Science Advice for EPA
Current and Future Challenges
The EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office and Science Advisory
Committees Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Years 2005 - 2008
/ v
J \
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
I
-------
Letter from outgoing chair of the chartered SAB
'
I
Since October 1, 2004, the Science Advisory Board (SAB), along with Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (the Council), have provided advice on scientific and technical
topics important to EPA. This report describes the wide range of topics addressed.
Our efforts, as independent advisors to EPA's Administrator, spring from a shared
commitment to help EPA develop and use the best science - and use it wisely - to
protect human health and the environment.
We very much appreciate the dedication and cooperation we have witnessed in the
Agency staff with whom we have worked over the last four years. Their sincere efforts
to make our nation a cleaner, safer, and "greener" place are most impressive.
Over the past four years and across all our work, three opportunities for needed improvement stand out. First, EPA
is seriously under-investing in the research that will be required to meet the Agency's needs in the years to come.
Support for EPA's Office of Research and Development has declined by 14.2 percent since 2004, in constant 2008
dollars. With the research budget so tight, research has shifted to supporting short-term needs (e.g., data generation
and methods development in support of existing regulatory programs). This is obviously important but it will not
be sufficient to meet the nation's future needs. Threats to ecosystems and public health from changing energy
requirements, climate change, population shifts, new materials, and new technologies require EPA to reframe its
research programs and create robust new research efforts.
Second, EPA has very little staff capability - and funds almost no scientific research - in modern social, behavioral,
and decision sciences. Yet the results of research in these fields are critical to adequately addressing issues such
as sustainability, homeland security, disaster preparedness, risk communication, valuation, and environmental
stewardship. The Agency needs to develop a strategy for developing this capability.
Third, the SAB's experiences assisting EPA after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, as well as the experience of the SAB's
Homeland Security Advisory Committee, have underscored the need for EPA to adopt a broader approach in preparing
to address future environmental disasters. To assist in this effort, the SAB has prepared a report titled "Preparing
for Environmental Disasters." In addition to making a number of specific recommendations for improvements, this
report recommends the establishment of a small interdisciplinary Environmental Disaster Assessment Team to help the
Agency adopt a broader, anticipatory perspective.
The SAB is delighted that EPA has sought independent advice on so many issues and has a commitment to carefully
consider that advice. My colleagues and I hope the Agency will benefit from the advisory efforts described in this
report as EPA addresses the challenges ahead.
M. Granger Morgan, Ph.D., SAB Chair (FY 2005-2008)
Lord Chair Professor in Engineering, Department of Engineering and Public Policy,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
n
m
1
n
0)
-------
OJ
u
OJ
u
t)
'u
Ul
Letter from the SAB Staff Office Director
This Accomplishments Report illustrates how the Science Advisory Board (SAB), the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and the Advisory Council on Clean
Air Compliance Analysis (the Council) have responded to EPA's requests for science
advice over Fiscal Years 2005-2008 and how the SAB has provided original strategic
advice on key issues. This report covers a wide range of topics, reflecting EPA's
mission and mandates and the recent developments in environmental sciences.
The SAB staff provides management and technical assistance so that the SAB, CASAC, and the Council can draw on
the right experts to deliver high quality advice through an open, transparent process. The SAB staff seeks public
nominations of experts for chartered committees, standing committees of the SAB, and the ad hoc panels and
committees formed to address special topics. It is critical to involve experts who can provide impartial advice
and meet the highest standards of ethics. The SAB staff seeks public comment on the proposed panel of advisers
whenever we undertake a new advisory topic and has sought to increase the transparency of the advisory process
through implementation of a new Web site and publications designed for the public interested in the science
advisory committees and their work. In the last four years, we invited over 300 experts to serve on advisory
committees and panels.
Reflecting on the accomplishments of the past four years, I thank Dr. Granger Morgan and all our advisors for their
energy, for their insights, and their commitment to the mission of the Agency. I also extend thanks to members of
the public who have attended advisory meetings and contributed comments for consideration by advisory members
and to the SAB Staff who have supported the efforts described here.
Vanessa T. Vu, Ph.D.
Director, Science Advisory Board Staff
-------
Missions of the SAB, CASAC,
and Council
The Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and the Advisory Council on
Clean Air Compliance Analysis (the Council) are independent, congressionally mandated advisory committees that
provide advice to EPA's Administrator to strengthen the scientific and technical base for EPA's decisions. The three
committees have different charters and different missions, but each provides science advice to EPA's Administrator
through a public process governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The statutory mandate and charters of the different chartered advisory committees determine the scope of their
activities. As EPA encounters new and controversial science issues, the Agency seeks advice. The chartered SAB also
conducts original studies on emerging or overarching topics of importance to EPA.
SAB
Congress established the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in its present form in 1978 through enacting the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act. This Act gave the SAB a broad mandate to
advise the Agency on technical matters. The SAB's principal mission includes:
Reviewing the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used or proposed as the basis for
Agency regulations
"' Reviewing research programs and the technical basis of applied programs
-1 Reviewing generic approaches to regulatory science, including guidelines governing the use of scientific and technical
information in regulatory decisions, and critiquing such analytic methods as mathematical modeling
1 Advising the Agency on broad scientific matters in science, technology, social and economic issues, and
' Advising the Agency on emergency and other short-notice programs
The SAB has six standing committees: Drinking Water Committee, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee,
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, Environmental Engineering Committee, Exposure and Human Health
Committee, and Radiation Advisory Committee.
3
ff
1X1
Q
0>'
n
m
1
n
0)
Detailed information about SAB membership, activities, and reports can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/sab.
-------
OJ
y
I
s
i
u
s
CASAC
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the
technical bases for EPA's national ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, oxides
of nitrogen; ozone, participate matter; and sulfur oxides. The Clean Air Act requires periodic review of the science upon
which the standards are based and the standards themselves.
Established in 1977 under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (see 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(2)), CASAC also addresses
research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards
and to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
The CASAC chair serves as a member of the chartered SAB.
Detailed information about CASAC membership, activities, and reports can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/casac.
6
Council
The Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (the Council) was established in 1991 pursuant to the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §7612) to provide advice, information, and recommendations on technical and
economic aspects of analyses and reports EPA prepares on the impacts of the Clean Air Act Amendments on the public
health, economy, and environment of the United States.
The Council reviews the data, methods, and cost-benefit analyses conducted by the Office of Air and Radiation for
implementing its programs. EPA has to date issued one major retrospective analysis of the Clean Air Act for 1970-1990
and one prospective analysis for 1990-2010. EPA is planning a second prospective analysis for the 1990-2020 time
period and has issued two analytic blueprints for this analysis.
Prior to Fiscal Year 2005, the Council provided advice on retrospective and first prospective studies and on the analytic
blueprints for the second prospective study.
The Council chair serves as a member of the chartered SAB.
Detailed information about Council membership, activities, and reports can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/advisorycouncilcaa.
-------
Key advice in Fiscal Years
2005-2008
This report highlights key advice provided by the
Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC), and the Advisory Council
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (the Council). The
descriptions illustrate how the committees have
helped EPA address emerging or overarching topics
of importance, plan for its science needs, advance
strategic goals, strengthen scientific methods and
assessments, and recognize excellent Agency research.
Comments provided by the committee and panel chairs
who steer these projects give a sense of the experience
of the scientists who serve the Agency through the SAB,
CASAC, and the Council. The full text of the reports and
background information on the advisory activities can
be found through the SAB, CASAC, and Council Web
sites: http://www.epa.gov/sab; http://www.epa.gov/
casac, and http://www.epa.gov/advisorycouncilcaa.
SAB original study on hypoxia
In 2006, EPA's Office of Water requested the SAB to
consider the current scientific understanding of the
causes of and solutions for hypoxia in the northern
Gulf of Mexico, the so-called "dead zone" where oxygen
levels are too low to support most marine life.
and water experts to assess recent advances in the
science surrounding the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of
Mexico. In 2001, the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force issued an assessment
of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico with the Task Force's
Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating and Controlling
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico . The SAB was
asked to evaluate the enormous body of science
that has emerged since the 2001 report, and offer
recommendations. In December 2007, the SAB provided
the EPA Administrator with its report, Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science
Advisory Board.
I
ft
a
CO
Q
ffi'
n
n>
For this original study, the SAB Staff Office recruited
ecologists, oceanographers, economists, agronomists,
The report made several key recommendations to
alleviate the Gulf's hypoxic condition during the
-------
5
8
i
u
s
warmer months of the year: The SAB recommended
a strategy of large reductions (at least 45 percent)
in both nitrogen and phosphorous in the Mississippi
watershed while warning that climate change will
create conditions for which larger nutrient reductions
would be required. The SAB also recommended tighter
limits on nitrogen and phosphorus from municipal
and industrial point sources, primarily wastewater
treatment plants. The SAB stressed the need to address
economic incentives that favored row crops (corn
and soybeans) over more environmentally sustainable
cropping systems like perennials. Additionally, the SAB
expressed concerns about the effects of the national
ethanol policy on corn production and hence, nutrient
runoff into the watershed. Corn is increasingly grown
for ethanol production, yet it yields a marginal amount
of energy and burdens the environment because of the
need for nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. The SAB
recommended that the federal government fund more
research on environmentally friendlier crops such as
switchgrass, and take a hard look at the incentives
provided by current agricultural subsidies.
The report succeeded in evaluating the current state
of the science to provide advice and recommendations
that address ethanol production, a complicated issue of
national concern. After the report was issued, EPA and
other agencies participating in the Mississippi River/Gulf
of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force developed the
Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008. The Action Plan embraced
SAB advice to accomplish the Task Force's primary
goal of reducing or making significant progress toward
reducing the extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone
to less than 5,000 square kilometers by the year 2015.
The Action Plan acknowledged the goal as an ambitious
commitment that "takes into account the uncertainty
of the task but attempts to maintain momentum and
progress" and cited SAB advice supporting the goal.
hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico primarily results from land activities that occur
approximately 40 percent of the United States that drains into the Gulf. This timely
art urges reduction in both total nitrogen and phosphorus in the river systems as may
achieved by use of perennial crops and other feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol.
Virginia Dale, Chair, SAB Hypoxia Advisory Panel
porate Fellow, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
ak Ridge, TN
Advice for EPA science and
research programs and priorities
The SAB reviewed EPA's planned science and research
budgets for the upcoming fiscal years 2006 - 2009
and provided advice for the Agency and Congress to
consider in making budget determinations. In addition,
the SAB responded to EPA requests for outside advice on
individual, significant research topics. The chartered SAB
also developed original advice on science for disaster
preparedness and strategic research directions.
