Board (l«0)
Washin0ton, DC
SCIENCE ADVI
FY1998 ANN UAL
SAB in Transitii
BOARD
REPORT
-------
SAB REPORTS AND THE INTERNET
Single copies of this document con be obtained by writing or faxing your request to:
Science Advisory Board (1400)
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FAX: 202-260-1889
To request the FY98 Annual Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff, include your name and
complete mailing address.
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 the
topics to be covered at the meetings. These notices will be mailed to you within 24 hours of their
publication in the Federal Register.
To subscribe, simply send the following message, inserting your name:
Subscribe epa-sab FIRST NAME LAST NAME
to
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
-------
This report is a staff summary of activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Science Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 1998, with projections for Fiscal
Year 1999. 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/
FOREWORD: TRANSITIONS
Transitions occur within any institution. Leadership changes; directions are altered; new
approaches are introduced; and new products appear.
Fiscal Year 1998 (FY 98) was definitely a time of transition for the USEPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB).
New Leadership: Dr. Joan Daisey of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory accepted the reins
as Chair of the SAB Executive Committee. She succeeded Dr. Genevieve Matanoski of Johns Hopkins
University who, for the past four years, set a steady, productive course for the Board. The FY98 Annual
Report documents information about all of the membership changes on the Board.
New Directions: Two months after becoming SAB Chair, Dr. Daisey conducted the SAB's first
Strategic Planning Retreat, a three-day affair in which collective decisions were reached on changes in
direction and operation of the Board. This year's Annual Report documents several examples of those
changes being implemented.
New Approaches: The SAB committed itself to address in FY98 several important
problems/opportunities; e.g., the need for more consistent timeliness of its reports, the need for greater
awareness of SAB activities, and the need/opportunity to improve its advice by leveraging its resources
through interaction with other advisory groups. The Annual Report documents how these new approaches
have improved the operations and effectiveness of the SAB.
New Products: This year the SAB extended its product line to include publication of one of its
reports in a more attractive and durable format and introduced the "one-pager," a means of announcing
the release of selected SAB reports, to broaden the awareness of and access to SAB products. The Annual
Report provides examples of these new products.
This FY98 Annual Report, then, is full of information on what is new at the SAB. At the same time,
the Annual Report captures the "traditional activities" that were themselves "new activities" just a few years
ago. Therefore, this year's "Transitions" should be viewed as a part of the continuing development of and
exploration by an energetic, vibrant, and improving institution dedicated to advising the Agency on how to
do the right thing right...from a scientific point of view.
Donald G. Barnes, PhD
Staff Director
USEPA Science Advisory Board
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page ii Annual Report
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 Introduction to the Report 1
1.2 Introduction to the Board 1
1.3 Review of FY98 Activities 2
1.4 Projections and Conclusions 3
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT 4
'.. 2.1 Purpose of the Report 4
2.2 Content of the Report 4
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD 6
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function 6
3.2,SAB Organization and Membership 7
3.3 SAB Activities Section 13
3.3.1 Overview 13
3.3.2 Reports That Meet SAB Criteria 18
3.3.3 Responses and Reactions to SAB Activities 20
4. REVIEW OF FY98 ACTIVITIES 21
4.1 Introduction 21
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities 22
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC) 22
4.2.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL) 23
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 24
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC) 24
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) 25
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) 25
4.2.7 Enviromental Engineering Committee (EEC) 26
4.2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC) 26
4.2.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) 27
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) 28
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) 28
4.3 Examples of Transitions 29
4.3.1 SAB Strategic Planning Retreat 29
4.3.2 Evidence in SAB Products 29
4.3.3 Improved Timeliness 30
4.3.4 Matrix/Strategic Approaches 31
4.3.5 Interaction with other advisory groups 31
4.4 Staff Office Operations 32
4.5 SAB Staff in Transition .33
5. PROJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 34
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
Annual Report vase Hi
TABLES
I. SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades 7
II. FY98 SAB Committee Chairs 10
III. SAB Expenses for FY94-98 14
IV. SAB Activities and Resources: FY94-98 14
V. SAB Activities by Committee: FY94-98 15
APPENDICES
A. Charters
A1. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
B. Membership
B1. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
B3. SABi/lembers for FY98
B4. SAB Consultants for FY98
C. Organizational Chart of the SAB in FY98
D. Staff Support and Committee Leadership in FY98
E. SAB Committee Meetings in FY98
F. SAB Reports and Abstracts in FY98
F1. List of SAB Reports, Letters, Commentaries, Advisories, and Consultations
for FY98
F2. Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, and Commentaries for FY98
G. Detailed Time to Completion Analysis for SAB Products
H. Biographical Sketches of SAB Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
pagel
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction to the Report
This Annual Report provides a succinct
introduction to the Science Advisory Board (SAB);
a summary of the SAB activities for Fiscal Year
1998; and offers a near-term projection for future
SAB activities.
Section 2 is a brief introduction to the
Report. Section 3 provides background informa-
tion on the .SAB, its organization, history,
membership, and resources. Section 4 contains
summaries of the activities of each SAB
Committee during FY98, details the major
activities illustrating the SAB "in transition" and
notes changes in the SAB Staff Office. Section 5
provides some projections for FY99.
This Report also includes several
specialized appendices, containing: charters and
leadership information for the Committees;
membership information; organizational charts;
guidelines on service on the SAB; lists of
meetings; abstracts of FY98 reports; and
biographical information about the SAB Staff.
1.2 Introduction to the Board
The purpose of the Board is to provide
highly qualified, independent technical advice to
the EPA Administrator on the scientific, engi-
neering, and economic underpinnings of Agency
positions (see charters in Appendix A). The SAB
often functions as a peer review panel, assessing
the technical rationale underlying current or
proposed Agency positions. In recent years it
has initiated a number of activities on its own:
e.g., a commentary on strategic planning in the
Office of Research and Development's
engineering program, retrospective studies on the
impacts of past reports by the Radiation
Committee, and a self-study of the Board
The SAB was formally chartered in 1978
by the Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
although its roots extend back to the birth of EPA
in 1970. The Board is a Federal Advisory Com-
mittee and must comply with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). The Board's membership
is composed of non-Federal scientists,
economists, and engineers appointed by the EPA
Administrator. The Guidelines for Service on the
SAB are included in Appendix Bl. Appendix B2
describes the various ways in which experts are
affiliated with the Board. The 102 Members of the
Board (see Appendix B3) operate through ten
standing Committees, coordinated through an
Executive Committee (see the organizational
chart in Appendix C and information on Staff
Support and Committee Leadership in Appen-
dix D). The Members of the Board are some of
the most qualified technical experts in the
country, as evidenced by the credentials of the
FY98 Committee Chairs (see Table E, pg. 10).
The work of the Board is supported by some
300 Consultants (see Appendix B4), who are
non-governmental scientists, engineers, and
economists appointed by the SAB Staff Direc-
tor. Technical experts employed by the
Federal Government who have special skill or
knowledge in particular areas participate as
Federal Experts, as needed.
The Board provides highly qualified,
independent technical advice to the
Administrator of the EPA on the scientific,
engineering, and economic underpinnings
of Agency positions.
The SAB's operations are supported by
a Staff Office of 21 employees and an FY98
budget totaling some $2.4 million. These
resources enabled the Board to conduct 51
meetings in rT98 (of which 8 were public
conference calls, 42 were public meetings,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 2
Annual Report
and 1 closed meeting) and issue 11 full re-
ports, 19 short reports (generally less than 10
pages, including 3 Letter Reports, 2 Commen-
taries, 5 Advisories, and 9 Notifications of
Consultation (see Tables IV and V).
The SAB carries out projects at the
request of the Agency and Congress as well
as on its own initiative. In recent years, the
number of requests for SAB action have well
exceeded the number that the Board can
address. Therefore, the Board has adopted
criteria to establish priorities among the
various requests, based on the degree to
which such requests meet the criteria.
>
a) Impact' overall environmental protection
b) Address novel scientific problems or prin-
ciples
c) Integrate science into Agency actions in
new ways
d) Influence long-term technological devel-
opment
e) Deal with problems that transcend Federal
agency or other organizational boundaries.
f) Strengthen the Agency's basic capabilities
g) Serve Congressional and other leadership
interests
h) Deal with controversial issues
The reports produced by the SAB have
positively impacted many aspects of the
Agency's operations and policies:
a) The rigor of the Agency's technical
positions
b) The allocation of Agency resources for
scientific/technical activities
c) The directions taken by the Agency in
emerging science policy
d) The directions taken by the Agency in
planning
e) The directions and form of public debate
on scientific, engineering, and economic
issues
With all of these activities, attention and
impacts, the Board has maintained a broad
base of support both within and outside the
Agency.
1.3 Review of FY98 Activities
During FY98 the SAB's various Commit-
tees and subcommittees conducted 51 public
meetings which were announced in the Federal
Register. This number includes 8 public con-
ference calls. These efforts resulted in 30
reports. A wide variety of topics were covered,
from a procedure for assessing ecological risks
in the environment to approaehes for
anticipating environmental problems tomorrow.
Appendices E and F provide a full listing of
FY98 SAB meetings and reports (with abstracts).
The Board took several steps in Fiscal
Year 1998 (FY 98) to continue with its transition
into the future.
New Leadership: Dr. Joan Daisey of the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
succeeded Dr. Genevieve Matanoski of Johns
Hopkins University as Chair of the Science
Advisory Board.
New Directions: The EC conducted its
first Strategic Planning Retreat and identified
changes in the direction and operation of the
Board to provide advice that is more effective
and timely.
New Approaches: The SAB committed
itself to leveraging its resources through
interaction with other advisory groups.
New Products: The SAB extended its
product line to include a number of new
products, including publication of one of its
reports in a more attractive and durable format
and by introducing the one-pager to announce
the release of selected SAB reports, as a means
of broadening the awareness of and access to
SAB products.
The Staff Office was also active in
extending its range through the increased use of
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
electronic media by redesigning its web page by
and its use of the Internet to conduct business.
1.4 Projections and Conclusions
Dr. Joan Daisey began her term as Chair
of the SAB. Her first action was to conduct a
Strategic Planning Retreat in November, 1997 in
order to ensure a smooth transition between the
former leadership and the new leadership and
to plot a course that will carry the SAB.into the
next century.
The agenda for FY99 is filling up fast
and will include important reviews, as well
as activities to assist the Agency to interpret
and implement the far-reaching Integrated Risk
Project (IRP) report. To accomplish this work,
and to improve the quality and utility of its
advice, the SAB will continue to explore ways to
work "quicker, cheaper, smarter". Changes are
also anticipated in the Staff Office. As these
changes take place, our goal remains constant:
to help insure that environmental policy
decisions are based on sound scientific
foundations.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 4
Annual Report
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
2.1 Purpose of the Report
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) is a
legislatively mandated group of non-govern-
mental scientists, engineers, and economists
charged with providing independent technical
advice on environmental issues to the EPA
Administrator and others, (e.g., Congressional
committees) to help inform their decisions.
Generally, the SAB does not get involved in or
provide advice on regulatory policy aspects of
problems confronting the Agency, because such
matters are' the province and responsibility of
the EPA Administrator. Additional details of the
objectives, responsibilities, composition, and
activities of the SAB and its two separately
mandated entities (the CASAC and the Council)
are included in Appendix A.
Informed observers acknowledge the
SAB's remarkable history and its continuing
importance in the protection of public health and
the environment. However, some people both
within and outside of the Agency are
hard-pressed to describe the extent of the
Board's activities or the detailed nature of its
findings. This is due, in part, to the complex
structure of the Board and the aperiodic issuing
of its reports. To some, the SAB is viewed as a
hurdle which must be cleared on the way to
issuing regulations; much like having to defend
one's thesis on the way to getting an advanced
degree. To others, the SAB is seen as a court
of last resort in which competing scientific
arguments are objectively and dispassionately
evaluated.
For some puzzled observers of the SAB,
the biggest problem is simply finding out "What
does the SAB do?" A somewhat flippant, but
accurate, answer to that question is: "The
SAB makes a difference." For example, the
SAB makes a difference in the type and conduct
of scientific and engineering research at EPA.
The SAB makes a difference in the way that
resulting data are interpreted and used to
inform regulatory and other decisions. The SAB
also makes a difference to SAB Members and
Consultants (M/Cs) and SAB staff by giving them
the satisfaction of seeing their information and
guidance used appropriately by the Agency to
better address environmental problems.
In broad terms, this Report is intended to
reveal the SAB to a wide audience: to those both
inside and outside the Agency, to those who
understand the Board, to those who think they
understand the Board, and to those who don't
understand the Board. The intent is that each
reader gain a broader perspective of the SAB,
its activities, and its impact.
More specifically, the purpose of this
Annual Report of the Science Advisory Board
Staff is three-fold:
a) To provide a succinct introduction to the
SAB.
b) To provide a summary of the SAB's
activities for FY98.
c) To offer a near-term projection of future
SAB activities.
The Report is designed to provide the
written equivalent of "a group photo" of the
SAB-its people, its products, and its prospects-
in sufficient detail that the interested reader can
distinguish the major features and identify paths
for investigating the finer details.
2.2 Content of the Report
The Report consists of five principle
sections, plus appendices supplementing the
discussion in the main sections. Following the
Executive Summary (Section 1) and this Intro-
duction (Section 2), Section 3 provides basic
background information on the SAB. Here the
reader will find brief discussions on the history
of the Board, its organization and Membership,
and its principal activities and procedures.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
pageS
Specific examples are described that illustrate
the way in which the SAB positively impacts the
functions and operations of the Agency. Section
4 focuses on SAB activities during FY98. This
portion of the Report contains descriptions of the
activities of each of the Board's Committees
during the past year. In addition, changes in the
SAB Staff assignments and changes in the
operation of the Office are highlighted. Section
5 provides a glimpse into what FY99 likely holds
in store for the Board.
The Appendices contain important
information, such as organizational charts,
membership lists, abstracts of SAB reports, and
the like. These Appendices provide a source of
more detailed information about specific aspects
of the SAB.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 6
Annual Report
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOARD
3.1 SAB Formation, Authority and Function
The SAB was established by Congress
to provide independent scientific and engi-
neering advice to the EPA Administrator on the
technical basis for EPA regulations. Expressed
in terms of the parlance of the risk assess-
ment/risk management paradigm of decision
making (National Research Council, Managing
Risk in the Federal Government, 1983), the SAB
deals with jrisk assessment issues (hazard
identification^ dose-response assessment, expo-
sure assessment and risk characterization)
and only that portion of risk management that
deals strictly with the technical issues asso-
ciated with various control options. Issues of
Agency and Administration policy are generally
beyond the scope of SAB mandate and in-
volvement.
The SAB, in its present form, was
established in 1978 by the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act (ERDDAA) (42 U.S.C. 4365).
Predecessor bodies date back to the early
1970s.
As a practical matter, the function of
providing credible technical advice to EPA and
Congress antedates ERDDAA and its
requirements for an SAB. SAB's roots can be
traced back through various predecessor
committees within EPA and prior to the creation
of EPA into other agencies, such as the (then
named) Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. Since 1978, however, the SAB has
operated as a Staff Office, reporting directly to
the Administrator.
In carrying out the mandate of ERDDAA
the SAB provides "such scientific advice as may
be requested by the Administrator, the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the
United States Senate, or the Committees on
Science and Technology, Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, or Public Works and Transportation
of the House of Representatives." Because the
Science Advisory Board is a Federal Advisory
Committee, it must comply with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.
C) and related regulations. Consequently, the
Board has an approved charter (which must be
renewed every two years), announces its meet-
ings in the Federal Register, and provides
opportunities for public comment on issues
before the Board.
Members of and Consultants to the SAB
constitute a distinguished body of scientists,
engineers, and economists who are recognized,
non-governmental experts in their respective
fields. These individuals are drawn from
academic, industry, state government, and
environmental communities throughout the
United States and, in some limited cases, other
countries. (See Appendices B3 and B4 for a
listing of Members and Consultants,
respectively).
Increasingly, the Agency has placed a
premium on basing its regulations on a solid
scientific foundation. Consequently, over the
past 20 years the SAB has assumed growing
importance and stature. It is now formal prac-
tice that many major scientific points associated
with environmental problems are reviewed by'
the SAB. For example, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) require that
technical aspects of decisions related to all
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) be reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC), which is ad-
ministratively housed within the SAB.
Generally, the Board functions as a tech-
nical peer review panel. The SAB conducts its
business in public view and benefits from public
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page?
TABLE I SAB Leadership Over the Past Two Decades
Executive Committee
Chairs
Dr. Joan Dcrisey
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Dr. Raymond Loehr
Dr. Norton Nelson
Dr. "Earnest Gloyna
Dr. John Cantlon
Dr.EmilMrak
Affiliation
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
University of Texas
New York University
University of Texas
Michigan State University
University of California
Dates
1997-present
1993-1997
1988-1993
1983-1988
1981-1983
1979-1981
1974-1978
SAB Staff Directors
Dr. Donald Barnes
Dr. Terry Yosie
Dr. Richard Dowd
Dr. Thomas Bath
Dates
1988-present
1981-1988
1978-1981
1975-1977
input during its deliberations. Through these
public proceedings Agency positions are sub-
jected to critical examination by leading experts
in various fields in order to test their currency
and technical merits. At the same time, the SAB
recognizes that EPA is often forced to take a
policy action to avert an emerging environ-
mental risk before all of the rigors of scientific
proof are met. To delay action until the evi-
dence amounts to incontrovertible proof might
court irreversible ecological and health conse-
quences. In such cases, the Agency makes
certain assumptions and extrapolations from
what is known in order to reach a rational
science policy position regarding the need (or
lack thereoD for regulatory action. In such
cases, the SAB serves as a council of peers to
evaluate the soundness of the technical
basis of the science policy position adopted by
the Agency.
3.2 SAB Organization and Membership
The SAB Charter (Appendix Al) includes
the following statements:
a) "The objective of the Board is to provide
advice to EPA's Administrator on the
scientific and technical aspects of
environmental problems and issues".
b) "The Board will consist of a body of inde-
pendent scientists and engineers [and now
economists] of sufficient size and diversity
to provide the range of expertise required
to assess the scientific and technical as-
pects of environmental issues".
c) "No Member of the Board shall be a
full-time employee of the Federal Govern-
ment."
In addition, the Charter requires forma-
tion of an Executive Committee and inclusion of
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and
the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (COUNCIL) (see separate charters, also
in Appendix A). Otherwise, the Board may
organize itself as needed to meet its respon-
sibilities.
The Board's Executive Committee serves
as the focal point to coordinate the scientific
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageS
Annual Report
reviews by the Board's standing committees.
Appendix C contains a chart of the FY98 SAB or-
ganization. The Executive Committee meets to
act on Agency requests for reviews, to hear
briefings on pertinent issues, to initiate ac-
tions/reviews by the Board which it feels are
appropriate, and to approve final reports prior to
transmitted to the Administrator. [Reports from
the CASAC and the Council are submitted
directly to the Administrator, without need for
prior Executive Committee review or approval.]
Five Committees have historically
conducted most Science Advisory Board re-
views:
>
a) Clean'Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC): Mandated by the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments
b) Ecological Processes and Effects Com-
mittee (EPEC
c) Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
d) Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
e) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Between 1986 and 1990, five additional
committees were added:
a) Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC): Mandated in the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act in
FY86
b) Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC): Requested by the Administrator in
response to the Board's Future Risk report
inFY98
c) Drinking Water Committee (DWQ: Evolved
from the EHC in FY90
d) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (Council): Mandated in the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments
e) Environmental Economics Advisory Com-
mittee (EEAQ: Requested by the Admin-
istrator in response to the Board's Reducing
Risk report in FY90
The Board supplements the activities of
these committees with a variety of subcom-
mittees, as well as with ad hoc committees, as
needed.
The Board 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 23 years
are listed in Table I. Table E testifies to the
caliber of individuals who served as chairs of
SAB Committees in FY98.
The number of Members is flexible. In
FY98 SAB consisted of 102 members-appointed
by the Administrator for two-year terms, re-
newable for not more than two two-year terms.
Service as Committee Chair can lead to an
additional four years of continuous service. A
formal guideline on Membership service was
adopted by the Executive Committee in FY93
and has been followed by the Administrator in
making appointments (see Appendix Bl).
Over 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. Consul-
tants are required to meet the same standards
of technical expertise as do the Members. The
term "Member and Consultant" (M/C) is used
throughout this annual report to refer to these ex-
perts. Appendices B3 and B4 contain a list of the
FY98 SAB Members and Consultants,
respectively. Nearly all of them serve as Special
Government Employees (SGEs), subject to all
relevant Federal restrictions, including the conflict
of interest statutes (18 U.S.C. Sections 202-209).
In some few cases, the SAB also
accesses experts via the route of Federal Expert
and Invited Expert Resources. These categories
are described in greater detail in Appendix B2,
Types of Affiliation with the SAB.
The SAB Staff consists of 21 people: a
Staff Director, a Deputy Staff Director, and the
Team Leaders of the Committee Operations Staff
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
vase 9
and the Committee Evaluation and Support Staff;
six scientist/engineers who serve as Designated
Federal Officers (DFOs), three administrative
staff, five support staff, a National Older Worker's
Career Center (NOWCQ Office Assistant and a
student intern.
The Staff identifies potential issues for
SAB attention, focuses questions for review by
the Board, works with the Board to identify and
enlist appropriate Members and Consultants,
interfaces between the Board and the Agency
as well as with the public, coordinates logistics
for reviews, and produces minutes and reports
for submission to the Administrator.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 10 Annual Report
TABLE II FY 1998 SAB Committee Chairs
Executive Committee (EC)
Dr. Joan Daisey
Head, Center for Atmospheric and Biospheric Effects Technology, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, American Association for Aerosol Research
Member, Air Pollution Control Association
- Member, International Society of Exposure Analysis
Member, Editorial Review Board Aerosol Science and Technology
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
Dr. Maureen Cropper
Principal Economist, Policy Research Department, World Bank
Past President, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
Member, Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession
Member, Visiting Committee, Cornell Center for the Environment
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Dr. Joe Mauderiy
, Director of External Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Member, American Thoracic Society
Member, Society of Toxicology
Member, American Physiological Society
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
Member, American Veterinary Medical Association
Member, Editorial Board of Experimental Lung Research
Member, Editorial Board of Inhalation Toxicology
Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
Dr. Richard Bull
S,enior Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, managed by Battelle
Member, American Association for the Advancement of
Science
Member, Sigma Xi
Member, American Society for Pharmacology and
Experimental Therapeutics
Member, Society of Toxicology
Member, American Association for Cancer Research
Member, American Water Works Association
Member, International Society for the Study of
Xenobiotics
Member, Editorial Board of Toxicology
Member, Editorial Board of the Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health
Member, National Research Council Committee Spacecraft
Maximum Contaminant Limits
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report page 11
TABLE II FY 1998 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Member, Science Advisory Panel for Santa Anna River Water Quality and Health Study
Member, Bromide Expert Panel for the CAL-FED Program on the Sacramento River Delta
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
Dr. Robert Stavins
Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, and Faculty Chair, Environment and
Natural Resources Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
- University Fellow, Resources for the Future
Member, Board of Directors, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
Member, Board of Academic Advisors, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
Member, Editorial Council, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Member, Board of Editors, .Resource and Energy Economics
Member, Advisory Board, Environmenta/ Economics Abstracts
Member? Advisory Board, Environmental Law and Policy Abstracts
Member, Editorial Board, Economic Issues
Contributing Editor, Environmenf
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)
Dr. Hilary Inyang
University Professor and Director, Center for Environmental Engineering,
Science, and Technology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
DuPont Young Professor
National Research Council Young Investigator (1996)
Fellow, Geological Society of London
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Member, American Chemical Society, Associate Editor, Journal of Environmental
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers; International Journal of Surface Mining
and Reclamation
Editorial Board Member, Journal of Soil Contamination; Waste Management and Research;
Environmental Monitoring and Assessments; Resources Conservation and Recycling
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)
Dr. Mark A. Harwell
Director, Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses, Rosensteil School of
Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
Chair, U.S. Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Directorate on Human-Dominated Systems
Member, NAS-NRC Panel on Risk Characterization
Co-Editor, EccJogy Applications special issue on ecosystems
Editor, Climatic Change, PAN-EARTH series on global climate change effects
Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
Dr. Emil Pfitzer
Fellow, Academy of Toxicological Sciences
Chairman of the Board, Toxicology Laboratory Accreditation Board
Member, Board of Directors, The Academy of Toxicological Sciences
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 12 Annual Report
TABLE II FY 1998 SAB Committee Chairs (Continued)
Distinguished Graduate Award, University of Pittsburgh
The Society of Toxicology's Arnold J. Lehman Award
Herbert E. Stokinger Award
Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
Dr. Henry Anderson
Chief Medical Officer, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
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
Member, American Public Health Association
Member, American College of Epidemiology
Member, American Medical Association
Member, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Member, Editorial Board, Health and Environment Digest
Member, Editorial Board, Cancer Prevention International
Associate Editor, American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Co-Editor, Wisconsin Medical Journal of Industrial Medicine
Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
Dr. Stephen Brown
Director, Risks of Radiation and Chemical Compounds (R2C2)
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, Chemical Health and Safely Section, American Chemical Society
Member, International Society of Exposure Analysis
Member, National Academy of Engineering/National Academy of Sciences
Member, Society for Risk Analysis (President, National Capital Area Chapter)
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Dr. W. Randall Seeker
Senior Vice President, Energy and Environmental Research Corporation
Member, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Member, Combustion Institute
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 13
3.3 SAB Activities Section
3.3.1 Overview
The types of projects, as well as the
range of subject matter, reviewed by the SAB
continue to grow. The Board takes on reviews
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, address-
ing more varied subjects, requested by a wider
range of individuals and organizations.
