomly
selected citizens were organized into panels to identify which risk management plan to adopt. The
effort resulted in innovative solutions never imagined by experts and a broad sense in the community
that the process and proposed outcome was legitimate and appropriate. Dr. Renn pointed out that this
example seemed like a textbook case for his model, but that the local government and administration did
not embrace the outcome. The link between deliberation and risk management needed to be extended
to implementation.
Mr. Paul Cough, Director of the Office of International Environmental Policy in the Office of
International Activities, who had been asked to begin the discussion with his comments, began the
conversation with several questions about the relationship of Dr. Renn's work to the standard
distinctions made for risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. He also asked how
Dr. Renn understood the "standing" of different groups to participate in different types of dialogue. He
wondered how the Cooperative Discourse Model might be applied to problems at different scales (e.g.,
local vs. national or international scales) or to issues such as genetically modified organisms (GM)s) or
mercury.
Dr. Renn replied with an acknowledgment that different political traditions have different
attitudes towards risk management. In Germany or France, it was acceptable for a risk manager to
select experts, while in New Jersey stakeholders question authority in selecting experts. In the United
States, the risk manager's tradition was to "listen to everyone, make everyone comfortable, and then
make your own decision." He suggested that such a tradition resulted in a loss of trust. What was
needed, in his view, was to find the balance between "giving people the illusion that whatever they
come up with will be considered" and "structuring things overmuch."
The Cooperative Discourse Model, he believed, could be applied on more than local and
regional scales. Dr. Renn reported that the national strategy for labeling GMOs in Germany was
developed based on application of the model. He thought that the model could be useful internationally
to deal with complexities, uncertainties, and ambiguities associated with climate change.
Other EPA staff then joined the conversation. Several were curious about the sources of funding
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-50 Annual Report
for applications of the Cooperative Discourse Model. Dr. Renn informed the group that funding came
from private foundations, the German Environmental Protection Agency, the European National
program, the German National Science Foundation, and stakeholders who were parties to the risk
management issues.
Dr. Renn was asked several questions about applications of his approach. He informed the group
that he has used this approach at the neighborhood level, applying a "stepped-down version, depending
on the level of complexity in the issue." He also talked about how his model related to representative
government and how he has managed to integrate the decision outcomes arising from application of the
Cooperative Discourse Model with the formal political process in Germany. He stated that he
attempted to educate interest groups to use citizens' panels for risk management purposes, not for their
strategic political ends. He acknowledged that the processes he described result in recommendations,
not decisions. Decision-makers are the responsible Agencies or parliaments, which have the legal
power to make decisions. He emphasized that with growth of the European Union and international
trade, there was increased pressure on German decision-makers to open up the previously-accepted
"club atmosphere" for making risk management decisions. He suggested that there was interest in
making processes more open and transparent, and "room and funds for experimentation."
Dr. Renn made available slides from his talk and welcomed queries about his approach through
email, at the following address: ortwin.renn@ta-akademie.de. He also provided a copy of a recent
paper related to his presentation (The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: The
Participation and Discourse in Risk Management, Accepted Contribution to the 2000 Risk Symposium
volume, Risk and Governance, edited by T.L. McDaniels and M. Small). Please contact Angela Nugent
(202-564-4562 or nugent.angela@epa.gov) for copies. The SAB plans to host lectures on the social
sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the social sciences can help solve actual environmental
problems. If you have suggestions for future speakers or topics, please contact Dr. Nugent.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report B-51
Dr. Robin Gregory
Senior Researcher at Decision Research (Eugene, Oregon);
Associate Director of the Eco-Risk Research Unit at the
University of British Columbia
"Decision Aiding, Not Consensus: Using Structured Decision Processes to
Link Consultation and Analysis'*
O!
>n April 4, 2001, the SAB hosted the fifth lecture in the second year of its series, "Science
and the Human Side of Environmental Protection." The presenter was Dr. Robin
Gregory, senior researcher at Decision Research (Eugene, Oregon), a nonprofit institute that does
research and consulting in risk management, environmental policy analysis, and decision-making
processes of individuals, groups, and society, spoke on the topic "Decision Aiding, Not Consensus: Using
Structured Decision Processes to Link Consultation and Analysis." Sixteen people from six Headquarters
Offices and one region participated.
Dr. Gregory introduced his presentation as an introduction to how decision science can help
structure "smart choices" about environmental and health risks. He linked his work to the many calls for
increased consultation and analysis in risk management (e.g., National Academy of Science Report,
Understanding Risk and Canadian Roundtable on the Environment) and described it as an effort to
improve the knowledge base for successful consultations. In his presentation, he outlined components
of a structured, value-focused process for understanding and evaluating environmental choices; described
key methodological approaches and policy implications; and presented examples of structured decision
processes in the United States and Canada.
The first part of his talk defined terms and drew distinctions. A "structured decision process"
addresses basic questions: (1) what are the decisions to be made?; (2) what matters?; (3) what are the
alternatives?; (4) what are the impacts of the alternatives?; and (5) what alternatives can stakeholders
support? The purpose of such a process is to aid decision-making, rather than to achieve consensus and
resolve disputes. The "decision-aiding approach" focuses on identifying important objectives or values
for participants, seeks insight for the decision-maker, and provides "judgmental heuristics" (i.e.,
decision-making help).
One of Dr. Gregory's key assumptions was that preferences of participants are "constructed" and
dependent on context and timing, and not fixed. In Dr. Gregory's view, analysts are "architects," who
help participants learn about an issue and build their preferences, not "archeologists," as in the contingent
valuation approach, where analysts discover preexisting preferences.
Dr. Gregory described the key steps involved in implementing the structured, decision-aiding
approach: (1) identify stakeholders and determine whose voice counts; (2) distinguish between "means"
and "ends" objectives; (3) select attributes, i.e., measures of success in addressing objectives; (4) present
alternatives to enhance evaluability; (5) clarify uncertainty; (6) conduct tradeoff analysis; and (7) learn
through the process. He provided details about tools and methods for each step and compared the
structured approach to convention risk management processes.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
B-52 Annual Report
He then briefly described three examples where the structured decision-aiding approach was
used: (1) a small group consultation on the Alouette River, British Columbia; (2) work with the
Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program, Oregon, to develop scientific and public input into the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan; and (3) decision pathways survey for the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, where a decision-pathway survey was used to assess alternatives for
managing unwanted forest vegetation.
Dr. Gregory concluded his presentation by summarizing the goals for the decision aiding
approach. It aims to represent values as faithfully as possible; represent a full range of reasonable
alternatives; gain insight, not a "right number" or a "right choice;" lead to more open, more accountable
public decision processes; and account for the "big picture" that includes the cognitive and affective
dimensions, local and national concerns, and short and long-run considerations.
Ms. Elaine Davies, Acting Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response in the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, who had been asked to begin the discussion with her
comments, started the conversation with several observations and questions. She noted that public
involvement approaches that focused on building consensus often did not maximize the generation of
creative solutions to environmental problems. She noted that the approach Dr. Gregory had described
was appealing and practical and might have applications at the local, regional and national scale
She asked about the approach used to pick people to participate in the decision-aiding
consultation groups. Dr. Gregory responded that he usually oriented choice of participants around
interests related to the problem and also identified individuals from the general communities, local
scientists, and persons who were a link to local governments.
Ms. Davies inquired whether results from decision-aiding consultations had been used by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and found to be useful. Dr. Gregory responded that, to his
knowledge, OMB had not been presented with the results from a constructed preference process, but
that such information might be useful because it would present a range of alternatives and meaningful
information about related preferences.
Dr. Gregory and Ms. Davies then discussed several other issues. The decision-aiding
consultation process might prove effective in solving hazardous waste problems, because it can be used to
generate creative alternatives to traditional approaches. Dr. Gregory described how he often begins a
group process by posing "straw"alternatives to begin discussion and then working with the group to
combine alternatives and develop new ones.
The broader group then joined the discussion. Staff from OAR asked about how different
methods or tools were introduced into the group process. Dr. Gregory responded that the first
questions to ask were "what kinds of things matter" and then "what are the attributes" or measures of the
objectives sought. He'd often facilitate group discussions, write up the major points and reflect findings
to the group. The decision tools available (e.g., influence diagrams, mental models) can be used to
"ferret out" information and help dialogue. He emphasized that the process of defining specific measures
for objectives was needed for different parties to understand each other and to identify alternatives not
yet considered.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report B-53
Staff from OPPTS asked how findings gained in small groups translate to decisions made by
larger groups. Dr. Gregory responded that decision-aiding consultations with small groups can inform a
decision maker about the values of a larger group. He often keeps a community informed about the
results of small group work through newspaper articles and town meetings or relies on individual
members of the small group to communicate results to their own interest group or the larger audience.
He concluded by acknowledging the difficulty of informing and involving the broad public in risk-related
decisions in a meaningful way as a major challenge of representative government.
Dr. Gregory provided copies of his slides and a recent article "Using Stakeholder Values to
Make Smarter Environmental Decisions" from Environment, 2000. Please contact Angela Nugent
(202-564-4562 or nugent.angela@epa.gov) for copies. The SAB plans to host lectures on the social
sciences on a periodic basis to highlight how the social sciences can help solve actual environmental
problems. If you have suggestions for future speakers or topics, please contact Dr. Nugent.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-l
APPENDIX C
SAB PEOPLE
C1. Staff Organization Chart
C2. Staff Committee Alignment
C3. SAB Committee Chairs
C4. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
C 5. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
C6. SAB Members for FY 2001
C7. SAB Consultations for FY 2001
C8. Staff Biographical Sketches & Staff Transitions
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-2
Annual Report
Cl
SAB STAFF ORGANIZATION CHART
Some of the following positions were filled by two people during the year as changes in
personnel or staff alignments were made. On the Staff Committee Alignment chart (next page), where
two people occupied a position during the year, both are listed. The first person listed was the
incumbent at the close of FY 2001.
a. Lams
tFHk
CmnmHw-IVTvmR E
Dxn Jlei I etal OK c
-------
••Detailed from the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management from January 2000 to January 2001
Annual Report
page C-3
C2
FY 2001 STAFF COMMITTEE ALIGNMENT
Committee
Executive
Committee
Advisory Council
on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis
Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee
Drinking Water
Committee
Ecological Processes
and Effects
Committee
Environmental
Economics
Advisory Committee
Environmental
Engineering
Committee
Environmental
Health Committee
Integrated Human
Exposure Committee
Radiation
Advisory Committee
Research Strategies
Advisory Committee
Chair
Dr. William Glaze
Dr. Trudy Cameron
Dr. Phil Hopke
Dr. Rhodes Trussell
Dr. Terry Young
Dr. Robert Stavins
Dr. Hilary Inyang
Dr. Mark Utell
Dr. Henry Anderson
Dr. Janet Johnson
Dr. Raymond Loehr
Designated
Federal Officer
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Dr. Angela Nugent
Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Mr. Thomas Miller
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Mr. Thomas Miller
Ms. Kathleen Conway
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Karen Martin
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Karen Martin
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Melanie Medina-Metzger
Dr. John R. Fowle III
Management
Assistant
(unless otherwise
noted)
Ms. Diana Pozun
(Program Specialist)
Ms. Diana Pozun
(Program Specialist)
Ms. Rhonda Fortson
Ms. Diana Pozun
(Program Specialist)
Ms. Rhonda Fortson
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Wanda Fields
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-4 Annual Report
C3
SAB COMMITTEE CHAIRS
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. William Glaze
Director, Carolina Environmental Program
Professor, Environmental Sciences & Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Editor, Environmental Sciences & Technology
Member, American Chemical Society
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
Dr. Trudy Cameron
Raymond F. Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon
Professor, University of California, Los Angeles (on leave)
Member, Econometric Society
Member, American Economic Association
Member, American Statistical Association
Member, Association of Environmental Resource Economists
Member, American Agricultural Economics Association
Member, International Society for Ecological Economics
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Dr. Philip Hopke
Robert A. Plane Professor, Clarkson University
Vice President Elect, American Association for Aerosol Research
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Member, American Physical Society
Member, Air & Waste Management Association
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, International Chemometrics Society
Member, Gesellshaft fur Aerosolforschung
Plenary Member, Health Physics Society
Member, International Society of Exposure Assessment
Member, International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate
Editor-in-Chief, Aerosol Science and Technology
Associate Editor, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems
Member, Editorial Board, Atmospheric Environment
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff,
-------
Annual Report page C-5
Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Dr. Rhodes Trussell
Senior Vice President, MWH, Inc.