EPA's science and technology annual
budget for Fiscal Years 2006-2009
The SAB identified consistent trends and delivered
a consistent message over the four years covered
-------
by this Accomplishments Report. The SAB found that
environmental problems are growing steadily "more
complex and challenging," yet "overall levels of
research support across the Agency's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) have fallen, in the aggregate,
by about $90 million (a drop of 14.2% computed as
FY 2008 dollars) since 2004. If one excludes research
related to Homeland Security the total decrease is
$97.1 million (a drop of 16.2%)."
In 2008, the SAB concluded that "despite the best
efforts of the Agency's scientific staff, with the research
budget so tight, more and more of the research
effort has shifted to supporting the short-term needs
(e.g., data generation and methods development) of
existing regulatory programs. This is important, but
not sufficient to meet the nation's future needs." The
SAB concluded that "research can only successfully
provide the science to respond to the nation's needs if
senior leadership in the Agency and the Congress work
to provide the resources needed to pursue a research
program that fully supports EPA's mission of protecting
human health and the environment, now and in the
years to come." The SAB chair provided congressional
testimony on the results of the SAB science and
technology budget review - and SAB concerns about
research founding - in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
In 2007, the EPA Administrator recognized the
significance of SAB advice and recommendations on
science planning through a Federal Advisory Committee
Act Impact Award. In addressing the chartered SAB in
December 2007, the Administrator observed that SAB
review gave the Agency a better understanding of where
EPA should shift science resources, how it could get
more synergy from programs, and how to focus efforts
and limited resource
Future research directions
To complement the annual budget review, EPA's Office
of Research and Development asked the SAB to consider
where EPA research should be in 2012 and beyond and
what factors EPA should consider for strategic planning.
The SAB provided an initial report in 2008 with
strategic advice about the Agency's overall research
Strategic research direction
change areas
Broaden the interpretation of "land preservation"
to take a greater leadership role in future land-use
decision making and in managing the consequences
of bio-fuels, sprawl, green-field development, and the
pressures of unconstrained coastal development
Expand the focus on the environmental consequences
of new technologies to include a broader
consideration of the life-cycle of new products and
their globalization.
Expand the analysis of water infrastructures,
supply, demand and quality in light of changing
sodoeconomic pressures and climate.
Reinvigorate and modernize research on sensitive
human and ecological populations.
Improve the science foundation needed to respond to
unexpected and emerging problems and environmental
disasters.
Expand policy-relevant research on developing,
testing, and evaluating new and innovative
alternatives to conventional command and control
regulation.
Improve dramatically the integration of economics
and the decision and behavioral social sciences into
research and policy development across the Agency.
Continue to work on improving the effective
communication of research results to potential users
both inside and outside the Agency.
o>
id
n
m
1
n
0)
9
-------
i
u
10
program in relation to both EPA's stated needs and the
SAB's perspectives on the environmental challenges
the Agency is likely to encounter. The SAB lauded EPA's
willingness to engage the Board and others openly
about research directions and strategies. The SAB
recognized the importance of EPA's 16 specific research
areas and urged the Agency to "adopt a more integrated
view, one that recognizes the inherent complexities
and interconnections among human and ecological
systems, gives greater consideration to feedbacks, and
focuses on the relevant scales of each issue." To truly
protect the environment, the SAB emphasized that
EPA must undertake a larger program of research that
goes beyond its immediate regulatory needs to address
the broad array of environmental problems facing the
nation. The SAB identified several changes needed to
address pressing environmental problems that do not
fall neatly within existing regulatory mandates. Making
these changes, in the SAB's view, could set a high
standard internationally for creative, forward-looking,
mission-motivated environmental research.
Environmental disasters
The SAB developed a self-initiated advisory report on
planning for the use of science in future environmental
disasters. This original report sprang from the SAB's
experience providing rapid advice in the aftermath
of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina (see discussion under
"Health Communities and Ecosystems" on page 19) and
stimulated SAB thinking about how disaster planning
relates to strategic research directions.
The purpose of the environmental disaster report was
to help EPA become more anticipatory and to think
more broadly about how it identifies and assesses
possible future large-scale environmental disasters and
develops plans for responding to and communicating
about them. The SAB advised EPA to systematically
examine and learn from the best practices of other
organizations, public and private. The SAB also advised
EPA to establish a small interdisciplinary environmental
disaster assessment team to identify, prioritize, and
assess potential environmental disasters and likely gaps
in coverage. The report called on EPA to compile an
inventory of existing models, tools, data, and resources,
including those that, while developed for other
purposes, might be made useful for disaster response,
and then proceed to assess those tools and identify
research needs. The SAB advised EPA to reinvigorate
its program in behavioral social science research and
emphasized the importance of including a strong
program in empirically-based risk communication.
Research planning
As part of EPA's commitment to use "use of good
science for good decisions," EPA's Office of Research and
Development sought advice in Fiscal Years 2005-2008 on
four areas where innovative science planning was needed.
Environmental clean-ups
To consolidate research planning related to
environmental clean-ups, EPA's Office of Research
and Development requested SAB advice on its multi-
year plans for contaminated sites and Research
Conservation and Recovery Act needs. The SAB found
that the two related multi-year plans were sound and
made "judicious use of leveraging opportunities to
significantly stretch limited resources to meet more of
the Agency's needs." The SAB suggested ways to merge
the two plans and more clearly relate the research to
the Agency's strategic goals and targets for clean-ups.
Sustainability
EPA's Office of Research and Development requested
SAB advice on a sustainability research strategy
and multi-year plan. EPA intended the plan to build
a strong foundation for transitioning EPA from its
-------
historical "single-media" or "stovepipe" approach
to environmental protection to a systems approach.
The SAB viewed the strategy as a new paradigm
that explicitly embraced the application of life-
cycle principles in support of short- and long-term
risk management decisions. To further develop EPA's
approach to sustainability, the SAB recommended that
EPA should:
Better define terms associated with the sustainability
strategy and the measurement of sustainability
outcomes.
Apply sustainability principles to address and resolve
specific, multi-faceted environmental problems.
Be creative and strategic in developing its human
resources programs to encourage broad adoption and
implementation of sustainability-based approaches to
environmental protection across
the Agency.
Enhance the diffusion of environmental sustainability
principles and practices within and outside the
Agency.
Build on widespread support for sustainability. Both
sound science and senior management support can
further the paradigm.
Make judicious use of targeted collaborations with
other federal agencies as well as the private sector.
2006, the Environmental Engineering Committee of the SAB developed an advisory on
e EPA Office of Research and Development's (ORD) Contaminated Sites and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Multi-Year plans. Both multi-year plans are important
programmatic roadmaps that not only describe the alignment of ORD's research priorities
with the Agency's strategic objectives but also highlight the coordination efforts between
ORD laboratories that have enabled ORD to effectively address the myriad research needs
of EPA program and regional offices. Owing to the scientific similarity in proposed research
described by each multi-year plan, the SAB endorses the Agency's decision to merge the
two documents.
3
ff
n
0)
n
0)
11
In 2007, the Environmental Engineering Committee of the SAB reviewed the EPA's Office of Research and
and environmental protection research. Establishment of the new research paradigm, which involves explicit
consideration of the economic, social, and technical aspects of environmental risk management decisions,
represents an important first step in the Agency's transition from a media-specific regulatory framework to one
that is systems based and supported by life-cycle principles.
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Chair, SAB Engineering Committee (FY 2005-2007)
Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT
-------
Ecological benefits
To strengthen its ability to assess the ecological benefits of its actions, EPA requested SAB advice on a
draft Ecoiogicai Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. The SAB commended EPA for innovative and creative
recommendations in the draft plan, especially in the area of ecological assessment and emphasized the
importance of an expanded interdisciplinary framework for evaluating the ecological effects of policies.
EPA finalized the draft plan in light of the SAB's recommendations.
i
u
12
~" engthening EPA's ability to assess the value of ecological protection is a priority for
Agency because life depends on ecosystems and the services they provide. The goal of
\'s Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan is to improve the Agency's ability to
zntify, quantify, and assess the value of the ecological effects of its activities, thereby
helping decision makers to make more informed choices among environmental policy
options. The SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services
reviewed a draft of the plan in 2005 and provided advice to EPA on how to improve the
draft plan and prioritize across the many issues and actions identified. The committee
found merit in many of the recommendations of the draft plan and applauded this
important step in strengthening the Agency's ability to engage in ecological assessments. The committee called on
the Agency to implement actions identified in the plan and to invest in the research needed to fill key gaps in data
and methods. The committee will be issuing an important report in the near future that provides advice on how the
Agency can further improve its current approach to ecological valuation and support new research to strengthen
the science base for future valuations.
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Chair, SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems
and Services (FY 2005)
Dean of the College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
Ecological research
Moving ahead to implement the Ecoiogicai Benefits
Strategic Plan, EPA developed a strategy to reorient
EPA's ecological research program around the concept of
ecosystem services. EPA sought SAB advice on a draft
Ecological Research Program Strategy and Multi-Year
Plan that would focus on developing an understanding
of the ways in which management choices affect the
type, quality, and magnitude of the goods and services
received from ecosystems.
The SAB commended EPA for developing a research
program that, "if properly funded and executed, has
the potential to be transformative for environmental
decision making as well as ecological science." The
SAB encouraged EPA to provide additional resources
to support the research program and made specific
recommendations regarding priority setting, linking
research to decision making, interactions among
research components, analysis of uncertainty, and
evaluation of program success.
-------
Program's Multi-Year Plan, which proposes a new strategic research direction - quantifying
ecosystem services and their contribution to human health and well-being. The committee was
unanimous in its support for the research vision and concluded that, if adequately funded,
the program could provide a strong foundation for incorporating the value of ecological goods
and services into Agency decision making. The significance of the report lies in its support for
the new research direction, although that support is tempered by a concern that adequate
resources are not available to fully implement the visionary plan.
Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Chair, SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Advice supporting
EPA's strategic goals
Clean air
Criteria air pollutants
Over Fiscal Years 2005-2008, CASAC provided advice
to help EPA achieve its strategic goal "to protect and
improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to
human health and the environment are reduced." Key
science advice assisted EPA in reviewing the science
to set revised ambient air quality standards for three
criteria pollutants: particulate matter, ozone, and lead.