Historically, most of the outputs of the
Board are in )he form of full reports. Such
reports present the findings of peer reviews of
nearly-completed Agency projects and contain
considerable detail about the findings and rec-
ommendations of the Board. They are generally
structured as responses to the 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.
In recent years the SAB has worked with
the Agency to produce quicker feedback and
more timely advice that is focused at the front-
end of the Agency's involvement with an issue.
First, the "Consultation" is a means of
conferring 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 introduced the
"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, the "Commentary" is a short
communication that provides unsolicited SAB
advice about a technical issue the Board feels
should be drawn to the Administrator's attention.
Fourth, letter reports are similar in ori-
gin, content, and purpose to full reports. They
are simply shorten thereby generally resulting in
more rapid advice to the Agency.
Tables El and IV display the SAB's
operating expenses, staffing, meeting activity,
and report production for the past five fiscal
years (1994-1998). The increase in total costs
over the years reflects an increase in the
number of Board Members, a modest increase
in the number of Staff, increases in Federal pay
and allowances, and general increases in the
cost of airline travel, hotel and meeting
accommodations.
Table V details meeting activity and
report preparation by Committee.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 14
Annual Report
TABLE HI SAB Expenses ($K) for Fiscal Years 1994-1998
Fiscal Compensation
Year Staff MIC
Total
Travel
Other
Expenses
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
19981
1100
1186
1045
1170
1250
564
650
392
555
600
1,664
1,836
1,437
1,725
1,850
373
358
242
282
285
106
166
88
212
281
2,143
2,360
1,768
2,219
2,416
1 Estimated
TABLE IV SAB Activities and Staffing, Fiscal Years 1994-1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Committee Activities"
Public" Public0 Closet?
Meet. Teleconf Meet. Toted
58
44
28
34
42
15
5'
9
21
8
1
1
0
1
1
74
50
37
56
51
Committee Reports
Full9 Short{ Total9
15
27
3
11
11
15
13
17
18
10
30
40
20
29
21
Staffing
Federal
Members Staff11
100
98
98
97
102
16.0
17.0
16.7
17.6
19.7
" Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) meetings announced in the Federal Register.
SAB staff and Members meet occasionally to prepare draft materials or to plan for public meetings.
Such meetings are exempt from FACA requirements and are, therefore, not reflected in this table.
b Public meetings held face-to-face
e Public teleconference meetings
d Closed meetings, with approval of the EPA Administrator
* A full report on a topic is a more extensive discussion of the subject, e.g., greater than 10 pages.
' A short report is a more focused discussion of a topic. Included in this category are Letter Reports,
Advisories, and Commentaries to the Administrator on issues of concern to the SAB.
* Appendix F contains a list of all FY97 reports and abstracts.
h Measured in Full Time Equivalents (One FTE equals one employee working one year)
1 Includes one public hearing
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 15
TABLE V SAB Activities by
Committee
EC
,
EC/
ad hoc
Subcom.
.>
if
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
Fiscal
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Committee
for Fiscal Years 1994-1998
Committee Activities'
Mtgs.
5
6
3
3
3
13
4
10
17
8
0
13
2
1
3
5
5
5
1
3
5
3
2
1
2
Teleconf.
0
2
2
3
5
1
1
11
10
0
0
1
1
6
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Total
5
8
5
6
8
14
5
21
27
8
0
4
3
7
3
8
5
6
1
3
5
3
3
2
2
Number of Reports 2
Full
0
1
1
0
0
1
4
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
Short
0
2
2
4
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
2
3
3
8
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Total
0
3
3
4
0
1
4
0
2
2
0
2
2
3
2
3
3
8
1
1
4
4
2
2
1
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 16 Annual Report
TABLE V SAB
Committee
EPEC
>
*
EEAC
.2
EEC
EHC
IHEC
Activities
Fiscal
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
by Committee
for Fiscal Years 1994-1998
Committee Activities
Mtgs.
10
5
3
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
5
7
2
3
6
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
Teleconf.
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
Total
10
5
4
2
3
2
1
0
0
2
8
7
3
3
6
2
1
1
1
3
3
2 .
1
2
2
(continued)
Number of
Full
4
3
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
3
4
1
1
0
2
1
2
1
0
0
1
Report s*
Short Total
2
3
0
, 5
1
2
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
6
6
0
7
3
3
0
0
0
1
3
7
1
4
5
2
2
0
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 17
TABLE V SAB Activities by Committee for Fiscal Years 1994-1998 (Continued)
Committee
RAC
RSAC
Fiscal
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Committee Activities1
Mtas. Teleconf. Total
Number of Reports2
Full Short Total
7
5
2
4
6
3
3
0
0
3
6
1
4
1
2
2
0
2
0
0
13
6
6
5
8
5
3
2
0
3
1
4
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
4
2
1
1
3
2
1
0
2
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
Environmental Processes Effects Committee
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Radiation Advisory Committee
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
1 Indicates 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 Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 18
Annual Report
3.3.2 Reports That Meet SAB Criteria
In the face of more requests than current
resources can address, the Board has had to be
selective about its choice of projects. Increasingly,
the SAB Staff has interacted formally with different
parts of the Agency to determine EPA's priorities.
For example, the majority of requests from the
Agency now originate from an Assistant
Administrator's office to help insure the request is
a high priority. In addition, the SAB Staff has
sought the advice and counsel of groups that cut
across program offices in the Agency; e.g., the
Science Policy Council.
Over the past decade, SAB priorities have
generally been guided by a set of criteria that
evolved from its 1989 "self-study" on the mission and
functioning ol the Board. At the 1997 Strategic
Planning Retreat, the Executive Committee updated
these criteria which are listed below, together with
examples of FY98 reports that reflect those criteria:
I - GENERAL CRITERION
A. Provides an opportunity to make a
difference in the Agency's operations
1. Although a final report has not yet been
released, the SAB's Integrated Risk Project (IRP)
continues to command a significant portion of the
SAB's efforts. This project, initiated at the request
of the Administrator, addresses at a fundamental
level, the whole approach taken to environmental
protection.
2.EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-98-002
Commentary on the Process for SAB Review of the
ORD Presidential Budget Request
Following its report on the review of the
ORD Budget, the RSAC provided a list of specific
recommendations that will help future budget
presentations to the Board and to Congress.
E - CLIENT-RELATED CRITERIA
A. Supports major regulatory or risk
management initiatives.
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007, Review of the OPPTs
Toxics Release InventoryCTRI) Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicators Methodology
The SAB reviewed an innovative use of the
TRI database that provides a broad-spectrum tool
for identifying candidate problem areas in the
environment.
B. Serves leadership interests such as
those of the EPA Administrator or Congress.
EPA-SAB-EHC-98-001, SAB's Review of the
EPA Draft Mercury Study Report to Congress
Congress directed the Agency to prepare
a report on the health risks associated with
mercury in the environment. The SAB critically
reviewed the report and provided input to a cross-
government group convened to help resolve
differing interpretations of the science between EPA
and sister Federal agencies.
C. Supports strategic themes of current
interest.
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-98-005, An SAB Ad-
visory on Economic Research Topics and Priorities
In FY98, the EEAC was re-activated and
began immediately to provide advice on the
Agency's use and direction of its emerging
contingent of economic talent. This Advisory is
meant to provide specific suggestions for research
areas in environmental economics that need
particular attention.
HI - SCIENCE-DRIVEN CRITERIA
A. Involves scientific approaches that are
new to the Agency.
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007, Review of OPPTs
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicators Methodology
The SAB reviewed an innovative approach
to screening the relative impacts of emissions of
complex mixtures from Toxics Release Inventory
facilities around the country. The effect is to
change raw mass emission rates of various
substances into a crude first-tier estimate of
associated relative risks from those emissions.
B. Deals with areas of substantial
uncertainties.
Although still in draft form at the end of
FY98, the RAC's review on uncertainty in radiation
risk analysis reflects vigorous discussion of the
topic in the Committee. Many of the concepts are
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 19
relevant to uncertainty consideration in areas
besides radiation.
V - PROBLEM-DRIVEN CRITERIA
A. Involves major environmental risks.
1. EPA-SAB-COUNCEL-ADV-98-002,
Advisory by the Air Quality Models Subcommittee
(AQMS) on the Air Quality Models and Emissions
Estimates Initial Studies
2. EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003,
Advisory on the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
of 1990 Section 812 Prospective Study: Overview of
Air Quality and Emissions Estimates Modeling,
Health, and Ecological Valuation Issues: Initial
Studies ?
These reports address a major
environmental issue/policy problem that mesh
scientific and economic considerations; that is, the
costs and benefits projected to be derived from
implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
B. Relates to emerging environmental
issues.
EPA-SAB-EC-98-013, Review of the USEPA's
Report to Congress on Residual Risk
The SAB reviewed the Agency's strategy for
addressing one of the major aspects of
environmental protection; i.e., the risks that will
remain once the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards have been
implemented for the major air pollution sources in
the country.
EPA-SAB-IHEC-98-004,
Source Ranking Database
Review of the
C. Exhibits a long-term outlook.
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003, Review of
Agency-wide Quality Management Program
the
The SAB is conducting a multi-meeting
examination of the quality management program at
the Agency. In addition to the merit of the program
per se (the subject of this report), the Board will
also examine the barriers to implementation of a
quality program.
V - ORGANIZATIONAL-RELATED CRITERIA
The SAB reviewed this prototypic effort to
combine toxicity information from related sources.
The method contributed to other Agency efforts,
such as the TRI Indicators project; see ffiA above.
B. Requires the commitment of substantial
resources to scientific or technological
development.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-98-006. Review of the FY99
President Budget Request for the Office of
Research and Development
The SAB complimented the Agency on the
finest presentation of its budget to date, while
identifying several areas in the roughly $500 million
budget that needed buttressing.
C. Transcends organizational boundaries,
within or outside EPA. (Includes international
boundaries.)
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-003, Ecological Impacts
and Evaluation Criteria for the Use of Structures in
Marsh Management
The use of manmade structures to modify
wetland marshes has been controversial in a
number of locations across the country. The SAB
has generated a comprehensive report that lays
out broadly applicable principles that should assist
organizations at various governmental levels as
they confront this challenging ecological issue
D. Strengthens the Agency's basic
capabilities.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-98-002, Commentary
on the Process for SAB Review of the ORD
Presidential Budget Request
While the Board applauded what they felt
was the best presentation of the ORD budget they
had ever seen, they also made specific
recommendations for making the Agency's case
more effectively. The clarity of the presentation of
the Budget has a big impact on the support it
receives from the Board and ultimately from the
Congress.
A.
methods.
Serves as a model for future Agency
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 20
Annual Report
3.3.3 Responses and Reactions to SAB
Activities
Since 1984, the Board has formally
requested written Agency responses to SAB
reviews. The majority of the responses indicate
that the Agency has acted positively on the advice
given by the Board. In many instances, the Agency
has initiated action on the basis of the advice ren-
dered at the public meetings, prior to their actual
receipt (via the Administrator) of the formal report
from the Board. In some other cases, the Agency
and the Board "agree to disagree."
Support for the SAB both inside and outside
the Agency remains strong. The Deputy Adminis-
trator has made it a practice to attend regularly
Executive Committee meetings to discuss topics of
mutual interest. Several Assistant Administrators
also made presentations and requests at meetings
of the Executive Committee in FY98. The large
number of EPA requests for SAB assistance
speaks to the Agency's commitment to the SAB.
However, resource constraints continue to limit the
extent to which the Board can respond fully to the
needs of the Agency-
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 21
4. REVIEW OF FY98 ACTIVITIES
4.1 Introduction
EPA and environmental decision making
in general have undergone rapid change in
recent years, providing new opportunities for the
SAB to enhance the quality of science in
environmental decision making, or, in some
cases, requiring that the SAB also change in
order to continue being successful. The
changes in EPA and environmental decision
making which are particularly relevant to the
SAB's mission include new, less-centralized
decisionmaking approaches, emerging scientific
issues, crosscu'tting initiatives and programs,
multiple avenues for peer review, an expanded
EPA grants program, and international dimen-
sions of emerging environmental problems.
During this transition from its traditional
command-and-control approach to the more
placed-based, pollution prevention operation of
the future, the Agency's approaches to
environmental protection are changing, and to
be most effective the SAB needs to change with
them. Specifically, the SAB needs to spend
much more of its total energies on providing
strategic, forward-looking advice, while
maintaining and even improving the quality,
utility, and timeliness of its peer review of EPA
products.
In November 1997, the Executive
Committee held its first retreat to develop a
strategic plan to meet this challenge. In the
minds of the members of the Executive
Committee, the overarching goal of the Board is
to make a positive difference in the way that the
science underlying decisions is commissioned,
developed, and used in environmental decision-
making. The product of the retreat was a
Strategic Plan (EPA-SAB-98-010). The EC felt a
need to make a transition in the way the Board
does business and recommended that changes
be made along several lines simultaneously:
a) Improve general operations by improving
timeliness, by accepting the right projects
for peer review, and improving commun-
ication with customers, other organizations
and with new SAB members and Chairs.
b) Redirect, develop, or modify some specific
SAB elements, including directing the
Research Strategies Advisory Committee to
focus on the broad strategic aspects of
research and science in the Agency and
integrating economics expertise into the
broader work of the Board.
c) Launch new initiatives to meet the
challenge of the Agency's own changes in
environmental decisionmaking, such as
selecting a few strategic projects each year
that focus on broad issues such as the role
of science in "next generation" approaches
to environmental protection; develop or
contribute to the development of workshops
to address important, under-recognized
scientific issues; explore a broader range
of social science involvement in SAB
activities; experiment with short summaries
of its reports for non-technical audiences;
and consider a focus on international
environmental issues.
In FY98, the Board began the transition,
guided by its Strategic Plan. As an example,
the EC held several conference calls to expedite
report approval to make the Board's advice
more timely and useful to the Agency. It
maintained its close contacts with the F1FRA
Scientific Advisory Panel and the ORD Board of
Scientific Counselors and began efforts to
coordinate more closely with science advisory
boards of other nations.
As part of the Board's efforts to integrate
more social science into its activities the EEAC
was reinvigorated and worked closely with the
Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen and Agency
economists to update its mission and review the
Agency's guidelines for economic analyses.
As a part of its rejuvenations the EEAC
invited Dr. Jeffrey Frankel of the President's
Council of Economic Advisors to one of its
meetings to discuss various environmental
issues.
The HEC worked with a new Agency
client office when it reviewed the questions
guiding the Office of Civil Rights in their
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 22
Annual Report
evaluation of whether there are disproportionate
exposures of environmental toxicants to various
sub-populations.
A final SAB transition this year was the
RSAC's exploration of ways that it might provide
advice and recommendations on the Agency's
overall science and technology budget, not just
on the ORD budget, as the Agency finds better
ways to use its resources more wisely and to
implement the requirements of the Government
Performance for Results Act.
4.2 Overview of SAB Activities
The subsections below contain
highlights ol?the activities of each of the SAB
Committees', as well as a listing of the Members
for each of the Committees for FY98. Clearly,
not all of the activities of the Committees can be
captured in this way, but the descriptions will
give the reader a broad view of what has been
going on, including basic statistical information
about the number of meetings and reports for
each group.
4.2.1 Executive Committee (EC)
EC Members
Joan Daisey, Chair
Granger Morgan
Henry Anderson
Steve Brown
Richard Bull
Maureen Cropper
Mark Harwell
Hilary Inyang
Morton Lippmann
Alan Maki
Genevieve Matanoski,
Past Chair
Joe Mauderly
M. Granger Morgan
Emil Pfitzer
W. Randall Seeker
Ellen Silbergeld
Robert Stavins
Terry Young
LIAISON
Costel Denson, BOSC Chair
Ernest McConnell, SAP Chair
The EC conducted eight public meetings
in FY98, five of them by conference coll. Five EC
subcommittees each held public meetings during
the year. Also, the EC conducted its first Strategic
Planning Retreat in November, 1997.
The Subcommittee activity arose, in part,
from decisions made at the Retreat that the SAB
should be more involved in strategic, broad-based
activities that draw on input and participants from
many Committees of the Board; cf., a "matrix-
management" approach. As a result, EC
Subcommittees were formed to deal with the
following issues:
a) Computer Models - Dr. Ishwar
Murarka, Chair; Jack Fowle, DFO
b) D-CORMK Model -
Murarka, Chair; Bob Flaak, DFO
Dr. Ishwar
c) Residual Risk Report to Congress -Dr.
Philip Hopke, Chair; Don Barnes, DFO
d) Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards Dr. C. Herbert Ward,
Chair; Bob Flaak, DFO
e) Secondary Uses of Data - Dr. Morton
Lippmann, Chair; Anne Barton, DFO
f) Strategic Ranking Criteria Dr. W.
Randall Seeker, Chair; Stephanie Sanzone, DFO
The emphasis on computer models
actually stems from a 1989 SAB Commentary that
urged the Agency to be more systematic in its
approach to the development, testing, and
utilization of computer models in environmental
protection. La 1995 the SAB again urged the
Agency to follow through on its announced plans in
this regard. In response, in December, 1998 the
Agency hosted a "Models 2000" conference to
which the SAB (Dr. Murarka) was invited to lay out
the Board's concerns. As a result, the Agency
established a cross-EPA Steering Committee to
coordinate the efforts of 10 workgroups to deal with
different aspects of modeling. TheSAB's Models
Subcommittee was established to provide a public
source of technical advice and critical review on
this issue. The D-CORMK Subcommittee was
already in place to review a specific computer
model.
The Residual Risk Subcommittee was
formed to help meet a near-term Agency deadline
to develop a strategy for dealing with risks that
remain after Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) is put in place on various air
pollution sources. The EC Subcommittee
approach was used because a) the subject matter
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 23
was interdisciplinary and b) it held the promise of
a more timely review. The charge was drafted in
May; the Subcommittee was recruited in June-July;
the meeting was held in August; and the 100 page
report was completed in September.
The Scientific and Technological Achieve-
ment Awards focus continued a decade-long role
of the Board in reviewing peer-reviewed
publications by EPA scientists and recommending
them for awards from the Office of Research and
Development.
The EC identified Secondary Uses of Data
as a strategic issue in the spring. This interest
coincided with the desire of the Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics (CE1S) in
the Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) for on-going
technical advice.
A sixth ad hoc subcommittee of the EC, the
Strategic Ranking Criteria Subcommittee, was
formed to offer advice to the Agency's Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) on ways in which
the IRP project thinking could be applied to
strategic planning and budgeting. The
Subcommittee conducted a consultation with
OCFO staff on possible revisions to the
comparative criteria that the Agency program
offices use to evaluate their programs in the
context of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) strategic plan which contains
specific goals, objectives, and subobjectives.
Subcommittee members provided suggestions on
improvements to the comparative risk analysis that
is applied to the subobjectives and encouraged
the Agency to continue work to develop economic
and cost comparative criteria as well.
In addition to the six new subcommittees,
work continued on the Integrated Risk Project
(IRP), an EC project, under the direction of Dr.
Genevieve Matanoski with DFO assistance from
Tom Miller and Stephanie Sanzone. The Steering
Committee produced a penultimate draft of an
Overview report, destined for wide distribution,
and compiled the work of five subcommittees into
an Exposition on Integrated Environmental
Decisionmaking that expands upon the major
themes of the report. Both the Overview and the
Exposition will be subjected to peer review in FY99.
In FY98, EC used 39 Consultants.
The EC issued two reports in FY98:
a) SAB Award Recommendations for the 1997
Scientific andTechnologicalAchievement
Awards (STAA) Nominations
EPA-SAB-EC-98-012
b) Review of U.S. EPA's Report to Congress on
Residual Risk
EPA-SAB-EC-98-013
4.2.2 Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL)
COUNCIL Members
Maureen Cropper, Chair
Ronald Cummings
Daniel Dudek
A. My rick Freeman
Lawrence H. Goulder
JaneV. Hall '
Paul Lioy
Paulette Middleton
Richard Schmalensee
Thomas Tietenberg
The Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (Council) was mandated by
Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments. Its mission is to review Agency
documents dealing with the costs and benefits of
the CAA and with the implementation of the CAA
regulations. The Council's Air Quality Models
Subcommittee (AQMS) reviews air quality models
and emissions estimates while the Health and
Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES, formally
the Physical Effects Review Subcommittee, PERS)
reviews associated health and ecological issues.
During FY1998, the Council provided an
advisory review of initial studies leading to the first
Section 812 Prospective Study Report to Congress.
In FY 98, COUNCIL used 12 Consultants.
The Council and its two subcommittees
conducted a total of three meetings in FY 98 and
issued two advisories,
a) An SAB Advisory: The Clean Air Act
(CAA) Section 812 Prospective
Study of Costs and Benefits -
Air Quality Models and
Emissions Estimates Initial Studies
by the Advisory Council on
Clean Air Compliance Analysis
(AQMS product)
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-002
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 24
Annual Report
b)An SAB Advisory on the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 Section 812
Prospective Study: Overview of
Air Quality and Emissions
Estimates Modeling,
Health and Ecological Valuation
Issues Initial Studies
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003
4.2.3 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC)
4.2.4 Drinking Water Committee (DWC)
CASAC Members
Joe Mauderiy, Chair
Philip Hopke
Arthur Upton;
Warren White
John Elston
Jay Jacobson
Sverre Vedal
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) held three meetings during
FY98. Two of these meetings concerned planning
for the upcoming (FY99 and later) review cycles of
several national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS): a) review of the development plan for the
particulate matter (PM) NAAQS; and b) review of
the development plan for the carbon monoxide
(CO) NAAQS. The third meeting concerned the
Committee's second peer review (done previously
in 1995) of the Agency's draft Diesel Health
Assessment Document.
In FY 98, CASAC used eight Consultants.