Member National Academy of Engineers
Member of Peer Committee for Civil Engineering Section
Member Search Committee for Civil Engineering Section
Member Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council
Diplomant American Academy of Environmental Engineers
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Registered Civil Engineer and Corrosion Engineer, State of California
Member, Sigma Xi
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Member, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Member, American Water Works Association
Member, International Water Association
Chair, Committee on Disinfection
Member, Scientific and Technical Council
Member, Programme Committee for Melbourne Conference 2002
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, Magazine Advisory Board
Member, National Association of Corrosion Engineers
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Terry Young
Senior Consulting Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CA
Member, Advisory Committee to the University California Salinity/Drainage Program
Expert Testimony for EDF before U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittees, California State
Water Resources Control Board, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. Robert Stavins
Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, and Faculty Chair, Environment and Natural
Resources Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
University Fellow, Resources for the Future
Director, Environmental Economics Program at Harvard University
Member, EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Member, Board of Directors, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
Member, Board of Directors, Robert and Renee Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Member, Executive Committee, Harvard University Committee on Environment
Member, Board of Academic Advisors, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
Member Editorial Council, The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Member, Board of Editors, Resource and Energy Economics
Member, Advisory Board, Environmental Economics Abstracts
Member, Editorial Board, Economic Issues
Contributing Editor, Environment
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-6 Annual Report
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Dr. Hilary Inyang
Duke Energy Endowed Distinguished Professor, Professor of Earth Sciences and Director,
Geoenvironmental and Energy Systems Research Laboratory (GESRL), University of North
Carolina, Charlotte
Member, Effluent Guidelines Committee, National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and
Technology
Fellow, Geological Society of London
Honorary Theme Editor, United Nations Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Section of
Environmental Monitoring
Associate Editor, Journal of Environmental Engineering (American Society of Civil Engineers), Waste
Management Journal (Elsevier Science Publishers), International Journal of Surface Mining,
Reclamation and the Environment (A. A. Balkema Publishers)
Editorial Board Member, Waste Management and Research (Academic Press); Journal of Infrastructure
Systems (ASCE); Journal of Environmental Systems (Baywood Publishers); Journal of Soil
Contamination; Transactions of the Nigerian Society for Biological Conservation; Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment (Kluwer Academic Publishers); and Resources Conservation and
Recycling (Elsevier Science Publishers)
1996 Young Investigator, National Research Council
1992/93 Eisenhower -Jennings Randolph Awardee of the World Affairs
Council/International Public Works Federation
1991 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)/USEPA Environmental Science and
Engineering Fellow
1996-99 DuPont Young Professor
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Mark Utell
Professor of Medicine and Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester
School of Medicine, Rochester, NY
Director, Pulmonary/Critical Care and Occupational Medicine Divisions,
University of Rochester Medical Center
Associate Chair, Department of Environmental Medicine, University of
Rochester Medical Center
Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine,
Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases
Sub-specialty
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American College of Chest Physicians
Fellow, American College of Physicians
Chair, Research Committee, Health Effects Institute
Member, Research Strategies Advisory Committee, EPA
Editorial Board: Journal of Aerosol Medicine Inhalation Toxicology,
Environmental Health Perspectives and Journal of Environmental Medicine
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-7
Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
Dr. Henry Anderson
Chief Medical Officer and State Environmental and Occupational Health
Epidemiologist, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Adjunct Professor, Dept of Preventive Medicine, Univ Wisconsin Medical School
Certified in Preventive Medicine, American Board of Preventative Medicine
Certified Specialist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American
Board of Preventative Medicine
Fellow, American College of Epidemiology
Fellow, American Association for Advancement of Science
Member, American Public Health Association
Member, American College of Epidemiology
Member, American Medical Association
Member, American Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association
Member, Past President, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Member, International Society of Environmental Epidemiology
Member, Collegium Ramazzini
Member, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) Environmental Health Policy
Committee
Member, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Advisory Committee to the Director
Member, White House Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
Member, Editorial Board, Cancer Prevention International
Associate Editor, American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Co-Editor, Wisconsin Medical Journal Public Health Column
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Dr. Janet Johnson
Senior Technical Advisor, Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Affiliate Faculty, Department of Environmental Health, Colorado State University
Board of Directors, Health Physics Society
President, Radon Section, Health Physics Society
Member, Colorado Radiation Advisory Committee
Member, American Academy of Health Physics
Member, American Industrial Hygiene Association
Member, American Academy of Industrial Hygiene
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-8 Annual Report
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Dr. Raymond Loehr
,/
Hussein M. Alharthy Centennial Chair, Environmental and Water Resources Engineering Program -
University of Texas at Austin
Member, National Academy of Science
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Member, National Research Council Committee
Vice President, American Academy of Environmental Engineers
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-9
C4
GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE ON THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY
BOARD
Background
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the Administrator. In 1978 the SAB
received a Congressional mandate to serve as an independent source of scientific and engineering advice to
the EPA Administrator.
The SAB consists of approximately 100 Members, who are appointed by the Administrator. These
members serve on specific standing committees. The Chairs of the Committees also serve as members of
the Executive Committee, which oversees all of the activities of the Board.
In many of its activities, the members of the Board are supplementedby Consultants, who are appointed
by the SAB Staff Director after conferring with the Chair of the Committee on which the consultant is to
serve. Also, on occasion, Panels will be supplementedby "liaison members" from other governmental
agencies. These people are invited by the Staff Director to participate in an ad hoc manner in order to bring
their particular expertise to bear on a matter before the Board.
Both the Executive Committee and the permanent Committees may choose to conduct issue-specific
business through Subcommittees that are chaired by SAB members. Reports from Subcommittees are
reviewed by the respective permanent Committees. The Executive Committee reviews all reports,
independent of their origin, prior to formal transmission to the Administrator. The sole exceptions are
reports from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis, which are separately chartered Federal Advisory Committees operating within the
SAB structure.
Criteria for Selection of Members and Consultants
The SAB is chartered as a Federal Advisory Committee, subject to the rules and regulations of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463). The charter provides guidance and
restrictions on selection of SAB members. The four most significant of which are:
a) Members must be qualified by education, training and experience to evaluate scientific and
technical information on matters referred to the Board.
b) The composition of Board committees, subcommittees and panels must be "balanced",
representing a range of legitimate technical opinion on the matter.
c) No member of the Board may be a full-time government employee.
d) Members are subject to conflict-of-interest regulations.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-10 Annual Report
The scientific and technical quality and the credibility of those selected is a paramount consideration.
Secondary factors considered include the geographic, ethnic, gender, and academic/private sector balance
of committees. Other factors that contribute to, but do not determine, the selection include demonstrated
ability to work well in a committee process, write well, and complete assignments punctually.
Nominations for membership/consultantshiponthe Boardare acceptedatany time. On a biannual basis,
the SAB Staff Office publishes a notice in the Federal Register formally soliciting the names of candidates
for SAB activities.
Terms of Appointment
Members serve at the pleasure and by appointment of the Administrator. In order to provide suitable
terms of service and to insure the infusion of new talent, the following guidelines are generally followed:
Members are generally appointed in October for two-year terms which may be renewed for two
additional consecutive terms. Chairs of the standing committees are also appointed for two-year terms
which may be renewed for one additional term. If a member is appointed as Chair, this term of service (2-4
years) is added to whatever term of service he/she may accrue as a member. For example,
Years as member Followed by years as Chair Followed by year as member Total years
20 02
2 2 or 4 0 or 2 4-6
4 2 or 4 0 6-8
6 2 or 4 0 8-10
Reappointment as a member is possible after a two-year hiatus from the SAB, during which time the
individual may be called upon to serve as a consultant for a specific issue.
Consultants are appointed to provide the necessary expertise for specific issues. Their terms of
appointment are for one year, beginning at any time, and are renewable annually. Their formal
appointments may be continued beyond completion of a given project so that their expertise can be quickly
assessed in future with a minimum of paperwork.
In general, interagency liaisons participate for the term of issue resolution only.
Member and Consultant Selection Process
Members are appointed by the Administrator based on nominations forwarded by the SAB Staff
Director and the Chair of the Executive Committee. These nominations, in turn, are based on
recommendations made by the Designated Federal Official (DFO—the member of the SAB Staff with
principal responsibility for servicing standing Committees) and the Chairs of the standing Committees. The
DFO has
the responsibility for developing a list of candidates, utilizing all credible sources, including members of the
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report page C-ll
SAB, other DFOs, EPA staff, staff at the National Academy of SciencesXNational Research Council, trade
groups, environmental groups, professional organizations, scientific societies, regulated industries, and the
informed public.
Onoccasion, an ad hoc Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee has been established
to assist in the selection process. This group is consulted about possible names and used as a "sounding
board" when decisions are being made about appointments. The Membership Subcommittee's principal role
is to maintain the integrity of the process and to probe the extent to which objective selection criteria and
procedures are being followed. They also raise questions about adherence to the Statement of Intent on
Women and Minorities, adoptedby the Executive Committee in 1990, which was designed to increase the
representation of these groups on the Board.
Consultants are appointed by the Staff Director following a similar procedure.
Panel Selection Process
In general, once the Board and the Agency have agreed upon a topic for SAB review, the subject
is assigned to one of the standing Committees. The Committee Chair and the DEO have primary
responsibility for forming a review Panel (the full Committee or a Subcommittee, as the case may be). The
Panel will contain some or all members of the Committee. In many instances, consultants may also be added
to the Panel in order to obtain specialized expertise on the particular issue under discussion.
A key aspect in the Panel selection process is the "charge", the mutually agreed upon description
of what the Agency would like the review to accomplish and/or what the SAB expects to focus upon. The
most helpful charge is one that prescribes specific areas/questions that need attention and/or answers. At
a minimum, the elements of the charge should be sufficiently precise that the SAB can determine what
additional consultant expertise is needed to conduct the most helpful review.
Often the DEO begins by soliciting ideas about potential members from the Agency staff who are
intimately acquainted with the issue and will therefore are often aware of the most informed people. A
conscious effort is made to avoid selecting individuals who have had a substantive hand in the development
of the document to be reviewed. At the same time, experience has shown the utility of having some
representation from individuals/groups who may have been involved in prior reviews of the issue or the
document. The goal is to minimize the appearance or practice of an individual's reviewing his/her own
work, while at the same time, maintaining an historical link to earlier deliberations surrounding the
document/issue. Once the Agency staff has suggested nominees and provided background information on
the individuals, their direct role in the panel selection process is complete. Agency staff, the requesting
office, and others may be consulted at a later stage for information about nominees received from other
sources.