CASAC's charge was to provide advice to assist EPA in
revising or establishing primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health
"with an adequate margin of safety" and in revising or
establishing secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare,
including protection against decreased visibility,
damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
CASAC provided detailed advice at key steps in the
NAAQS process. For each pollutant, CASAC provided
advice and later peer reviewed EPA's assessment of
scientific literature related to public health and welfare
effects, EPA's risk and exposure assessments, EPA's
staff papers analyzing policy options, EPA's monitoring
strategies, and the Agency's regulatory approach.
CASAC's reports consistently emphasized the importance
of the scientific credibility of EPA's NAAQS review.
Maintaining this credibility became an important
challenge, as EPA implemented a new NAAQS process to
meet the goal of reviewing the air quality standard for
each of the six criteria pollutants on a five-year cycle
as required by the Clean Air Act. CASAC's advice pointed
out areas where CASAC members believed EPA science
should be strengthened or where they believed the
science supported decisions different from those made
by the EPA Administrator.
I
3
I
n
ft
13
-------
I
-------
Estimating radiation risks
In 2008, the SAB reviewed an EPA methodology for
estimating cancer and genetic risks from low doses
of low-linear-energy-transfer radiation In its review,
the SAB distinguished between the current state of
scientific knowledge and the need for a practical,
operational public health approach to radiation
protection and standards setting. The SAB endorsed
EPA's proposal to estimate low-dose risks largely on
the BEIR VII report report developed by the National
Research Council. The SAB provided advice on
numerous technical aspects of adapting the approach
and advised EPA to adopt additional measures of risk
and uncertainty. EPA acknowledged the usefulness of
SAB advice and committed to address SAB comments
as it develops an assessment of radiation risks based
on the methodology described in the white paper.
, SAB Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) concluded that the proposed expansions
d upgrades significantly enhance RadNet, but presented a somewhat different view
th respect to the siting, sampling, and deployment of the fixed and deployable
nitors in routine and emergency operations. The RAC made some suggestions for
eraging resources so that data gathered from other radiation monitoring systems can
jplement RadNet. The RAC fully supported the need for exercises to test procedures
collecting, organizing, and disseminating information. The RAC commended EPA on
including stakeholders in the Agency's ongoing planning and emphasized the importance
of empirically testing and refining sample messages.
The RAC endorsed EPA's proposal to base its approach to low-dose risk estimation as recommended by BEIR VII.
Specifically, for purposes of establishing radiation protection policy, the RAC endorsed EPA's use of a Linear
Non-Threshold model combined with the Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor for estimating risks following
low-dose exposures. However, the RAC emphasized the recent advances in the scientific knowledge of radiation
biology and carcinogenesis, and advised the Agency to continue to monitor the developments of the biophysical
models of radiation effects in the low-dose region. The RAC accepted the EPA's use of BEIR VII methodologies for
deriving risk estimates for cancers of the stomach, colon, liver, prostate, uterus, ovary, bladder, other solid cancers,
and leukemia, and recommended EPA use the BEIR VII methodologies for deriving risk estimates for radiogenic
lung cancer. The RAC provided advice for deriving cancer risk in several areas not addressed by BEIR VII, including
in utero exposure, bone cancer and non-melanoma skin cancer, but considered it premature to offer advice on
estimating the risk of radiogenic thyroid cancer. The RAC agreed with EPA's exploration of alternative methods for
estimating the relative risk for radiogenic breast cancer. Sources of uncertainty were discussed.
Dr. Jill Lipoti, Chair, SAB Radiation Advisory Committee (FY 2005-2007)
Director, Division of Environmental Safety and Health, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Trenton, NJ
-------
Managing radiation risks
The SAB provided advice in 2008 on a draft supplement to a radiological survey and assessment manual developed
by EPA in partnership with three other Federal agencies having authority and control over radioactive materials:
the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This effort represented
the third formal review of federal inter-agency radiation-protection efforts within a decade.
The draft manual supplement addressed risks associated with materials and equipment potentially affected by
radioactivity, including metals, concrete, tools, equipment, piping, conduit, furniture, and dispersible bulk
materials such as trash, rubble, roofing materials, and sludge. The SAB observed that the manual may contribute
significantly to radiation protection. The SAB provided suggestions to strengthen technical aspects of the
document and improve its usability.
i
u
13
16
XI pone/ o/tne SXlfi Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed this draft manual, the third
of four detailed manuals written by federal radiation specialists from EPA, DOE, NRC,
and DoD to guide radiological surveys of facilities and materials in the United States.
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee panels also reviewed the two preceding draft volumes
- one on site investigations and one on analytical laboratory protocols - which then
were published in 1997 and 2003, respectively and are widely used to control the safe
operation and decontamination of sites that may be radioactively contaminated. We
anticipate that this draft also will be revised in response to panel recommendations,
published, and applied.
Dr. Bernd Kahn, Chair, SAB Radiation Advisory Committee (FY 2008)
Professor Emeritus, Nuclear and Radiological Engineering Program, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Clean and safe water
Aquatic life criteria
As part of its effort to strengthen the science
supporting clean water programs, EPA's Office of
Water developed a strategy for revising the national
guidance used to develop aquatic life criteria. This
guidance is used by states and tribes to develop
water quality standards. To ensure that criteria derive
from the best available science, the Office of Water
assessed the need to update the guidelines for aquatic
life criteria. In that assessment, the Office of Water
formed an interagency workgroup to review the state
of the science and recommend a framework for new
or improved approaches for deriving ambient water
quality criteria.
An SAB panel provided early advice to EPA on the
proposed framework. Panelists expressed support for
the Agency's efforts to incorporate kinetic modeling
and a tissue-based approach into EPA's guidelines.
SAB scientists commented on the scope of the
proposed framework, scientific validity, and the
appropriateness of proposed approaches and methods
for water-based, tissue-based, and taxon-specific
water quality criteria. EPA's Office of Water is working
on several projects related to the consultation.
-------
the 20 years between the development of EPA s 1985 Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines
d the consultation, significant advances in the fields of ecotoxicology and exposure
assessment had been made and the panel noted that it was important that an update
of the 1985 Guidelines reflect the current state of the science. In general, the panel
was complimentary of the work undertaken by EPA's Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines
Committee to incorporate kinetic modeling and a tissue-based approach. The proposed
use of the Ecological Risk Assessment Framework as an organizing paradigm to the
revisions was supported by the panel. A recommendation was made that as the guidelines
are revised the Agency should consider and be guided by how proposed changes decrease
uncertainty in the ability of criteria to protect aquatic life. The panel encouraged case studies to demonstrate
applications of the proposed revisions.
Dr. Kenneth Dickson, Chair, SAB Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines Consultative Panel
Regents Professor, University of North Texas, Aubrey, TX
o>
id
n
0)
Measuring outcomes for drinking
water protection
EPA's Office of Water sought SAB early advice regarding
the science underlying several aspects of the drinking
water program. One initiative involved a plan to
develop meaningful and scientifically-based measures
to link drinking water programs to public health
outcomes for EPA's next Strategic Plan. The goal would
be to link EPA program actions to potential decrease in
waterborne disease incidents and to develop long-term
measures that describe changes in chronic and acute
disease due to microbes.
Members of the SAB's Drinking Water Committee
found the effort worthwhile and important. They
provided feedback on EPA's initial plans to strengthen
the scientific credibility of the measures developed.
They emphasized the importance of articulating the
uncertainties associated with the indirect "progress
measures" and the need to explore newer and better
metrics that directly measure public health benefits
can be more in the future. After receiving the Drinking
Water Committee advice, the Office of Water began to
revise its "Measures Document" to incorporate advice
on uncertainty and presentation of findings and to work
with the Centers for Disease Control to enhance the
waterborne disease surveillance system
Aircraft drinking water
EPA's Office of Water sought science advice on plans
for a proposed regulation to address water systems
onboard aircraft within U.S. jurisdiction. It sought
this advice, because existing National Primary Drinking
Water regulations were designed for traditional,
stationary water systems. This science advice will
also assist EPA's participation in the World Health
Organization's efforts to develop international
guidelines for aircraft drinking water.
Members of SAB's Drinking Water Committee provided
advice on current and future statistical sampling of
aircraft for drinking water quality and practical issues
related to onboard water sampling.
n
0)
17
-------
I
-------
The Agency was attempting a daunting task in seeking a retrospective assessment of the
benefits of the Superfund program over a 24-year period with limited analytical resources and
severe data gaps. The panel attempted to make constructive suggestions that would help the
Agency do a comprehensive and credible analysis of the program's benefits for human health,
ecological systems, and protection of groundwater.
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman, Chair, SAB Superfund Benefits Advisory Panel
Research Professor of Economics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME
Healthy communities and ecosystems
Hurricane-related risks
In September 2005, EPA sought rapid consultative
advice from the SAB on analytical plans to assess
soil, sediment, water, and air contamination following
Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. SAB staff convened
workgroups of experts drawn from the SAB, CASAC,
and the Council and their subcommittees. They worked
quickly to advise the Agency concerning timely and
scientifically appropriate responses to the destruction
and contamination along the Gulf Coast. Scientists
on the EPA workgroups reviewed proposed analytical
plans documents and provided advice to help EPA meet
immediate needs to protect hurricane victims from
environmental pollution. Based on their experience
providing advice during the emergency, the SAB
initiated an effort to provide additional, long-term
advice to help EPA prepare for environmental disasters.
I
3
I
n
fp
19
SAB Hurrica
Workgroup Advisory EPA Requestor
Activities
Air Monitoring Plan
Coastal Mississippi
Water Quality Assurance
Plan
Demolition and Disposal
of Hurricane Debris
Assurance Soil and Sedi-
ment Sampling Plan
Residue Sampling Plan
Office of Air
and Radiation
Region 4 - Atlanta
Office of Enforcement
and Compliance
Region 4 - Atlanta
Region 6 - Dallas
-------
i
u
IB significance of this workgroup's effort was that we were able to respond very quickly
to an emergency situation and provide expert advice to those on the ground dealing with
Katn'na's aftermath.
r. Deborah Swackhamer, Chair, SAB Katrina Soil and Sediment Sampling Plan Workgroup
Professor of Environmental Health Sciences and Co-Director of the Water Resources
Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
In the immediate aftermath of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the SAB was called u
to help EPA Region 6 assess the human health risks posed by sediment residues deposited
flooded areas and homes of New Orleans and vicinity. Starting on Labor Day weekend, the
SAB began work to review sampling plans assembled by Region 6 and its contractors. A highly
qualified SAB workgroup was assembled and held a meeting to discuss the sampling plans less
than two weeks after the hurricane. The workgroup demonstrated intense commitment and
offered focused, practical recommendations which improved the Region 6 response to a critirn
situation. I was proud to be part of the effort.