The Committee issued one letter report in
FY98:
a) CASAC Review of the Project Work Plan
for the Particulate Matter
Criteria Document
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-98-002
DWC Members
Richard Bull, Chair
Judy Bean
Lenore Clesceri
Yvonne Dragan
John Evans
Anna Fan-Cheuk
L.D. McMullen
Charles O'Melia
Edo Pellizzari
Gary Toranzos
Rhodes Trussed
Marylynn Yates
The Committee met two times in FY98 to
receive briefings on a number of issues that are
important to the implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Arrimendments of 1996. Topics
included the EPAMicrobial/Disinfection Byproduct
Research Plan, a Notice of Data Availability
relevant to a number of pending drinking water
regulations, an assessment of the carcinogenicity
study on chloroform and dichloroacetate which
was conducted by the International Life Sciences
Institute, the draft Drinking Water Candidate
Contaminant List, and the Agency's Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) grants-based research
program. The DWC also conducted Consultations
with the Agency on alternative test systems for the
evaluation of disinfection byproduct mixtures and
a method for estimating drinking water intake
levels. The Committee conducted advisory
reviews on the National Contaminant Occurrence
Database and the national-level affordability
criteria for technologies for small drinking water
systems.
' In FY98, DWC used five consultants.
The Committee issued one advisory and
two notifications of consultation during FY98:
a) Notification of a Consultation on
Alternative Test Systems for the Evaluation
of Disinfection By-product Mixtures
EPA-SAB-DWC-CON-98-004
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 25
^Notification of a Consultation on a
Method for Estimating Drinking Water
Intake Levels
EPA-SAB-DWC-CON-98-005
c) An SAB Advisory on the National Drinking
Water Contaminant Occurrence
Database
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-004
4.2.5 Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (EPEC)
EPEC Members
Mark Harwell, Chair
Alan Maki, Vice Chair
Miguel Acevedb
William Adams
Lisa Alvarez-Cohen
Steven Bartell
Kenneth Cummins
Carol Johnston
Judith McDowell
Frieda Taub
William Smith
Terry Young
The Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (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 expand the Agency's
attention to include non-chemical stressors (e.g.,
habitat issues, physical alteration of ecosystems,
and introduced species) and to raise the visibility
of ecological risks.
EPEC held three meetings in FY98.
Special mention is made of the first meeting in
which the Committee met in Boston to review a
regional initiative for the Blackstone River. The
review of the Blackstone River Initiative offered an
unusual opportunity for Committee members to
learn about an on-the-ground effort to model and
monitor a watershed, led by EPA Region I with
participation by the states of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island, and cooperation from several
federal agencies, municipalities, and private
businesses. The meeting also marked the first
time that Region I had engaged in an SAB review.
Other key activities of EPEC during FY98
included: development of a strategic project to
propose a conceptual framework for a report card
on ecological health and consultations with the
Agency on the use of Toxicity Equivalency Factors
(TEFs) in ecological risk assessment and future
guidance on ecological risk assessment.
During FY98, the Committee released its
state-of-the-science report on the use of structures
to alter hydrology in coastal marshes (EPA-SAB-
EPEC-98-003). The marsh management report
was a scientific report generated by a special
subcommittee of EPEC over a several-year period.
In keeping with the SAB Executive Committee's
decision to print and widely distribute some
reports with broad appeal, the report on marsh
management was printed in color with
photographs and distributed to interested federal,
state, and non-governmental wetland and living
resource managers and scientists.
In FY98, EPEC used five consultants.
The EPEC issued two full reports and one
letter report during FY 98:
a) Ecological Impacts and Evaluation
Criteria for the Use of Structures in
Marsh Management
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-003
b) Evaluation of the Blackstone River
Initiative
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-011
c) Review of the EPA's Draft Ecological
Research Strategy
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR- 98-001
4.2.6 Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC)
EEAC Members
Robert Stavins, Chair
Nancy Bockstael
Trudy Cameron
Maureen Cropper
Herman Daly
A. Myrick Freeman
Dale Jorgenson
Catherine Kling
Charles Kolstad
Robert Repetto
Richard Schmalensee
W. Kip Vlscusi
In FY98, the Environmental Economics
Advisory Committee (EEAC) met two times. At its
first meeting the EEAC discussed the Committee's
mission with the Deputy Administrator and
received briefings on the Agency's plans to revise
the existing guidelines for the conduct of economic
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 26
Annual Report
analyses, an EPA-sponsored Resources for the
Future study on the cost of environmental
regulation, and the Agency's efforts to prepare an
economics research plan. At its second meeting,
the EEAC members completed an Advisory on a
series of economics research topics. The
Committee also began a review of the Agency's
initial efforts to revise their economic analysis
guidelines and they discussed a number of
environmental economic issues with Dr. Jeffrey
Frankel of the President's Council of Economic
Advisors.
InFY98, EEAC used one consultant.
The Committee issued one Advisory during
FY98:
>
, <
a) An SAB Advisory on Economic
Research Topics and Priorities
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-98-005
4.2.7 Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)
EEC Members
Hilary Inyang, Chair
Edgar Berkey
Calvin Chien
Terry Foecke
Nina French
James Johnson
JoAnn LJghty
John Maney
Ishwar Murarka
Lynne Preslo
The full EEC met twice in FY98. There
were four Subcommittee meetings as well. The
meetings addressed a range of issues including:
the Agency-wide Quality Management Program,
attributes for successful proactive technical
advice, and potential initiatives. In response to the
Executive Committee's Strategic Retreat, the EEC
developed criteria for selecting among potential
initiatives, applied them, and assigned the
following topics to members for further
development: (1) Measures of Environmental
Technology Performance; (2) TCLP: From Waste
Classification to Source Term Prediction; (3)
Natural Hazards: A Framework for Control of
Environmental Impacts; (4) Waste Utilization; (5)
P2: Barriers to Implementation and Social Science;
and (6) Potential Sources of PM 2.5. The members
are drafting commentaries which include
background information, a discussion of criticality
and risks associated with inaction, identification of
approahces that EPA could take, and specific
recommendations.
In rT98, EEC used ten consultants.
The EEC issued four reports and one letter
report during the year:
a) Review of the Waste Research Strategy of
the Office of Research and Development
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-005
b) An SAB Review: Review of the Toxics
Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicators Methodology
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007
c) An SAB Report: Review of ORD's Pollution
Prevention Research Strategy
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-008
d) An SAB Report: Review of the Office of Solid
Waste's Proposed Surface Impoundment
Study
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-009
e) Science Advisory Board Review of the
Agency-Wide Quality Management
Program EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003
4.2.8 Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
EHC Members
Emil Pfitzer, Chair
Cynthia Bearer
Adoifo Correa
John Doull
David Hoel
Abby Li
Michele Medinsky
Frederica Perera
Mark Utell, Co-Chair
Lauren Zeise
The Environmental Health Committee
(EHC) shares responsibilities for health effects re-
views with several committees of the Board (DWC,
HEC, RAC, and CASAC). The principal focus for
EHC has been issues related to development and
use of guidelines for health risk assessments. The
EHC has continued to maintain a close
relationship with the other SAB health-related
Committees, and with the Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP) of the Office of Pesticides, often
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 27
holding joint meetings and sharing members for
reviews.
The EHC met three times in FY98. At the
first meeting, the EHC reviewed the Office of
Research and Development's (ORD) proposals on
calculating acute reference doses, and they
discussed a series of case studies demonstrating
application of various methodologies to chosen
toxicants. At the second meeting they reviewed the
ORD's draft health risk assessment document on
1,3 Butadiene. At the third meeting they reviewed
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics'
proposed "403 Lead Rule."
The 1,3 Butadiene review focused on the
overall technical quality of the document; its
degree of support for the classification of 1,3
Butadiene as a "known" human carcinogen;" the
approaches taken to characterize plausible
cancer risks; and support for the conclusions and
quantitative estimations concerning reproductive
and developmental effects.
The RfCreviewaddressed approaches for
deriving Acute Reference Values (ARE); dosimetric
adjustments to the ARE; the use of an expert
system for categorizing severity; the guidance
offered for including lethal and severe effect data
in the ARE calculation; the use of categorical
regression; and the use of duration adjustments in
ARE derivation.
The lead reviewarose from the requirements
contained in the Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851)
which amended the TSCA The EHC was charged
to determine if the Bisk Analysis to Support
Standards for Lead in Paint' Dust, and Soils,
(Volumes I and J7) were technically sound,
appropriate, and scientifically defensible.
In FY98, EHC used twelve consultants.
The EHC issued one report based on a
meeting in FY97.
a) Review of the EPA Draft Mercury
Study Report to Congress
EPA-SAB-EHC-98-001
4.2.9 Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC)
IHEC Members
Henry Anderson, Chair
Joan Daisey, Past Chair
Paul Bailey
Robert Hartey
Michael Lebowitz
Kai-Shen Liu
Thomas McKone
Maria Morandi
Jerome Nriagu
Barbara Petersen
Charles Weschler
Ronald White
The IHEC addresses many of the exposure
assessment issues that come before the Board. In
FY96, the Committee's name was changed from
the Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure
Committee (IAQQ to reflect more accurately the
issues with which the Committee typically dealt.
The Commitee met twice during FY98, At
its first meering IHEC reviewed the Office of Civil
Rights documents "Questions for the Science
Advisory Board on the Title VI Relative Burdent
Analyses "and the" Cumulative Outdoor Air Toxics
Concentration and Exposure Methodology"
addressing the possible disparities in exposure to
environmental toxicants across various sub-
populations. At its second meeting, the Committee
reviewed the Office of Research and
Development's National Human Exposure
Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) and the National
Health and Human Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES).
The focus of the relative burden meeting
was the reviw of underpinnings of the Basic
Relative Burden Analysis Methodology (BRBA), the
Enhanced Relative Burden Analysis Methodology
(ERBA), and the Cumulative Outdoor Toxics
Concentration and Exposure Methodology
(COATCEM) for scientific merit.
The purpose of the NHEXAS/NHANES
meeting was to develop a report on the NHEXAS
program, and to receive a briefing on the
NHANES. The basic Charge addressed the
strengths and weaknesses of multimedia,
multipathway measurements of exposure; the
adequacy of ongoing and planned analyses; how
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 28
Annual Revert
to increase the utility of the information from
NHEXAS; identifying follow-up studies; how to
strenghthen the immediate and long-term utility of
NHEXAS and studies like it.
In FY98, the IHEC used eight consultants.
The IHEC issued one report and one
Commentary in FY98:
a) Review of the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Source Ranking
Database
EPA-SAB-HEC-98-004
b) Commentary on the OAR's Draft Indoor
Air Strategy
EPA-^AB-IHEC-COM-98-001
4.2.10 Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
RAC Members
Stephen Brown, Chair
William Bair
June Fabryka-Martin
Thomas Gesell
F. Owen Hoffman
Bemd Kahn
Janet Johnson
Ellen Mangione
Paul Merges
John W. Poston.Sr.
Genevieve S. Roessler
James Watson, Jr.
The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
is most closely aligned with the Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air (ORIA), although the Office of
Water, and the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA), within the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) are also clients.
In FY98, the RAC and its subcommittees
held eight public meetings. Two were public
teleconferences. The committee addressed three
major topics: a) review of uncertainty in radiogenic
cancer risk, b) review of Federal Guidance Report
Number 13 - Part 1, which provides for estimation
of health risks to the public from low-level
environmental exposure to radionuclides, and c) a
second advisory on the Environmental Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS II), which
reconfigures this system for the future.
In FY98, RAC used six consultants.
In FY 1998, the RAC issued one advisory
and one notice of consultation:
a) Radiation Advisory Committee
Advisory on Environmental Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS)
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-98-001
b) Radiation Advisory Committee Notification
of a Consultation on Alternative
Approaches for Disposal of Federal Low-
Activity Radioactive Wastes
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-98-001
4.2.11 Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(RSAC)
RSAC Members
W. Randall Seeker, Chair William Adams
Stephen Brown
Edwin Cooper
Philip Hopke
Ishwar Murarka
Theodora Col bom
Charles Gerba
Paulette Middleton
William Smith
The Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC) held three meetings during
FY98. The first meeting was conducted to outline
the process for the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) budget and to prepare the
Committee for the actual budget review to be held
later in the year. The second meeting was the
Committee's annual review of the Presidential
Budget Request for ORD. Following this review,
two members of the Committee testified at the
House of Representatives budget hearings. The
third meeting was held at the suggestion of Deputy
Administrator Fred Hansen to examine how the
Committee could provide advice and
recommendation to the Agency on its overall
science and technology budget.
In FY98, RSAC did not use any
consultants.
The Committee issued one report, one
commentary, and one notice of consultation
during FY98:
a) An SAB Report: Review of the FY1999
Presidential Budget Request for the Office
of Research and Development
EPA-SAB-RSAC-98-006
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 29
b) Commentary on the Process for Science
Advisory Board Review of the ORD
Presidential Budget Request
EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-98-002
c) Notification of a Consultation on the
Agency's FY2000 Science and
Technology (S&T) Budget
EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-98-006
4.3 Examples of Transitions
4.3.1 SAB Strategic Planning Retreat
During the November, 1997 Strategic
Planning Retreat (SPR) the Executive Committee
made major decisions about the future direction
of the Board. These decisions are captured in the
SAB Strategic Plan (EPA-SAB-98-010) that outlines
the changes the Board needs to make in order to
continue making a positive difference in the
production and use of science at EPA The major
objectives for the next few years are:
a. Maintain and improve the quality of peer
review done by the Board
This includes improving timeliness,
improving communication of SAB findings and
results (see "Synopsis", below), better selection of
projects for peer review, and a new liaison
function for EC members to maintain effective
contact with the needs of EPA program offices.
b. Provide more strategic advice
Both the Executive Committee and most of
the Standing Committees have initiated strategic
projects, usually self-initiated, to provide useful
front-end advice to the Agency on key issues.
Although the strategic projects inspired by the
SPR have not yet been completed, many have
been started and were discussed at public
meetings this year.
c. Explore science activities in new EPA initiatives
The SPR included a great deal of lively
discussion about EPA's reinvention activities, such
as Community-Based Environmental Protection
and the Common Sense Initiative as well as the
need for new SAB approaches to meet the needs
of these new programs. In April, the Executive
Committee received a briefing from a group of
EPA officials involved in these new approaches.
As a result, the Executive Committee is planning
a workshop on the the role of science in the new
initiatives, to be held early in FY99.
4.3.2 Evidence in SAB Products
a. "Gussied-Up" Report
Some SAB reports provide advice that is
specifically tailored to a particular problem
facing the Agency. Interest in those reports is
generally confined to the Agency itself. However,
many SAB reports address issues that transcend
the Agency. In such cases the Board's advice has
applications beyond EPA per se. Too often,
however, news about such SAB reports has not
traveled very far.
In FY98 the Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee completed work on an
extensive study of man-made structures as a
means of managing marshes. Although the focus
of the study was activity along the Gulf coast - to
which the SAB made a field trip to examine some
of these structures there are numerous sites
along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Great Lakes
coasts where such advice is applicable.
Therefore, the SAB prepared a special
layout and production for its report: "Ecological
Impacts and Evaluation Criteria for the Use of
Structures in Marsh Management" (EPA-SAB-
EPEC-98-003). The spine-stapled volume contains
half a dozen photographs, several of them taken
during the field trip itself, to illustrate the
principles that the Committee was espousing.
Based upon the large number of attendees at
public meetings and known interested parties
throughout the country, hundreds of copies were
printed and distributed in an initial mailout across
the country.
The intention is to prepare similar special
productions of Committee reports in the future
that contain advice that should be broadly known
and applied within and beyond the Agency.
b. Synopses
While SAB reports are available upon
request through the Staff Office and/or via
downloading from the SAB Website, often times
interested readers are unaware that the Board
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 30
Annual Report
has generated a report on a particular topic.
Efforts to "spread the word" include mention of
each new report in the SAB newsletter
("HAPPENINGS at the SAB") at the time of the
report's publication, along with reproduction of
the Abstract from the report.
In an effort to extend that reach further, in
FY98, the SAB experimented with generating "An
SAB Synopsis" for some of its reports that were
thought to be of broad interest. Each SAB
Synopsis is a one-page summary that gives a
non-technical summary of the SAB's findings in a
particular report and directs the reader to the
Staff Office and/or the SAB Website for more
information. It is essentially a "flyer", designed to
notify and inform potential readers of the full
report. /
;. y'
The SAB Synopses were generated and
distributed in FY98 in connection with the three
following reports:
(1) ORD Budget
(2) Residual Risk Report to Congress
(3) Diesel Health Criteria Document
4.3.3 Improved Timeliness
In recent years it has become evident
that, in general, the length of time it takes to
generate and transmit an SAB report to the
Agency is inversely proportional to the impact of
that advice. While most SAB reports are
delivered to the Administrator within 4-6 months
following the last public meeting on the topic,
some reports have taken much longer. Again,
while there are understandable reasons for this
delay, the result is that a program offices loses
the benefit of the advice on that project and is
more reluctant to bring the next important project
to the SAB out of concern for encountering similar
delays. In FY98, this concern was voiced by
program offices during the Strategic Planning
Retreat (SPR) and by the Deputy Administrator at
a meeting of the SAB Executive Committee.
In response, the Executive Committee
(EC) made attention to timeliness one of the major
commitments coming out of the SPR The
participants adopted a number of initiatives
designed to improve on their record. They
agreed to the following:
a) A typical report should be completed
within 2-4 months after a public meeting.
b) A working draft of reports should be
generated prior to adjournment of public
meetings.
c) In some cases, it should be possible to
transmit a report in less than two months.
d) In fewer cases, it should be possible to
transmit a report in less than a month. [For these
cases, it may be necessary to delegated authority
to a fewer members of the EC to approve the
report on behalf of the whole body.]
e) The use of "matrix-managed
"subcommittees of the EC, involving expertise
from a number of different committees eliminates
the review of a report at a Committee level prior to
review by the EC. [A number of such EC
subcommittees were established following the
SPR.] '
f) Publicly-accessible telephone conference
calls should be convened between quarterly face-
to-face meetings of the EC in order to take action
on Committee reports.
Three examples will illustrate that a
"change of pace" has taken place:
a)
In the late
that its
Risk should
the
spring
Report to' Congress
Agency decided
on Residual
receive high-level peer
review prior to transmittal to the
Hill. SAB Staff worked with the Agency to
generate a Charge. The Panel was
recruited, meeting arrangements were in
place, and the Federal Register notice
was published within a month. Panel
Members came to the meeting with
written answers to the Charge Questions,
At the end of the one-day meeting, the Chair
summarized the major points that would be
made in the report. Four days later draft
minutes were distributed. Within three weeks
a 120-page draft report was available to the
public. Agency, and the EC. The EC
approved the report, with modest edits, at the
end of sixth week. The final report was sent
to the Administrator and posted on the SAB
Website by the end of the eighth week after
the meeting.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 31
b) Each year the Office of Research
and Development asks the SAB
to review articles published in
peer- reviewed technical journals by EPA
scientists and to identify authors whom
they would recommend for awards. In
FY98 the Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards Subcommittee of the EC
reviewed over 100 published
papers in an intensive two-day session,
involving a number of reviewers hooked
in by conference call. The report was
formally approved by the EC within
two weeks and the completed report was
transmitted to the Administrator
within a month.
c) The EC Conducted five meetings by
teleconference in order to take action on
more than a dozen reports that would have
had to wait for an additional 4-6 weeks
before a face-to-face EC meeting. The calls
saved money, as well as wear-and-tear on
travel-weary SAB Members/Consultants, and
they freed up time at EC face-to-face
meetings to conduct additional forward-
looking business with Agency officials and
guests.
4.3.4 Matrix/Strategic Approaches
The matrix approach to reviewing
strategic issues, as encouraged by the SPR, bore
fruit in FY98, in addition to the examples of
increased timeliness described in the previous
subsection.
The SAB is nearing completion of its
multi-year effort to examine all aspects of
environmental decision making. The Integrated
Risk Project (IRP) has involved a cross section of
Board Members and Consultants. More than 50
technical experts have participated in the five
subcommittees and one over-arching Steering
Committee. The IRP will result in the
recommendation that the Agency adopt a multi-
disciplinary Integrated Environmental Decision
making (ED) framework. This project is being
handled directly out of the EC and will be
subjected to outside peer review, in part, because
of the large number of EC Members involved in
the project.
As noted in Section 3.3.2, the SAB has
been active in providing advice to the Agency
over the years on the use of computer models.
Having stimulated the Agency to re-invigorate its
efforts on computer models, the SAB has formed
a strategic subcommittee of the EC to serve as a
focal point for SAB advice on the generation and
use of such models. They have already met and
drafted a report on one of the Agency's new multi-
media, multi-pathway models: TRIM.FaTE.
Following the SPR the EC decided to
pursue an examination of its own: how the Agency
is prepared to address the issue of the use of
environmental data for secondary - in addition to
its primary - purposes. The EC has established
a subcommittee, with Members drawn from
across the SAB, to look into this matter. Initially,
they will serve as advisor to the Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS),
reporting directly to and through the EC.
As noted in Section 3.3.2, the SAB has
been invited to have increased input to (and
hence, impact on) the science budget
deliberations. Through a special subcommittee
of the EC, the Board has, for the first time, met
with leaders of all of the program offices and key
support offices to explore how science is
conducted and funded across the Agency. This
more holistic look by a more inter-disciplinary,
senior SAB committee holds the promise for
providing more informed, targeted, and timely
advice than has been possible in the past.
4.3.5 Interaction with other Advisory Groups
Cooperative activities between the SAB
and the FTFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) of
OPPTS and the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) of ORD continued apace in FY98. SAP
chair Dr. Eugene McConnell (ToxPath, Inc.) and
BOSC chair Dr. Costel Denson (University of
Delaware) were regular participants at meetings
of the SAB Executive Committee. In addition, the
SAB's Past Chair Dr. Matanoski (Johns Hopkins
University) was an active participant in a number
of SAP reviews, and SAB Chair Dr. Daisey
(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
attended a BOSC meeting.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 32
Annual Report
Dr. Hilary Inyang (Univ of Massachusetts
at Lowell) made possible a session on advisory
committees as a part of the Fourth International
Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology
and Global Sustainable Development for which
he was the principal organizer. At the session,
there were presentations about the structure and
functioning of outside, independent advisory
bodies to different levels of government:
, a) Science Advisory Board of the USEPA-
Advisor to the U.S. Government
b) Environment Science Advisory Committee
of Columbus-Advisor to the Mayor of
Columbus, OH
c) The tfealth Council of the Netherlands-
Advisor to the Netherlands government
The goal was to learn about each other
and to explore possible avenues of coop-
eration/interaction. Following the meeting, a
manuscript was prepared and submitted for
publication and an action plan developed for
taking the "next steps". In addition, since the
conference, a developing contact has been made
with a representative from a state level advisory
group. Specifically, the director of the Michigan
Environmental Sciences Advisory Board has
been added to the list of SAB Consultants. In
FY99 it is likely that liaison participation will occur
among these groups on topics of mutual interest.
Within the Agency, responsibility for the
overall management of all of the 26 FACA
Committees has been given to the Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEM). As one of the largest and long-standing
of FACA committees in the Agency, the SAB has
been able to assist other committees with their
processes and to suggest avenues for further
improvements. Bob Flaak is one of the most
experienced FACA course trainers in the Federal
Government, conducting courses across the
Agency and across the country. Pat Thomas has
been effective in setting up computer tracking
systems that can be used by other committees.
Don Barnes and Jack . Fowle, with the
encouragement of the Executive Committee, have
worked with OCEM leadership (Clarence Hardy
and Gordon Schisler) to explore strategic
utilization of the more than 1400 outside experts
that participate in Agency FACA committees.
There is a strong feeling that the Agency could
derive greater benefit from its large, but limited,
FACA resources, if there were a more strategic,
coordinated approach to the outside advisory
process, particularly as it relates to advice on
technical issues. This thrust will be continuing in
FY99.