The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an independent assessment of the
technical matters before the Board. Discrete inquiries about the nominees are made with a number of
different sources. This might include, for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters,
professional colleagues, and experts who are on "the other side" of the issue. As time and resources permit
and controversy demands, names of nominees will be investigated via computer search of their publications
and pronouncements in public meetings.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-12 Annual Report
Frequently, a determining factor for selection is the availability of the individual to participate in
the public review. In the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the SAB may enlist the assistance of a
particularly skilled consultant who cannot attend all meetings, but who is willing to do additional homework
and/or participate via conference call.
In some cases, the Panel Chair consults with key members of the Panel for their advice before
completing the empaneling process. The final selections for consultants are compiled by the DFO in
conjunction with the Chair of the Panel and are submitted to the SAB Staff Director for discussion and
appointment.
Conflict-of-interest and Public Disclosure
The intent of FACA is to construct a panel of knowledgeable individuals who are free of conflicts-of-
interest. In this regard, each Panel member must complete a confidential financial information form that
is reviewed by the Deputy Ethics Officer, Donald Barnes, to determine whether there are any obvious
conflicts-of-interest.
Legal conflict-of-interests generally arise in connection with "particular party matters" (A particular
matter is any activity in which an employee participates in an official capacity, where he or other persons
have a financial interest, if the direct activity --particular matter-- will have a direct and predictable effect
on his own or that person's financial interests.) In general, the SAB (incontrast with the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP)) does not get involved in "particular party matters," hence, legal conflicts-of-interest
are rare on the SAB. However, technical conflicts-of-interest can arise, particularly for participants from
academic institutions, in connection with Committee recommendations for additional research studies. In
most such cases, the DFO's work with the Committee members to apply for waivers from the conflict-of-
interest concerns on this matter. The requests for waivers are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by EPA's
Office of General Counsel. (The Agency generally determines that the benefits to the country derived from
these experts' recommendations for additional research, outweigh any technical conflict-of-interest that
might be involved.)
However, the Board is also concerned about Yapparent conflicts-of-interest." Consequently,
Members and Consultants to the Panel are generally selected from the Ybroad middle" spectrum of opinion
on the technical issue under discussion. Experience has shown that achieving balance through equal
representation of extreme views reduces the chance of achieving a workable consensus--pro or con--thatthe
Agency needs to more forward.
The Ypublic disclosure" (see Attached) process (a standard part of all SAB Committee meetings) is
a mechanism aimed resolving the apparent conflicts-of-interest issues. This procedure involves an oral
statement (sometimes Board members supplement this with a written document) that lays out the
individual's connection with the issue under discussion; e.g., his/her area of expertise, length of experience
with the issue, sources of research grants, previous appearance in public forms where he/she might have
expressed an opinion, etc. This recitation of prior and/or continuing contacts on the issue assists the public,
the Agency, and fellow Panel
members understand the background from which particular individual's comments spring, so that those
comments can be evaluated accordingly.
Conclusion
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report page C-13
These Guidelines are intended to assist the SAB in adhering to the mandates and spirit of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. By following these Guidelines the Board should be well-positioned to provide
technically-sound, independent, balanced advice to the Agency. At the same time, they provide assurance
that there will be adequate participation by and renewal with well-qualified experts from the various
communities served by the Board.
Prepared: Oct 14, 1991
Revised: Nov 26, 1991
Revised: Oct. 12, 1994
Revised: Nov 12, 1996
ATTACHMENT
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-14 Annual Report
ATTACHMENT TO APPENDIX C4
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AT SAB MEETINGS
Background
Conflict-of-interest (COI) statutes and regulations are aimed at preventing individuals from
(knowingly or unknowingly) bringing inappropriate influence to bear on Agency decisions which might affect
the financial interests of those individuals. The SAB contributes to the decision-making process of the
Agency by evaluating the technical underpinnings upon which rules and regulations are built. SAB Members
and consultants (M/Cs) carry our their duties as Special Government Employees (SGE's) and are subject to
the COI regulations.
Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the advisory process itself and the reputations of those
involved, procedures have been established to prevent actual COI and minimize the possibility of perceived
COI. These procedures include the following:
a) Having M/C's file, at the time of appointment, OGE Form 450, Confidential
Statement of Employment and Financial Interest. This form is a legal requirement and
is maintained by the Agency as a confidential document.
b) Providing M/C's with written material; e.g. copies of the Effect of Special Govern-
ment Employee Status on Applicability of Criminal Conflict of Interest Statutes and
Other Ethics Related Provisions, the Standard of Ethical Conduct Synopsis and Ethics
Advisories 97-01 and 96-18.
c) Delivering briefings to M/C's on COI issues on a regular basis.
The following is a description of an additional voluntary1 procedure that is designed to allow both
fellow M/Cs and the observing public to learn more about the backgrounds that M/C's bring to a discussion
of a particular issue. In this way, all parties will gain a broader understanding of "where people are coming
from" and provide additional insights to help observers and participants evaluate comments made during the
discussion.
Procedure
When an agenda item is introduced that has the potential for COI—actual or perceived--the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) will ask each M/C on the panel to speak for the record on his/her
background, experience, and interests that relate to the issue at hand. The following items are examples
of the type of material that is appropriate to mention in such a disclosure:
a) Research conducted on the matter.
1 Note: The disclosure procedure is voluntary, and members/consultants are not obligated to reveal information contained in their
Form 450 that would otherwise remain confidential.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-15
b) Previous pronouncements made on the matter.
c) Interests of employer in the matter.
d) A general description of any other financial interests in the matter: e.g., having
investments that might be directly affected by the matter.
e) Other links: e.g., research grants from parties—including EPA--that would be affected
by the matter.
The DFO will also publicly refer to any waivers from the COI regulations which have been granted
for the purposes of the meeting.
The DFO will assure that the minutes of the meeting reflect that fact such disclosures were made
and, if possible, the nature of the disclosures. In addition, the minutes should describe any situations in
which, in the opinion of the DFO, an actual or perceived COI existed and how the issue was resolved.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-16 Annual Report
C5
TYPES OF AFFILIATION WITH THE SAB
1. SAB Members
SAB members are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the Deputy
Administrator for two-year terms. Members participate fully in their review committees, which are
generally conducted in a collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as members on relevant
rosters and generated reports.
Note that SAB reports are formally endorsed by SAB members by action of the Executive
Committee.
2. SAB Consultants
SAB Consultants are technically qualified individuals who are appointedto the Boardby the SAB Staff
Director for one-year terms. Generally, Consultants are appointedin order to augment the expertise for
a particular review and/or for mutual exploration of future membership on the Board. Consultants
participate fully in their review panels and committees, which are generally conducted in a collegial,
consensus-building style. Their names appear as Consultants on relevant rosters and generated reports.
3. Federal Experts
The SAB charter precludes Federal employees from being members of the Board. However, in
some instances, certain Federal experts have technical knowledge and expertise that can add significant value
of the work of the SAB.
In order to access that expertise for the benefit of the Board and the Administrator, the SAB staff
will work with the Office of the General Counsel to identify appropriate mechanisms for assessing the
potential for conflicts of interest.
The SAB Staff Director can invite Federal experts who do not have a real or apparent conflict-of-
interest (either personally or through their agencies) to service on an SAB committee for the duration of
a particular the review/study. Federal experts participate fully on the committees, which are generally
conducted ina collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as Federal experts on relevant rosters
and generated reports.
4. Invited Expert Resource
In some situations, there are individuals (both Federal employees and non-Federal employees) who
have expertise and/or knowledge of data that bears on an SAB review but who also have real or perceived
COIs that would preclude their participation as Members or Consultants. There people can attend the SAB
meeting as Invited Expert Resources. The SAB pays travel expenses, if needed.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
-------
Annual Report page C-17
For example, the person could be the author of a key study of PCBs when the EHC is reviewing the
Agency's reference dose for PCBs. The SAB would fund the travel expenses for the person. This person
could be either Federal or non-Federal employee. The intent is to have a source real-time, authoritative
feedback available during the SAB discussion of the issue. The person would not be asked to serve as a
consultant in this case, due to a professional conflict-of-interest; i.e., he would be placed in the position of
reviewing his own work.
Another example would be a researcher who has access to some important data, alternative analysis,
etc. at another agency, but that is germane to the SAB review. The person would not be asked to serve as
a consultant in this case because of a real or apparent conflict-of-interest; e.g., works for an organization
(private or Federal) that would be so directly impactedby the Agency's position as to cause a M/C from such
an organization to ask for a recusal.
Invited Expert Resources have limited participation in SAB reviews. They are available to answer
questions of the SAB committee panel, provide invited presentations, and enlighten the discussion with
pertinent pieces of information. Their names are listed as Invited Expert Resources on rosters and reports,
with an explanatory footnote recording their presence and role at the meeting. They are not a part of the
Board's consensus/decision about the report. The intent is to indicate that such experts were available
during the meeting, but that they were not a party to the judgment.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-18
Annual Report
C6
SAB MEMBERS for FY 2001
Miguel Acevedo (EPEC)
University of North Texas
Denton, TX
William Adams (RSAC)
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.
Magna, UT
Henry Anderson (EC, IHEC)
Wisconsin Division of Public
Health
Madison, WI
Lynn Anspaugh (RAC)
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
David Baker (DWC)
Heidelberg College
Tiffin, OH
Steven Bartell (EPEC)
Cadmus Group, Inc.
Oak Ridge,TN
Cynthia Bearer (EHC)
Case Western Reserve
University
Cleveland, OH
Gregory Biddinger (EPEC)
Exxon Mobil Refining and
Supply Company
Fairfax, VA
Vicki Bier (RAC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Richard Bull (RSAC)
MoBull Consulting
Kennewick, WA
Dennis Burtraw (EEAC)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Gilles Bussod (RAC)
Consultant
Santa Fe, NM
Trudy Cameron (COUNCIL)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Lauraine Chestnut (COUNCIL)
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO
Maureen Cropper(COUNCIL)
The World Bank
Washington, DC
Kenneth Cummins (EPEC)
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA
Virginia Dale (EPEC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Bruce Boecker (RAC)
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
Mary Davis (DWC)
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV
Richardo DeLeon (DWC)
Metropolitan Water District of
South California
La Verne, CA
H. Barry Dellinger (EEC)
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
John Doull (EHC)
University of Kansas
Kansas City, KS
Yvonne Dragan (DWC)
Ohio State University
Dublin, OH
John Elston (CASAC)
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ
John Evans (DWC)
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, MA
Ivan Fernandez (EPEC)
University of Maine
Orono, ME
Terry Foecke (EEC)
Materials Productivity LLC
Richfield, MN
-------
Annual Report
page C-19
Paul Foster (EEC)
Chemical Industry Institute
of
Toxicology
Research Triangle Park, NC
Don Fullerton (COUNCIL)
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Thomas Gesell (RAG)
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID
Cynthia Gilmour (EPEC)
The Academy of Natural
Sciences/Estuarine Research
Center
St. Leonard, MD
William Glaze (EC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Lawrence Goulder
(COUNCIL, EEAC)
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Domenico Grasso (EEC)
Smith College
Northampton, MA
Sidney Green (DWC)
Howard University
Washington, DC
Linda Greer (EC)
Natural Resources Defense
Council
Washington, DC
SAB MEMBERS (cont'd)
Annette Guiseppi-Elie (IHEC)
DuPont Engineering
Richmond, VA
Jane Hall (COUNCIL)
California State University
Fullerton, CA
James Hammitt (COUNCIL)
Harvard University
Boston, MA
W. Michael Hanemann (EEAC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Robert Harley (IHEC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Barbara Harper (DWC)
Yakama Indian Nation
West Richland, WA
Gloria Helfand (EEAC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
David Hoel (EHC)
Medical University of South
Carolina
Charleston, SC
Philip Hopke
(EC,CASAC,RSAC Clarkson
University
Potsdam, NY
Richard Hornung (RAC)
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Hilary Inyang (EC, EEC)
University of North Carolina
Charlotte, NC
Michael Jayjock (IHEC)
Rohm and Haas Co.