Dr. David Dzombak, Chair, SAB Workgroup on Residue Sampling Plan
Walter J. Blenko Sr. Professor of Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
20
PCBs and the sinking of the Oriskany
Another example of SAB advice to help EPA protect
healthy communities and ecosystems involved the
sinking of a World War II-era aircraft carrier, the Oriskany,
as an artificial reef in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, EPA's
Region 4 requested that the SAB provide advice on the
U.S. Navy's assessment of potential human health and
environmental risks from polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
risks associated with sinking of the decommissioned
ship. Region 4 asked for assistance because the Navy
applied for approval prior to sinking the vessel with
non-liquid PCBs onboard, in accordance with the Toxic
Substances Control Act and implementation of federal
PCB regulations. Under those authorities, the EPA may
approve such an application if the disposal action will
not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health
or the environment. EPA's Region 4 and EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics asked the SAB to provide
advice on analyses conducted by the Navy to support
its application for disposal of PCBs, including the model
used to evaluate how chemicals might be released in the
near-reef marine environment, PCB leaching studies, and
the characterization of potential risks.
An SAB panel reviewed draft technical material and
complimented the work undertaken. SAB scientists
noted that while the draft risk assessment did not
appear to indicate a significant risk, there were
several limitations in the draft assessment. Panel
members recommended ways to strengthen the models
before they were applied in assessing the risk from
the deployment of the ex-Oriskany as an artificial
reef. They also noted that the models were not
adequate to use in other naval reefing operations and
recommended development of probabilistic models to
better characterize the uncertainty inherent in the
risk assessment.
-------
The SAB advice guided EPA's decision to move forward with the project and to hold ongoing discussions with
the Navy concerning PCB disposal approval for future artificial reefing projects. The Navy successfully sank the
decommissioned Oriskany on May 17, 2006.
There have been changes and advancements in the science of risk assessment, in Durability to detect new contaminants
and conventional contaminants with improved and novel methodologies at lower and lower concentrations, and in our
understanding of the health effects associated with water contamination. Through the SAB advice on PCB disposal for
the ex-Oriskany, the SAB assisted EPA in an examination of sensitive populations at risk and improved risk estimates for
ecological and human health.
Dr. Joan Rose, Chair, SAB Polychlorinated Biphenyl-Artificial Reef Risk Assessment Consultative Panel
Homer Nowlin Chair in Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI (Photo page 18)
3
ff
Lead paint hazards
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics was
concerned that lead renovation, repair and painting
conducted by untrained and uncertified contractors
might create new lead hazards, increasing the risk of
lead exposure to the residents of homes containing
lead-based paint. The office therefore sought advice
on an assessment supporting a regulation to reduce
risks from lead renovation, repair, and painting.
The regulation intended to help attain the federal
government's goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning by 2010.
CASAC panel members provided specific advice to
help EPA develop the assessment for the proposed
rule. They also peer-reviewed EPA's draft assessment
approach. The panel found that "the OPPT Dust
Study was reasonably well-designed, considering
the complexity of the problem, and that the report
provided information not available from any other
source." CASAC found, however, that "the available
experimental or empirical data are limited and that
the modeling procedures and analyses are inadequate
to support the proposed modeling approach for
estimating the IQ changes in children exposed
during renovation procedures." EPA issued a final
rule on April 22, 2008, to address lead-based paint
hazards. The regulation noted several CASAC concerns
directly and identified EPA's differences with those
conclusions, based on EPA's judgment of the "best
information" supporting the final rule making.
n
0)
n
0)
21
The CASAC Lead Review Panel was invited to consult with the OPPT on their draft Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting
rule. The request came late in the LRRP rule development, a process that had lasted more than a decade. CASAC concerns
included but were not limited to: a risk assessment relying on a Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard that CASAC
was recommending be greatly lowered; the need for more stringent cleanup protocols; and the absence of modern
accepted techniques for elimination and monitoring of persisting lead residues. CASAC's recommendations were generally
not accepted by the Agency.
Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, CASAC Panel for Review of EPA's Lead Renovation Repair and Painting Activities
Senior Scientist Emeritus, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM (Photo page 14)
-------
i
u
Advice on scientific
methods and assessments
Economic analysis
Costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act
Over Fiscal Years 2005-2008, the Council provided
advice to help the Office of Air and Radiation develop
its next major study of the costs and benefits of the
Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) programs, a mammoth
study expected in 2009. The Council also responded to
EPA's request for advice on technical issues arising from
rule makings to protect air quality.
Because EPA's Office of Air and Radiation planned
to strengthen assessment of ecological benefits for
its next major study of air pollution benefits, the
Council and its new Ecological Effects Subcommittee,
established in 2004, met in 2005 to provide advice on
"credible methods to quantify and monetize the effects
of marginal changes in air pollution on ecosystem
processes." The Council and its subcommittee
supported EPA's plans for a qualitative characterization
of the ecological effects of air pollutants throughout
the country, an expanded literature review, and a
quantitative, ecosystem-level case study of ecological
service benefits as a solid foundation for subsequent
work of broader scope.
alth benefits to humans from the Clean Air Act and its amendments have long represented
e largest share of quantified benefits from this legislation. Benefits in terms of the health
'ecosystems are much more diverse, much harder to measure in physical terms, and possibly
more difficult to attn'bute directly to changes in air quality as opposed to other factors. Even
when physical ecological effects can be identified, the literature is still spotty on the extent to
which society values these types of ecological protections or improvements. This report steers
the Agency towards some potentially more helpful case studies to assess n'gorously the potential
scope of ecological benefits that are presently omitted from benefit-cost analyses.
Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron, Chair, Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (FY 2005-2006)
Raymond F. Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
The Council also provided detailed technical advice on air quality modeling issues, cost and uncertainty analyses,
and EPA's case study of the health benefits of benzene reductions in Houston, 1990-2010. EPA is incorporating the
Council's advice in each of these areas.
-------
^^^^^^^^^m
n
The senes of congressionally-manaatea reports estimating the benefits ana costs of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments serve multiple purposes. First, they quantify the effects - both
beneficial and adverse - of Clean Air Act regulations that are estimated to have the largest
effect on the U.S. economy of any set of environmental regulations. Second, they provide a
test-bed for developing methods to estimate benefits and costs that are subsequently used to
evaluate new regulations. In support of both objectives, the Council was able to advise EPA on
its proposed improvements in methods for estimating the costs of regulations and the benefits
of regulating some of the 187 hazardous air pollutants, a class of pollutants that has not been
incorporated in previous reports.
Dr. James K. Hammitt, Chair, Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (FY 2007-2008)
Professor, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
3
ff
Air pollution regulatory analysis
EPA requested Council advice related to air pollution
regulations because of the technical expertise of the
Council and its subcommittees and their experience with
air pollution cost-benefit issues. In 2006 EPA's Office
of Air and Radiation requested an expedited review of
a methodological assumption to be used in the benefit
assessment to accompany rule making on the particulate
matter NAAQS standard. EPA sought advice on how to
address the historical problem of overestimating future
emissions for the stationary non-electricity generating
unit sector and proposed an interim method. The
Council recommended an alternative to an interim
method proposed by EPA, specifically to "capture the
underlying technological change that is likely driving
the decline in emissions, i.e. the efficiency gains in
production processes and improvements in air pollution
control technologies that can be expected over time" by
developing "surrogate metrics to capture this underlying
technological change."
EPA followed the Council's recommendation and
developed methods for projecting emissions that
incorporate technological change.
1X1
Q
n
m
£
n
0)
23
The Agency was concerned that its models to forecast future emissions of air pollution did not adequately account for
systematic decreases in emissions as a result of technical changes. These changes include more efficient production
technologies and air pollution control technologies. Failure to account adequately for technical change has likely resulted
in overestimates of emissions. The Council and its Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee could not endorse an arbitrary
offsetting correction that would consist of intentional omissions of increased emissions due to economic growth. Instead,
they advised the Agency to develop defensible estimates of declines in "emissions intensity" due to technical change.
Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron, Chair, Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (FY 2005-2006)
Raymond F. Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
-------
i
u
24
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation also requested Council advice
on the appropriate treatment of cessation lags, i.e., the time delay between reductions in air pollution and
reductions in human health effects, in benefit assessments to support regulations related to particulate matter.
The Council and its Health Effects Subcommittee considered a proposal developed by EPA in collaboration with
the Office of Management and Budget. The Council acknowledged "considerable uncertainty" about cessation lags
but emphasized the importance of using an approach based on air pollution evidence "generally suggestive of
greater impacts in the first year relative to the proposed lag structure in question." The Council recommended that
"EPA use a primary case where 30% of the mortality reductions occur in the first year, 50% occur equally in years
2 through 5, and the remaining 20% occur equally over years 6 through 20" and that EPA "(1) review and keep
abreast of the emerging literature in this area; (2) provide the best available justification for the lag structure they
use; and (3) strongly consider conducting sensitivity analyses of other possible lag structures."
The Agency subsequently adopted the Council's recommended function and has been using it for benefits analysis
ever since.
Some o/tte acute //soft/; e/ferts associated with air pollution may decline immediately when emissions are reduced. However,
chronic health problems in the exposed population may take longer to resolve. In particular, if it takes a while for mortality
rates associated with air pollution exposure to fall, it is inappropriate to portray the full benefits of air pollution reductions as
starting immediately with the onset of emissions reductions. Measures of the physical health benefits must include a reasonable
approximation to the actual time profile of these physical benefits. This time profile is also important to the process of
calculating the present discounted economic value of the future stream of net benefits from the Clean Air Act. The Council and
its Health Effects Subcommittee reviewed the Agency's assumptions about cessation lags in physical health benefits.
Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron, Chair, Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (FY 2005-2006)
Raymond F. Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
(Photo page 22)
In 2008, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation requested
review of the use of an expert elicitation conducted to
support a benefit assessment for the particulate matter
NAAQS. Expert elicitation is a systematic process of
formalizing and quantifying, typically in probabilistic
terms, expert judgments about uncertainties. The Office of
Air and Radiation asked the Council to review the design,
implementation, and results of the expert elicitation and
EPA's interpretation of those results within the particulate
matter benefit assessment to guide potential use of expert
elicitation for future benefit assessments.