4.4 Staff Office Operations
The Staff Office continues to find ways to
improve its services in a climate of constrained
resources. Communication is a continuing point
of emphasis: with SAB Members/Consultants,
with the Agency, and with the public. FY98
marked nearly three years of the primarily
electronic distribution of the monthly SAB
newsletter, "HAPPENINGS at the Science
Advisory Board". The newsletter has transitioned
from snail-mail to e-mail to a website version that
is easily accessible to millions of readers via the
SAB's website.
During FY98 the SAB Website
(www.epa.gov/sab) was significantly enhanced.
Now Netnicks from near and far can download
SAB reports, peruse the SAB calendar for the next
six months, check agendas of upcoming
meetings, review minutes of recent meetings, and
catch up on "Bon Mots" from recent editions of
HAPPENINGS. The connection to the Web has
dramatically affected the way business is done in
the Office. Rather than photocopying and mailing
requested copies of SAB reports-which continue
to be done, as needed-the Staff can simply refer
people to the Web. As the public becomes more
aware of the presence, utility, and convenience of
the Website, the number of incoming requests will
decrease, at the same time that the number of
individuals serviced-more rapidly than was
previously possiblewill increase.
In FY98 the SAB Staff Office moved to a
new location where they were consolidated as a
unit for the first time in nearly 20 years. With 14
individual and windowed offices, attractive open
space, and a handy conference room, the new
quarters provide a pleasant and productive
atmosphere. Combined with the new computer
equipment ordered in FY98, the new
accommodations hold great promise for FY99.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Annual Report
page 33
4.5 SAB Staff in Transition
Dr. Dorothy Canter. Senior Scientist in the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
served as co-DFO for an IHEC meeting on
Disproportionate Impact Analysis Methodologies.
She will also assist in preparation and completion
of the HEC report.
Dorothy Clark. Wanda Reids. Diana
Pozun and Mary Winston were reclassified to
Management Assistant positions, due to the
broad and complex nature of their duties and
responsibilities in the administration of our
various committees.
Roslyn Edson passed the Certified
Environmental ^Trainer exam, specializing in
safety and occupational health.
Tason Hotten joined the Committee
Operations Staff as a summer-intern from the
University of Maryland-Eastern Shore. His
contributions were significant to the entire office
and he is greatly missed.
Karen L Martin, a Mississippi Valley
State University graduate, joined the Committee
Operations Staff through the EPA internship
program. She has her master's in biology and
will be working with the Designated Federal
Officers to learn the ends and outs of running a
committee.
Vickie Richardson was promoted to
Management Analyst due to the ever increasing
analytical responsibilities needed by the office.
She also was designated as the Black
Employment Program Manager for the Office of
the Administrator. She will serve as an advisor to
management to assist in the achievement of the
Affirmative Employment Program.
Priscilla Tillery-Gadson is now
designated as the Program Specialist for the
Committee Operations Staff. This new title and
position more accurately reflects her duties and
responsibilities.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page 34
Annual Report
5. PROJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The calendar for the coming fiscal year is
already filling up. The Agency has identified a
number of big ticket reviews including the dioxin
reassessment and the cancer risk assessment
guidelines. In addition to responding to some of
the roughly three dozen Agency requests for SAB
reviews in FY99, the Board will continue to work
on its own set of projects. Foremost among these
is the Integrated Risk Project (TOP), the largest
and most involved study in the Board's history.
Next year will see the SAB working with the
Agency in exploring the implementation of the
recommendations. Also, following the directions
from the Strategic Planning Retreat, individual
SAB Committees are exploring more strategic
issues in addition to peer review of particular
Agency products. Dr. Granger Morgan's Working
Group on the role of science in some of the
Agency's new approaches plans to hold a
workshop to examine this topic more broadly.
In addition to the meat-and-potatoes
activities of the Board, FY99 promises additional
change, such as the following:
FY99 will likely see implementation of
some of ideas for increased interaction among
advisory groups. Within the Agency, the SAB will
play a role in the nascent FACA Strategic Forum,
while we see . increased liaison between
technically oriented FACA Committees. Outside
the Agency, the SAB will seek cooperative
activities with other technical advisory committees
at the local, state, national, and international
level.
The new Conference Room, which is
shared with the Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business, is an appropriate
setting for the planned display of photographs of
the four most recent Chairs of the SAB Executive
Committee:
Dr. Norton Nelson, 1984-1988
(New York University)
Dr. Raymond Loehr, 1988-1993
(University of Texas)
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, 1993-1997
(Johns Hopkins University)
Dr. Joan Daisey, 1997-present
(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
These photographs will be on display in early
FY99.
The SAB Staff will conduct its first Staff
Retreat in several years in November. The
Retreat leaders, Mr. Ken Wright and Ms. Carol
Crawford of the Office Human Resources, have
conferred with SAB management and interviewed
each Staff member to plan the most appropriate
activities for the event. The goal is to make a
good organization even better through improved
understanding, appreciation, operation, and
cooperation.
Therefore, we look forward to FY99 with
enthusiasm and anticipation that it will extend the
record of accomplishment and transition that is
passed on to us from FY98.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT . pageA-1
APPENDIX A
CHARTERS
A1. Charter of the Science Advisory Board
A2. Charter of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
A3. Charter of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseA-2 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX A1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
1. " PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This Charter is reissued to renew the Science Advisory Board in
accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9(c).
The former Science Advisory Board, administratively established by the Administrator of EPA on January
11, 1974, was terminated in 1978 when the Congress created the statutorily mandated Science Advisory
Board by the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA) of
1978, 42 U.S.C. 4365. The Science Advisory Board charter was renewed October 31, 1979; November 19,
1981; November 3, 1983; October 25, 1985; November 6, 1987; November 8, 1989, November 8, 1991,
November 8, 1993, and November 8, 1995.
2. SCOPE OF ACTiViTV. The activities of the Board will include analyzing problems, conducting
meetings, reviewing the technical basis of Agency positions, presenting findings, making
recommendations, and other activities necessary for the attainment of the Board's objectives. Ad hoc
panels may be established to carry out these special activities utilizing consultants (i.e., technical
experts) who are not members of the Board.
3. OBJECTIVES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. 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 aeon Air Act Amendments of 1977, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. Responsibilities include the following:
Reviewing and advising on 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;
Reviewing and advising on the scientific and technical adequacy of Agency
programs, guidelines, documents, methodologies, protocols, and tests;
Recommending, as appropriate, new or revised scientific criteria or standards for protection of
human health and the environment;
Through the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageA-3
Compliance Analysis, providing the technical review and advice required under the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1977 and 1990;
Reviewing and advising on new information needs and the quality of Agency plans and
programs for research, development and demonstration;
Advising on the relative importance of various natural and anthropogenic pollution sources;
- As appropriate, consulting and coordinating with the Scientific Advisory Panel established by
the Administrator pursuant to section 21 (b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as
amended; and
Consulting and coordinating with other Federal advisory groups, as appropriate, to conduct the
business of the Board.
>
4. COMPOSITION. The Board will consist of a body of independent scientists, engineers, and
economists of sufficient number and diversity to provide the range of expertise required to assess the
scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues. The Board will be organized into an executive
committee and several specialized committees, all members of which shall be drawn from the Board.
The Board is authorized to constitute such specialized committees and subcommittees as the
Administrator and the Board find necessary to carry out its responsibilities. The Administrator will
review the need for such specialized committees and subcommittees at least once a year to decide
which should be continued. These committees and panels will report through the Executive Committee.
The Administrator also shall appoint a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
of the Board to provide the scientific review and advice required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 and 1990. The Administrator also shall appoint an Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis of the Board to provide the scientific review and advice required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 and 1990. These groups, established by separate charters, will be an integral part
of the Board, and their members will also be members of the Science Advisory Board.
5. MF^TRFRSHIPAND^KiT'riNQS. The Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Science
Advisory Board for two year terms and appoints from the membership a Chair of the Board. The Chair
of the Board serves as Chair of the Executive Committee. Chairs of standing committees or ad hoc
specialized subcommittees serve as members of the Executive Committee during the life of the
specialized subcommittee. Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, and
experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the Board. Most
members will serve as special Government employees.
There will be approximately 50-60 meetings of the specialized committees per year.
Support for the Board's activities will be provided by the Office of the Administrator, EPA. The
estimated total annual operating cost will be approximately $1,638,500 and the estimated Federal
permanent Staff support will be 15.9 work years.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
yaseA-4 ANNUAL REPORT
6. DURATION. The Board shall be needed on a continuing basis. This charter will be effective until
November 8,1999, at which time the Board charter may be renewed for another two-year period.
November3. 1997
Agency Approval Date
November 7. 1997
Date Filed with Congress
l
g:\user\sab\chartes\sabch97.doc . '
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT paseA-5
APPENDIX A2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
of the Science Advisory Board
1. PURPOSE. This charter renews the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAQ of the
Science Advisory Board in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9(c).
2. AUTHORITY. CASAC was specifically directed by law on August 7,1977, under section 109 of
the Clean Air Act, as amended [ACT], (42 U.S.C. 7409), and the charter was renewed on August 6,
1979; July 22, 1981; August 1, 1983; July 23, 1985; August 5, 1987; August 7, 1989; August 7, 1991;
September 30, 1993 and August 7, 1995.
3. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACTiVnY. CASAC shall provide independent advice 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. CASAC shall hold meetings, perform
studies, make necessary site visits, and undertake other activities necessary to meet its responsibilities.
CASAC will coordinate its activities with other Committees of the Science Advisory Board and may, as
it deems appropriate, utilize the expertise of other committees and members of the Science Advisory
Board. Establishment of subcommittees is authorized for any purpose consistent with this charter.
CASAC will report to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4. FUNCTIONS. CASAC will review criteria documents for air quality standards and will provide
independent scientific advice in response to the Agency's request and, as required by section 109 of
the Act shall:
a) Not later than January 1, 1980, and at five year intervals thereafter, complete a review
of the criteria published under section 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,
b) Advise the Administrator of areas where additional knowledge is required concerning
the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised national ambient air quality standards,
c) Describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information,
d) Advise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of
natural as well as anthropogenic activity, and
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
yaseA-8 ANNUAL REPORT
chairperson. Members of the Council shall be recognized experts in the fields of the health and
environmental effects of air pollution, economics analysis, environmental sciences, or such other fields
that the Administrator determines to be appropriate. The chairperson of the Council shall serve as a
member of the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board. Members of the Council may be
drawn from the Science Advisory Board and may also serve on its various other committees or study
groups. It is expected that the Council will meet two to four times per year. A full time employee of the
Agency, who will serve as a Designated Federal Official, will be present at all meetings and is
authorized to adjourn any meeting whenever it is determined to be in the public interest. Support shall
be provided by EPA through the offices of the Science Advisory Board. The estimated annual operating
cost totals approximately $52,700 and 0.5 workyears of staff support.
6. DURATION. The Council will be needed on a continuing basis, and may be renewed for another
two year period as authorized in accordance with section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
September 27. 1996
Agency Approval Date
November 15. 1996
Date FQen "v,th Congress
g:\user\sab\charter\accca.097
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT . pageB-1
APPENDIX B
MEMBERSHIP
B1. Guidelines for Service on the SAB
B2. Types of Affiliation with the SAB
B3. SAB Members for FY98
B4. SAB Consultants for FY98
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-2 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B1
GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE ON THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Background
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1974 by the Administrator. In 1978 the
SAB received a Congressional mandate to serve as an independent source of scientific and engineering
aavice to the EPA Administrator.
The SAB consists of approximately 100 Members, who are appointed by the Administrator.
These members serve on specific standing committees. The Chairs of the Committees also serve as
members of the Executive Committee, which oversees all of the activities of the Board.
In many of its activities, the members of the Board are supplemented by Consultants, who are
appointed by the SAB Staff Director after conferring with the Chair of the Committee on which the
consultant is to serve. Also, on occasion, Panels will be supplemented by "liaison members" from other
governmental agencies. These people are invited by the Staff Director to participate in an ad hoc
manner ir order to bring their particular expertise to bear on a matter before the Board.
Be h 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.
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,
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-3
the selection include demonstrated ability to work Well in a committee process, write well, and complete
assignments punctually.
Nominations for membership/consultantship on the Board are accepted at any time. On a
biannual basis, the SAB Staff Office publishes a notice in the Federal Register formally soliciting the
names of candidates for SAB activities.
Terms of Appointment
Members serve at the pleasure and by appointment of the Administrator. In order to provide
suitable terms of service and to insure the infusion of new talent, the following guidelines are generally
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-aaded to whatever term of service he/she may accrue as a member. For example.
Years
as member
2
2
4
6
Followed by years
as Chair
0
2 or 4
2or4
2or4
Followed by year
as member
0
Oor2
0
0
Total
years
2
4-6
6-8
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 ore appointed by the Administrator based on nominations forwarded by the SAB Staff
Director and the Chair of the Executive Committee. These nominations, in turn, are based on
recommendations made by the Designated Federal Official (DFO-the member of the SAB Staff with
principal responsibility for servicing standing Committees) and the Chairs of the standing Committees.
The DFO has the responsibility for developing a list of candidates, utilizing all credible sources,
including members of the SAB, other DFOs, EPA staff, staff at the National Academy of
Sciences\National Research Council, trade groups, environmental groups, professional organizations,
scientific societies, regulated industries, and the informed public.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-4 __ ANNUAL REPORT
On occasion, an ad hoc Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee has been
established to assist in the selection process. This group is consulted about possible names and used
as a "sounding board" when decisions are being made about appointments. The Membership
Subcommittee's principal role is to maintain the integrity of the process and to probe the extent to which
objective selection criteria and procedures are being followed. They also raise questions about
adherence to the Statement of Intent on Women and Minorities, adopted by the Executive Committee in
1990, which was designed to increase the representation of these groups on the Board.
Consultants are appointed by the Staff Director following a similar procedure.
Panel Selection Process
In general, once the Board and the Agency have agreed upon a topic for SAB review, the subject
is assigned to one of the standing Committees. The Committee Chair and the DFO have primary
responsibility for forming a review Panel (the full Committee or a Subcommittee, as the case may be.)
The Panel will contain some or all members of the Committee. In many instances, consultants may also
be added to trie Panel in order to obtain specialized expertise on the particular issue under discussion.
A key aspect in the Panel selection process is the "charge", the mutually agreed upon description
of what the Agency would like the review to accomplish and/or what the SAB expects to focus upon. The
most helpful charge is one that prescribes specific areas/questions that need attention and/or answers.
At a minimum, the elements of the charge should be sufficiently precise that the SAB can determine
what additional consultant expertise is needed to conduct the most helpful review.
Often the DFO begins by soliciting ideas about potential members from the Agency staff who are
intimately acquainted with the issue and will therefore are often aware of the most informed people. A
conscious effort is made to avoid selecting individuals who have had a substantive hand in the
development of the document to be reviewed. At the same time, experience has shown the utility of
having some representation from individuals/groups who may have been involved in prior reviews of the
issue or the document. The goal is to minimize the appearance or practice of an individual's reviewing
his/her own work, while at the same time, maintaining an historical link to earlier deliberations
surrounding the document/issue. Once the Agency staff has suggested nominees and provided
background information on the individuals, their direct role in the panel selection process is complete.
Agency staff, the requesting office, and others may be consulted at a later stage for information about
nominees received from other sources.
The goal is to gather a balanced group of experts who can provide an independent assessment of
the technical matters before the Board. Discrete inquiries about the nominees are made with a number
of different sources. This might include, for example, making inquiries with editors of newsletters,
professional colleagues, and experts who are on "the other side" of the issue. As time and resources
permit and controversy demands, names of nominees will be investigated via computer search of their
publications and pronouncements in public meetings.
Frequently, a determining factor for selection is the availability of the individual to participate in
the public review. In the case of multiple-meeting reviews, the SAB may enlist the assistance of a
particularly skilled consultant who cannot attend all meetings, but who is willing to do additional
homework and/or participate via conference call.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-5
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 (in contrast with
the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)) does not get involved in "particular party matters," hence,
legal conflicts-of-interest are rare on the SAB. However, technical conflicts-of-interest can arise,
particularly for participants from academic institutions, in connection with Committee recommendations
for additional research studies. In most such cases, the DFOs work with the Committee members to
apply for waivers from the conflict-of-interest concerns on this matter. The requests for waivers are
evaluated on a case-by-case basis by EPA's Office of the General Counsel. (The Agency generally
determines that the benefits to the country derived from these experts' recommendations for additional
research, outweigh any technical conflict-of-interest that might be involved.)
However, the Board is also concerned about "apparent conflicts-of-interest." Consequently,
Members and Consultants to the Panel are generally selected from the "broad middle" spectrum of
opinion on the technical issue under discussion. Experience has shown that achieving balance through
equal representation of extreme views reduces the chance of achieving a workable consensus-pro or
con-that the Agency needs to more forward.
The "public disclosure" (see Attached) process (a standard part of all SAB Committee meetings) is
a mechanism aimed resolving the apparent conflicts-of-interest issues. This procedure involves an oral
statement (sometimes Board members supplement this with a written document) that lays out the
individual's connection with the issue under discussion; e.g., his/her area of expertise, length of
experience with the issue, sources of research grants, previous appearance in public forms where
he/she might have expressed an opinion, etc. This recitation of prior and/or continuing contacts on the
issue assists the public, the Agency, and fellow Panel members understand the background from which
particular individual's comments spring, so that those comments can be evaluated accordingly.
Conclusion
These Guidelines are intended to assist the SAB in adhering to the mandates and spirit of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. By following these Guidelines the Board should be well-positioned to
provide technically-sound, independent, balanced advice to the Agency. At the same time, they provide
assurance that there will be adequate participation by and renewal with well-qualified experts from the
various communities served by the Board.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-6
ANNUAL REPORT
Prepared: Oct 14.1991
Revised: Nav26, 1991
Revised: Oct. 12,1994
Revised Nov 12, 1996
ATTACHMENT
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-7
ATTACHMENT
Guidelines for Public Disclosure at SAB Meetings
Background
Conflict-of-interest (COD 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 COL These procedures include the following:
a) Having M/Cs file, at the time of appointment. Special Form OGE-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 Government
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 ovcrwise remain confidential.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-8 ANNUAL REPORT
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 Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageB-9
APPENDIX B2
TYPES OF AFFILIATION WITH THE SAB
1. SAB Members
SAB members ore 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
2. SAB Consultants
SAB Consultants are technically qualified individuals who are appointed to the Board by the SAB
Staff Director for one-year terms. Generally, Consultants are appointed in order to augment the
expertise for a particular review and/or for mutual exploration of future membership on the Board.
Consultants participate fully in their review panels and committees, which are generally conducted in a
collegia!, consensus-building style. Their names appear as Consultants on relevant rosters and
generated reports.
3. Federal Experts
The SAB charter precludes FederaT employees from being members of the Board. However, in
some instances, certain Federal experts have technical knowledge and expertise that can add
significant value of the work of the SAB.
In order to access that expertise for the benefit of the Board and the Administrator, the SAB staff
will work with the Office of the General Counsel to identify appropriate mechanisms for assessing the
potential for conflicts of interest.
The SAB Staff Director can invite Federal experts who do not have a real or apparent conflict-of-
interest (either personally or through their agencies) to service on an SAB committee for the duration of a
particular the review/study. Federal Experts participate fully on the committees, which are generally
conducted in a collegial, consensus-building style. Their names appear as Federal Experts on relevant
rosters and generated reports.
4. Invited Expert Resource
In some situations, there are individuals (both Federal employees and non-Federal employees)
who have expertise and/or knowledge of data that bears on an SAB review but who also have real or
perceived COIs that would preclude their participation as Members or Consultants. There people can
attend the SAB meeting as Invited Expert Resources. The SAB pays travel expenses, if needed.
For example, the person could be the author of a key study of PCBs when the EHC is reviewing the
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-10 ANNUAL REPORT
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 impacted by the Agency's position as to cause
a M/C from such an organization to ask for a recusal.
Invited Expert Resources have limited participation in SAB reviews. They are available to answer
questions of the SAB committee panel, provide invited presentations, and enlighten the discussion with
pertinent pieces of information. Their names are listed as Invited Expert Resources on rosters and
reports, with an explanatory footnote recording their presence and role at the meeting. They are not a
part of .the Board's consensus/decision about the report. The intent is to indicate that such experts were
available during the meeting, but that they were not a party to the judgment.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-ll
APPENDIX B3
SAB MEMBERS FOR FY98
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE
AFFILIATION
CITY, STATE
Acevedo
Adams
Alvarez-Cohen
Anderson >
Bailey
Bcrir
Bartell
Bean
Bearer
Berkey
Bockstael
Brown
Bull
Cameron
Chien
Qesceri
Colbom
Cooper
Correa
Cropper
Cummings
Cummins
Daisey
Daly
Doull
Dragon
Dudek
Elston
Evans
Fabryka-Martin
Fan-Cheuk
Foecke
Freeman
French
Gerba
Gesell
Goulder
HaU
Harley
Harwell
Hoel
Miguel
William
Lisa
Henry
Paul
William
Steven
Judy
Cynthia
"Edgar
Nancy
Stephen
Richard
Trudy
Calvin
Lenore
Theodora
Edwin
Adolfo
Maureen
Ronald
Kenneth
Joan
Herman
John
Yvonne
Daniel
John
John
June
Anna
Terry
AMyrick
Nina
Charles
Thomas
Lawrence
Jane
Robert
Mark
David
EPEC
EPEC/RSAC
EPEC
EC/HEC
IHEC
RAC
EPEC
DWC
EHC
EEC
EEAC
EC/RAC
EC/DWC
EEAC
EEC
DWC
RSAC
RSAC
EHC
EC/COUNCIL/EEAC
COUNCIL
EPEC
EC
EEAC
EHC
DWC
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
RAC
DWC
EEC
COUNCIL/EEAC
EEC
RSAC
RAC
COUNCIL
COUNCIL
IHEC
EC/EPEC
EHC
University of North Texas
Kennecott Utah Cooper Corporation
University of California-Berkeley
Wisconsin Bureau of Public Health
Mobil Business Resource Corp.
Consultant
Cadmus Group, Inc.
University of Miami
Case Western Reserve University
Concurrent Technologies Corp.
University of Maryland
Risks of Rod Chem Compounds (R2C2)
Battelle Pacific Northwest Nat'l Lab
University of California
DuPont Company
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
World Wildlife Fund
University of California
Johns Hopkins University
The World Bank
Georgia State University
S. Florida Water Management District
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of Maryland
University of Kansas Medical Center
University of Wisconsin
Environmental Defense Fund
New Jersey Dept. of Environ. Protection
Harvard School of Public Health
Los Alamos National Laboratory
California EPA
Waste Reduction Institute
Bowdoin College
SKY+
University of Arizona
Idaho State University
Stanford University
California State University
University of California-Berkeley
University of Miami
Medical University of South Carolina
Denton, TX
Magna, UT
Berkeley, CA
Madison, WI
Paulsboro, NJ
Richland, WA
Oak Ridge,TN
Miami, FL
Cleveland, OH
Pittsburgh, PA
College Park,MD
Oakland, CA
Richland, WA
Los Angeles, CA
Wilmington, DE
Troy, NY
Washington, DC
Los Angeles, CA
Baltimore, MD
Washington, DC
Atlanta, GA
Sanibel, FL
Berkeley, CA
College Park, MD
Kansas City, KS
Madison, WI
New York, NY
Trenton, NJ
Boston, MA
Los Alamos, NM
Berkley, CA'
St. Paul, MN
Brunswick, ME
Oakland, CA
Tucson, AZ
PocateUo, ID
Stanford, CA
Fullerton, CA
Berkeley, CA
Miami, FL
Charleston, SC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-12
LAST NAME
Hoffman
Hopke
Inyang
Jacobson
Johnson
Johnson
Johnston
Jorgenson
Kling " ,
Kolstad -
Lebowitz
Li
Lighty
Lioy
Lippmann >v
Liu
Maki
Money
Mangione
Matanoski
Mauderly
McKone
McMullen
Medinsky
Mercer
Merges
Middleton
Morandi
Morgan
Murarka
Nriagu
O'Melia
Pellizzari
Perera
Petersen
Pfitzer
Poston
Preslo
Repetto
Roessler
Schmalensee
Seeker
Silbergeld
Smith
Stavins
Taub
FIRST NAME
Owen
Philip
Hilary
Jay
James
Janet
Carol
Dale
Catherine
Charles
Michael
Abby
JoAnn
,Paul
r Morton
Kai-Shen
Alan
John
Ellen
Genevieve
Joe
Thomas
LD.