Spring House, PA
Janet Johnson (EC, RAC)
Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Fort Collins, CO
Lovell Jones (IHEC)
University of Texas
Houston, TX
Dale Jorgenson (EEAC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Paul Joskow (EEAC)
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA
Roger Kasperson (EC)
Stockholm Environment
Institute
Stockholm, Sweden
Michael Kavanaugh (EEC)
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Oakland, CA
Byung Kim (EEC)
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, MI
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-20
Catherine Kling (EEAC)
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
Charles Kolstad (COUNCIL)
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA
George Lambert (EHC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Pisacataway, NJ
Lester Lave (COUNCIL)
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Michael Lebowitz (IHEC)
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Grace Lemasters (EHC)
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Abby Li (EHC)
Monsanto
St. Louis, MO
Paul Lioy (COUNCIL)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Jill Lipoti (RAG)
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ
Morton Lippmann (EC)
New York University
Medical
Center
Tuxedo, NY
SAB MEMBERS (cont'd)
Raymond Loehr (EC, RSAC)
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Ulrike Luderer (EHC)
University of California
Irvine, CA
Randy Maddalena (IHEC)
Lawrence Berkeley National
Lab
Berkeley, CA
Alan Maki (RSAC)
Exxon Mobil
Houston, TX
John Maney (EEC)
Environmental
Measurements
Assessment
Gloucester, MA
Lawrence Master (EPEC)
Association for Biodiversity
Information
Boston, MA
Genevieve Matanoski
(RSAC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Joe Mauderly (CASAC)
Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Michael McFarland (EEC)
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Lee McMullen (DWC)
Des Moines Water Works
Annual Report
Des Moines, IA
Paulette Middleton (RSAC)
RAND Environment, Inc.
Boulder, CO
Frederick Miller (EHC)
Chemical Industry Institute
of
Toxicology
RTF, NC
Christine Moe (DWC)
Emory University
Atlanta, GA
Maria Morandi (RSAC)
University of Texas
Houston, TX
M. Granger Morgan (EC)
Carnegie Mellon University
Houston, TX
Ishwar Murarka (RSAC)
ISH, Inc.
Sunnyvale, CA
Richard Norgaard (EEAC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Rebecca Parkin (IHEC)
George Washington
University
Washington, DC
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
Barbara Petersen (IHEC)
Novigen Sciences, Inc.
Washington, DC
Charles Pittinger (EPEC)
SoBran, Inc.
Cincinnati, OH
John Poston (RAG)
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Leslie Real (EPEC)
Emory University
Atlanta, GA
Richard Revesz (EEAC)
New York University
New York, NY
Genevieve Roessler (RAC)
Consultant
Elysian, MN
W. Randall Seeker (RSAC)
General Electric Energy &
Env. Research Corp.
Irvine, CA
Jason Shogren (EEAC)
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
Roy Shore (EHC)
New York University School
of Medicine
New York, NY
Hilary Sigman (EEAC)
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
page C-21
SAB MEMBERS (cont'd)
Philip Singer (DWC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
V. Kerry Smith (COUNCIL)
North Carolina State
University
Raleigh, NC
William Smith (EC, RSAC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Robert Stavins (EC, EEAC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Frieda Taub (EPEC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Thomas Theis (EEC)
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
Valerie Thomas (EEC)
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ
Gary Toranzos (DWC)
University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Rico
R. Rhodes Trussell
(EC, DWC)
Montgomery Watson Harza
Engineering
Pasadena, CA
Arthur Upton (CASAC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Mark Utell (EC, EHC,
RSAC)
University of Rochester
Medical Center
Rochester, NY
Sverre Vedal (CASAC)
National J ewish Medical and
Research Center
Denver, CO
Jed Waldman (IHEC)
California Department of
Health Services
Berkeley, CA
David Wallinga (IHEC)
Institute for Agriculture,
Trade and Policy
Minneapolis, MN
James Watson (RSAC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Charles Weschler (IHEC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Terry Young (EPEC)
Environmental Defense
Oakland, CA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-22 Annual Report
SAB MEMBERS (cont'd)
Lauren Zeise (EHC)
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Oakland, CA
Barbara Zielinska (CASAC)
Desert Research Institute
Reno, LV
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page C-23
C7
FY 2001 MEMBER TRANSITIONS
Among the notable SAB Members who have completed their service and significant roles, we
should highlight:
a. Dr. Mort Lippmann, oft-referred to as "dean of the SAB", having served longer on the Board
than anyone else.
b. Dr. Hilary Inyang, the retiring Chair of the Environmental Engineering Committee, who
brought fresh perspectives and imaginative approaches to many problems -- demonstrating on more than
one occasion that "Engineers have never met a problem that they didn't like".
c. Dr. Mark Utell, the retiring Chair of the Environmental Health Committee, who
demonstrated that just because your committee has a light load does not mean that the Chair has a light
load; cf., Cancer Guidelines reviews, Data from the Testing of Human Subjects, and Chloroform Risk
Assessment.
In addition, the following Members have also completed their terms of service with the SAB as
of
September 30, 2001. These men and women contributed significantly to help the SAB pursue its goals;
i.e., making a difference in the production and use of science at EPA. We extend to them our gratitude
for their efforts.
Dr. Miguel Acevedo (EPEC)
University of North Texas
Dr. Terry Foecke (EEC)
Waste Reduction Institute
Dr. Cynthia Bearer (EHC) Dr. Michael Jayjock (IHEC)
Case Western Reserve University Rohm and Haas Co.
Dr. John Doull (EHC)
University of Kansas
Dr. Yvonne Dragan (DWC)
Ohio State University
Dr. John Elston (CASAC)
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Dr. Dale Jorgenson (EEAC)
Harvard University
Dr. Michael Lebowitz (IHEC)
University of Arizona
Dr. Ishwar Murarka (RSAC)
Ish, Inc.
Dr. Barbara Petersen (IHEC)
Novigen Sciences, Inc.
Dr. John Poston (RAG)
Texas A&M University
Dr. Leslie Real (EPEC)
Emory University
Dr. Freida Taub (EPEC)
University of Washington
Dr. Arthur Upon (CASAC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-24
C8
Annual Report
E. Eric Adams (EC)
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA
Roy Albert (EHC)
University of Cincinnati
Medical Center
Cincinnati, OH
Richard Albertini (EHC)
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
George Alexeeff (CASAC)
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Sacramento, CA
Herbert Allen (RSAC)
University of Delaware
Newark, DE
Lisa Alvarez-Cohen (EPEC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Mary Anderson (EEC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Yolanda Anderson (IHEC)
North Carolina Central
University
Durham, NC
Stephen Ayres (CASAC)
Medical College of Virginia
Commonwealth University
Richmond, VA
John C. Bailar (EHC)
SAB CONSULTANTS
(Indicates Consultants used in FY 2001)
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Paul Bailey (IHEC)
Mobil Business Resource
Corp.
Paulsboro, NJ
William Bair (RAG)
Battelle Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
Richland, WA
Scott Barrett (EEAC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Judy Bean (DWG)
Children's Hospital Medical
Center
Cincinnati, OH
Michael Beck (EHC)
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
Barbara Bedford (EPEC)
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
David Bellinger (EHC)
Children's Hospital
Boston, MA
Frances Berry (EEC)
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL
William Bishop (EPEC)
Procter & Gamble
Cincinnati, OH
Nicolas Bloom (EHC)
Frontier Geosciences, Inc.
Seattle, WA
Nancy Bockstael (EEAC)
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Donald Boesch (EPEC)
University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD
James Bond (EHC)
Toxcon
Durham, NC
Harry Boston (EPEC)
Lockheed Martin Energy
Systems
Oak Ridge, TN
Anne Bostrom (RAC)
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Atlanta, GA
Dorothy Bowers (EEC)
Merck & Company, Inc.
Whitehouse Station, NJ
Corale Brierley (EPEC)
VistaTech Partnership, Ltd.
Highlands Ranch, CO
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page C-25
Gardner Brown (COUNCIL)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Halina Brown (EHC)
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Linfield Brown (EC)
Tufts University
Medford, MA
Stephen Brown (RAG)*
Risks of Radiation Chemical
Compounds (R2C2)
Oakland, CA
Robert Buchsbaum (EPEC)
Massachusetts Audubon
Society
Wenham, MA
Thomas Burbacher (EHC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Thomas Burke (EC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Craig Byus (RAG)
University of California
Riverside, CA
Gary Carlson (EHC)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Keith Cams (DWC)
Washington University
St. Louis, MO
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Peter Chapman (EPEC)
EVS Environment Consultants
N. Vancouver, BC, Canada
Randall Charbeneau (EEC)
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Caron Chess (EC)
Cook College/Rutgers
University
New Brunswick, NJ
Calvin Chien (EEC)*
E.I. DuPont Company
Wilmington, DE
David Chock (COUNCIL)
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, MI
Russell Christman (DWC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Richard Clapp (EHC)*
Boston University
Boston, MA
Lenore Clesceri (DWC)
Clesceri Associates, Ltd.
Bolton Landing, NY
Roger Cochran (RSAC)*
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Sacramento, CA
Theodora Colborn (RSAC)
World Wildlife Fund
Washington, DC
Steven Colome (CASAC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Timothy Considine (EC)
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Richard Conway (EEC)
Environmental Consultant
Charleston, WV
Edwin Cooper (RSAC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
William E. Cooper (EPEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Robert Coppock (EEC)
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, DC
Deborah Cory-Slechta (EHC)*
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Robert Costanza (EPEC)
University of Maryland
Solomons Island, MD
Kenny Crump (EHC)*
ICF Consulting
Ruston, LA
Ronald Cummings (COUNCIL)
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-26
Annual Report
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Walter Dabberdt (EPEC)
National Center for
Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO
Thomas Dahms (CASAC)
St. Louis University
St. Louis MO
Herman Daly (EEAC)
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
George Daston (EHC)
Procter & Gamble
Cincinnati, OH
J. Clarence Davies (EC)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
James Dearing (EEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Michael DeBaun (EHC)
Washington University
St. Louis, MO
Christopher D'Elia (EPEC)
University of Albany
Albany, NY
John Dellinger (EHC)
Metropolitan Chicago
Healthcare Council
Chicago, IL
Richard Denison (EEC)
Environmental Defense
Boston, MA
David Diaz-Sanchez (CASAC)*
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Kenneth Dickson (EPEC)
University of North Texas
Denton, TX
Kim Dietrich (EHC)
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Thomas Dietz (EC)
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
John DiGiovanni (RAC)
University of Texas
Smithville, TX
Richard DiGiulio (EPEC)*
Duke University
Durham, NC
Douglas Dockery (CASAC)
Harvard School of Public
Health
Boston, MA
Philip Dorn (EPEC)
Equilon Enterprises, LLC
Houston, TX
Patricia Durbin-Heavey (RAC)
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
Berkeley, CA
Mary Durfee (EEC)
Michigan Technological
University
Houghton, MI
David Dzombak (EEC)
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Richard Ediger (EEC)
The Perkin-Elmer Corporation
Norwalk, CT
Rebecca Efroymson (EEC)
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Lois Epstein (EEC)
Trustees for Alaska
Anchorage, AK
Ronald Estabrook (EHC)
University of Texas
Dallas, TX
June Fabryka-Martin (RAC)*
Los Alamos National
Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM
Brendlyn Faison (EEC)
Hampton University
Hampton, VA
Anna Fan-Cheuk (DWC)
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Oakland, CA
Elaine Faustman (EHC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page C-27
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
William Feero (RAG)
Electric Research and
Management, Inc.