The Council endorsed EPA's application of the expert
elicitation results. The Council was asked whether
EPA's benefits assessment responded to the National
Research Council recommendation to "move the
assessment of uncertainties from its ancillary analyses
into the primary analysis by conducting probabilistic,
multiple-source uncertainty analyses." The Council
responded: "Our answer is yes." The Council also
noted ways EPA could improve its analysis and noted
that "there is room for improvement in conveying the
differences in assumptions (including the influence
of key empirical studies) that drive the differences
among experts' concentration-response functions....
the relative importance of various sources of
uncertainty: both those that were quantified and those
that were not quantified."
-------
Estimates of the benefits and costs of environmental regulations are necessarily imprecise, because of uncertainty about
the effects of the rule on consumer and firm behavior, emissions, environmental fate and transport, health and ecosystem
consequences, and the valuation of these effects. Policy makers should understand the magnitude of this uncertainty,
which arises from limitations of scientific understanding as well as from random sampling variation. Expert elicitation is
an innovative method to quantify this uncertainty, and the Council commends EPA for testing the method in the important
context of quantifying the mortality effects of air pollution.
Dr. James K. Hammitt, Chair, Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (FY 2007-2008)
Professor, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (Photo page 23)
Value of a statistical life
The EPA National Center for Environmental Economics
requested the SAB's advice on how the Agency should
use meta-analysis, which combines findings from
many studies, to develop estimates of the value of
reducing mortality risks - i.e., the value of a statistical
life (VSL), a statistical estimate of the cost of EPA
actions that may lead to one fewer death. The SAB's
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee provided
advice on how specific techniques, such as meta-
regression, should be used for benefit analyses. It
advised EPA to develop criteria for acceptable studies to
include in a meta-analysis, to determine which studies
are appropriate for estimating value of a statistical
life in a specific policy context, and to include both
stated preference and revealed preference studies,
as appropriate to the specific policy context. EPA is
in the process of revisiting its guidance on mortality
risk valuation and plans to seek SAB advice as the
Agency continues its efforts to update its mortality risk
valuation estimates.
3
ff
n
0)
n
0)
25
i important question in valuing the life-saving benefits of environmental policies is how the
ue of reducing mortality risks varies with life expectancy. One approach to answering this
istion is to divide the Value of a Statistical Life by discounted remaining life expectancy
calculate a Value per Statistical Life Year (VSLY). The VSLY is multiplied by remaining life
pectancy to value lives saved. This is equivalent to assuming that the Value of a Statistical
fe is proportional to life expectancy. The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee judged
that there is not sufficient evidence to support this assumption and advised the Agency not to
^m use this approach.
Dr. Maureen Cropper, Chair, SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Professor of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, and Consultant, World Bank, Washington, DC
-------
i
u
26
Illegal competitive advantage
EPA sought economic advice for benefit assessment
for topics other than rule making. EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance requested SAB
advice on a draft white paper addressing EPA's policy of
recapturing violators' "illegal competitive advantage,"
i.e., the economic benefit gained by violators from
noncompliance with environmental statutes. Whenever
EPA can effectively measure the economic benefit that
a violator may have knowingly gained from illegal
activity, EPA historically has aimed to recapture that
gain through its civil penalty program. Most of EPA's
enforcement cases involving economic benefit have
focused on the financial gain that arises from relatively
straightforward delayed and/or avoided pollution
control costs. The Agency's BEN (benefits) computer
model calculates the economic benefit in those
situations. EPA asked the SAB to review a draft white
paper that addressed economic benefits to companies
that did not fit the BEN model's simplified paradigm of
avoided and/or delayed expenditures.
An SAB panel advised EPA to rethink its use of the
term "illegal competitive advantage" and its approach
to economic benefits generally. "It would be more
transparent to have only two categories: (i) when
economic advantage is limited to delayed or avoided
compliance costs; and (ii) when economic advantage
includes profits on increased sales." The SAB advised
EPA to examine the facts of each case in which
revenues increase to estimate the changes in streams
of revenue and/or production costs as well as delayed
or avoided compliance costs. The SAB also considered
some broader economic issues regarding the penalties
for non-compliance. The panel noted that the "state-
of-the-art in benefits estimation has progressed to the
point where EPA should seriously explore how it might
incorporate 'harm-based' measures into its penalty
formula, at least for some types of environmental
harm." The report discussed the potential of both
revealed preference approaches (e.g., travel cost
methodology) and stated preference approaches (e.g.,
contingent valuation) for harm-based measures.
After considering the SAB's advice, EPA plans to use
a revised white paper as a basis for developing an
enforcement strategy that addresses the calculation
of economic benefit where that benefit is beyond the
BEN model.
Our charge gave the panel an opportunity to draw on the economic theory of optimal penalties to suggest interesting
new ways for the Agency to think about setting penalties for violations of environmental regulations. We highlighted
the importance of considering the probability that a violation is detected leading to the imposition of a penalty and the
possibility of setting penalties based on the harm caused by the violation instead of the benefit of the violation to the
firm.
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman, Chair, SAB Illegal Competitive Advantage Economic Benefit Advisory Panel
Research Professor of Economics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME (Photo page 19)
-------
Climate change
As part of EPA's increasing focus on climate change issues, EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs sought SAB advice
evaluate the usefulness of a computable general equilibrium model for estimating the economic effects of climate
policies. This regionally disaggregated model of the global economy, known as the Second Generation Model, uses
input-output relationships and simultaneous equations to simulate activities in multiple markets in the economy,
such as labor markets, energy fuels markets, and final goods markets.
After reviewing the model, the SAB's Second General Model Advisory Panel noted that the model had been a
significant contributor to past analyses of climate policy but that it would not be satisfactory for future policy
work without modification recommended by the panel to make the model significantly more useful. The SAB also
advised the Agency to employ a portfolio of models rather than relying on any single model and noted that that a
revised Second General Model would deserve a place in that portfolio.
3
ff
The SAB advisory report on the Second Generation Model (SGM) helped identify important ways
in which the model could be improved. In significant part because of the advisory report, the
SGM's capabilities for climate policy analysis have expanded substantially and its results can
now be viewed with more confidence.
Dr. Lawrence H. Goulder, Chair, SAB Second Generation Model Advisory Panel
Shuzo Nishihara Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, Department of
Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
1X1
Q
n
m
£
n
0)
27
Ecological assessment
Ecological risk assessment
The SAB's major contribution to ecological assessment
over Fiscal Years 2005-2008 was an original study to
advance the science and application of ecological risk
assessment in environmental decision making. This
original report drew upon recent scientific advances and
risk assessment experience to identify opportunities
to improve the use of ecological risk assessment for
environmental decision making at EPA. The SAB's
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee held a
public workshop in February 2007 to "evaluate the state
of the practice." The workshop and SAB discussions
led to recommendations to advance the practice
of ecological risk assessment in three main areas:
product health and safety evaluations; management of
contaminated sites; and natural resources protection.
The SAB commended EPA for its previous efforts
to advance ecological risk assessment science and
encouraged further integration of ecological risk
assessment into environmental management decision
processes. In its view, EPA's 1992 Ecological Risk
Assessment Framework and 1998 Guidelines had greatly
improved the state of the practice of ecological risk
assessment not only in the United States, but around the
world. The SAB noted that ecological risk assessments
had been most effective when clear management goals
-------
i
u
28
were included in the problem formulation. The SAB urged
EPA to encourage problem formulation dialog between
ecological risk assessors and stakeholders.
The SAB advised EPA to develop methods and tools to
help decision makers consider the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic contexts of their decisions. The SAB found
that many risk assessments can be enhanced by innovative
techniques to frame and test risk hypotheses and by using
multiple lines of evidence to assess risks at higher levels
of biological organization (population, community, and
landscape scales). The SAB also advised EPA to increase
its understanding of and capacity to utilize ecosystem
valuation methods. In addition, the SAB recommended
that EPA undertake more systematic post-assessment
monitoring to evaluate the beneficial ecological
consequences resulting from risk management decisions.
EPA's Office of the Science Advisor has formed a
cross-Agency workgroup to determine how the SAB's
recommendations can be implemented to improve EPA's
risk assessment practices.
77j/s sun/ey onrf analysis of ecological risk assessment in decision making shows that such assessments have been effective
in defining the ecological problems and identifying information needs, especially when the goals of the assessment are
developed in collaboration with decision makers, assessors, scientists, and stakeholders. Risk-assessment and monitoring
programs can also reduce uncertainty and be used to evaluate risk-management decision outcomes.
Dr. Virginia Dale, Chair, SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Corporate Fellow, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (Photo page 8)
After considerable planning and discussions, the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee held a workshop in
February 2006 where 120 ecological risk assessors discussed their experiences with ecological risk assessment and
provided advice on ways to advance the science of ecological risk assessment. The resulting report recognizes the
accomplishments and strengths of the ecological risk assessment process and provides suggestions for enhancing its
effectiveness. Its significance lies in the many years of experience that were captured in those suggestions.
Dr. Judith Meyer, Chair, SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia, Athens, GA (Photo page 13)
In addition to providing original advice for EPA's long-term needs to strengthen ecological assessment, the SAB
responded to several EPA requests for advice to meet regional needs for technical ecological risk assessment tools.
-------
Critical Ecosystem Assessment Model
In 2005, EPA's Region 5, based in Chicago, requested advice on the Critical Ecosystem Assessment Model (CrEAM),
a spatially explicit model developed for predicting the ecological significance of undeveloped land using ecological
theory, existing data sets, and geographic information system (CIS) technology. Region 5 developed the CrEAM
to assess the ecological significance of land areas across the states of EPA Region 5 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) and considered its use to identify significant ecosystems in order to target
protection and restoration efforts in EPA Region 5.
After reviewing the CrEAM, the SAB noted that "tools like the CrEAM will facilitate access to environmental
information early in the decision-making process at an appropriate spatial scale. ...the SAB enthusiastically
supports the development of regional tools like the CrEAM." The SAB commended Region 5 for efforts to
incorporate an understanding of ecological condition in the environmental decision making process at EPA but
noted that there are limitations associated with the methodological approach used. The SAB suggested appropriate
uses of the model and areas where EPA's proposed uses of the CrEAM are not all fully supported. The SAB also
recommended additional work to further validate the CrEAM methodology.
The SAB review shows that CrEAM can be effectively used to identify ecologically significant areas in Region 5 in order to
quantify and track ecosystem quality, target areas for protection, prioritize protection activities, and provide information
to conduct National Environmental Policy Act reviews. The report emphasizes that tools like the CrEAM will facilitate access
to environmental information early in the decision-making process at an appropriate spatial scale.