Michele
James W.
Paul
Paulette
Maria
M. Granger
Ishwar
Jerome
Charles
Edo
Frederica
Barbara
Emil
John
Lynne
Robert
Genevieve
Richard
W. Randall
Ellen
William H.
Robert
Frieda
COMMITTEE
RAC
CASAC/RSAC
EC/EEC
CASAC
EEC
RAC
EPEC
EEAC
EEAC
EEAC
IHEC
EHC
EEC
COUNCIL
EC
IHEC
EC/EPEC
EEC
RAC
EC
EC/CASAC
IHEC
DWC
EHC
EEC
RAC
COUNCIL/RSAC
IHEC
EC
EEC/RSAC
IHEC
DWC
DWC
EHC
IHEC
EC/EHC
RAC
EEC
EEAC
RAC
COUNCIL/EEAC
EC/RSAC
EC
EPEC/RSAC
EC/EEAC
EPEC
ANNUAL REPORT
AFFILIATION CITY, STATE
SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. Oak Ridge, TN
Clarkson University Potsdam, NY
University of Massachusetts-Lowell Lowell, MA
Boyce Thompson Inst. at Cornell Univ Ithaca, NY
Howard University Washington, DC
Shepherd Miller, Inc. Fort Collins, CO
University of Minnesota Duluth, MN
Harvard University Cambridge, MA
Iowa State University Ames, IA
University of California Santa Barbara, CA
University of Arizona Tucson, AZ
Monsanto Life Sciences Si. Louis, MO
University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT
Env & Occup Health Sciences Institute Piscataway, NJ
New York University Medical Center Tuxedo, NY
California Depart of Health Services Berkeley, CA
Exxon Company, USA Houston, TX
Environmental Measurements Assess S. Hamilton, MA
Colorado Department of Public Health Denver, CO
Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute Albuquerque, MM
University of California-Berkeley Berkeley, CA
Des Moines Water Works Des Moines, IA
Chemical Industry Inst of Technology RTF, NC
HSI GeoTrans, Incorporated Sterling, VA
NY State Depart of Env Conservation Albany, NY
Rand Ctr for Env. Sciences & Policy Boulder, CO
University of Texas Houston, TX
Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA
Ish, Inc. Cupertino, CA
University of Michigan Ann Arbor, ME
The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Research Triangle Institute RTP, NC
Columbia University New York, NY
Novigen Sciences, Inc. Washington, DC
Consultant Ramsey, NJ '
Texas A&M University College Station, TX
Earth Technology Long Beach, CA
World Resources Institute Boulder, CO
University of Florida FJysian, MN
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA
Energy & Environmental Research Corp. Irvine, CA
University of Maryland at Baltimore Baltimore, MD
Yale University New Haven, CT
Harvard University Cambridge, MA
University of Washington Seattle, WA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
pageB-13
LAST NAME
Tietenberg
Toronzos
Trussell
Upton
Utell
Vedcd
Viscusi
Watson,
Weschler,
White
White
Yates
Young
Zeise
FIRST NAME
Thomas
Gary
R. Rhodes
Arthur
Mark
Sverre
W.Kip
James E.
Charles
Warren H.
Ronald
Marylynn
Terry F.
Lauren
<'/"
COMMITTEE
COUNCIL
DWC
DWC
CASAC
EHC
CASAC
EEAC
RAG
IHEC
CASAC
IHEC
DWC
EC/EPEC
EHC
AFFILIATION
Colby College
University of Puerto Rico
Montgomery Watson Consulting Eng.
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Med Or
University of Rochester Medical Center
Vancouver General Hospital
Harvard Law School
University of North Carolina
Bell Communication Research
Washington University
American Lung Association
University of California
Environmental Defense Fund
California EPA
CITY, STATE
Waterville, ME
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Pasadena, CA
Piscataway, NJ
Rochester, NY
Vancouver, BC CAN
Cambridge, MA
Chapel Hill, NC
Red Bank, NJ
St. Louis, MO
Washington, DC
Riverside, CA
Oakland, CA
Berkeley, CA
g:\user\sab\members\98mcrostjds
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-14
ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX B4
SAB CONSULTANTS FOR FY98
LAST NAME FIRST NAME COMMITTEE
Adorns
Albertini
Alexander
Alexeeff
Allen .
Anderson
Anderson
Ansari
Ayres
Bailor >
Bates */
Beck
Beck
Bedford
Bellinger
Biddinger
Bishop
Bloom
Boesch
Bond
Boston
Bostrom
Bowers
Brierley
Brown
Brown
Brown
Buchsbaum
Buffler
Buist
Bunn
Burbacher
Burtraw
Byus
Carlson
Corns
Carpenter
Chapman
Charbeneau
Chess
Christman
E. Eric
Richard
Martin
George
Herbert
Mary P.
Yolanda
Mohammad
Stephen M.
JohnC.
David
Barbara D.
Michael
Barbara
David
Gregory
William E.
Nicolas
Donald
James A.
Harry L
Anne
Dorothy
Corale
Gardener
HalinaS.
Linfield
Robert
Patricia
A. Sonia
William
Thomas
DaUas
Craig
Gary P.
Keith E.
George F.
Peter
Randall J.
Caron
Russell
EC
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
RSAC
EEC
HEC
EEC
CASAC
EHC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
EHC
EC
EPEC
EHC
EPEC
EHC
EPEC
RAC
EEC
EPEC
COUNCIL
EHC
. EC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
EHC
EHC
EHC
RAC
EHC
DWC
EEC
EPEC
. EEC
EC/VS
DWC
AFFILIATION
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Vermont
Cornell University
California EPA
Universityof Delaware
University of Wisconsin - Madison
North Carolina Central University
Oshman Group LLC
Virginia Commonwealth University
University of Chicago
University of British Columbia
Gradient Corp.
University of Georgia
Cornell University
Children's Hospital
EXXON Company, USA
Procter & Gamble
Frontier Geosciences, Inc.
University of Maryland
Chemical Industry Inst. of Technology
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
Georgia Institute of Technology
Merck & Company, Inc.
VistaTech Partnership, Ltd.
University of Washington
Clark University
Tufts University
Massachusetts Audubon Society
University of California
Oregon Health Sciences University
Navistar International
University of Washington
Resources for The Future
University of California at Riverside
Purdue University
Washington University
Michigan Dept of Natural Resources
EVS Environment Consultants
University of Texas at Austin
Cook College/Rutgers University
University of North Carolina
CITY, STATE
Cambridge, MA
Burlington, VT
Ithaca, NY
Sacremento, CA
Newark, DE
Madison, WI
Durham, NC
Chester, VA
Richmond, VA
Chicago, IL
Vancouver, BC CAN
Cambridge, MA
Athens, GA
Ithaca NY
Boston, MA
Houston, TX
Cincinnati, OH
Seattle, WA
Cambridge, MD
RTP.NC
Oakridge, TN
Atlanta, GA
Whitehouse Stn., NJ
Highlands Ranch, CO
Seattle, WA
Worcester, MA
Medford, MA
Wenham, MA
Berkeley, CA
Portland, OR
Chicago, n
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Riverside, CA
West Lafayette, IN
St. Louis, MO
Lansing, MI
Vancouver, BC, CAN
Austin, TX
New Brunswick, NJ
Chapel HilLNC
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-15
LAST NAME
Clopp
Cochron
Colome
Conwoy
Cooper
Coppock
Cortese
Cory-Slechta
Costanza
Cox
Crapo
Crump
Cutshall
Babberdt
Bale '<
Boston
Davies
Davis
Deisler
D'Elia
Dellinger
Dellinger
Denison
Diamond
Diaz-Sanchez
Dickson
Dietrich
Bietz
BiGiovanni
BiGiulio
Bockery
Bom
Budek
Burbin-Heavey
Ediger
Elliot
Ensley
Epstein
Estabrook
Ewing
Foison
Faustman
Feero
Fischer
Fischhoff
Fisher
FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATION
Richard EHC Boston University
Roger RSAC California EPA
Steven . CASAC Integrated Environmental Services
Richard A. EEC Union Carbide Corporation
William E. EPEC Michigan State University
Robert EEC Consultant
Anthony B. RSAC Second Nature
Beborah EPEC University of Rochester
Robert EPEC University of Maryland/CEES/CBL
Dennis CASAC Rice University
James B. CASAC National Jewish Medical & Research Ctr.
Kenny EHC ICF Kaiser
Norman H. EC/EL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Walter EPEC National Ctr for Atmos Research
Virginia EPEC/RSAC Oak Ridge National Laboratory
George P. EHC Miami Valley Labs, Procter & Gamble
Terry EC Resources for the Future
Mary BWC West Virginia University
Paul F. RSAC Shell Oil Company
Christopher EPEC University of Maryland
Harold B. EEC University of Dayton
John A EHC Medical College of Wisconsin
Richard EEC Environmental Defense Fund
Gary L EHC Syracuse Research Corporation
David CASAC University of California
Kenneth L EPEC University of North Texas
Kim EHC Univeristy of Cincinnati
Thomas EC/Val Sub George Mason University
John RAC University of Texas
Richard EPEC Buke University
Bouglas W. CASAC Harvard School of Public Health
Philip B. EPEC Shell Bevelopment Company
BanielJ. COUNCIL Environmental Befense Fund
Patricia RAC Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Richard EEC The Perkin-Elmer Corporation
Biane L EHC Oregon Health Sciences University
Burt D. EPEC Phytotech
Lois EEC Environmental Defense Fund
Ronald W. EHC University of Texas, SW Med Ctr
BenB. RSAC University of Dlinois-Urbana
Brendlyn EEC Oak Ridge Natinal Laboratory-
Elaine EHC University of Washington
William RAC Electric Research & Mgmt, Inc.
Lawrence EHC Michigan State University
Baruch CASAC Carnegie Mellon University
Gerald CASAC Sandoz Research Institute
CITY, STATE
Boston, MA
Sacramento, CA
Irvine, CA
Charleston, WV
East Lansing, MI
Falls Church, VA
Boston, MA
Rochester, NY
Solomons Island, MD
Houston, TX
Denver, CO
Ruston, LA
Germantown, MD
Boulder, CO
Oak Ridge, TN
Cincinnati, OH
Washington, DC
Morgantown, WV
Austin, TX
College Park, MD
Dayton, OH
Milwaukee, WI
Washington, DC
Syracuse, NY
Los Angeles, CA
Denton, TX
Cincinnati, OH
Fairfax, VA
Smithville, TX
Durham, NC
Boston, MA
Houston, TX
New York, NY
Berkeley, CA
Norwalk, CT
Portland, OR '
Monmouth Jet, NJ
Washington, DC
Dallas, TX
Lummi Island, WA
Oak Ridge, TN
Seattle, WA
State College, PA
East Lansing, MI
Pittsburgh, PA
E. Hanover, NJ
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-16
LAST NAME
Fowler
Frontz
Frey
Gallagher
GaUo
Gandolfi
Garber
Garshick
Gasiewicz
Gentile
Gentry
Giesy
Gilbert
Gilbert >
Gilmour '/"
Ginevan
Glaze
Gold
Goldstein
Goldstein
Gonzalez-Mendez
Gordon
Gosselink
Gough
Goyer
Graham
Grasso
Greenberg
Greenlee
Greer
Grimes
Groer
Grogan
Guilmette
Guiseppi-Elie
Guzelian
Hallberg
Hamilton
Hammond
Harper
Harris
Hartung
Hattis
Hausman
Hawkins
Hazen
Heath
FIRST NAME
Bruce
Robert W.
H. Christopher
John
Michael
A Jay
Steven
Eric
Thomas A.
Thomas J.
Bradford S.
John P.
Richard O.
Steven
Cynthia
Michael
William
Arthur
Bernard
Robert A.
Ricardo
Theodore
James G.
Michael
Robert
JohnD.
Domenico
Michael
William
Linda
Darrell
Peter
Helen Ann
Raymond
Annette
Philip
George
Martin
S. {Catherine
Barbara
Robert L
Rolf
Dale
Jerry A.
Charles
Robert
Clark
COMMITTEE
EHC
EEC
EC
-EPEC
EHC
DWC
COUNCIL
CASAC
EHC
EC
EEC
EPEC
EHC
EHC
EHC
RAG
EC
EC
EHC
CASAC
RAC
EEC
EPEC
EHC
EHC
EHC
EEC
EEC
EHC
EEC
DWC
RAC
EC
RAC
IHEC
EHC
EEC
DWC
IHEC
EC
RAC
EPEC
CASAC
EC/VS
EPEC
HEC
RAC
ANNUAL
AFFILIATION
University of Maryland
General Electric Company
North Carolina State University
University of Delaware
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Med
University of Arizona
RAND
Brockton/West Roxbury
University of Rochester
REPORT
CITY, STATE
Baltimore, MD
Cincinnati, OH
Raliegh, NC
Lewes, DE
Piscataway, NJ
Tucson, AZ
Santa Monica, CA
West Roxbury, MA
Rochester, NY
NY State Dept of Environ. Conservation Albany, NY
Yale University
Michigan State University
Battelle Memorial Institute
Biosupport, Inc.
The Academy of Natural Sciences
M.E. Ginevan & Associates
University of North Carolina
University of Rhode Island
Env & Occ. Health Sciences Institute
Electric Power Research Institute
University of Puerto Rico
Consultant
Consultant
CATO Institute
Consultant
Harvard University
University of Connecticut
Rutgers University
Univeristy of Massachusetts
Natural Resources Defense Council
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of Tennessee
Cascade Scientific, Inc.
Lovelace Respiratory Research Inst
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
University of Colorado
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Montana State University
University of California
Yakama Indian Nation
University of North Carolina
University of Michigan
Clark University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Utah State University
NJ Dept. of Envir. Protection & Energy
American Cancer Society
New Haven, CT
East Lansing, MI
Washington, DC
Redmond, WA
St. Leonard, MD
Silver Spring, MD
Chapel Hill,NC
Kingston, RI
Piscataway, NJ
Palo Alto, CA
San Juan, PR
Vero Beach, FL
Baton Rouge, LA
Washington, DC
Chaple Hill, NC
Boston, MA
Storrs, CT
New Brunswick, NJ
Worcester, MA
Washington, DC
Ocean Springs, MS
Knoxville, TN
Bend, OR
Albuquerque, NM
East Millstone, NJ
Denver, CO
Waltham, MA
Bozeman, MT
Berkeley, CA
Richland, WA
Chapel Hill, NC
Ann Arbor, MI
Worcester, MA
Cambridge, MA
Logan, UT
Trenton, NJ
Atlanta, GA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
pageB-17
LAST NAME
Heflond
Henderson
Hites
Hueter
Humphrey
Hurley
Jacobson
Jahnke ,
Jasanoff
Jayjock
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson
Johnson
Joskow
Kabat
Kachel
Kahn
Kalton
Kaminski
Kareiva
Kasperson
Kaufman
Kendall
Kelsey
Kim
Kimerle
Kingsley
Klaassen -
Kleinman
Kneese
Knobeloch
Knopman
Knuckles
Koenig
Koutrakis
Kreamer
Kripke
Krupnick
La Point
Laird
Lamb
Larntz
Larson
Lave
Leaderer
Lee
FIRST NAME
*>
Gloria
Rogene
Ronald A
Robert
Harold
James
Joseph
James
Shelia
Michael
Harvey E.
Kenneth
Charles C.
> E. Marshall
S Paul
Geoffrey C.
Wayne M.
Bemd
G. Graham
Norbert
Peter
Roger E.
David G.
Ronald
Karl
Nancy K.
Richard A
Gordon
Curtis
Michael
Allen
Lynda
Debra
Maurice
JaneQ.
Petros
David K.
Margaret
AlanJ.
Thomas W.
NanM.
James C.
Kinley
Timothy V.
Lester B.
Brian P.
Kun-Chieh
COMMITTEE
EEAC
EHC
HEC
EHC
EHC
EHC
EHC
EEC
EC
HEC
CASAC
EPEC
DWC
EHC
EEAC
HEC
EEC
RAC
RAC
EHC
EPEC
EPEC
DWC
EPEC
EHC
EHC .
EPEC
EEC
DWC
COUNCIL
EEAC
EHC
EC
HEC
CASAC
CASAC
RAC
RSAC
COUNCIL
EPEC
RAC
RSAC
CASAC
HEC
COUNCIL
HEC
EC/HWIR
AFFILIATION
University of Michigan
Lovelace Biomedical & Env. Rsch Inst
Indiana University
Mote Marine Laboratory
Michigan Public Health Institute
University of Wisconsin
Wayne State University
Source Technology Associates
Harvard University
Rohm and Haas Co.
University of North Carolina
California State University
Rear Admiral (PHS) Retired
Jefferson Medical College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
State University of NY at Stony Brook
Mele Associates (HSC/XRE)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Westat
Michigan State University
University of Washington
Clark University
University of North Carolina
Institiute of Env & Human Health
Harvard School of Public Health
New York Department of Health
Monsato Company
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Kansas
University of California
Resources for the Future
Wisconsin Dept Health & Family Serv
Progressive Policy Institute
Meharry Medical College
University of Washington
Harvard University
University of Nevada
M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr
Resources for the Future
Clemson University
Harvard School of Public Health
Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc.
University of Minnesota
Univeristy of Washington
Carnegie-Mellon University
Yale School of Medicine
Union Carbide Corporation
CITY, STATE
Ann Arbor, MI
Albuquerque, NM
Bloomington, IN
Sarasota, FL
East Lansing, MI
Madison, WI
Detroit, MI
RTP,NC
Cambridge, MA
Spring House, PA
Chapel Hill, NC
Long Beach, CA
Washington, DC
Philadelphia, PA
Cambridge, MA
Stony Brook, NY
Brooks AFB, TX
Atlanta, GA
Rockville, MD
East Lansing, MI
Seattle, WA
Worcester, MA
Chapel Hill, NC
Lubbock, TX
Boston, MA
Albany, NY
Eureka, MO
Atlanta, GA
Kansas City, KS
Irvine, CA
Washington, DC
Madison, WI
Washington, DC
Nashville, TN
Seattle, WA
Boston, MA
Las Vegas, NV
Houston, TX
Washington, DC
Pendleton, SC
Boston, MA
Arlington, VA
Shoreview, MN
Seattle, WA
Pittsburgh, PA
New Haven, CT
S. Charleston, WV
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageB-18
ANNUAL REPORT
LAST NAME
Legge
Lewis
Lewis
Lindberg
Little
Loehr
Longo
Loomis
Lue-Hing
Lung
Lurmonn
Luthy
MacGregor
Mack
MacKay
MacLean
Mahadevan
Malone
Manning
Martin
Marty
Massmann
McBee
McClellan
McCurdy
McCurdy
McElroy
McFarland
McFeters
McLachlan
McManus
McMichael
Meagher
Meijer
Mendelsohn
Menzel
Meyer
Meyer
Meyer
Milford
Miller
Milon
Moe
Molina
Monson
Moornaw
Mueller
FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATION
'i?
Allan CASAC Biosphere Solutions
Robert J. EC Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Steve C. EHC Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Steve EHC Oak Ridge National Laboratory
JohnC. HEC Virginia Tech
Raymond C. EC University of Texas at Austin
Lawrence D. CASAC Loma Linda University
John B. EEAC Colorado State University
Cecil DWC Metropolitan Water Reel District
Wu-Seng EPEC University of Virginia
Frederick HEC Sonoma Technology, Inc.
Richard G. EEC Carnegie-Mellon University
Judy EHC Consultant
Thomas M. EHC University of Southern California
Donald EPEC University of Toronto
Douglas E EC/VS University of Maryland
Kumar EPEC Mote Marine Laboratory
Thomas EPEC Horn Point Environmental Laboratory
William CASAC University of Massachusetts
James RAC University of Michigan
Melanie CASAC California EPA -
Joel EEC University of Washington
Karen EPEC Oklahoma State University
Roger O. RSAC Chemical Industry Inst of Toxicology
David E. RAC Yankee Atomic Electric Company
Leyla HEC American Lung Association
Anne EPEC State University of New York
Michael J. EEC ' Utah State University
Gordon DWC Montana State University
John A. EHC Tulane/Xavier Ctr for Bioenv Res
Terrence EEC Intel Corporation
Francis C. EEC Carnegie-Mellon University
James F. COUNCIL Nat. Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.
Arend RAC GCXInc.
Robert COUNCIL Yale School of Forestry & Env. Studies
Daniel B. EHC University of California-Irvine
Josephs. COUNCIL Univeristy of Wyoming
Michael EHC Wisconsin Depart of Natural Res
H. Robert RAC Keystone Science
Jana EC University of Colorado
Frederick J. EHC Chemical Industry Inst of Toxicology
J.Walter EPEC University of Florida
Christine DWC University of North Carolina
Nicholas EEC Department of Environmental Protection
Richard EHC Harvard School of Public Health
William R. EPEC Tufts University
Peter K. CASAC Electric Power Research Institute
CITY, STATE
Calgary, AlbertaCAN
East Millstone, NJ
East Millstone, NJ
Oak Ridge, TN
Blacksburg, VA
Austin, TX
Loma Linda, CA
Fort Collins, CO
Chicago, IL
Charlottesville, VA
Santa Rosa, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
Bethesda, MD
Los Angeles, CA
Toronto, Ontario
Baltimore, MD
Sarasota, FL
Cambridge, MA
Amherst, MA
Ann Arbor, MI
Berkeley, CA
Seattle, WA
Stillwater, OK
RTP,NC
Bolton, MA
Washington, DC
Stony Brook, NY
River Heights, UT
Bozeman, MT
New Orleans, LA
Chandler, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
Boulder, CO
Albuquerque, NM
New Haven, CT
Irvine, CA
Laramie, WY
Rhinelander, WI
Fort Collins, CO
Boulder, CO
RTP.NC
Gainesville, FL
Chapel Hill, NC
Harrisburg, PA
Boston, MA
Medford, MA
Palo Alto, CA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-19
LAST NAME
Mushok
Napier
Natan
Nerode
Neuberger
Newland
Nixon
Nordhaus
North
Norton
Nygaard
Oates
Oberdoster
O'Connor
Olivieri
Omenn
Oppenheimer
OtweU
Ozonoff
Parker
Parkin
Parkinson
Paustenbach
Payne
Payton
Pease
Peck
Peeler
Peterson
Peterson
Pfaender
Pierce
Pierson
Pilot
Pittinger
Plaa
Podkulski
Pohland
Pojasek
Portney
Power
Price
Rabinowitz
Roll
Ray
Real
Reed
FIRST NAME
Paul
Bruce A.
Thomas
Anil
John S.
M. Christopher
Scott
William
D. Warner
Bryan
Oddvar
Wallace
Gunter
> Mary Ellen
'. Adam .
Gilbert
Michael
Steve
David M.
Frank L.
Rebecca
David K.
Dennis J.
JohnW.
Marinelle
WilliamS.
Stephen
James
Leif
Richard
Frederic K.
Donald
William R.
Henry C.
Charles A.
Gabriel
Daniel
Frederick
Robert B.
Paul
Alison G.
James
Michael B.
David
Verne A.
Leslie A.