State College, PA
Nancy Fiedler (EC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
Lawrence Fischer (EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Baruch Fischhoff (CASAC)
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Bruce Fowler (EHC)
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Robert Frantz (EEC)
General Electric Company
Cincinnati, OH
A. Myrick Freeman (COUNCIL)*
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME
Nina Bergen French (EEC)*
SKY+ Ltd.
Napa, CA
H. Christopher Frey (EC)
North Carolina State
University
Raleigh, NC
John Gallagher (EPEC)
University of Delaware
Lewes, DE
Michael Gallo (EHC)
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
A. Jay Gandolfi (DWC)
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Steven Garber (COUNCIL)
RAND
Santa Monica, CA
Eric Garshick (CASAC)*
VA Boston Health Care
System
West Roxbury, MA
Thomas Gasiewicz (EHC)
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Kenneth Geiser (EEC)
University of Massachusetts
Lowell, MA
Thomas Gentile (EC)*
NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, NY
Bradford Gentry (EEC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Charles Gerba (DWC)
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Panos Georgopoulous (EC)*
UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Medical School
Piscataway, NJ
John Giesy (EPEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Richard Gilbert (EHC)
Battelle Memorial Institute
Washington, DC
Steven Gilbert (EHC)
Biosupport, Inc
Redmond, WA
Michael Ginevan (RAG)
M.E. Ginevan & Associates
Silver Spring, MD
Arthur Gold (EC)
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI
Bernard Goldstein (EHC)
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Robert Goldstein (CASAC)
Electric Power Research
Institute
Palo Alto, CA
Manuel Gomez (EC)
American Industrial Hygiene
Associate
Fairfax, VA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-28
Annual Report
Jose Gomez-Ibanzez (COUNCIL,
EEAC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Ricardo Gonzalez-Mendez(RAC)
University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, PR
Theodore Gordon (EEC)
Consultant
Vero Beach, EL
Samuel Gorovitz (EC)
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY
James Gosselink (EPEC)
Consultant
Baton Rouge, LA
John Gowdy (EEC)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY
Robert Goyer (EHC)
Consultant
Chapel Hill, NC
John Graham (EHC)*
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Philippe Grandjean (EC)
Boston University
Boston, MA
Michael Greenberg (EEC)
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
William Greenlee (EHC)*
Chemistry Industry Institute of
Toxicology
Research Triangle Park, NC
Darrell Grimes (DWC)
University of Southern
Mississippi
Ocean Springs, MS
Peter Groer (RAG)
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
Helen Ann Grogan (EC)
Cascade Scientific, Inc.
Bend, OR
Raymond Guilmette (RAC)
Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Philip Guzelian (EHC)
University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center
Denver, CO
George Hallberg (EEC)
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Waltham, MA
Martin Hamilton (DWC)
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT
Anna Harding (EC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Winston Harrington (DWC)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Stuart Harris (EC)
Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation
Pendleton, OR
Keith Harrison (EPEC)
Michigan Environmental
Science Board
Lansing, MI
Rolf Hartung (EPEC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Mark Harwell (EPEC)
University of Miami
Miami, EL
Dale Hattis (CASAC)*
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Charles Hawkins (EPEC)
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Robert Hazen (IHEC)
NJ Dept. of Environmental
Protection and Energy
Trenton, NJ
Clark Heath (RAC)
American Cancer Society
Atlanta, GA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page C-29
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Rogene Henderson (EHC)
Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Carol Henry (EC)*
American Chemical Council
Arlington, VA
Janet Hering (DWC)
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, CA
Ronald Hites (IHEC)
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN
F. Owen Hoffman (RAG)
SENES Oak Ridge, Inc.
Oak Ridge, TN
Thomas Holsen (EEC)
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
Robert Hueter (EHC)
Mote Marine Laboratory
Sarasota, EL
Joseph Hughes (EEC)
Rice University
Houston, TX
Harold Humphrey (EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
James Hurley (EHC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Jay Jacobson (CASAC)
Boyce Thompson Institute at
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
Joseph Jacobson (EHC)
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI
James Jahnke (EEC)
Source Technology Associates
RTF, NC
Sheila Jasanoff (EC)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Harvey Jeffries (CASAC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
James Johnson (EEC)
Howard University
Washington, DC
Wayne Rachel (EEC)*
Mele Associates
Brooks AFB, TX
Bernd Kahn (RAG)*
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Atlanta, GA
Jeffrey Kahn (EC)
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
G. Graham Kalton (RAG)
Westat
Rockville, MD
Norbert Kaminski (EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Peter Kareiva (EPEC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
David Kaufman (DWC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Karl Kelsey (EHC)
Harvard School of Public
Health
Boston, MA
Nancy Kim (EHC)*
New York State Department
of Health
Albany, NY
Richard Kimerle (EPEC)
Monsanto Company
Eureka, MO
Gordon Kingsley (EEC)
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Atlanta, GA
Curtis Klaassen (DWC)
University of Kansas
Kansas City, KS
James Klaunig (EHC)
Indiana University
Indianapolis, IN
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-30
Annual Report
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Michael Kleinman
(COUNCIL)*
University of California
Irvine, CA
Lynda Knobeloch (EHC)
Wisconsin Department of
Health & Family Services
Madison, WI
Debra Knopman (EC)
RAND Science and Technology
Arlington, VA
Maurice Knuckles (IHEC)
Meharry Medical College
Nashville, TN
Jane Koenig (CASAC)*
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Catherine Koshland (EEC)*
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Petros Koutrakis (CASAC)*
Harvard University
Boston, MA
David Kreamer (RAG)
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV
Margaret Kripke (RSAC)
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center,
University of Texas
Houston, TX
Alan Krupnick (COUNCIL)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Thomas LaPoint (EPEC)
University of North Texas
Denton, TX
Nan Laird (RAG)
Harvard School of Public
Health
Boston, MA
James Lamb (RSAC)
Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly,
Inc.
Arlington, VA
Guy Lanza (EEC)
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
Kinley Larntz (CASAC)
University of Minnesota
Shoreview, MN
Timothy Larson (IHEC)
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Debra Laskin (CASAC)
Rutgers University
Piscataway, NJ
Victor Laties (CASAC)
University of Rochester
Medical Center
Rochester, NY
Brian P. Leaderer (IHEC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Peter Lederman (EEC)
New jersey Institute of
-* J
Technology
Newark, NJ
Kun-Chieh Lee (EC)
Union Carbide Corporation
S. Charleston, WV
Allan Legge (CASAC)*
Biosphere Solutions
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Arik Levinson (EEAC)
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
Robert Lewis (EC)
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Annandale, NJ
Steven Lewis (EHC)
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Annandale, NJ
Reid Lifset (EEC)*
Yale University
New Haven, CT
JoAnn Eighty (EEC)
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
Steve Lindberg (EHC)
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
John Little (IHEC)
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page C-31
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Kai-Shen Liu (IHEC)*
California Department of
Health Services
Berkeley, CA
Lawrence Longo (CASAC)
Lorna Linda University
Lorna Linda, CA
John Loornis (EEAC)
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
Karl Loos (EEC)
Equilon Enterprises
Houston, TX
Cecil Lue-Hing (DWC)
Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District
Chicago, IL
Wu-Seng Lung (EPEC)
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
Frederick Lurmann (IHEC)
Sonoma Technology, Inc.
Petaluma, CA
Richard Luthy (EEC)
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Judy MacGregor (EHC)
Toxicology Consulting Services
Rockville, MD
Thomas Mack (EHC)
University of Southern
California
Los Angeles, CA
Donald MacKay (EPEC)
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Douglas MacLean (EC)
University of Maryland
Chapel Hill, NC
Kumar Mahadevan (EPEC)
Mote Marine Laboratory
Sarasota, FL
David Major (EC)
GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc.
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Thomas Malone (EPEC)
University of Maryland
Cambridge, MA
Ellen Mangione (RAG)
Colorado Department of
Public Health
Denver, CO
William Manning (CASAC)
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
James Martin (RAG)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Melanie Marty (CASAC)
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Oakland, CA
Karen McBee (EPEC)
Oklahoma State University
Still water, OK
Roger McClellan (CASAC)*
Consultant
Albuquerque, NM
Ernest McConnell (EC)*
ToxPath, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
David McCurdy (RAG)
Duke Engineering and Services
Marlborough, MA
Leyla McCurdy (IHEC)
National Environmental
Education and Training
Foundation
Washington, DC
Anne McElroy (EPEC)
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY
Gordon McFeters (DWC)
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT
Thomas McKone (IHEC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
John McLachlan (EHC)
Tulane/Xavier Center for
Bioenvironmental Research
New Orleans, LA
Terrence McManus (EEC)
Intel Corporation
Chandler, AZ
Peter McMurry (CASAC)*
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-32
Annual Report
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Michele Medinsky (EHC)
Toxicology Consultant
Durham, NC
Arend Meijer (RAG)
GCX Inc.
Albuquerque, NM
Paul Merges (RAG)
New York State Department
of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, NY
H. Robert Meyer (RAG)
Keystone Science
Fort Collins, CO
Joseph Meyer (COUNCIL)
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
Michael Meyer (EPEC)
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Rhinelander, WI
H. Robert Meyer (RAG)
Keystone Science
Fort Collins, CO
Jana Milford (EC)*
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO
J. Walter Milon (EPEC)
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Nicholas Molina (EEC)
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Harrisburg, PA
Paul Montagna (EPEC)
University of Texas @ Austin
Port Aransas, TX
Peter Mueller (CASAC)
Tropochem
Palo Alto, CA
Issam Najm (DWC)
Water Quality and Treatment
Solutions, Inc.
Chatsworth, CA
Bruce Napier (RAG)
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Richland, WA
Thomas Natan (EEC)
Environmental Information Ctr
Washington, DC
John Neuberger (EHC)
University of Kansas
Kansas City, KS
M. Christopher
Newland(EHC)
Auburn University
Auburn, AL
Nikolaos Nikolaidis (EEC)
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT
Scott Nixon (EPEC)
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI
D. Warner North (CASAC)
North Works
Belmont, CA
Bryan Norton (EEAC)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Charles Noss (EEC)
Water Environment Research
Foundation
Alexandria, VA
Jerome Nriagu (IHEC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Oddvar Nygaard (RAG)
Case Western Reserve
University
Cleveland, OH
Gunter Oberdorster (CASAC)*
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Mary Ellen O'Connor (RAG)
University of Tulsa
Tulsa, OK
Richard Okita (EHC)
Washington State University
Pullman, WA
Adam Olivieri (DWC)
EOA, Inc.
Oakland, CA
Charles O'Melia (DWC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
Gilbert Omenn (CASAC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
page C-33
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Steve Otwell (EHC)
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
David Ozonoff (EHC)
Boston University
Boston, MA
Frank Parker (RAG)
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN
Rebecca Parkin (EEC)
George Washington
University
Washington, DC
David Parkinson (EHC)
Long Island Occupational &
Env Health Center
Port Jefferson, NY
Dennis Paustenbach (EC)*
Exponent
Menlo Park, CA
John Payne (EC)
Duke University
Durham, NC
Marinelle Payton (IHEC)
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA
William Pease (IHEC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
James Peeler (EEC)
Emission Monitoring Inc.