Dr. Virginia Dale, Chair, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Corporate Fellow, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (Photo page 8)
3
ff
n
0)
n
0)
29
Regional Vulnerability Assessment
(ReVAJ Program
In 2006 EPA's Office of Research and Development
requested SAB advice on the methodological approach
used in EPA's Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA)
Program. The goal of EPA's ReVA Program was to develop
tools and methods to estimate future ecosystem
vulnerability and illustrate trade-offs associated with
alternative environmental and economic policies. EPA
asked the SAB to provide advice on improving the
effectiveness of the ReVA web-based environmental
decision toolkit for communicating ecological risk and
conditions to risk managers.
The SAB affirmed the importance of developing a suite
of tools to integrate and synthesize environmental
data to provide screening level estimates of ecosystem
vulnerability on a regional scale. The SAB concluded
that the ReVA project offered real promise and
warranted continued effort and resources and noted
technical challenges that EPA should meet before
implementing the ReVA tools.
EPA incorporated SAB recommendations to further
develop the web-based toolkit, which is actively being
used for environmental planning in at least
four regions.
-------
The SAB ReVA Advisory Panel provided an opportunity for eleven scientists to offer advice about
an ambitious, innovative, and quite timely EPA initiative. ReVA is quite simply an effort to
move ecological risk assessment from theory to practice at a broad national scale through the
development of tools and methods to estimate future ecosystem vulnerability. This panel, as
all other SAB panels on which I have served, exemplified the best of the peer review process.
Careful deliberation by experts with the unified single goal of making EPA scientific initiatives
and programs the best they can be.
Dr. Kenneth Cummins, Chair, SAB Regional Vulnerability Assessment Advisory Panel
Co-Director, Institute for River Ecosystems, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA
i
u
30
Geographic Information System
Screening Tool
EPA's Region 6 requested SAB review in 2006 of
a Geographic Information System Screening Tool
(GISST) that used geographic information system
coverages and environmental and socioeconomic
data to provide screening level assessments of the
potential environmental vulnerabilities of project
locations or the impacts of specified activities. Region
6 intended decision makers to use data gathered
from the GISST to help prioritize potential project
locations and alternatives and to help identify levels
of environmental concern. EPA Region 6 asked SAB
advice on the validity of the GISST methodology, the
defensibility of the GISST results, and the usefulness
of the GISST, particularly within the National
Environmental Policy Act process.
The SAB reviewed the GISST and provided advice to
strengthen the tool. The SAB noted the importance of
providing additional information on vulnerability or
impacts that could help evaluate potential environmental
impacts of project alternatives. The SAB also
recommended that EPA make more use of modern decision
analytic and statistical science in its development of
numerical scoring. The SAB advised EPA to draw upon the
available expertise and large literature on multi-attribute
decision making to further develop the GISST.
EPA Region 6 is developing a plan to address many of
the statistical issues identified by the SAB in its review
of the tool. EPA is using the GISST as a scoping tool in
the National Environmental Protection Act process to
identify and "red flag" potential environmental impacts
associated with proposed projects.
The SAB report emphasizes that geographic information system (CIS) capabilities and data layers provide essential support
for efficient, timely, and proactive National Environmental Policy Act evaluations and other regional responsibilities.
The panel noted that GISST is an objective, spatially explicit tool for conducting initial, broad-stroke evaluations in a
timely fashion. The SAB finds that it is reasonable and appropriate to use the GISST as a tool to "red flag" the potential
environmental impacts of certain types of projects. The separate development of CIS-based tools and data by EPA program
offices and regions is inefficient, given budgetary constraints and the common need for these kinds of products.
Dr. Virginia Dale, Chair, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Corporate Fellow, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (Photo page 8)
-------
Human health assessment
Over Fiscal Years 2005-2008, EPA requested SAB advice
on strategic issues related to human health assessment
and also requested SAB review of several chemical-
specific health assessments.
Updating exposure guidelines and
enhancing risk approaches
EPA's Office of Research and Development sought advice
on approaches for updating EPA's Guideiines for Exposure
Assessment, published in 1992 and EPA's principles and
practices for risk assessment. In the exposure domain,
EPA noted scientific advances relating to probabilistic
risk assessment approaches, human activity factors,
susceptible populations, and life stages as areas that
suggested revisions to EPA's exposure guidelines. The
Office of Research and Development sought SAB advice
on the scope and direction of potential changes. EPA
also sought SAB recommendations for improving risk
assessment practices.
The SAB's Integrated Human Exposure and
Environmental Health Committee recognized EPA
achievements in advancing human health risk
assessment practices in many areas through use of
sound principles and science, external peer review,
and emphasis on transparency. The committee advised
EPA to assess and prioritize the scientific and practical
needs for improving human health risk assessment. The
committee offered advice on the following five topics:
Aggregate exposure and cumulative risk assessment
Populations, groups, or life stages of
potential concern
Uncertainty and variability, including
probabilistic analyses
Involving communities and communicating results
Use of data (mechanistic, models, genomics,
computational toxicology, etc.) versus defaults.
In response, EPA noted the value of the SAB advice
as it undertook two subsequent efforts: research
and development of guidance to address aggregate
exposure and cumulative risk; and consultation with
the National Academies of Science and independent
research to improve understanding and communication
of uncertainty and variability in risk assessments.
\J
'lile the Agency has conducted many exposure and human health risk assessments, the
ency's willingness to be scrutinized by outside experts demonstrates its commitment to
ntinuous improvement. The committee commended the Agency for the numerous advances it
.s made, identified several areas for improvement, and recommended that the Agency develop
u plan to prioritize the scientific and practical needs for implementing further advancements in
assessment approaches. This consultation provided the opportunity not only for the Agency to
obtain objective expert advice, but also for the committee members to understand more deeply
about the scientific rationales behind Agency decision making and practices.
3
ff
n
0)
n
0)
31
Dr. Rebecca Parkin, Chair, SAB Integrated Human Exposure and Environmental Health Committees (FY 2005-2006)
Professor and Associate Dean, Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University Medical
Center, Washington, DC
-------
i
u
32
Review of draft EPA human
health assessments
Perfluorooctonoic add
In 2006, the SAB completed peer review of EPA's draft risk
assessment for perfluorooctonoic acid (PFOA). PFOA is a
synthetic (man-made) chemical used in the manufacture
of several commercially important products. PFOA had
been detected in the blood of the general U.S. population,
although EPA found that scientists do not fully understand
how individuals are exposed to the chemical.
To determine whether environmental exposure to
PFOA might pose a risk to human health, EPA assessed
available information on the health effects and human
exposure to the chemical. The draft assessment also
compared measured human blood levels with the
estimated PFOA blood levels that are not anticipated to
produce (or can produce minimal) toxicities based on
data in tested laboratory animals.
The SAB review panel endorsed EPA's risk assessment
approach, particularly the inclusion of multiple non-
cancer health endpoints for risk assessment and the use
of PFOA blood levels as a measure of estimated dose. The
SAB recommended the inclusion of additional non-cancer
health endpoints for risk assessment and the use of the
benchmark dose method to better estimate potential risks.
Three-quarters of the panel judged that the weight-of-
evidence conclusion for the potential of PFOA to cause
cancer in humans was more aligned and consistent with
the hazard descriptor of "likely to be carcinogenic" as
described in the Agency's cancer guidelines (i.e., 2003
EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment). They
recommended that a risk assessment be conducted for
carcinogenic effects.
EPA acknowledged the value of SAB peer review
"to ensure that the Agency is on a reasonable path
handling a number of difficult, technical, and novel
scientific issues that PFOA poses."
Following the SAB review, EPA planned research to
develop a better and more complete understanding
of the sources and pathways of exposure to PFOA
and intends to integrate this new toxicity testing
and mechanistic data into the risk assessment. In
January 2006, EPA and the eight major companies in
the industry created the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship
Program. The companies committed to reducing facility
emissions and product content of PFOA and related
chemicals by 95 percent by 2010, and to work toward
eliminating emissions and product content by 2015.
e^ rrOA and related chemicals are persistent in the environment and are found broadly in the
blood of the general population, giving rise to concerns over their potential for bioaccumulation
and toxicity. The majority view of the SAB review of the draft risk assessment for PFOA
concluded that PFOA was a likely human carcinogen, and given the broad human exposure,
also urged the inclusion of non-cancer health effects in the risk assessment. This panel also
encouraged additional research to evaluate its developmental and nervous system effects which
remain largely unknown at the current time.
Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Chair, SAB PFOA Risk Assessment Review Panel
Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester,
Rochester, NY
-------
Arsenic health effects
In 2007, the SAB completed a report providing advice on several issues relating to the cancer hazards of organic and
inorganic arsenic. EPA's Office of Research and Development, Office of Pesticide Programs, and Office of Water sought
advice because organic dimethylarsinic acid was used as a weed killer and inorganic arsenic is generally a low-level
contaminant in many drinking water sources, EPA asked the SAB to review two scientific documents that address the
carcinogenicity of dimethylarsinic acid and inorganic arsenic. An expert SAB panel was formed to review and comment
on key scientific issues presented in these two documents. The SAB supported the nonlinear approach for low-dose
extrapolation of dimethylarsinic acid and the use of uncertainty factors to account for interspecies differences and
human variability. For inorganic arsenic, the SAB supported the use of a linear cancer risk model, as recommended
by the National Research Council in 2001. In reaching this conclusion, the SAB supported the use of available
epidemiologic data despite current data limitations. The SAB noted the importance of continued research effort to
strengthen EPA's cancer risk assessment for dimethylarsinic acid and inorganic arsenic.
EPA is considering the SAB's comments as the Agency completes the current cyclical reviews of current drinking
water standards and Agency-wide hazard values for arsenic. EPA is considering SAB advice as it evaluates the
registration status for dimethylarsinic acid-containing pesticides.
3
ff
n
0)
Arsenic is a worldwide problem because of its presence in waste dumps, pesticides,
and water from geobgic characteristics in certain areas of the world. The SAB review
of the Agency's Arsenic Report emphasized how many issues in the biotogy, chemistry,
degradation, mode of action, and health effects of arsenic still remain to be clarified.
The scientists, toxicotogists, epidemiologists, chemists, biostatisticians, who evaluated
the literature highlighted for EPA the current state of scientific knowledge as well as
the questions that still need future study in order to fully understand and assess the
risks associated with this metal.
n
0)
33
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair EPA SAB Arsenic Review Panel
Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Ethylene oxide
In a third human health assessment peer review,
the SAB responded to a request from EPA's Office of
Research and Development for advice on ethylene
oxide. Ethylene oxide is an industrial chemical used as
a sterilizing agent for foods and medical supplies. EPA
asked the SAB to comment on three issues regarding
ethylene oxide: the carcinogenic hazard; derivation
of a cancer unit risk value for inhalation exposure to
ethylene oxide; and uncertainties associated with the
carcinogenicity assessment.