Donald
COMMITTEE
CASAC
RAC
EEC
RSAC
EHC
EHC
EPEC
COUNCIL
CASAC
EEAC
RAC
COUNCIL
CASAC
RAC
DWC
CASAC
CASAC
EHC
EHC
RAC
EEC
EHC
EC
EC/VS
IHEC
IHEC
EEAC
EEC
RAC
EPEC
EPEC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
EPEC
EHC
EEC
EEC
EEC
EC/EEAC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
EHC/DWC
EC/DWC
EPEC
EHC
AFFILIATION
PB Associates
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Environmental Information Center
Department of Mathematics
University of Kansas
Auburn University
University of Rhode Island
Yale University
North Works
Georgia Institute of Technology
Case Western Reserve University
University of Maryland
University of Rochester
University of Tulsa
EOA Inc.
University of Michigan
Environmental Defense Fund
. University of Florida
Boston University
Vanderbilt Universtity
American Public Health Association
Long Island Occ & Env Health Ctr
McLam/Hart
Duke Univeristy
Harvard Med. School and Public Health
Environmental Defense Fund
Electric Power Research Institute
Emission Monitoring Inc.
Baylor College of Medicine
University of Wisconsin
University of North Carolina
Oregon State University
Desert Research Institute
University of Wisconsin
The Procter & Gamble Co.
University of Montreal
Chevron Research and Technology
University of Pittsburgh
Pojasek & Associates
Resources for the Future
Cornell University
CITY, STATE
Durham, NC
Richland, WA
Washington, DC
Ithaca, NY
Kansas City, KS
Auburn, AL
Narrangansett, RI
New Haven, CT
Mountain View, CA
Atlanta, GA
Cleveland, OH
College Park, MD
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Oakland, CA
Ann Arbor, MI
New York, NY
Gainesville, FL
Boston, MA
Nashville, TN
Washington, DC
Port Jefferson, NY
Alameda, CA
Durham, NC
Boston, MA
Oakland, CA
Palo Alto, CA
Raleigh, NC
Houston, TX
Madison, WI
Chapel Hill, NC
Corvalllis, OR
Reno, NV
Madison, WI
Cincinnati, OH
Montreal, Queb, CAN
Richmond, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
East Arlington, MA
Washington, DC
Ithaca, NY
Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm. Austin, TX
Marine Biological Laboratory
Consultant
Pfizer, Inc.
Indiana University
Oregon State University
Woods Hole, MA
Washington, DC
Groton, CT
Bloomington, IN
Corvallis, OR
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
page B-20
LAST NAME
Reuhl
Revesz
Rice
Ringen
Risser
Rocco
Rockette
Rodier
Rose
Roth
Rowe
Rozrnon
Russell
Russell >
Ryan .^
Safe
Samet
Schenck
Schlager
Schlesinger
Schnoor
Schreck
Schubel
SchuU
Scialli
Segerson
Seigneur
Sextro
Shannon
Shogren
Shore
Shy
Sigman
Silverstone
Simonin
Sinclair
Skelly
Smcdl
Smith
Snoeyink
Sobsey
Spacie
Speizer
Spengler
Splitstone
Stein
Stohs
FIRST NAME
Kenneth R
Richard
Deborah
Knut
PaulG.
James R.
Howard
Patricia
JoanB.
Philip
Robert D.
KarlK.
Clifford S.
Milton
John Jake
Stephen H.
Jonathan M.
RitaC.
Edella
Richard
Jerald
Richard
Jerry
William
Anthony
Kathleen
Christian
Richard
Margaret
Jason
Roy
CarlM.
Hilary
Allen E.
Howard
Warren
John
Mitchell
Cliff ordV.
Vemon L
MarkD.
Anne
Frank
JohnD.
Douglas
Michael
Sidney
COMMITTEE
EHC
EEAC
EHC
EHC
EPEC
EEC
IHEC
EHC
DWC
CASAC
COUNCIL
EHC
EPEC
EC/IRP
EHC/IHEC
EHC
IHEC
EEC
EC/VS
EHC
EPEC
CASAC
EC/EPEC
RAC
EHC
CASAC
CASAC
RAC
EC/VS
EEAC
EHC
CASAC
EEAC
EHC
EHC
RAC
CASAC
EEC
RAC
DWC
DWC
EPEC
CASAC
CASAC
EEC
EC
EHC
ANNUAL
AFFILIATION
Rutgers University
New York City School of Law
Consultant
Center to Protect Workers' Rights
Oregon State University
BP Exploration and Oil Inc.
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
University of South Florida
Envair
Hagler Bailly Services
University of Kansas Medical Center
Vanderbilt University
Joint Institute for Energy & Env
Health Canda
Texas A&M University
John Hopkins University
Eco Sense, Inc.
Universitiy of Arizona
New York University Medical Center
University of Iowa
General Motors Corp.
The New England Aquarium
Univeristy of Texas
REPORT
CITY, STATE
Piscataway, NJ
New York, NY
Islesboro, ME
Des Moines, WA
Corvallis, OR
Cleveland, OH
Pittsburgh, PA
Rochester, NY
St. Petersburg, FL
SanAnselmo, CA
Boulder, CO
Kansas City, KS
Nashville, TN
KnoxviUe. TN
Ottawa, Canada
College Station, TX
Baltimore, MD
West Rutland, VT
Tucson, AZ
Tuxedo, NY
Iowa City, IA
Warren, MI
Boston, MA
Houston, TX
Georgetown University Medical School Washington, DC
University of Connecticut
Atmospheric & Env Rsch, Inc.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Syracuse University
University of Wyoming
New York University Medical Center
University of North Carolina
University of California
State University of New York
New York State Dept of Env. Cons
National Council on Radiation Prot
Pennsylvania State University
Carnegie Mellon University
GE Foundation
University of Illinois
University of North Carolina
Purdue University
Harvard Medical School
Harvard University
Splitstone and Associates
University of Chicago
Creighton University
Storrs, CT
San Ramon, CA
Berkeley, CA
Syracuse, NY
Laramie, WY
New York, NY
Chapel Hill,NC
New Brunswick, NJ
Syracuse, NY
Rome, NY
Bethesda, MD
University Park, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Fcrirfield, CT
Urbana, H
Chapel Hill,NC
West Lafayette, IN
Boston, MA
Boston, MA
Murrysville, PA
Chicago, IL
Omaha, NE
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page B-21
LAST NAME
FIRST NAME COMMITTEE AFFILIATION
Stolwijk
Stolzenbach
Stout
Strimaitis
Susskind
Suter
Swenberg
Taylor ,
Templet
Tephly
Thein
Theis
Thomas
Tiedje >
Tikuisis V
Toman
Tonn
Tran
Trehy
Trulear
Valentine
Van Knoynenburg
Voilleque
von Lindem
Walton
Ward
Weis
Weiss
Whipple
Williams
Williams
Wilson
Windom
Winner
Witschi
Wolff
Wolff
Wood
Woods
Wright
Wyzga
Yosie
Zacharewski
Zedler
Jan
Keith
Judy
David
Charles
Glenn
James A
George E.
PaulH.
Thomas R
Myint
Thomas
Valerie
James M.
Peter
Michael
Bruce
NgaL
Michael
Michael G.
Jane
Richard A
Paul
Ian
Barbara
C. Herb
Judith S.
Bernard
Christopher
Marcia
Philip B.
Richard
Herbert L
William
Hanspeter
George T.
Ronald K.
Ronald W.
James E.
Steven
Ronald
Terry F.
Timothy R.
JoyB.
IHEC
EC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
CASAC
EHC
CASAC
EC/TOP
DWC
EC
EC
IHEC
EPEC
CASAC
EEC
EC
.EEC
RSAC
EEC
EHC
RAC
RAC
CASAC
EPEC
EEC
EPEC
EHC
RAC
RSAC
EPEC
RAC
EPEC
EPEC
RSAC
EC/CASAC
CASAC
CASAC
HEC
EC
EHC
EC/Futures
EHC
EPEC
Yale University School of Medicine
University of California
Marine Env Sciences Consortium
Earth Tech
University of California
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
University of North Carolina
George Mason University
Louisiana State University
University of Iowa
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Clarkson University
Princeton University
Michigan State University
Defense Civil Inst of Env. Medicine
Resources for the Future
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
Monsanto Corporation
ChemTreat, Inc.
University of California
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
MJP Risk Assessment, Inc.
TerraGraphics Env Engineering
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Rice University
Rutgers University
University of Rochester
ICF Kaiser
Putnam,Hoyes & Bartlett, Inc.
Philip Williams & Associated, Ltd.
Harvard University
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Oregon State University
University of California-Davis
General Motors Env. & Energy Staff
Eli Lillly & Company
New York University Medical Center
HP-Woods Research Institute
University of Michigan
Electric Power Research Institute
Ruder Finn - Washington
Michigan State University
San Diego State University
CITY, STATE
New Haven, CT
Los Angeles, CA
Dauphin Island, AL
Concord, MA
Berkeley, CA
Oak Ridge, TN
Chapel Hill, NC
Fairfax, VA
Baton Rouge, LA
Iowa City, IA
Oak Ridge, TN
Potsdam, NY
Princeton, NJ
East Lansing, MI
N. York, Ontario, CAN
Washington, DC
Oak Ridge, TN
Baltimore, MD
St. Louis, MO
Richmond, VA
Los Angeles, CA
Livermore, CA
Idaho Falls, D
Moscow, ID
Oak Ridge, TN
Houston, TX
Newark, NJ
Rochester, NY
Oakland, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco, CA
Cambridge, MA
Savannah, GA
Corvallis, OR
Davis, California
Detroit, MI
Greenfield, IN
New York, NY
Hemdon, VA
Ann Arbor,MI
Palo Alto, CA
Washington, DC
East Lansing, MI
San Diego, CA
g:\user\sab\nenbers\98mcrostjds
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page C-l
Appendix C Science Advisory Board
Organizational Chart
. Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNTJAT.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Chartered under
Section 812 of
CAAofl990
Chartered under
Section 109 of
CAAofl977
Mandated under
SDWAofl988
Formed at request of
Administrator in 1992
COUNCIL
CASAC
DWC
EEAC
EEC
EPEC
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Chartered under
ERDDAA of 1978
fflEC
RAC
RSAC
Formerly Ecology and
Environmental
Transport/Fate
Formed as a result of SAB>
Future Risk Report in 1988;
Mandated by Title IV
ofSuperfund(1986)
Formerly Indoor Air Quality/
Total Human Exposure Committee (IAQC)
All Committees (except COUNCIL and CASAC which report directly) report to the Administrator through the Executive Committee
Council=Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, CASAC=Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, DWC=Drinking Water Committee,
EEAC=Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, EEC=Environmental Engineering Committee, EHC=Environmental Health Committee, EPEC=Ecological
Processes & Effects Committee, IHEC=Intergrated Human Exposure Committee, RAC=Radiation Advisory Committee, RSAC=Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page D-l
APPENDIX D
STAFF SUPPORT AND COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP IN FY98
Some of the following positions were filled by two people during the year as changes in personnel
or staff alignments were made. Where two persons occupied a position during the year, both are listed.
The latter name is the incumbent at the close of FY98.
I - STAFF STRUCTURE
STAFF DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Staff Director:
Special Assistant:
Program Specialist:
NOWCC Office Assistant:
Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Ms. Anne Barton
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Ms. Betty Fortune
DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
Deputy Staff Director
Program Specialist:
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff
Team Leader:
Management Analyst:
Project Coordinator:
Management Analyst:
Student Intern:
Ms. Patricia Thomas
Ms. Janice Cuevas
Ms. Carolyn Osbome
Ms. Vickie Richardson
Mr. Derrick Pope
Dr.JohnR.Fowleffl
Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Committee Operations Staff
Team Leader: Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Designated Federal Officers:
Ms. Kathleen Conway
Ms. Roslyn Edson
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Ms. Karen Martin
Mr. Tom Miller
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Management Assistants
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Wanda Reids
Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of me science Advisory aoara
-------
pageD-2 ANNUAL REPORT
II - Staff Committee Alignment
Executive Committee
Chain Dr. loan Daisey
Designated Federal Officer Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Program Specialist: Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Integrated Risk Steering Subcommittee of the Executive Committee
Choir: Dr. Joan Daisey
Designated Federal Officers: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Mr. Tom Miller
^ Management Assistant: Ms. Wanda Fields
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Chain Dr. Maureen Cropper
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Choir: Dr. Joe Mouderly
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. Robert Flaak
Management Assistant Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Diana Pozun
Drinking Water Committee
Choir: Dr. Richard Bull
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. Thomas Miller
' "Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Choir: Dr. Mark Harwell
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Staff Secretary: Ms. Wanda Fields
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT paseD-3
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
Choir: Dr. Robert Stovins
Designated Federal Officer: Mr. Thomas Miller
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Ms. Dorothy Clark
Environmental Engineering Committee
Chain Dr. Hilary Inyang
Designated Federal Officer: Mrs. Kathleen Conway
Management Assistant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
,,/ Environmental Health Committee
Choir: Dr. Emil Pfitzer
Co-Choir: Dr. Mark Utell
Designated Federal Officers: Ms. Roslyn Edson
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Choir: Dr. Henry Anderson
Designated Federal Officer: Ms. Roslyn Edson
Co-Designated Federal Officer: Dr. Dorothy Canter
(Disproportionate Impact Review)
Management Assistant: Ms. Mary Winston
Ms. Wanda Fields
Radiation Advisory Committee
Choir: Dr. Stephen Brown
Designated Federal Officer: Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Management Assistant: Ms. Diana Pozun
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Choir: Dr. W. Randall Seeker
Designated Federal Officers: Mr. Robert Flaak
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Management Assitant: Ms. Dorothy Clark
Ms. Mary Winston
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
naee E-l
APPENDIX E - SAB MEETINGS FOR FY98
Key to Committees of the Science Advisory Board
COUNCIL Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
AQMS Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee
HEES Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
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
EAS Economic Analysis Subcommittee
ERS Ecological Risk Subcommittee
HEHS Human Exposure and Health Subcommittee
RROS Risk Reduction Options Subcommittee
SC Steering Committee
VS Valuation Subcommittee
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Note: Meetings listed in bold are face to face meetings, and italics are teJeconference calls.
All meetings in Washington, DC unless otherwise noted.
1st Quarter
November 18-19
November 20
December 4-5
December 15
December 16
December 18
RAC Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
and Disposal of Fed. low-activity radioactive wastes
RAC Subc Uncertainty Analysis
DWC Disinfection Byproducts, Draft Preliminary Candidate
List and Various Briefings
CASAC Particualte Matter, NAAQS Development Plan
and Upcoming NAAQS (RTP, NC)
RSAC ORD Budget Process Briefing
EC Executive Committee Meeting
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
pageE-2
ANNUAL REPORT
2nd Quarter
January 13-14
January 23-24
January 29-30
February 5-6
February 5-6
February 26-27
March 3
March 4
March 24-25
March 31 ^
3rd Quarter
Aprils
April 13-14
April 15-16
April 27-29
April 30- May 1
May5
May 5-6
May 5-6
May 5-6
May 7-8
May 14
June 2
June 9-10
June 18-19
June 24
4th Quarter
July 8-9
July 9-10
July 21
EC Executive Committee Meeting
COUNCIUAQMS Prospective Study
COUNCIUHEES Prospective Study
COUNCIL Prospective Study
EEC Planning Meeting
RSAC Review of ORD Budget
RAC ERAMSII, High Radon Areas and
Federal Guidance 13
RAC Subcomm. Uncertainty Analysis
EPEC Blackstone River Initiative (Boston, MA)
EC Review Meeting
EEAC
EC/IRP-SC
EC
EEC
EHC
CASAC
SAB/SAP
EC Subcomm.
CASAC
RAC
EPEC
RAC
EHC
DWC
EC
EC
EPEC
EEC
Planning Meeting
Steering Committee
Executive Committee Meeting
Quality Management Review
1,3 Butadiene
PM NAAQS Development Plan (RTP, NC)
Endocrine Disrupters
TRIM and Agency Modeling
Diesel Health Assessment (RTP, NC)
Federal Guidance 13
Planning
Federal Guidance 13
RfC Methods and Acute Reference
Exposure Methods (RTP, NC)
Research Tracking, Drinking Water
Contamination, DW Intake, Technologies
for Small Systems, and Alternate Test Systems
flevzew Meeting
Executive Committee Meeting
Strategic Planning and TEF for Wildlife
and Ecorisk Guidance
Quality Management
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page E-3
July 22-23
July 22-24
July 30
July31
August 3
August 14
August 19
August 25-26
August 27
August 27-28
September 3-4>
September 8-9
September JJ
September 11
September 18
September 22-24
September 29-30
RAC Cancer Risks, Radon Risk and BIER 6
EEC Various Breifings andintemal initiatives
EC Subcomm. Secondary Data Use
RSAC Budget Process
EC Subcomm.
EEC Subcomm.
EEAC
EC Subcomm.
Residual Risk (RTF, NC)
Retropspective Issues (Lowell, MA)
Economic Analysis Guidelines
CORMIX Model
EC Review Meeting
EC Subcomm. FY97 STAA Review
IHEC
EHC
RAC
EC
Disproportionate Impact
Lead 403 Rule
Federal Guidance 13 and Uncertainty- in Radiogenic
Risk
Review Meeting
EC Subcomm. Strategic Ranking Criteria
EEC Quality Management Review
IHEC NHEXAS and NHANES (RTF, NC)
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vaee F-l
ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX F
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD FY98 REPORTS AND ABSTRACTS
F1 List of SAB Reports, Letters, Advisories, Commentaries
and Consultations for FY98
FULL REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EHC-98-001
EPA-SAB-98-002
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-003
EPA-SAB-IHEC-,98-004
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-005
EPA-SAB-RSAC-98-006
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-008
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-009
EPA-SAB-98-010
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-011
EPA-SAB-EC-98-012
EPA-SAB-EC-98-013
EPA Draft Mercury Report to Congress
FY 97 Annual Staff Report
Ecological Impacts and Evaluation Criteria for
the Use of Structures in Marsh Management
Review of the Source Ranking Database
Review of the Waste Research Strategy of the Office of
Research and Development
Review of the FY 1999 Presidential Budget Request for
the Office of Research and Development
Review of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Relative
Risk-Based Environmental Indicators
Methodology
Review of ORD's Pollution Prevention Research Strategy
Review of the Office of Solid Waste's Proposed Surface
Impoundment Study
Science Advisory Board 1997 Strategic Plan
Evaluation of the Blackstone River Initiative
Recommendations on the 1997 Scientific and
Technological Achievement Award (STAA) Nominations
Review of the USEPA's Report to Congress on
Residual Risk
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-98-001
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-98-002
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003
LETTER REPORTS
Review of EPA's Draft Ecological Research
Strategy
Review of Project Work Plan for Particulate Matter
Criteria Document
Review of the Agency-wide Quality Management
Program
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-98-001
Ambient
ADVISORIES
Advisory on Environmental Radiation
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-2
Monitoring System (ERAMS) H
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-002 Clean Air Section 812 Prospective Study of Costs and
Benefits Air Quality Models & Emissions
Estimates Initial Studies
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003 Overview of Air Quality and Emissions Estimates
Modeling, Health and Ecological Valuation Issues
Initial Studies
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-98-004 Advisory on the National Drinking Water Contaminant
Database
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-98-005 Advisory on Economic Research Topics and Priorities
COMMENTARIES
EPA-SAB-IHEC-COM-98-001 Integrated Human Exposure Committee Commentary
on Indoor Air Stn
jss for SAB's Revii
Budget Request
r on Indoor Air Strategy
EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-98-002 Process for SAB's Review of the ORD Presidential
CONSULTATIONS
EPA-SAB-RAC-CON-98-001 Consultation on Alternative Approaches for
Disposal of Federal Low-Activity Radioactive
Wastes
EPA-SAB-EC-CON-98-002 Notification of a Consultation on Screening and Testing
of Endocrine Disrupters
EPA-SAB-EC-CON-98-003 Notification of a Consultation on Environmental
Computer Models
EPA-SAB-DWC-CON-98-004 Notification of a Consultation on Alternative Test
Systems for the Evaluation of Disinfection
By-Product Mixtures
EPA-SAB-DWC-CON-98-005 Notification of a Consultation on a Method for
Estimating Drinking Water Intake Levels
EPA-SAB-RSAC-CON-98-006 Notification of a Consultation on the Agency' sFY2000
Science and Technology (S&T) Budget
EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-98-007 Notification of a Consultation on Possible Further
Guidance on Ecological Risk Assessment Topics
EPA-SAB-EPEC-CON-98-008 Notification of a Consultation on the Use of Toxic
Equivalency Factors (TEFs) in Ecological Risk
Assessments
EPA-SAB-EC-CON-98-009 Notification of a Consultation on Ranking Criteria for
Strategic Planning and Budgeting
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vase F-3 ANNUAL REPORT
F2 Abstracts of SAB Reports, Advisories, and Commentaries
for FY 1998
FULL REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EHC-98-Q01 EPA Draft Mercury Report to Congress
, In response to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment's directive, the EPA developed a draft report on
mercury) and asked the Science Advisory Board to review it. The Mercury Review Subcommittee convened on
February 13-14, 1997 in Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee believes that the major findings of the draft report are well supported by the scientific
evidence. There are areas where improvement in the use of available scientific information is possible. Detailed
suggestions for,such improvements are noted below:
a) The majority of the human population is not experiencing methylmercury exposures that are of concern
from the standpoint of human health. The current Reference Dose, based on the Iraqi and New Zealand
data, should be retained at least until the on-going Faeroe and Seychelles Islands studies have
progressed much further and been subjected to the same scrutiny as has the Iraqi data.
b) The Subcommittee identified some problems vis-a-vis human health issues - a lack of recognition and
emphasis on consistency of the animal data across multiple studies.
c) It is plausible that current anthropogenic emissions are contributing to human exposures, and that fish
are the major source of methylmercury exposures for the human population.
d) The Subcommittee recommends that the cost analysis also give consideration to other approaches for
controlling mercury emissions that might prove to be more flexible and more cost-effective.
e) The mercury wildlife criterion is overly conservative and is lower than appears necessary to protect
wildlife species. However, piscivorous wildlife are at risk from elevated mercury exposures.
f) Volume V, in total, is not based on the best available and sound science.
g) The final document should emphasize the fact that there are significant information gaps in the
understanding of the biogeochemistry of mercury species.
h) The modeling of atmospheric mercury transport and deposition is largely sound, but the modeling of
the post-deposition fate of mercury in ecosystems does not reflect recent advances in the science.
EPA-SAB-98-002 Science Advisory Board FY 1997 Annual
Staff Report: Extending Our Range
The Science Advisory Board Staff's annual report captures the SAB's activities for FY 1997.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-003 Ecological Impacts and Evaluation
Criteria for the Use of Structures in
Marsh Management
The Marsh Management Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee reviewed the state of the science for structural marsh management (SMM). The Agency
requested this review in support of their plans to develop an interim Agency position on SMM, with a long-term
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-4
goal of developing a national marsh management policy. The Subcommittee used the term "structural marsh
management" to distinguish this fairly narrow set of management approaches from the broader set of practices
that are commonly associated with the term marsh management. The Agency's definition for marsh
management is "the use of structures (such as canal plugs, weirs, gates, culverts, levees and spoil banks) to
manipulate local hydrology in coastal marshes." The Agency specified in the Charge for the Subcommittee to
include in its review wetlands influenced by the tide, and lands and waters associated with the Great Lakes.