Raleigh, NC
Edo Pellizzari (DWC)
Research Triangle Institute
RTF, NC
Gary Perdew (EHC)*
Perm State University
University Park, PA
Frederica Perera (EHC)
Columbia University
New York, NY
Richard Perritt (EPEC)*
University of Southern Maine
Gorham, ME
Leif Peterson (RAG)
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX
Richard Peterson (EPEC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Frederic Pfaender (EPEC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Robert Pfahl (EEC)*
Motorola Advanced
Technology
Center
Schaumburg, IL
Donald Pierce (RAG)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Henry Pitot (EHC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Daniel Podkulski (EEC)
Exxon Mobil Chemical
Bay town, TX
Frederick Pohland (EEC)*
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Robert Pojasek (EEC)
Pojasek & Associates
East Arlington, MA
Joel Pounds (DWC)
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI
Alison Power (EPEC)
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
Kimberly Prather (CASAC)
University of California @
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-34
Annual Report
San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Lynne Preslo (EEC)
EarthTech
Long Beach, CA
James Price (CASAC)*
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
Austin, TX
Verne Ray (EC)
Pfitzer, Inc.
Groton, CT
Donald Reed (EHC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Robert Repetto (EEAC)
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO
Kenneth Reuhl (EHC)
Rutgers University
Piscataway, NJ
Hanadi Rifai (EEC)
University of Houston
Houston, TX
Knut Ringen (EHC)*
Stoneturn Consultants
Seattle, WA
Paul Risser (EPEC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Bruce Rittmann (EEC)
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL
Karlene Roberts (EC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
James Rocco (EEC)
Sage Risk Solutions LLC
Aurora, OH
Howard Rockette (IHEC)
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Everett Rogers (EEC)
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
Joan Rose (DWC)
University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, EL
John Rosen (DWC)
Children's Hospital at
Montefiore
Bronx, NY
Benjamin Ross (EEC)
Disposal Safety Inc.
Washington, DC
Robert Rowe (COUNCIL)*
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO
Karl Rozman (EHC)
University of Kansas Medical
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
Center
Kansas City, KS
Clifford Russell (EPEC)*
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN
Milton Russell (EC)
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
John Jake Ryan (IHEC)
Health Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Louise Ryan (DWC)
Harvard School of Public
Health
Boston, MA
page C-35
Stephen Safe (EHC)
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Jonathan Samet (IHEC)*
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
David Savitz (EHC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Robert Sawyer (CASAC)
University of California
Berkeley, CA
Rita Schenck (EEC)
Institute for Environmental
Research & Education
Vashon, WA
Richard Schlesinger (EHC)
New York University Medical
Center
Tuxedo, NY
Richard Schmalensee (EEAC)
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA
Jerald Schnoor (EPEC)
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
Jerry Schubel (EC)
The New England Aquarium
Boston, MA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-36
Annual Report
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
William Schull (RAG)
University of Texas
Houston, TX
Anthony Scialli (EHC)
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
Bobby Scott (RAG)
Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Kathleen Segerson (CASAC)
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT
Christian Seigneur (CASAC)
Atmospheric & Environmental
Research, Inc.
San Ramon, CA
Richard Sextro (RAG)
Lawrence Berkeley National
Lab
Berkeley, CA
Margaret Shannon (EC)
State University of New York
Buffalo, NY
Carl Shy (CASAC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Ellen Silbergeld (EC)
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Allen Silverstone (EHC)
State University of New York
Syracuse, NY
Howard Simonin (EHC)
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Rome, NY
Warren Sinclair (RAG)
National Council on Radiation
Protection
Bethesda, MD
Sim Sitkin (EEC)
Duke University
Durham, NC
Mitchell Small (EEC)*
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Anne Spacie (EPEC)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Frank Speizer (CASAC)
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA
John Spengler (CASAC)
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Douglas Splitstone (EEC)
Spiltstone and Associates
Murrysville, PA
Michael Stein (EC)
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Laura Steinberg (EEC)
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA
Sidney Stohs (EHC)
Creighton University
Omaha, NE
Jan Stolwijk (IHEC)
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Keith Stolzenbach (EC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Judy Stout (EPEC)
Marine Environmental Sciences
Consortium
Dauphin Island, AL
David Strimaitis (EHC)
EarthTech
Concord, MA
Makram Suidan (EEC)
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
James Swenberg (EHC)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
George Taylor (CASAC)*
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
Paul Templet (EC)
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page C-37
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
Mary Jane Teta (EHC)
Union Carbide Corp.
Southbury, CT
Myint Thein (EC)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Thomas Theis (EC)
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
James Tiedje (EPEC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Thomas Tietenberg
(COUNCIL)
Colby College
Waterville, ME
Peter Tikuisis (CASAC)
Defense Civil Inst of Env.
Medicine
North York, Ontario, Canada
Michael Toman (EEC)
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Bruce Tonn (EC)
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
Nga Tran (EEC)
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Michael Trehy (RSAC)*
Solutia, Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Michael Trulear (EEC)
ChemTreat, Inc.
Richmond, VA
Jane Valentine (EHC)
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
W. Kip Viscusi (EEAC)
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA
Paul Voilleque (RAG)
MJP Risk Assessment, Inc.
Idaho Falls, ID
Ian von Lindern (CASAC)
TerraGraphics Environmental
Engineering
Moscow, ID
C. Herb Ward (EEC)*
Rice University
Houston, TX
James Watson (RAG)
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Judith S. Weis (EPEC)*
Rutgers University
Newark, NJ
Bernard Weiss (EHC)*
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Christopher Whipple (RAG )
ENVIRON
Emeryville, CA
Ronald White (IHEC)*
National Osteoporosis
Foundation
Washington, DC
Warren White (CASAC)
Washington University
St. Louis, MO
Chris Wiant (DWC)
Caring for Colorado
Foundation
Denver, CO
Mark Wiesner (EEC)
Rice University
Houston, TX
Marcia Williams (RSAC)
PHB Haglar Bailly, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Philip Williams (EPEC)
Philip Williams & Associates,
Ltd.
San Francisco, CA
Richard Wilson (RAG)
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Herbert L. Windom (EPEC)
Skidaway Institute of
Oceanography
Savannah, GA
William Winner (EPEC)
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-38
Annual Report
SAB CONSULTANTS (cont'd)
George Wolff (CASAC)*
General Motors Corporation
Detroit, MI
Ronald Wood (CASAC)
New York University Medical
Center
New York, NY
James Woods (IHEC)
HP-Woods Research Institute
Herndon, VA
Steven Wright (EC)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Ronald Wyzga (EHC)*
Electric Power Research
Institute
Palo Alto, CA
Marylynn Yates (DWC)
University of California
Riverside, CA
Terry Yosie (EC)
Chemical Manufacturers
Association
Arlington, VA
Timothy Zacharewski (EHC)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Joy Zedler (EPEC)
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Melvin Zeldin (CASAC)*
Environmental Consultant
Sparks, NV
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-39
C8
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
OF
THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-40 Annual Report
DR. DONALD G. BARNES
STAFF DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Dr. Donald G. Barnes assumed his position as Staff Director in 1988. Since arriving, he has
overseen a 25% growth in the Committees of the Board and a 50% increase in the membership of the Board.
During his tenure the Board has completed four major de novo reports [Future Risk (1988), Reducing Risk
(1990), Beyond the Horizon (1995), and Integrated Decisionmaking (1999)] and two self-studies (1989 and
1994), in addition to more than 300 reports to the Administrator.
Dr. Barnes is active in Agency-wide issues associated with science and risk assessment. For example,
he serves on the Administrator's Science Policy Council and on the Steering committee for the Council.
Dr. Barnes came to the SAB following ten years' service as Senior Science Advisor to the Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. In that role he became involved with a number of
controversial issues; e.g., pesticide re-registrations, the implementation of Section 5 of TSCA, and "dioxin",
for which he received two EPA Gold Medals for Superior Service.
He has been active in the area of risk assessment for nearly two decades as practitioner, reviewer and
instructor. For example, he participated in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy-led
effort to produce a consensus view of cancer in the Federal government; i.e., Cancer Principles. He has been
was active in the writing of a number of the Agency's risk assessment guide-lines; e.g., for cancer and for
mixtures. In a tangential activity he has worked with the government of Bulgaria to inculcate risk-based
decision making in their emerging environmental protection program, both at the ministry and regional
levels. He is on the editorial staff of a peer-review journal and serves as a reviewer for a second risk-related
journal.
Prior to coming to EPA, Dr. Barnes was Associate Professor and Science Division Chair at St.
Andrews Presbyterian College in North Carolina. His formal education includes a BA (chemistry) from the
College of Wooster, a PhD (physical chemistry, with a minor in physics) from the Institute of Molecular
Biophysics at Florida State University, and subsequent graduate courses in several health-related areas; i.e.,
pharmacology, toxicology, immunology and epidemiology.
His real world education continues to be provided by Dr. Karen K. Barnes, their two sons (and
wives), and three grandsons.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-41
DR. JOHN R. "JACK" FOWLE III
DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dr. Jack Fowle joined the staff as Deputy Director in September 1995. In addition to duties
with the SAB staff, Dr. Fowle is interested in the use of science to inform policy and works with the
Agency's Science Policy Council, cochairing efforts to implement EPA's Risk Characterization Policy.
He is also a member of the Agency's Risk Assessment Forum(RAF), and he chairs the Public Policy
Committee for the Society for Risk Analysis.
Dr. Fowle was detailed from EPA to the U.S. Senate as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's
Science Advisor from January 1992 until December 1994. While focusing on environmental legislation,
he provided advice to the Senator and to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on a
wide range of issues. He was the principal staff person working on Senator Moynihan's risk bills in the
102nd and 103rd Congresses.
Before joining Senator Moynihan's staff, Dr. Fowle spent three years in Research Triangle Park,
NC as Associate Director of EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory. He planned and managed EPA's
Drinking Water Health Research Program, and coordinated EPA's R&D work efforts with the World
Health Organization.
Dr. Fowle first came to EPA in 1979 when he joined ORD's Carcinogen Assessment Group,
and has served in a variety of other capacities since then. He managed the development of EPA's initial
Biotechnology Research Program in 1983 and 1984 and was subsequently detailed to Congressman Gore's
Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee, Committee on Science and Technology, as a Science Advisor
on Biotechnology issues. He directed the Environmental Health Research staff of the Office of Health
Research in ORD at EPA headquarters from 1985 to 1987, and was Health Advisor to EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Research & Development in 1988 and 1989, and in 1995.
Dr. Fowle received both his baccalaureate and doctoral degrees in genetics from George
Washington University in Washington, DC.
Dr. Fowle, a resident of Washington, DC, is an amateur musician. As a member of the
BOOGAG ("Bunch of Old Guys and Gals") bicycle riding club puts in 40 to 60 miles each weekend
climbing the hills of western Maryland, northern Virginia and southern Pennsylvania. "It's not a ride
unless you climb over 1800 feet."
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-42 Annual Report
DR. ANGELA NUGENT
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE STAFF DIRECTOR;
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Dr. Angela Nugent is a historian who has found work at EPA as interesting as combing the archives
for the history of public health, science and technology. Angela serves as the Designated Federal Officer
(DFO) for the Council and its two subcommittees, the Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee and the
Air Quality Monitoring Subcommittee. She also has managed several SAB Workshops (SAB/EPA Workshop
on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing Best Estimates of
Dose-Response Functions; Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection; and Workshops
on Science and Stakeholder Involvement). She serves as Special Assistant to the Staff Director.