In the SAB's review, a majority of the panel agreed
with the conclusion in EPA's draft document that
the available evidence supports a descriptor of
-------
"carcinogenic to humans," although some panel members concluded that the descriptor "likely to be carcinogenic
to humans" was more appropriate. The panel encouraged the EPA to broadly consider all of the epidemiological
data in developing its final assessment.
As recommended by the panel, the Agency has solicited the aid of researchers outside EPA to reanalyze the database for
ethylene oxide as part of the revision of the assessment
i
u
34
The SAB convened an expert panel to review the Agency's draft evaluation of the carcinogenicity
of ethylene oxide. Principal subjects for review were the Agency's choice and rationale for
a hazard descriptor of "carcinogenic to humans," derivation of a cancer unit risk value for
inhalation exposure to ethylene oxide, and uncertainties associated with the carcinogenicity
assessment. The panel provided recommendations to improve both the technical basis for the
assessment and its transparency. The dose-response assessment offered the opportunity for
irited discussion among the experts on the merits of linear versus non-linear extrapolation in
the context of the mode of action of ethylene oxide, leading ultimately to the recommendation
by several members of the Panel that both types of extrapolation should be considered.
Dr. Stephen Roberts, Chair, SAB Ethylene Oxide Review Panel
Professor, Department of Physiological Sciences, Director, Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Advice on multi-disciplinary
science efforts
Because of the complexity of environmental issues,
EPA science efforts increasingly involve scientists from
multiple disciplines and require multi-disciplinary
science advice. Over Fiscal Years 2005-2008 three SAB
ad hoc panels provided key advice.
Metals framework
In 2006, the SAB provided advice on EPA's draft
framework for inorganic metals risk assessment at the
request of EPA's Office of Research and Development.
EPA developed this draft framework to supplement
previous EPA guidance for use in site-specific risk
assessments, criteria derivation, and other similar Agency
activities related to metals. The framework, based on
the risk assessment paradigm, highlighted areas where
consideration of metal-specific information was necessary
and advantageous when conducting risk assessments. It
outlined recommendations for conducting risk assessment
for inorganic metals and metal compounds, based on the
unique attributes of these compounds.
An ad-hoc expert SAB panel commended EPA for
initiating the development of a comprehensive risk
assessment framework for metals and metalloids. It
noted that the framework covered the main areas
of concern to risk assessors but provided technical
corrections and advice to strengthen the document. The
SAB recommended that the document be restructured
and revised to improve clarity and precision. Technical
corrections and additions were also recommended.
EPA published the Framework for Metals Risk Assessment
on March 8, 2007. The document incorporated
comments and recommendations of the SAB.
-------
This report, reviewing the Agency's draft framework, provided constructive advice for this important addition to the
Agency's contributions in risk assessment science. Providing a framework for including metals in risk assessment was an
important step, and we were pleased to provide suggestions for improving the framework.
Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Chair, SAB Metals Risk Assessment Framework Review Panel
Professor of Environmental Health Sciences and Co-Director of the Water Resources Center, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Photo page 20)
Regulatory environmental models
In 2006, an SAB panel from multiple modeling disciplines
reviewed a major EPA effort to develop guidance for
regulatory environmental models. This effort responded
to a request from EPA's Office of Research and
Development for review of Agency-wide draft guidance
and a models knowledge base. EPA intended the guidance
to outline best practices in the development, evaluation,
and use of environmental models to inform regulatory
decision making. EPA intended the knowledge base to
serve as a web-accessible inventory of environmental
models to promote transparency in the data, algorithms,
assumptions, and uncertainties underlying models and
enable model developers, model users, and analysts to
more easily identify information needs.
The SAB commended the Agency's regulatory
environmental modeling initiative for providing a much-
needed vision for modeling across all EPA programs and
offices. The SAB noted that the draft guidance provided a
comprehensive overview of modeling principles and best
practices. The SAB also expressed concern that EPA was
not matching the vision with a commensurate and steady
allocation of resources.
After receiving SAB advice, EPA improved the Internet-
accessible Models Knowledge Base (http://cfpub.epa.gov/
crem/knowledge_base/knowbase.cfm) designed to serve as
an inventory of EPA's environmental models and to facilitate
model selection. The Agency also committed to develop a
final guidance document on environmental models.
3
ff
n
0)
n
0)
35
The importance of modeling as a tool in understanding and managing environmental risks has
grown considerably over the past 30 years. EPA uses models for a wide variety of needs from testing
our hypotheses about how the environment functions, to the efficiency of environmental control
technologies, to forecasts about the behavior of substances that are released into the environment,
to human and ecological risk assessment, to the magnitude of costs associated with environmental
protection. Modem environmental models affect the way environmental regulations are formulated,
interpreted, and earned out With such broad and pervasive responsibilities, it is important that Agency
scientists and the regulated community are assured that the models used are based on the best science
available, and that they are sufficiently robust, accurate, and verifiable. The regulatory environmental
modeling program within the Agency is a critical part of this assurance. The Models Knowledge Base is especially important because
it will allow ready access to models by the scientific community. The EPA has sought, and the SAB has provided, advice and review
on this program since the early 1980s, an excellent example of the value of scientific oversight to the Agency's regulatory needs.
Dr. Thomas L. Theis, Chair, SAB Regulatory Environmental Modeling Guidance Review Panel
Professor, Civil and Materials Engineering, and Director, Institute for Environmental Science and Policy, University
of Illinois at Chicago, IL
-------
i
u
Software evaluation for new and existing chemicals
In 2006 and 2007, the SAB also reviewed software used by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to support
regulatory decisions associated with new and existing chemicals regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act and
in other existing chemical assessment activities. EPA asked the SAB to review the ability of the Estimation Programs
Interface Suite (EPI SuiteTM) software to estimate properties related to a chemical's environmental transport and fate.
The SAB commended EPA for the strategic decision to support the development of EPI SuiteTM and to make it
publicly available. It noted that the software may play a significant role in international regulatory activities and
thereby support the efforts of emerging industrial economies to develop in an environmentally protective and
sustainable manner. The SAB made several recommendations for improvements in the software's scope, accuracy,
and ease of operations, including a recommendation that EPA should "increase its investments to expand the
range of chemical categories over which the software can generate valid predictions, and the number of chemical
properties that can be modeled as new scientific information becomes available."
By the end of 2008, EPA intends to make a new version of EPI SuiteTM (version 4.00) publicly and freely available.
The new version incorporates the SAB's recommendations to enhance existing models, program functionality, and
appearance, including redesign of the user interface and other features to enhance the software's usability.
36
EPI SuiteTM is an important Agency decision support tool that is employed to predict the tenacity, fate and transport of
existing and new chemicals when measurement data is lacking. Owing to its scientific defensibility, ease of operation and
transparency, EPI SuiteTM has not only been successfully employed to support Agency decisions but also has been adopted
by a number of emerging industrial economies to encourage environmentally-sustainable development.
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Chair, SAB EPI Suite Review Panel
Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT
(Photo page 11)
Environmental indicators
In 2007, EPA's Office of Research and Development
requested SAB review of the science underlying its draft
Report on the Environment 2007, which aimed to update
information in the Report on the Environment 2003
and answer key questions concerning the status of and
trends in the environment and human health. EPA asked
the SAB to:
Assess the adequacy of the approaches, processes, or
frameworks used to answer specified questions
Assess the adequacy of the technical content of
the indicators with regard to completeness of the
technical data used and the relevance of indicators to
the areas of concern
Evaluate the appropriateness of the conclusions in the
Report on the Environment 2007.
The SAB commended EPA for its initiative in preparing this
"unique but ambitious report" and noted advancement,
compared to EPA's Report on the Environment 2003. The
SAB provided advice to help the Agency improve the draft
-------
so that it would meet its intended purpose more fully.
It advised EPA to include long-term trend information
to allow trend analysis for many indicators; improve on
the criteria used for indicators that could allow use of
valuable and relevant information to further analyze trends;
and provide more data interpretation and discussion of
conclusions supported by statistical analysis. In addition,
the SAB advised EPA to develop an underlying scientific
framework for the report.
The SAB provided recommendations to improve the current
future Reports on the Environment. The SAB emphasized
the significance of EPA's undertaking to improve the
reports and underscored the need to devote adequate
resources to the science required for them: It wrote
that the Report on the Environment "has the potential
to replace the sorely missed annual reports on the state
of the environment once published by the Council on
Environmental Quality. The value and importance [of the
Report on the Environment] will continue to grow as
pressures of population, energy use, urbanization, and
climate change lead to continued stress on environmental
quality and impacts on health and ecosystems."
EPA's Office of Research and Development revised,
updated, and refined the draft report in response to
feedback from EPA's SAB. EPA published its Report on
the Environment 2007 in final form in May 2008. The
document incorporated more than 80 revisions to address
SAB comments. The Agency intends to address more of
the SAB's recommendations as part of the Web-based
presentation of the Report. In EPA's view, the Report
compiles "the most reliable indicators currently available
to answer 23 questions that EPA believes are of critical
importance to its mission and the nation's environment."
EPA also requested that the SAB establish a standing
advisory committee to provide consultation on how
best to implement many of the changes planned for the
online and future paper editions of the Report on the
Environment "in response to the Panel's recommendations.
3
ff
1X1
Q
n
m
£
n
0)
37
The Report on the Environment is one the Agency's most significant reports, and our review of this report has helped improve
both the current report and future editions. We hope that the Agency will implement our recommendation to embed the
report in its core mission-directed activities.
Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Chair, SAB Panel for the Review of EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment
Professor of Environmental Health Sciences and Co-Director of the Water Resources Center, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Photo page 20)
Homeland security
EPA's assumed new responsibilities for emergency
response cleanup, infrastructure and building protection,
and advancing science to prevent and respond to
terrorist events after the terrorist attacks of September
2001. EPA's new homeland security responsibilities
prompted the Agency to request advice from the SAB.
The Homeland Security Advisory Committee, established
in 2005, responded to these requests.
In 2006, EPA's Office of Water and Office of Research
and Development requested early advice on the
development of EPA's Water Sentinel Program, a
demonstration project proposed to design, deploy, and
evaluate a model contamination-warning system for
drinking water security. At the same time, the Office
of Research and Development also requested early
advice on standard analytical methods for laboratories
responding with rapid analysis to terrorist incidents.