The Subcommittee found that the collective experience on SMM around the country has shown that
unintended, unanticipated, and sometimes undesirable effects have often resulted from structural management
of marsh hydrology. The Subcommittee found it difficult to generalize about the ecological impacts of SMM
because of differences in the physical environment, status of wetland resources, or management objectives in
different wetland areas. The Subcommittee recommends that the application of a marsh management policy
should be done at least at the region-specific, ecosystem-specific, or basin-specific level. The Subcommittee
urges caution in the adoption or approval of SMM projects in order to avoid counterproductive-results on the
long-term sustcrinability of imperiled tidal and Great Lakes wetlands. The Subcommittee also recommends that
Agency decisions regarding proposed SMM projects take into account the potential impacts of the project from
an ecosystem, rather than single-species or single-resource, perspective.
In addition to providing a summary of the state of the science on the ecological consequences of SMM
from a national perspective, the report recommends a number of scientificAechnical criteria that should be used
to evaluate proposed SMM projects, highlights priority monitoring and research issues, and discusses SMM
issues that are relevant in various regions of the country.
EPA-SAB-IHEC-98-004 Review of the Source Ranking Database
The Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEQ reviewed the EPA's Source Ranking Database (SRD)
including the assumptions and methodologies used in scoring product/material categories in order to rank them
for further characterization and possible risk management attention. Given the importance of indoor
environments in determining human exposures, the SRD project is a very worthwhile effort.
The SRD includes an algorithm for ranking products. This algorithm has been developed for Agency
use to help identify products that are likely to pose the highest health risks. The overarching concern is that the
algorithm must be sufficiently robust so that products are not misranked. For example, the Committee was
concerned that a product that should be ranked "high" is not missed due to some underlying problems with the
algorithm. Several components of the algorithm may lead to this problem such as: a) use of the volume of the
whole house rather than a room and or "breathing zone" volume for products used by individuals; b) omission
of dermal and certain inadvertent ingestion exposures; and c) the overall sensitivity of the algorithm to
variabilities in the component factors, and in the hazard scale in particular. The Committee recommends that
the Agency address: a) and c) immediately, and makes some specific recommendations with respect to how
to proceed. The IHEC also suggests a simplified method for screening and ranking products with respect to
dermal exposures that could be used immediately.
The IHEC makes several additional recommendations including: a) The Agency should add several
additional exposure sources to the SRD, including indoor combustion sources and the criteria air pollutants that
are emitted by such sources. Future expansions should include dermal and inadvertent ingestion exposures,
as well as inclusion of analyses of potential exposures of special populations such as children, the elderly,
asthmatics and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), b) The Agency should add the
octanol/water partition coefficient and Henry's Law ratio as part of the database so that sorption/desorption and
Report of 'the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vase ₯-5 ; ANNUAL REPORT
volatilization processes can be better addressed, and c) the Agency should consider whether the database will
be regularly updated and whether the database will be made accessible to the public.
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-005 Review of the Waste Research Strategy
of the Office of Research and
Development
The Environmental Engineering Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board reviewed the Waste
Research Strategy prepared by the EPA Office of Research and Development. The Committee commends EPA
for developing the Strategy, which responds to previous SAB advice (EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-94-004) and decisions
(EPA-SAB-EEC-97-011). The Committee also commends ORD for adopting risk reduction as the cornerstone
of the Strategy. If this approach is implemented properly, the effectiveness and impact of ORD's research
programs wiU improve significantly. The Committee finds the Strategy has strengths and opportunities for
improvement. In general, implementation of the Strategy is likely to improve the EPA's capacity to address waste
management jaroblems and reduce risks to human health and the environment.
The Committee now recommends two advancements to the process of research strategy development -
the involvement of external organizations in the planning process and transparent documentation.
Establishing and documenting linkages between the ORD waste research strategy and related efforts
within and outside the Agency, will strengthen the strategy. Such description indicates the authors know the field
and it reduces the likelihood that efforts will be duplicated or important issues neglected. Examples of such
organizations are Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA); programs operated by state agencies concerned with
environmental protection; the waste management programs of the Department of Energy; and natural hazards
mitigation programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Geological Surveys of the
National Institute for Standards and Technology (MIST).
The final Strategy should describe how and why specific research topics were assigned various priority
levels so clearly that a stranger to the process could pick up the Strategy and understand how each decision
was made.
EPA-SAB-RSAC-98-006 Review of the FY 1999 Presidential
Budget Request for the Office of
Research and Development
On February 26-27, 1998, the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) met to review the FY1999 Presidential Budget Request for the Office of Research and Development
(ORD). The Committee considered how well the proposed budget request: a) reflected priorities identified in
the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans; b) supported a reasonable balance between core research on multimedia
capabilitiesAssues and media-specific problem-driven topics; c) balanced near-term and long-term research
issues; d) had sufficient resources to achieve the objectives of the research and development program; and e)
how ORD can improve upon the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure to communicate
research plans, priorities, research requirements, and planned outcomes.
The Committee noted that the FY1999 ORD and EPA budgets are the first goals-based research budgets
put forth by the Agency. The budget represented a concerted effort on the part of the ORD to develop the
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page
requested funding allocations around the ORD Strategic Plan. The plan and budget were developed in concert
with the program offices to develop goals consistent with customer needs. For the first time it is possible to
examine and evaluate how the money is allocated to various programs, to science and technology activities and
to various strategic goals.
While pleased with the presentation of the budget, RSAC was disturbed to note that the research budget
is declining when viewed as percentage of the overall Agency budget, as well as in real purchasing power. In
particular, the Committee concluded that the budgets proposed in several areas were not likely to be sufficient
to meet the goals established by the Agency and ORD in their Strategic Plans. These areas included particulate
matter, endocrine disrupters, ecosystem protection, global climate change, waste site remediation technologies,
microbial pathogens and indoor air.
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007 Review of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
Relative Risk-Based Environmental
? Indicators Methodology
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) assessed the technical merits of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indicator methodology developed by the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT). The methodology employs the same toxicity weighting for chemical releases as the Sector
Facility Indexing Project previously reviewed by the SAB (EPA-SAB-EEC-97-012). The TRI Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicator methodology also considers fate, transport, and the exposed population.
The methodology's consideration of exposure and populations in its estimation of risk is an improvement
over estimates based solely on the mass of annual releases or solely on toxicity-weighted releases.
To improve the methodology, the Subcommittee recommends that the methodology: a) use actual, rather
than binned, toxicity values; b) more appropriate exposure models be used with region-specific data (and,
when available, site-specific data); and b) use actual population numbers rather than rural population default
value of 1000.
The Subcommittee recommends that the EPA subject the TRI methodology to sensitivity and uncertainty
analyses and portray uncertainty in the final results. This will allow potential users the ability to use the output
with the proper confidence.
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-008 Review of ORD's Pollution Prevention
Research Strategy
At the request of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Environmental Engineering
Committee (EEC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the draft Pollution Prevention Research
Strategy.
In general, implementation of the strategy is likely to produce results that will improve the Agency's
capacity in pollution prevention and reduce risks to human health and the environment. The vision and mission
statements for the research strategy effectively capture the appropriate role of the ORD in pollution prevention
and also recognize the importance of making pollution prevention precepts and tools useful to society. The
strategic rationale for the ORD's program provides a clear basis for delineating research priorities.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vase F-7 ANNUAL REPORT
The programs and projects highlighted in the draft strategy are reasonable and largely justifiable. The
long-term goals developed for the research strategy are consistent with the mission statement. Thus, if the long-
term goals are thoroughly executed, significant advances toward the stated vision will occur.
The strategy could be strengthened by documenting the decision process as well as the product of those
decisions, including the translation of long-term goals into specific projects. Such documentation could improve
the transparency of the process, especially to stakeholders whose support the Agency needs to ensure the
implementation of effective pollution prevention programs which we expect will result from the developed
research strategy.
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-009 Review of the Office of Solid Waste's
Proposed Surface Impoundment Study
The Surface Impoundments Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Engineering
Committee reviewed the proposed methodology for the Office of Solid Waste's Congressionally required surface
impoundments study. In summary, the charge for this review was to comment on: a) the technical merits of the
overall study structure; b) the technical merits of the proposed risk assessment; and c) the involvement of outside
technical experts, affected facilities and the general public at critical points in the study's design and
implementation.
The Subcommittee reviewed the Agency's plans for conducting the congressionally mandated study to
characterize risks from industrial waste waters managed in non-hazardous surface impoundments. Since this
SAB review occurred at an early stage of the study, many of the comments and recommendations are offered
to assist the Agency in making scientifically sound decisions in designing and implementing this study.
In general, the Subcommittee finds that the Agency's approach to conducting the study in a phased
manner is appropriate and a pilot study is recommended. The use of existing data early in this study will help
the Agency in prioritizing and allocating resources to obtain supplemental data from potentially high risk sites.
There are, unavoidably, uncertainties in the choice of multimedia models for risk analysis.
The Subcommittee is pleased with the Agency's inclusion of ecological risk assessment and endorses
the case study approach. In addition, the Subcommittee is very supportive of conducting peer reviews
throughout the study. Finally an SAB review at the end of 1999 is also recommended.
EPA-SAB-98-010 Science Advisory Board 1997 Strategic
Plan
The approaches to environmental protection at EPA are changing and to be most effective the SAB
needs to change with them. Specifically, the SAB needs to spend much more of its total energies on providing
strategic, forward looking advice, while maintaining and even improving the quality, utility, and timeliness of its
activities focussed on Agency-requested peer review of EPA products.
EPA and environmental decision making in general have undergone rapid change in recent years,
providing new opportunities for the SAB to enhance the quality of science in environmental decision making,
or, in some cases, requiring that the SAB also change in order to continue being successful. The changes in
EPA and environmental decision making which are particularly relevant to the SAB's mission include new less
centralized decision making approaches, emerging scientific issues, crosscutting initiatives and programs,
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-8 \
I
multiple avenues for peer review, an expanded EPA grants program and international dimensions of emerging j
environmental problems. j
The SAB intends to make changes along several lines simultaneously: 1
a) The SAB will improve general operations. This includes making several operational changes i
to improve timeliness, such as expedited report writing, greater attention to project selection,
and a new "fast track" process for a few special cases. The Executive Committee will also
institute new ways to ensure that the SAB is accepting the right projects for peer-review. In
addition, the SAB will take concrete steps to improve communication with customers, other
organizations and with new SAB members and Chairs. j
b) The SAB will redirect, develop or modify some specific SAB elements. This includes directing {
the Research Strategies Advisory committee to focus on the broad strategic aspects of research "
and science in the Agency; integrating economics expertise into the broader work of the Board; j
, and a number of other specific activities. jj
-------
vaseF-9 ANNUAL REPORT
water column and sediment contaminants was conducted for one of the impoundments along the river (Rice City
Pond) in order to develop possible remedial actions.
The Committee concluded that the BRI study represents a significant advance for the Agency as an
initial attempt to integrate multi-agency, multi-scale, and multi-environmental stressor considerations. The effort
to characterize both "dry" and "wet" conditions was important in showing that different processes govern
pollution input, transport, and fate in this system during different weather patterns. This has important
implications, for example, for management of the system and for the calculation of loadings to Narragansett Bay.
However, the Committee noted a number of deficiencies in the study that, while apparently due to budgetary
limitations, limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. The Committee, therefore, strongly urges
Region I and the other participants in the BRI to initiate a subsequent phase of the project to take the needed
broader look at the ecological condition of the river and the watershed. Recommended components of a
subsequent phase of the BRI include incorporation of the ecological risk assessment framework, limited
additional monitoring, inclusion of biological information and land-useAand-cover data for the watershed, use
of Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of the data and the use of more appropriate existing models
for watershed-lev^sl analysis.
EPA-SAB-EC-98-012 Recommendations on the 1997
Scientific and Technological
Achievement Award (STAA) Nomina-
tions
This report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Science Advisory Board regarding the 1997 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 106 nominations from the first eight of the eleven award categories this
year (Control Systems & Technology, Ecology & Ecosystem Risk Assessment, Health Effects & Health Risk
Assessment, Monitoring & Measurement Methods, Transport & Fate, Review Articles, Risk Management and
Policy Formulation, Integrated Risk Management, Social Science Research, Environmental Education, and
Environmental Trends for Drivers of Future Risk). After review, the STAA Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
Board revised the number of nominations to 104. These nominations contained over 125 scientific and technical
papers. Of these, the Subcommittee recommended 35 nominations (34 percent of the nominations) for awards
at three levels and also recommended that nineteen additional papers be recognized with Honorable Mention.
The Subcommittee recommended awards for nominations submitted by 11 ORD research laboratories. 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.
EPA-SAB-EC-98-013 Review of the USEPA's Report
to Congress on Residual Risk
The Residual Risk Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Executive Committee convened
in public session on August 3, 1998 to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's draft Residual Risk
Report to Congress (Report). The Report describes the strategy methods the Agency will use to assess the risk
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-10
remaining, (i.e., the residual risk) after maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, applicable
to emissions sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), have been promulgated under Section 112(d).
In short, the SAB found the Report to be a generally good draft of a strategy document, but one that must
be strengthened in a number of important places prior to submission to Congress. The Subcommittee was
highly supportive of the Agency's coming back to the SAB in 1999 with examples in which the Report's strategy
is used in specific cases.
The SAB endorses the underlying the risk assessment (RA)/risk management (RM) approach described
in the Report At the same time, there are additional points that should be confronted more directly and explicitly,
including the following: a) The Report should more carefully convey the limitations of the data, models, and
methods that are described or that would be needed to carry out the residual risk assessment activities; b) The
Report should contain or cite specific examples to clarify what some of the bold, but vague, language is intended
to convey; c) There needs to be a more clearly described screening approach that will prioritize stressors for
assessment and will husband Agency resources; and d) The Report should be more explicit about how the
residual risk assessments will be used to make risk management decisions.
The SAB report contains many other specific comments, as well as an appendix containing written
comments from individual members.
LETTER REPORTS
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-98-001 Review of EPA's Draft Ecological
Research Strategy
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) met on July
21-22,1997 to review the EPA's draft Ecological Research Strategy. EPEC complimented the Office for Research
and Development (ORD) for undertaking this comprehensive, long-term planning exercise. EPEC found the
strategic plan to be essential for proactive operation, priority setting, and resource allocation for ORD, as well
as for coordinating efforts across the Agency.
The Committee made several recommendations for areas that were identified as needing improvement.
These recommendations include:
a) Strategic planning efforts for the Ecological Research Strategy should be consistently and
regularly conducted. It may be appropriate to subject major plan changes to external review.
b) The definition of ecological integrity should be refined, as described in the report, to state
clearly that both scientific criteria and societal values contribute to establishing the best
attainable condition of an ecosystem. ~~
c) The future flow charts should be redrawn to show clearly the important role of early and multiple
places for stakeholder involvement.
d) Specific recommendations are provided on refining the concepts and methodologies for multi-
stressor, multiple levels of biological organization, and multiple-scale research. The Committee
encourages the use of real-world case studies, not abstract exercises, as the focal point for
testing and refining these concepts and methodologies.
e) The bulleted descriptions of the four core research areas should be replaced with scientific
questions listed in the report.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseF-11 ANNUAL REPORT
\
f) Reducing .Risk (SAB, 1990) should be examined and the recommendations from the SAB's !
upcoming Integrated Risk Project (TOP) should be incorporated into the strategy. !
g) Other Federal agencies should be canvassed to identify possible gaps in ecological research ,
that are not being covered adequately by any Federal agency. {
h) A diversity of ways to strengthen the collaboration between ORD scientists and extramural <
scientists should be explored.
I
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-98-002 Review of Project Work Plan for
Particulate Matter Criteria
Document
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) met on May 5, 1998 to review the Project Work j
Pian For Preparation of Revised U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (2000), developed by the <
National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in Research Triangle Park, NC. This work plan describes ]
the general approach and schedule NCEA proposes to follow in developing the criteria document for the next j
review of the ISfsrtional Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). 1
-, / 4
The Committee agreed with the general organization of the document into the nine chapters specified
in the plan, and engaged with staff in a productive discussion of subtopics within the chapters. The Committee '
also was pleased with NCEA staff's proposal for taking a new approach in their development of the next PM j
criteria document. Stated in general terms, this approach will produce a document which builds on previous j
knowledge, but avoids recapitulating in a comprehensive manner the information contained in previous criteria ;
documents. I
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003 Review of the Agency-wide Quality
Management Program
This letter report addresses policy, organization, requirements, and guidance for EPA's quality
management system. A separate report will address implementation of the Quality System, The system
encourages EPA to collect and use environmental data of the type, quality, and quantity needed for decision-
making. The Quality Assurance Division (QAD) serves as the central management authority for the Agency's
Quality System.
EPA's Quality Assurance Division (QAD) is knowledgeable. QAD has updated EPA's policy on quality;
generated widely accepted project-level guidance and requirements; promoted quality in the data collection
process through outreach and training; and used peer-reviews to strengthen guidance and requirement
documents.
The following recommendations address both science and policy. The recommendations touching on
policy are worthy of consideration because they follow closely and logically from the science, are in accordance
with quality management as practiced in other organizations, and influence the efficacy of the Quality System.
The recommendations are: (a) the Quality System should address all activities affecting the quality of the
Agency's products and services; (b) EPA should reconsider the reporting status of the Quality System function;
(c) EPA needs an Agency-wide focal point for corrective actions relating to quality; (d) senior management
should be trained about the Quality System; (e) EPA needs to identify metrics for benchmarking the quality
program and for determining changes over time; (0 EPA needs guidance on models and the associated data;
and (g) EPA should evaluate whether current resources assigned to quality are sufficient.
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT page F-12
ADVISORIES
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-98-001 Advisory on EnvironmentalRadiation
Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) II
The EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAG) reviewed technical
aspects of the draft document titled Reconfiguration Design for the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring
System (ERAMS). The reviewed document was developed by the staff of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
(ORIA), with lead responsibility by the staff of the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL),
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Montgomery, Alabama. The-charge to the RAC for this advisory was to
assess the Agency's proposals for reconfiguring the ERAMS program and to respond to specific questions
related to the effort regarding the reconfiguration design, the criteria used for matrix selection-determination
of sampling locations and frequency, other network features, whether proposed changes will increase overall
system usefulness to all the parties, and whether there are other issues or practices that should be addressed.
The RAC found that the proposed reconfiguration is an appropriate, well organized, well-written, and
well thought-out planning document. The Committee recommendations call for elaborations at a greater level
of detail, a more effective statement of the mission and objectives, improvements needed to guide emergency
response actions, better elaboration on use of radiation data from other routine monitoring networks,
improvements in the rationale and approach to sampling choices, such as use of a Data Quality Objective
(DQO) rationale in determining such factors as the number, locations and frequency of sampling locations, as
well as periodic re-evaluation of design.
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-002 Review of Project Work Plan for
Particulate Matter Criteria Document
The Science Advisory Board's Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Council, has reviewed
precursors to the first Prospective Study: Report to Congress. Overall, the AQMS concludes that the strategy
of using model results and observations is found to be an appropriate, sound approach for the current
prospective study, but needs to be described more clearly and concisely.
For future prospective studies, the AQMS suggests that the study team consider use of the more
comprehensive modeling platform of EPA's Models-3 platform which would make it possible to have a more
consistent analysis of areas throughout the U.S.. In addition, the AQMS also suggests use of more advanced
interpolation schemes. Finally, the AQMS strongly advises development and use of a more flexible and
user-friendly emissions modeling system that provides the ability to better diagnose data problems and more
easily examine multiple scenarios.
The Subcommittee's most serious concern involves the predictions for particulate matter (both PMi0 and
PM^s). Recently, a downward trend has been observed in the concentration of airborne particulate matter. In
contrast, the current prospective study pre-CAAA90 scenario results shows an average increase in PM and the
post-CAAA90 scenario shows a decrease significantly less than the decrease already observed during the initial
5 years of the prospective study I analysis period. . The AQMS suggests several strategies that might help
address this issue and strongly advises that this discrepancy in predicted and observed trends be understood
or resolved first before conducting any new scenario runs in the current prospective study.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vase F-13
ANNUAL REPORT
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003 Overview of Air Quality and Emissions
Estimates Modeling, Health and
Ecological Valuation Issues Initial
Studies
The Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis ("the Council")has reviewed various issues and
initial studies related to the Prospective Study of Benefits and Costs of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This
report discusses four important issues concerning the development of the EPA's first Prospective Study: Scope
and Objectives of the Study; Measurement of Costs; Measurement and Valuation of Ecological Benefits; and
Measurement and Valuation of Health and Welfare Benefits.
The Council generally agrees with the goals of the Prospective Study, and believes that it should place
future air poEution control legislative efforts on a more sound economic footing. Addressing the scope of the
study, the Council has urged in previous advice that analysis of benefits and costs be disaggregated whenever
possible by title, or supplementing the aggregate analysis by studying additional pollution controls beyond the
1990 CAAA. TheXkuncil believes that for the purposes of informing future legislation, it would be more useful
to analyze additional controls beyond the 1990 amendments.
In general, the Council agrees with the Agency's estimates of the direct costs of complying with the
various titles of the 1990 CAAA. It is important to discuss the degree of uncertainty in the various costs estimates
and, when possible, to show the sensitivity of cost estimates to underlying assumptions. The Prospective Study
credibility will be greatly enhanced if the cost estimates are accompanied by a discussion of the modeling
options available, some rationale for the options chosen, and a sense of which are the key assumptions that,
if changed, would generate the largest change in the cost estimates.
The Council encourages the Agency to work with ecologists to better define and measure the broader
ecosystem benefits of air pollution control beyond the commercial service flows generated by ecosystems. The
Council encourages the Agency to acknowledge the existence value of ecological improvements, despite the
difficulties in accurately measuring these values using existing valuation methods. The Council suggests that
the Agency refrain from using the avoided cost approach to value reduced ecosystem damages. This is
because the approach does not value the damages themselves, but measures the cost of alternative ways of
reducing the damages.
With regard to valuing mortality risk reductions, the Council acknowledges that no reliable empirical
estimates exist of the value of shifts in survival curves. To complete the Prospective Study, the Council
recommends that the same approach to valuing mortality risk reductions be used as was employed in the
Retrospective Study. The Council also urges that alternative methods of valuing changes in mortality risks be
discussed in an Appendix to the Prospective Study.
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-98-004
Advisory on the National Drinking
Water Contaminant Database
The Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the design phase
considerations of the National Contaminant Occurrence Data Base (NCOD). Review of the NCOD was required
in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The review was conducted in a public session
under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The charge to the DWC asked if the data
elements included in the background information on possible database attributes categorized as Sample Test
Results were adequate for scientific analyses necessary for SDWA implementation, recognizing that more
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pageF-14
detailed data will still be stored by the laboratory? Further, the Agency asked the DWC's opinion on what types
of results should be reported for peer review by the scientific community relative to regulatory decisions and how
these results should be reported?
The DWC recommended that the Agency consider and clearly articulate the intended uses of this data,
and the methods that will be used for data analysis and presentation, before the NCOD design is completed.
This action would enable EPA scientists to more effectively identify those data elements that are essential for
inclusion within the data base. The Committee also recommended that the Agency pay special attention to the
collection and organization of high quality data in the future and not to invest heavily in previously collected data
of less well-defined quality.
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-98-005 Advisory on Economic Research Topics
and Priorities
The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
received a briefing by representatives from EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Office
of Policy (OP) on the Agency's efforts to prepare a plan to guide its economics research. No specific charge was
provided to the EEAC prior to the meeting. Rather, the SAB was asked to consider how the EEAC might help to
ensure that the best possible plan could be prepared to guide EPA's economics research.
The EEAC agreed to prepare an Advisory that would contain member comments on a list of topics being
considered by EPA internally as candidates for Agency-sponsored economics research. This Advisory,
consisting of brief member commentaries on the 31 topic areas proposed by EPA, is the result of the EEAC
discussions. In addition, the Committee's informal ranking reflecting the value it associates with each research
topic is included in the Advisory.