Prior to joining the SAB, Angela was a coordinator for the inter-agency Clean Water Action Plan in
EPA's Office of Water. From 1995 to 1998, she was Deputy Director of the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems
and Communities in EPA's Policy Office, and from 1992-1995 headed the Science Policy Staff in the same
office. She has worked in the Office of Air and Radiation on peer review and air toxics issues, in the Office
of Pesticide Programs on reregistration issues, and in the Office of Toxic Substances on biotechnology and
new chemical regulation. Prior to joining EPA in 1985, Angela was employed by Arthur Andersen &
Associates as a Management Information Consultant. She was an Assistant Professor of the History of Public
Health and Medicine at the University of Maryland and a post-doctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of
Medicine. She holds a Ph.D. (1982) and M.A. (1976) from Brown University, where her research focused on
the history of industrial toxicology. She received a B.S.F.S. degree from Georgetown University's School of
Foreign Service in 1974.
Angela is married to Bruce Odessey, a writer-editor for the U.S. Information Agency. She enjoys
most of all spending time with him and their four-year old daughter, Rachel. Together, they like to dance,
sing, travel, and read.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-43
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
TEAM LEADER, COMMITTEE OPERATIONS STAFF;
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. A. Robert Flaak serves as the Team Leader of the Committee Operations Staff of the Board
and as Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Mr.
Flaak was first associated with the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1978 when he became the DFO for
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) when the committee was first chartered. Since then
he has been the DFO for the following SAB committees: CASAC (1978-1979; 1984-1991; 1995-present);
Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee (now the Integrated Human Exposure Committee)
(1986-1993); Drinking Water Committee (1991-1993; 1995); ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Panel
(1992-95); Environmental Futures Committee (1993-1995); Research Strategies Advisory Committee (1995-
1998), and a host of SAB subcommittees and working groups involved with issues such as global climate,
biotechnology, and reducing risk.
In addition to his duties with the Board, Mr. Flaak has continued his part-time detail to the Agency's
Science Policy Council as a member of the Agency's Peer Review Advisory Group, providing oversight to
EPA on the implementation of its peer review policy. As part of that peer review process oversight, the
Agency is preparing to publish the 2nd Edition of EPA's Peer Review Handbook which was coauthored by
Mr. Flaak. Since 1988, Mr. Flaak has assisted the General Services Administration (GSA) in the development
and presentation of its National training course on Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Management.
During the past year he has worked with GSA on the revision of the regulations on Federal Advisory
Committee Management.
Mr. Flaak's academic training is in biological oceanography. He graduated from the City College of
New York (BS, Zoology); the University of Delaware's Graduate College of Marine Studies (MS, Marine
Studies); and Central Michigan University (MA, Public Administration).
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-44 Annual Report
DR. K. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS (STAA)
COMMITTEE; MODELING (NATA) AND
OTHER SAB EC AD Hoc ACTIVITIES
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July, 1988 as
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC). In 1993, he became
DEO to the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC), and in January of 1994, he also served concurrently as
DFO of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council) through March of 1999. He
currently is DFO for the STAA Committee and various Ad Hoc Panels of the SAB's Executive Committee
(e.g., NATA Review Panel, RSAC Peer Review Committee, UST/RCRA Benefits, Costs and Impacts
eview Panel). He brings to his work at the SAB over 34 years of engineering and professional experience
with environmental issues, including over 27 years of diverse experience within EPA Headquarters.
Prior to joining the SAB, Jack worked in the mid- to-late 1970's in the Office of Solid Waste (OSW),
contributing to the passage of the Resource Conservation and recovery Act (RCRA) legislation, and in the
Office of Water's Effluent Guidelines program dealing with industrial waste discharges. From 1979 through
1988, Jack was involved with the Superfund's Emergency Response program and developed the multi-media
hazardous substance reportable quantity regulations, oil and hazardous substance pollution prevention
regulations, oil spill reporting requirements, as well as the oil and dispersant testing and registration program
under the National Contingency Plan.
Dr. Kooyoomjian received a BS (Mechanical Engineering) from the University of Massachusetts, and a
MS (Management Science) and a Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering, with a minor in Economics) from
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His academic career included his induction into a number of honorary
societies: e.g., Sigma Xi (research), Chi-Epsilon (civil engineering), Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics).
His professional activities include membership in the Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) [now
known as the Water Environment Federation (WEF)]. He is also very active in the Federal Water Quality
Association (FWQA), the local member association of WEF, where he has served in numerous capacities,
including President, and "Ambassador-at-Large." He is currently Chairman of the Government Affairs
Committee of the FWQA. He is listed in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering," and "Who's Who in the
Eastern United States." In 1997, he was selected as Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the Greater
Metropolitan Washington Area Section (GMWAS) of the Armenian Engineers and Scientists of America
(AESA).
Closer to home, which he shares with his wife (Gerry) of 27 years, and Melissa (22), one of their
three daughters, Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous civic activities which focus on development, land-
use and environmental issues in his area. He also has received the EPA Public Service Recognition Award in
1988 and 1992 and several County Recognition Awards, and in 1995 a Virginia State Planning Association
award for his civic involvement. In addition to his civic activities, since 1996 he has been serving on the
Board of Directors of the Prince William County Service Authority.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-45
Ms. KAREN L. MARTIN
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER
INTEGRATED HUMAN EXPOSURE COMMITTEE;
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE
Ms. Karen L. Martin, joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in September 1998 as a Intern
with Environmental Protection Agency Intern Program (EIP). The EIP program is a component of the
Environmental Protection Agency's commitment to diversity action plans and work force development
strategies which will have long term positive impacts on the Agency and the environment. This Internship
which ended October 1, 2000, allowed Ms. Martin to participate in a intensive two-year program of
rotational assignments combined with career development training. During Ms. Martin's stint with the SAB,
she assisted the Designated Federal Officer (DEO) for the Integrated Human Exposure Committee and the
Environmental Health Committee. Other assignments included assisting other DFO's with meeting
planning, meeting minutes and report preparation.
Prior to joining the SAB, Ms. Martin worked as a Public Health Sanitarian with the Adams County
Health Department in West Union, OH. In this position she worked to promote environmental health and
the control of sanitation through enforcement of federal, state and local laws and regulations. She also
worked closely with other state and local agencies, public officials and the general public to improve
environmental health in Adams County.
Ms. Martin pursued undergraduate (B.S. in Biology, 1992) and graduate studies (M.S. in
Environmental Health, 1994) at Mississippi Valley State University.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-46 Annual Report
Ms. MELANIE MEDINA-METZGER
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE;
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELS SUBCOMMITTEE
Ms. Melanie Medina-Metzger has been detailed to the EPA Science Advisory Board since
February 2000. Also housed in the Office of Administrator (OA) is Melanie's home office, the Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM). There she worked as the Designated Federal Officer
(DFO) for the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, a committee created by the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act of 1992 to provide advice to the President and Congress on environmental issues
affecting the U.S.—Mexico border area. At OCEM Melanie also completed service as the DFO for EPA's
Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee, which reviewed one aspect of"environmental justice"-- the
application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to environmental protection activities linked to federal
funding.
Prior to her service at OA Melanie worked for seven years at the Office of Policy, Planning and
J J o
Evaluation (OPPE). Activities have included managing extramural alternative compliance activities in the
Photoimaging industrial sector and performing regulatory review of EPA's farmworker worker protection
standards, the Clean Water Act with special emphasis on ocean/coastal protection and conservation. On a
special assignment, Melanie joined an EPA group which provided technical assistance to the Chilean
Environmental Agency, Consejo National del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA) on the development of cleaner
production strategies and policies in the area of pollution prevention.
Melanie joined the Agency in 1991 as an EPA Management Intern and has experience in the full range
of EPA's technical and programmatic functions. Her experience includes postings to the Office of
International Activities, the Water Management Division (Region IV — Atlanta), the Office of Strategic
Planning and Environmental Data in OPPE, and the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
Ms. Medina- Metzger earned her Masters in Science in Environmental Science (MSES) from Indiana
University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) and her Bachelors of Science, from the
University of Puerto Rico.
Melanie is married and lives in Falls Church, Virginia. She enjoys cross stitching, embroidery, sewing,
reading and ikebana (Japanese flower arranging).
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-47
MR. TOM MILLER
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
DRINKING WATER COMMITTEE;
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Tom Miller joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in June, 1996 as Designated Federal
Officer (DFO) for the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) and the Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC). Tom has worked at the Environmental Protection Agency in regulatory (pesticides,
toxic substances), budget, and planning activities (research and development programs) since 1974.
Mr. Miller received a BS (Wildlife Management) in 1972 and an MS (Wildlife Management) in 1975,
both from West Virginia University. For his Master's research, Mr. Miller conducted a radio-telemetry
study of black bear habitat utilization in the Monongahela National Forest of West Virginia. In 1993, Tom
received a Masters of Public Policy from the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs. Tom's major
professional interest is the study of the ways that science and policy development interact to identify and
implement appropriate approaches to environmental management, and the role of citizens in decisions leading
to the selection of management approaches.
Tom is married and is the father of one daughter, Stephanie, and one son, Christopher, (who is
University Sophomore). Tom is involved with leadership positions in his church, and he enjoys flyfishing,
backpacking, woodworking, and baseball.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-48 Annual Report
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE;
INTEGRATED HUMAN EXPOSURE COMMITTEE
Mr. Samuel Rondberg retired from the Senior Executive Service (SES) in August, 1988 and re-
entered federal service in November 1988, when he joined the SAB staff. During his previous full and
fruitful career at EPA, he served as an Office Director and Associate Office Director in EPA's Office of
Research Development (ORD) and the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM).
Before joining EPA in 1974, Mr. Rondberg held research management, analytical, and policy
formulation positions with the Department of Transportation and the Veterans Administration's Department
of Medicine and Surgery. He also served in the US Army for two years, with the rank of Captain. Most of
his federal career has been devoted to advancing the use of analytic methodologies to address public policy is-
sues, and to improving the management of federal research activities. At EPA, he has directed particular
efforts to the complex problems and issues engendered by operating a research program within the context of
a regulatory agency—coordination between legal and scientific "cultures"; maintaining a stable long-term
program in the face of urgent and frequently changing needs for short-term support; and maintaining an
adequate resource base in the face of competition from regulatory programs struggling to meet court or
Congressionally mandated deadlines.
Mr. Rondberg pursued undergraduate (AB, 1959) and graduate studies at Washington University,
where he also served as a Teaching Assistant in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and as a Public
Health Service Fellow and Research Associate in the Medical School. In 1967, he was awarded a National
Institute of Public Administration Fellowship in Systematic Analysis at Stanford University and completed a
special interdisciplinary curriculum in the Schools of Engineering, Graduate Business, and the Departments of
Economics and Computer Science.
Mr. Rondberg has authored publications in clinical psychology, research management, and the
applications of electronic systems and telemetry to urban transportation.
Sam's wife (Ruth) of 36 years is a Rehabilitation Counselor; they have one daughter, who completed
a Master's degree in Social Work. Sam attempts to find time to pursue interests in modern history, the
impacts of technology on society and culture, amateur radio, marine aquaria keeping, and antique posters and
advertising graphics as a reflection of our social history.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-49
Ms. STEPHANIE SANZONE
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS COMMITTEE
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone has been a Designated Federal Officer at the EPA Science Advisory Board
for 9 years, working primarily with the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. Ms. Sanzone received a
B.A. in Biology, with a minor in chemistry, from the University of Virginia, and a M.S. in Marine Science
from the University of South Carolina. Prior to coming to SAB, she spent 4 years with EPA's National
Estuary Program, a program which assists states and local communities to manage and protect bays and
estuaries based on sound science. Ms. Sanzone has also worked to bring science to the legislative process,
serving as legislative staff at both the state and federal levels. Her professional interests include ecological
sciences, the role of science and risk assessment in policy making, and making science and scientists
intelligible to lay audiences (e.g., policy makers, managers and the public).