Commentary
EPA-SAB-1HEC-COM-98-001 Integrated Human Exposure Committee
Commentary on Indoo r Air Strategy
The Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met on July 22,
1997 for a consultation on the draft Indoor Air Strategy from the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). The
Committee expressed its support for the Agency's efforts to address the cross-cutting public health issues raised
by pollutant exposures in indoor environments, particularly given that most of the population spends about 90%
of its time in indoor environments and that many of the greatest environmental health risks are encountered in
indoor environments. The IHEC provides specific recommendations for the EPA Indoor Air Strategy and the
Human Health Indoors Policy Committee (HHP) to achieve its goal, "to develop an Agency-wide action plan to
ensure that EPA is prepared to meet the challenges of protecting human health indoors in the 21 st Century."
For example, the Committee recommends that the EPA expand its sources of information to include indoor air
exposure data from government programs outside of the EPA. The IHEC also recommends continued EPA
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vaseF-15 ANNUAL REPORT
efforts in the measurement of indoor contaminant concentrations and exposures given their importance in
assessing risk. The Committee also expressed its support for the EPA's efforts in both the National Human
Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) and the National Health and Human Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES).
EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-98-002 Process for SAB's Review of the ORD
Presidential Budget Request
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAQ of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met on July
31,1998 to identify areas where future improvements can be made in the coordination, timing and presentation
of the budget materials to the Committee and to identify means whereby the SAB could provide early advice and
insights on all of the science-related aspects of the emerging FY2000 budget. The Committee had the following
suggestions: a) move towards expanding the SAB review to include all activities related to -science and
technology in the Agency in a single annual budget review; b) include a historic perspective and illustrative
figures to include an analysis of the ORD budget relative to the changing Agency needs and how this has
impacted the budget request; c) include information to help the Committee better evaluate the adequacy of the
funding for coordination with organizations outside of EPA' d) include an evaluation process for determining
program effectiveness; e) provide more detail on how the budget is allocated to individual objectives and
research programs and how this year's budget fits into the contemplated budgets over the planning horizon of
the Strategic Plan (i.e., five years) and even over the longer term (10-15 years); f) improve the descriptions of how
each program is expected to enhance the quality of environmental decision-making over the long-term; g) timing
and presentation of budget material; h) have ORD provide a budget briefing at a meeting several months prior
to the meeting at which we do the actual budget review; i) ensure timely delivery of materials so that the
Committee has adequate time to react and prepare for discussions; j) focus the briefings on how the total budget
compares with previous years' budgets and how resources are distributed among the budget categories; 1)
provide time-lines for multi-year programs, showing past budget trends and future projections; m) describe the
"close-out" procedures that are used to terminate R&D and S&T activities that have been completed or that are
no longer high priority in the ORD and Program Office Strategic Plans; and n) provide some perspective on
contingency planning concerning how budget cuts would be made if the proposed budget is not approved and
has to be revised downward.
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pase G-l
APPENDIX G
DETAILED TIME TO COMPLETION GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS FOR FULL
AND LETTER REPORTS
The Science Advisory Board is concerned that its advice be accurate, useful, and timely.
Accuracy is addressed through the qualified and balanced Panels that conduct the reviews. Usefulness
is measured, in part, by the degree to which the Panels complete the Charge, i.e., the list of questions
that guide the review. Timeliness depends on a number of factors including the complexity of the issue,
size of the SAB Panel and report, and the capacity, of the SAB process (members and staff) to focus on
the report.
In FY94 the SAB adopted as a measure of timeliness the length of time that transpires from the
last public meeting on an issue (some issues may require more than one such meeting) until the final
report is transmitted to the Administrator. This time period is referred to as "time-to-completion (TOC)".
For most reports (those of the Council and CASAC being the exceptions) this time period can be divided
into two segments:
Segment 1: The time from the last public meeting until approval by the Executive Committee
(EC). This period is devoted to drafting the report and reaching Committee consensus on its
content.
Segment 2: The time from approval by the EG until the transmission of final report to the
Administrator. During this period of time, the DFO and Committee Chair address generally
minor concerns raised by the Executive Committee that has formally approved the report,
sometimes subject to final approval by members who are designated to vet the report on behalf
of the entire EC.
In FY95 the SAB reached its self-proclaimed goal of a TOC averaging no more than six months.
Hence, in keeping with the tenants of Total Quality Management fTQM), the Board announced another
timeliness goal: an average TOC of no more than 4 months.
The TOC data for FY98 are displayed in Table G-l (in text/numerical form) and Figure G-l (in
graphical form), with a clear distinction between Segment 1 and Segment 2 information. The total TOC
figures are sum of Segment 1 and Segment 2.
Note that the data from the Council and CASAC consist of only a single figure; i.e., the time from
the public meeting to the time of transmission to the Administrator. These two Committees are
separately chartered and report directly to the Administrator, without having to past through the EC.
This year, we are continuing our efforts to improve our time to completion for SAB Reports. The
full report average of time to completion falls to approximately 4.8 months. This reflects the two years
from July 1996 to January 1998 required to finalize the Marsh Management Report. The time to complete
letter reports was 2.9 months. We have some success stories with the expeditious completion of several
of our reports including the Residual Risk Report, EPA-SAB-EC-98-013, which was completed in 58 days,
the 1997 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Report, EPA-SAB-EC-98-012, completed in 43
days, and the FY99 Presidential Budget Request Report, EPA-SAB-RSAC-98-006, completed in 70 days.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vase G-2
ANNUAL REPORT
Full Reports
Fiscal Year 98 Reports
Days/Months Report Date Other Dates*
EPA's Draft Mercury Report to Congress 239(7.9) 10/10/97
EPA-SAB-EC-98-001
Meeting 1 2/14/97
Executive Committee Approved 158 7/22/97
To Administrator 80 10/10/97
Structures in Marsh Management 546(18.2) 1/22/98
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-003
Meeting 1 7/26/96
Executive Committee Approval 532 1/9/98
To Administrator .13 1/22/98
Source Ranking Database 185(6.1) 1/22/98
EPA-SAB-IHEC-98-004
Meeting 1 - 7/22/97
Executive Committee Approval 171 1/9/98
To Administrator 13 1/22/98
Waste Research Strategy 240(8.0) 2/27/98
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-005
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approval 195
Administrator 44
FY1999 Presidential Budget Request 61 (2.0) 4/28/98
EPA-SAB-RSAC-98-006
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approval 47
To Administrator 13
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 303(10.1) 4/30/98
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approval 287
To Administrator 15
7/3/97
1/14/98
2/27/98
2/27/98
4/15/98
4/28/98
7/2/97
4/15/98
4/30/98
* Shows date of last public meeting, date report approved by EC, and date report was sent to the Administrator
'Note: Report Number EPA-SAB-98-002 is the present SAB Annual Report and is, therefore, excluded from this table
Keport of the science Advisory Hoard btqff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page G-3
Full Reports (cont'd)
Pollution Prevention Research
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-008
Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
Surface Impoundment Study
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-009
Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
Blackstone River Initiative
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-011
Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
1997 STAA Awards
EPA-SAB-EC-98-012
Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
Residual Risk
EPA-SAB-EC-98-013
Meeting
Executive Committe Approval
To Administrator
Days/Months Report Date Other Dates*
365(12.1)
1
356
8
474(15.8)
1
452
21
171(5.7)
1
105
65
34(1.1)
1
14
19
59(1.9)
1
39
19
7/14/98
8/17/98
9/11/98
9/29/98
9/30/98
7/3/97
6/24/98
7/2/98
5/1/97
7/27/98
8/17/98
3/25/98
7/8/98
9/11/98
8/28/98
9/11/98
9/29/98
8/3/98
9/11/98
9/30/98
Letter Reports
Ecological Research Strategy
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-98-001
Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
154(5.1)
1
149
4
12/22/97
7/22/97
12/18/97
12/22/97
* Shows date of last public meeting, date report approved by EC, and date report was sent to the Administrator
'Note: Report Number EPA-SAB-98-002 is the present SAB Annual Report and is, therefore, excluded from this table
Report of the Science Advisory Board btaJJ
-------
vase G-4
ANNTJAJ. REPORT
Letter Reports (cont'd)
Participate Matter Criteria Document
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-98-002
Meeting
Executive Committee Approved
To Administrator
Days/Months Report Date Other Dates*
21(0.7)
1
N/A
20
5/25/98
Agency-wide Quality Management Program 87(2.9}
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approved 56
To Administrator 30
7/24/98
5/5/98
N/A
5/25/98
4/29/98
6/24/98
7/24/98
Advisories
ERAMSII 179(5.9) 8/28/98
EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-98-001
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approval 127
To Administrator 51
Section 812 Prospective Study 230(7.6) 9/9/98
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-002
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approval N/A
To Administrator 229
Overview of Air Quality Studies 216(7.2) 9/9/98
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approval N/A
To Administrator 215
National Drinking Water Contaminant 97(3.2) 9/22/98
Database
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-98-004
Meeting 1
Executive Committee Approval 85
To Administrator 11
3/3/98
7/8/98
8/28/98
1/23/98
N/A
9/9/98
2/6/98
N/A
9/9/98
6/18/98
9/11/98
9/22/98
* Shows date of last public meeting.date report approved by EC,and date report was sent to the Administrator
*Note: Report Number EPA-SAB-98-002 is the present SAB Annual Report and is, therefore, excluded from this table
Report oj me science Advisory Hoard btqJJ
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page G-5
Advisories (conf d)
Economic Research Topics and Priorities
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-98-005
Meeting
Executive Committee Approved
To Administrator
Days/Months Report Date Other Dates*
35(1.2)
1
23
11
9/22/98
8/19/98
9/11/98
9/22/98
Commentaries
Indoor Air Strategy
EPA-SAB-IHEC-COM-98-001
Meeting
Executive Committee Approved
To Administrator
ORD's Presidential Budget Request
EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-98-002
Meeting
Executive Committee Approval
To Administrator
Days/Months Report Date Other Dates*
267(8.9)
1
252
14
49(1.6)
1
27
21
4/14/98
9/17/98
7/22/97
3/31/98
4/14/98
7/31/98
8/27/98
9/17/98
'Shows dote of last public meeting,date report approved by EC.and date report was sent to the Administrator
*Note: Report Number EPA-SAB-98-002 is the present SAB Annual Report and is, therefore, excluded from this table
Report of the Science Advisory Board btaJJ
-------
vase G-6
ANNUAL REPORT
Fiscal Year 1998 Full Reports
o
c
o
o
a.
s.
FULL REPORTS
Mercury Report
EPA-SAB-EC-98-001
Structures in Marsh Management
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-003
Source Ranking Database
EPA-SAB-IHEC-98-004
Waste Research Strategy
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-005
>
FY99 Presidential Budget Request
EPA-SAB-RSAC-98-006
Toxics Release Inventory
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007
Pollution Prevention Research
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-008
Surface Impoundment Study
EPA-SAB-EEC-98-009
Blackstone River Initiative
EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-011
1997 STAA Awards
EPA-SAB-EC-98-012
Residual Risk
EPA-SAB-EC-98-013
D Amount of days
from last public
meeting until EC
Approval
Number of days
from EC approval
until transmtttal
to Administrator
200 300 400
Number of Days
500 600
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
page G-7
Fiscal Year 1998 Letter Reports
LETTER REPORTS
Ecological Research
Strategy
EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-98-
001
>
« Paniculate Matter
w
p
e
I
S. EPA-SAB-CASA-LTR-98-
002
Agency-wide Quality
Management Program
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003
561
149
B
20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Days
140
160
180
; I
DAmount of days t
from last public i :
meeting until EC
Approval j >.
Number of days
from EC
approval until
transmittal to
Administrator
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
vase G-8
ANNUAL REPORT
Fiscal Year 1998 Commentaries and Advisories
COMMENTARIES
Indoor Air Strategy
o
«
e
o
a
3.
EPA-SAB-IHEC-COM-98-0011
J
ORD's Presidential Budget Request 127! 211
Pi' ! '
EPA-SAB-RSAC-COM-98-0021
< / ' r
ADVISORIES
ERAMS II
EPA-SAB-RAC-98-001
Section 812 Prospective StudQ |
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-002
Air Quality Studicfl
EPA-SAB-COUNClL-ADV-Ooi
National Drinking Water
EPA-SAB-DWC-ADV-
'-98-004J
Economic Research Topics
Ti
EPA-SAB-EEAC-ADV-98-0051
DAmount of days
from last public
meeting until EC
Approval
Number of days
from EC
approval until
transmittal to
Administrator
100 200 300 400
Number of Days
500
600
Reportofthe Science Advisory Board staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT oat>e H-J
APPENDIX H
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS
Staff Director Dr. Donald G. Barnes
Special Assistant Ms. Anne Barton
Deputy Staff Director Dr. John R Fowle, HI
Team Leader, Committee Operations Staff Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Designated Federal Officer
? Designated Federal Officers Mrs. Kathleen Conway
. Mrs. Roslyn Edson
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Mr. Tom Miller
Mr. Samuel Rondberg
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-2 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. DONALD G. BARNES
Staff Director
Designated Federal Official for the 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 three major ds novo reports [Future Risk (1988), Reducing Risk
(1990), and Beyond the Horizon (1995)] and two self-studies (1989 and 1994), in addition to more than 200 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 the Risk Assessment Forum. He continues to
publish a variety of risk assessment topics, such as benchmark dose and toxicity equivalency factors.
Dr. Barnes came to the SAB following ten years' service as Senior Science Advisor to the Assistant Ad-
ministrator 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 more than a decade 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 guidelines; 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.
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 and their two sons.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pggg ff-3
DR. JOHN R. "JACK" FOWLE, III
Deputy Staff Director
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, cochcriring 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 I
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 focussing 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. I
He directed the Environmental Health Research staff of the Office of Health Research in ORD at EPA . j
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. His wife Kate is a glass jewelry artist. j
Their daughter, Eliza, is a student in college.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paseH-4 ANNUAL REPORT
MS. ANNE BARTON
Special Assistant to the Staff Director
MS. ANNE BARTON has been on detail to the SAB since November 1996. She has worked primarily
on the futures project and the SAB strategic plan and its follow-up, but has also served as DPO for the Endocrine
Disrupters panel and the Secondary Data Use Subcommittee.
Ms. Barton has long taken an interest in the science/policy interface in regulatory agencies, particularly
in the area of ecological risk. She is co-chair of an Agency workgroup which is developing guidance for EPA
risk managers to help them set ecological objectives.
Ms. Barton has been with EPA since 1975 and spent most of the time since then in the Office of Pesticide
Programs. She lives in northwest DC with her husband, two cats, a lot of goldfish and some.frogs. She is
planning to retire to this setting in the spring of 1999..
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT natfe H-5
MR. A. ROBERT FLAAK
Team Leader, Committee Operations Staff; Designated Federal Officer
for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Research
Strategies Advisory Committee
MR A. ROBERT FLAAK served as the Board's Assistant Staff Director from 1991 through 1995. Under
the current staff reorganization, he serves as the Team Leader of the Committee Operations Staff of the Board
and as Designated Federal Official for two committees. Mr. Flaak was first associated with the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) in 1978 when he became the DFO for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) when
the committee was first chartered. Since then he has been the DFO 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
Landfill Panel (1992-95); Environmental Futures Committee (1993-1995); Research Strategies Advisory Committee
(1995-1998), and g host of SAB subcommittees and working groups involved with issues such as global climate,
biotechnology arid 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
published the new EPA 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. Along the way he has helped teach over 1500
Federal workers how to run Federal Advisory Committees legally and effectively. Mr. Flaak also has conducted
training on FACA and peer review for other Federal agencies including the Office of Government Ethics, Centers
for Disease Control, National Institutes for Health, Bureau of Land Management, and the US Forest Service.
Mr. Flaak's academic training is in biological oceanography. He graduated from the City College of
New York (BS, Zoology); University of Delaware's Graduate College of Marine Studies (MS, Marine Studies);
and Central Michigan University (MA Public Administration). He has taken other graduate level environment
and management courses and has over 20 years of experience as a trainer. He has developed national
environmental policy for bridge construction and highway modifications with the Department of Transportation;
designed oceanographic surveys and coordination field sampling, laboratory analysis and data analysis and
interpretation as Staff Marine Biologist with an engineering consulting firm; conducted original research on
phytoplankton dynamics and was a consulting Marine Taxonomist for clients including Du Pont, Roy F. Weston,
Inc., and the University of Delaware.
Mr. Flaak was a member of the US Army Reserves from 1966-1995. He retired in 1995 after 29 years
including wartime service in South Vietnam in 1968-69, and in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during Operation
Desert Storm in 1990-91. He lives in Clifton, Virginia with his wife Dottie, their 13 year old son Chris and their
dogs Jennie and Suzy (Suzy is on sabbatical at Grandma's house for the winter).
Report of the Science Advisory Board
-------
paseH-6 ANNUAL REPORT
MS. KATHLEEN CONWAY
Designated Federal Official for the
Environmental Engineering Committee
MS. KATHLEEN CONWAY 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. As sanitary
engineer for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Mrs. Conway worked on water supply, solid waste
disposal, and subsurface sewage disposal issues in Central Massachusetts and assisted the Regional
Epidemiologist with outbreak investigations. While there, she proposed and organized training on solid waste
issues for local boards of health and landfill operators. From 1973-77 she served the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Region I as a sanitary engineer in the wastewater treatment plant operations and mainte-
nance program. Most of her work there consisted of inspections, trouble-shooting, and training. During this
time she chaired the Boston Section of the Society of Women Engineers.
In J977 Mrs. Conway left field work in New England to join the Office of Research and Development 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. She served the
Science Advisory Board as Deputy Director from 1984 to 1989 when she resigned the position to work part-time.
She continued as Designated Federal Official to the Radiation Advisory Committee through FY93 and
has since supported the Environmental Engineering Committee. She volunteers with at-risk school children in
Arlington where she lives with her three sons and a dog.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pggg Jf-7
MS. ROSLYN EDSON
Designated Federal Official
for the Environmental Health Committee and the
Integrated Human Exposure Committee
MS. ROSLYN EDSON joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July 1997 as a Designated Federal
Official. After completing a DFO orientation process last year, she became the DFO for the Integrated Human "
Exposure Committee and the Acting DFO for the Environmental Health Committee. Ms. Edson is a Lieutenant-
Commander in the United States Public Health Service.
Prior to joining the SAB, Ms. Edson worked as an Industrial Hygienist with the EPA Safety, Health and
Environmental Management Division where she developed health and safety guidance material for the EPA
Safety and Health Program Management (SHEMP) Managers. She was also heavily involved in'conducting
ergonomic worksite assessments and ergonomics training to reduce the number and severity of work-related :
musculoskeletdl disorders. Ms. Edson has also worked as an Industrial Hygienist for the National Institutes of
Health, the United States Government Printing office, the Potomac Electric Power Company, Service Employees ;
International Union, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Ms. Edson pursued undergraduate studies (B.S. in Biology, 1988) at the City College of New York and
graduate studies (Sc.M. in Environmental Health (Industrial Hygiene), 1990) at the Harvard School of Public !
Health. Ms. Edson continues to pursue her strong interest in reducing the number and severity of work-related \
musculoskeletal disorders as a part-time ergonomics trainer for professional organizations and public school \
systems. She plans ultimately to obtain a doctorate degree related to her ergonomics interest. Ms. Edson
resides with her daughter Samantha, who started her "real" academic training as a first grader. I
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paeeH-8 ANNUAL REPORT
DR. K. JACK KOOYOOMJIAN
Designated Federal Official for the Clean Air Act Compliance
Analysis Council and the Radiation Advisory Committee
DR JACK KOOYOOMJIAN joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in July, 1988 as Designated Federal
Official (DFO) of the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC). In 1993, he transitioned to the Radiation
Advisory Committee (RAG). In January of 1994, he also served concurrently as DFO of the Advisory Council on
Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council). He brings to his work at the SAB over 28 years of engineering and
professional experience with environmental issues, including over 24 years of diverse experience within EPA
Headquarters.
In the mid-1970's he worked in the Office of Solid Waste (OSW), documenting cases involving the
improper disposal of hazardous wastes, which contributed to the passage of the landmark legislation known
as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. He has over four years experience in the Office
of Water developing guidelines and regulations for industrial wastewater sources. From 1979 through 1988, Jack
was invorved.jwith the Superfund's Emergency Response program and developed the multi-media hazardous
substance reportable quantity regulations. He was also responsible for oil and hazardous substance pollution
prevention regulations, oil spill reporting, as well as the oil and dispersant testing and registration program of
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 (crvil engineering), Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics). His
professional activities include membership of the Board of Control of the Water Pollution Control Federation
(WPCF) [now known as the Water Environment Federation (WEF)] from 1986 to 1989, as well as a being a
member of its Policy Advisory Committee in 1988/1989. In 1988 he received the Arthur Sidney Bedell Award from
WEF for extraordinary personal service in the water pollution control field. He served as Local Arrangements
Co-Chair of WEFs 63rd Conference and Exposition. 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 April 26, 1992, he received an honorary professorship for his work as part of a five-person team from
the United States to develop an environmental engineering bachelors program for the State Engineering
University of Armenia (SEUA), which has over 23,000 students, as well as to assist in addressing the newly-
independent republic of Armenia's environmental problems. In the summer of 1995, he was an invited lecturer
in environmental management to the American University of Armenia (AUA) in Yerevan, Armenia. In this
capacity, he taught a University of Southern California sponsored course in Environmental Management
focusing on environmental ethics and sustainability concepts to three classes of graduate students, who were
majoring in Public Health, Political Science, and Business Administration. In 1997, he was selected as Chairman
of the Organizing Committee to form 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, and their three daughters, Jennifer (24), Melissa
(19) and Jessica (17), Dr. Kooyoomjian is involved in numerous civic activities which focus on development, land-
use and environmental issues in his area. He was a candidate for the Governor's Award for volunteerism for
the state of Virginia in 1991. 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 Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT naee TJ-9
MR. TOM MILLER
Designated Federal Official for the Drinking Water Committee and the
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
MRTOMMUJLER joined the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in June, 1996 as Designated Federal Official
(DPO) for the Drinking Water Committee (DWQ and the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC).
Tom was detailed to the SAB during 1994 and served as the DFO for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
CASAQ and the Drinking Water Committee at that time. Tom is also the DFO for the Valuation Subcommittee
and the Economic Analysis Subcommittee of the Integrated Risk Project. 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 the
black bear 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. He also has an interest in the development of techniques and strategies, to add this body of
knowledge to the science curricula in secondary education, the primary venue for science learning for the vast
majority of our citizens.
Tom is married and is the father of one daughter (who is a University Senior) and one son (who is a
Junior in high school). Tom is involved with leadership positions in his church, and he enjoys flyfishing,
backpacking, woodworking, and baseball.
Report of the Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
paeeH-10 ANNUAL REPORT
MR. SAMUEL RONDBERG
Designated Federal Official
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 issues, and to improving
the management of federal research activities. At EPA, he has directed particular efforts to the complex
problems and issues engendered by operating a research program within the context of a regulatory agency-
coordination between legal and scientific "cultures"; 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. .
j
Mr. Rondberg pursued undergraduate CAB, 1959) and graduate studies at Washington University, where j
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 j
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.
I
Mr. Rondberg has authored publications in clinical psychology, research management, and the .
applications of electronic systems and telemetry to urban transportation. j
Sam's wife (Ruth) of 35 years is a Rehabilitation Counselor; they have one daughter, who completed a I
Master's degree in Social Work. Sam attempts to find time to pursue interests in modern history, the impacts 1
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 Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
ANNUAL REPORT pggg H-11
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE
Designated Federal Official for the
Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee
MS. STEPHANIE SANZONE has been a Designated Federal Official at the EPA Science Advisory Board
for 5 years, working primarily with the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. Ms. Sanzone received a
BA 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 management of coastal
environments, the role of science and risk assessment in policy making, and making science and scientists
intelligible to jay audiences (e.g., policy makers, managers and the public).
Report of the Science Aawsory noara
------- |