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-50 Annual Report
Ms. KATHLEEN WHITE
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER,
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE
Ms. Kathleen White received her BS and MS from Tufts University where she studied biology,
public health, and sanitary engineering. Between degrees she wrote for the Hartford Courant. Her work as
sanitary engineer -- first for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and later for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Region 1 -- involved inspecting and trouble shooting problems with water
supplies, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants. She also reviewed plans, assisted with outbreak
investigations, proposed and provided training. During this time she chaired the Boston Section of the
Society of Women Engineers.
Ms. Conway left field work in New England for paper work at EPA Headquarters in Washington,
D.C. Her subsequent service as acting Director for two divisions in the Office of Health Research led to her
selection, in 1982, as a participant in the President's Executive Exchange Program. During her exchange year
she worked with an occupational health and safety unit at IBM. After returning to EPA, she joined the EPA
Science Advisory Board staff as Deputy Director.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-51
Ms. DOROTHY MAXINE CLARK
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
Ms. Dorothy Clark is the Management Assistant who assists Samuel Rondberg with the
Environmental Health Committee, Integrated Human Exposure Committee and Radiation Advisory
Committee, with Jack Fowle the Research Strategies Advisory Committee and Robert Flaak, the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee. Dorothy joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) March 17, 1980, as a
secretary for the Environmental Engineering Committee, High Level Radioactive Level Subcommittee and
several other Subcommittees and standing Committees. During her tenure at EPA, Dorothy has worked for
several SAB Committees. She enjoys working with committee members and getting along with all levels of
staff.
Last but not least, in Dorothy's spare time she enjoys reading, shopping, and most of all watching the
Washington Redskins play football.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-52 Annual Report
Ms. WANDA R. FIELDS
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
Ms. Wanda R. Fields is the Management Assistant who assists Mr. Thomas Miller with the
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee and the Drinking Water Committee as well as Dr. John R.
Fowle with the Research Strategies Advisory Committee. Wanda joined the EPA Science Advisory Board in
the spring of 1997 as a secretary for the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee and the Integrated Risk
Project Steering Committee where she assisted Ms. Stephanie Sanzone. In 1998, her title changed to
management assistant. Prior to joining us she was a secretary with the Office of Water for nine years here at
the Environmental Protection Agency. During her tour with the Office of Water, she took a tremendous
amount of computer and administrative training. In 1997 she graduated with honors from a career
enhancement program that was offered by EPA. She is currently attending classes at the United States
Department of Agriculture to receive a certification in financial management. She hopes to one day obtain a
career in finance as a Budget Analyst. She came to EPA in 1988 after leaving the Office of Personnel
Management where her government career began.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-53
Ms. RHONDA S. FORTSON
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
Ms. Rhonda S. Fortson joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2001. She is the
Management Assistant for Mr. A. Robert Flaak on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
and Dr. Angela Nugent on the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL). Prior to
coming to the SAB she was a secretary for 9 years in the Environmental Protection Agency's Region 4
laboratory in Athens, GA. Before joining EPA she held various positions with the Department of Navy.
A native of Virginia, Rhonda was glad to return with her family to her home town this year. She
enjoys spending time with her family, working on family genealogy and reading.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-54 Annual Report
Ms. DIANA L. POZUN
PROGRAM SPECIALIST
Ms. Diana L. Pozun joined the EPA Science Advisory Board as a Staff Secretary in August, 1991.
She was assigned to the Environmental Engineering Committee and various subcommittees. In June of 1993
she switched committee responsibilities to be the Staff Secretary for the Radiation Advisory Committee. In
May 1998 her title was changed to Management Assistant. Diana was promoted to Program Specialist in
November 2000 to work for Donald Barnes who is the Director of SAB, Jack Fowle Deputy Director and
Angela Nugent Special Assistant. She comes to us from the private sector, where she was Executive
Secretary in the Big Six accounting firm of Ernst & Whinney in their tax department in Washington, D.C.
for about eight years. In that position, she was involved in all aspects of the proposal process and maintained
State and Local tracking systems, mailing lists, travel arrangements and word processing support. Prior to
that, she worked for the National League of Cities in Washington, D.C. for four years, where she
maintained client files, worked on guidebooks and various case studies and helped coordinate several national
conferences among other duties. Diana has a broad range of experience with various D.C. area firms. She
lives in Mt. Airy, Maryland with her seventeen year old daughter, Megan.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-55
M s. MARY L. WINSTON
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
Ms. Mary L. Winston joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1988. Prior to joining us
she worked in the Test Rules and Development Branch here at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mary came to the Environmental Protection Agency after leaving the U.S. Coast Guard where she worked
for 14 years as a secretary. In May of 1998 her title changed from secretary to Management Assistant.
Before the reorganization she worked with Samuel Rondberg on the Environmental Health Committee and
with Thomas Miller on the Drinking Water Committee. Mary now assists Kathleen Con way with the
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC), also Stephanie Sanzone with the Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee (EPEC), and A. Robert Flaak with the Scientific & Technological Achievement Award
(STAA) Nominations.
Mary resides in Maryland where she enjoys quilt making, reading and knitting.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-56 Annual Report
Ms. BETTY B. FORTUNE
OFFICE ASSISTANT
Ms. Betty B. Fortune joined the EPA Science Advisory Board in September 1993. Her job title is
Office Assistant in the Director's Office. She works closely with the Director, Program Specialist and the
Executive Committee. During her years with SAB, and several administrative changes, she has worked for
the entire staff and with other SAB committees. Betty came to SAB after completing a long tenure with the
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). She was the administrative assistant at Hardy Middle School
during the final years of her employment in DCPS. She had always worked in the field of Education and has
many pleasant memories of her work years with staff, parents, and students. She has received many
plaques, awards, and certificates. She is a member of the Senior Choir at her church which performs
excerpts from the Messiah during the Christmas season. She lives in Washington, D.C. and her family
consists of two children and four grand-children which she greatly enjoys.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-57
Ms. PATRICIA L. THOMAS
TEAM LEADER
COMMITTEE EVALUATION AND SUPPORT STAFF
Ms. Patricia Thomas joined the EPA Science Advisory Board in May 1994 as a Management
Analyst. Pat came to SAB from the Office of Research and Development where she held several positions.
Her EPA career started with the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in 1972, where she started as
the secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, and ended as a Management
Analyst in ORD's Office of Health Research. Prior to coming to EPA, Pat worked 4 years with the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pat has 33 years of government service and has received
numerous outstanding awards while at EPA, including a Bronze Medal.
Pat has been the Team Leader of the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (CESS) since 1996.
The CESS is the administrative arm of the SAB, responsible for budget, personnel, payroll, web
development, and reports management, including the monthly Happenings newsletter, and the SAB Annual
Report. While with the SAB she devised several systems to assist the SAB staff in tracking information on
SAB Members and Consultants. In addition, she created a system that tracks the budget for the ten SAB
FACA committees. She is referred to in SAB as the "keeper of the truth."
She spends most of her leisure time traveling.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-58 Annual Report
Ms. CAROLYN L. OSBORNE
PROJECT COORDINATOR
Ms. Carolyn Osborne joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1973 as a Clerk typist and
has held several positions since then. She was assigned to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and
various subcommittees working closely with the Executive Secretary as a Staff Secretary. Her government
career started at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and also with the Food and Drug
Administration in 1969. Ms. Osborne is currently the Project Coordinator at the SAB's Committee
Evaluation and Support Staff where she is responsible for the budgeting, personnel and administrative
matters for more than 450 members and consultants. During Carolyn's tenure at the EPA, she has enjoyed
working with the SAB staff, members and consultants and is often referred to as the "SAB Historian."
In Carolyn's past time she enjoys singing in the church choir, reading, traveling and spending time
with her family.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-59
Ms. VICKIE J. RICHARDSON
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
Ms. Vickie J. Richardson joined the EPA Science Advisory Board in May 1994 as an
Administrative Clerk to the Committee Evaluation Support Staff (CESS). She has since been promoted to
Management Analyst where she performs multifaceted administrative and technical tasks for the Board. You
may be familiar with some her works, Happenings newsletter and the SAB Annual Staff Report. She began
her federal career in 1993 with the Department of Defense working for the Air Force Base Conversion
Agency, a department that was responsible for closing sparsely populated military facilities throughout the
United States. Outside the workplace Vickie believes in giving back to the community. She volunteers in
Everybody Wins an organization that provides mentoring and tutoring opportunities to underpriviledged
children in depressed areas in the District of Columbia.
Ms. Richardson received a B.A. in Speech Communications with a minor in Political Science from
Old Dominion University, and a M.A. in Public Administration from the George Washington University.
She resides in Maryland where she enjoys reading fictional materials to escape the realities of life.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page C-60 Annual Report
Ms. PRISCILLA Y. TILLERY-GADSON
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
Ms. Priscilla Y. Tillery-Gadson joined the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) as the Staff
Secretary to the Director in March 1993. She participated in and completed the EPA's Goalsetters
Reaching for Opportunities (GRO) Program in 1996. In August 1998, she was reassigned and promoted as a
Program Specialist, and in May 2000, she has since been reassigned as an Information Management Specialist
on the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (CESS) providing administrative and technical support to the
Director, Deputy Director, and the Team Leader for CESS.
Ms. Tillery-Gadson came to us from EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of
Health Research (OHR) where she held several positions as Secretary for about IS1 /2 years. She served as
OHR International Travel Coordinator and ORD's Headquarters Black Employment Program (BEP)
Representative. She also provided updates to the budgetary data in the Office of Research and Development
Information System (ORDIS). Prior to working with ORD, she worked with the EPA Office of Pesticides
Program (OPP), Registration Division, Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch as a Clerk-Typist and Pesticide
Products Clerk for about four years and 10 months. She compiled historical and statistical data for answering
inquiries containing scientific data from registrants who applied for registration of their pesticide products.
Prior to coming to EPA, she worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for about 1-year under
a school/work program. As you can see, Ms. Tillery-Gadson brings a broad range of work experience to
SAB, especially the ability to work as a team with her co-workers. She has 30 years of government
services, and resides in the Maryland suburbs with her husband and her 28-year-old daughter. She receives a
joy in doing for others and has a special love for children.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page C-61
CIO
FY 2001 STAFF TRANSITIONS
Every year is marked by notable transitions. On the Staff side, we acknowledge the contribution of
Melanie Medina-Metzger, who was on detail to OSAB as DFO for the Radiation Advisory Committee from
January, 2000 through January, 2001. Melanie returned to her home office -- the Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management (OCEM) -- before moving with her husband, in late FY01, to take on an
assignment with the Office of International Affairs in Quito, Ecuador(!)
Also in January 2001, Ms. Karen L. Martin left the OSAB to work with the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Community Involvement and
Outreach Center, as a Biologist. Some of her duties include risk assessment and advocating and
strengthening early and meaningful community participation during Superfund cleanups.
Jason Hotten served effectively as a summer intern until his departure in mid-August.
On the entry side, OSAB welcomed Rhonda Fortson to the Staff in the late spring. She transferred
in from EPA's Region 4 office in Atlanta and has made rapid and telling contributions on several fronts
already.
Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff
------- |