-------
i
u
38
Members of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee
provided advice regarding systems integration,
sustainability of the programs, relevance for decision
making, and transition to operational phases of the
programs. They encouraged EPA to plan for interactions
with a resilient public in the event of threats that are
very difficult to predict.
In 2007 EPA's Office of Research and Development
requested SAB advice on a prototype interactive online
risk assessment and management software tool to provide
health advisors and other emergency response officials with
rapid access to critical information during an environmental
emergency or training exercise. The Office of Research
and Development planned to use the tool to help assess
and provide site-specific numeric estimates of health risks
for selected chemical, biological, and radiological threat
agents and to help identify what response actions might be
appropriate to mitigate health risks.
The SAB's Homeland Security Advisory Committee provided
recommendations for development and testing of the tool
and envisioned its most appropriate use a training context.
The committee also emphasized that EPA should develop
a robust science program on risk communication: "Without
rigorously developed and evaluated communications, the
[Emergency Consequence Assessment Tool] may provide
no value or negative value." EPA incorporated many of
the SAB specific technical improvements into the tool and
agreed that it could be most usefully employed in training
responders. The Agency decided not to continue the
development of the tool.
In 2007, the committee also reviewed the Agency's draft
plans for a Microbial Risk Assessment Framework. The
primary goal of the framework was to derive realistic,
achievable, and acceptable risk-based decontamination
goals (i.e., those that may be other than "zero-no
growth in culture" as acceptable decontamination
goals). The committee recommended that the framework
be developed to give as quantitative a measure of risk
as possible, given the available data, as one would
employ when assessing chemical or food safety, which
also faces data limits. Sources of uncertainty should
be assessed as part of risk characterization to estimate
the impacts of assumptions and defaults. EPA is moving
forward to develop the framework based on specific
recommendations of the committee.
Members of EPA's Homeland Security Advisory Committee are grateful for the opportunity to help the
Agency in its important service to the nation's homeland security. EPA has vital responsibilities in
ensuring the nation's resilience, in the face of multiple hazards. These lie primarily in the areas of
emergency response, water protection, and the decontamination that is essential to restoring damaged
properties to useful activity. EPA's staff has typically sought the committee's input at sufficiently early
stages in its projects to allow the committee's advice to affect those projects' basic design, rather than
just to suggest patches for potentially preventable problems. Many recommendations have focused on
issues of system integration, needed to take best advantage of innovations in science and technology.
EPA's ability to act on some of these recommendations has been hampered by its lack of expertise in the
soda I and behavioral science, a deficiency that the SAB has identified in other areas as well.
Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, Chair, SAB Homeland Security Advisory Committee
Howard Heinz University Professor, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Department of Engineering and
Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
-------
Recognition of
EPA scientists' achievements
In 2005, the SAB celebrated its first quarter-century
partnership with EPA's Scientific and Technical
Achievement Awards program. To support that program,
the SAB has annually reviewed nominations of papers
published by EPA scientists in peer-reviewed journals to
make recommendations for a highly significant award
from EPA's Administrator. The SAB has supported the
program to reward and encourage excellence in research
at EPA and to raise the visibility of EPA's research in
the scientific community. SAB advice in Fiscal Years
2005-2008 continued the tradition of supporting
and strengthening the program and underlining the
importance of peer review for Agency science.
Leadership and excellence of its scientific research programs are both key to the success of the missions of EPA. The
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards, given out annually following a review process by an SAB subcommittee,
explicitly recognize excellence of EPA research in multiple different areas pertinent to the Agency. Not only do these
awards recognize research that has made a significant scientific contribution that will benefit the Agency's ability to
achieve its goals, but this Awards program provides critical SAB feedback to EPA as to important new areas of research to
anticipate future needs.
Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Chair, SAB Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Panel (FY 2003-2005)
Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester,
Rochester, NY (Photo page 32)
The annual Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards competition is a critical element of the Agency's science
programs, providing public recognition and monetary awards for papers published annually by Agency personnel in
peer-reviewed journals. Such feedback is an important way of encouraging high standards of accomplishment while
simultaneously paying tn'bute to the Agency's world-class science.
Dr. Thomas Theis, Chair, SAB Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Panel (FY 2006-2008)
Professor, Civil and Materials Engineering, and Director, Institute for Environmental Science and Policy,
University of Illinois at Chicago, IL (Photo page 35)
3
ff
n
0)
n
0)
39
-------
Upcoming advice
i
u
Valuing the protection Reactive nitrogen:
of ecological systems and services an integrated approach
40
Since November 2003, the SAB's Committee on Valuing
the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services has
worked to finalize an original study to assess Agency
valuation needs and the current state of the art and
science of valuing protection of ecological systems
and services. The goal of the report is to identify
key areas for improving knowledge, methodologies,
practice, and research for ecological valuation. The
committee focused on EPA needs for valuation in the
following areas: national rule making, site-specific
decision making, and valuation for use in regional
partnerships. It reviewed a range of EPA analyses
supporting those needs and assessed approaches and
methods that offer promise for EPA's use.
In December 2005 the SAB held a public workshop on
Science for Valuation of EPA's Ecological Protection
Decisions and Programs. This workshop provided
an opportunity for advisors across the SAB, CASAC,
and Council to provide input on the committee's
preliminary approach. It also provided an opportunity
for feedback from the Agency and outside experts.
A final report is expected in 2008.
In 2007, the SAB initiated an original study to assess the
degree of integration among current EPA research programs
and the extent of linkage among the effects that reactive
nitrogen causes in the environment. Reactive nitrogen
(Nr) refers to all biologically active, photochemically
reactive, and radioactively active nitrogen compounds in
the atmosphere and biosphere of the Earth. The SAB plans
to explore the implications of these linkages for nitrogen
research and risk management. The study aims to make
recommendations for a more integrated research program
on Nrand to identify opportunities of integrated research
for nitrogen management.
The SAB is initiating this study because Nr compounds can
cause multiple beneficial and detrimental effects in the
atmosphere, in terrestrial ecosystems, in freshwater and
marine systems, and on human health. Information to date
indicates Nris accumulating in the environment and that
anthropogenic activity leading to Nr production has been
shown to exceed that from natural systems.
The SAB held a public workshop in October 2008 to
discuss the committee's preliminary work and to obtain
feedback from outside experts.
-------
Web site development
Deployment of a new
SAB, CASAC, and Council Web site
In November 2007, the SAB Staff Office implemented a
new Web site for the SAB, CASAC, and Council and for
the SAB Staff Office. The redesign of the site reflected
changes in the organization of the committees and
science advisory processes since 2000, including the
2002 introduction of the SAB's panel formation process,
the 2003 restructuring of the SAB, and the acceleration
in CASAC activities since the introduction of the new
NAAQS process in 2007. Members of the public, Agency
staff, and current and potential advisory committee
members provided ideas for the redesign of the site. To
obtain public input, the SAB sponsored public meetings
in September 2002 to identify user needs and in July
2006 to receive feedback on a beta version of the site.
The SAB Staff Office envisions the Web site as a
tool that provides current, consistent, and useful
information about advisory activities and products in
ways that increase public understanding of the science
advice process. New features of the site include:
On-line access to all SAB, CASAC, and Council reports
Integration of all electronically available information
related to a specific advisory activity on a single page
(e.g. key information related to Agency requests,
advisory committee or panel membership, Federal
Register notices, related meetings, draft and final
reports, Agency responses)
Organization of CASAC activities and reports by CASAC
topic and organization of SAB reports by major topic
Access to all information relevant for a specific
meeting on a single page (e.g. Federal Register
notices, meeting agendas, materials, and minutes)
Calendars of SAB, CASAC, and Council activities
Information on advisory committees and panels
and membership
Information about public involvement in advisory
activities, including public nomination of experts.
Access to ethics information, including a new
Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special
Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory
Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in 2008
A powerful search function designed to locate and
organize advisory reports and activities of interest
to users.
3
ff
n
0)
n
0)
41
-------
Conclusion
i
u
42
As sources of information and opinion about environmental issues and environmental science proliferate, the
science advisory committees supported by the SAB Staff Office play an increasingly important role. They provide
a venue where EPA can bring urgent issues as well as strategic long-term issues to receive independent science
advice in a public forum.
In the advisory process the public can observe scientific deliberations directly and contribute oral and written
public comment. In the advisory process eminent scientists from different disciplines and perspectives weigh,
balance, and integrate information and perspectives, discern common ground, and identify important
uncertainties, knowledge gaps, and research priorities. Their goal is to provide the best advice, based on available
science for environmental protection today and to plan for the science to meet future environmental challenges.
-------
Membership on Chartered Committees
and SAB Standing Committees, Fiscal Years 2005-2008*
Dr. Anna Alberini
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. David Allen
Gertz Regents Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Richelle Allen-King
Professor
Department of Geology
University of Buffalo
Buffalo, NY
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Melvin Andersen
Director
Computational Biology Division
Centers for Health Research
Chemical Industry Institute
of Toxicology
Research Triangle Park, NC
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Viney Aneja
Professor
Department of Marine, Earth
and Atmospheric Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Lynn Anspaugh
Research Professor
Department of Radiobiology
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. Fred Benfield
Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Blacksburg, VA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Gregory Biddinger
Coordinator
Natural Land Management Programs
Toxicology and Environmental Sciences
ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Houston, TX
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Bruce Boecker
Scientist Emeritus
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Albuquerque, NY
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Thomas Borak
Professor
Department of Environmental and
Radiological Health Sciences
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Mark Borchardt
Director
Public Health Microbiology Laboratory
Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation
Marshfield, WI
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2006-2008)
Dr. Antone Brooks
Professor
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Washington State University-Tri-Cities
Richland, WA
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Germaine Buck-Louis
Chief and Senior Investigator
Epidemiology Branch
National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development
National Institutes of Health
Rockville, MD
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Timothy Buckley
Associate Professor
Division of Environmental Health Sciences
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007)
o>
id
n
0)
n
0)
43
"This list identifies members appointed by the EPA Administrator. The SAB Staff office has formed ad hoc committees and panels with over 300 additional consultants over
Fiscal Years 2005-2008 to provide the technical expertise needed for many of the advisory reports discussed in this Accomplishment Report The full roster of experts can be
found on the SAB, CASAC, and Council Web sites as part of each final report.
-------
i
u
44
Dr. Ingrid Burke
Director
Haub School and Ruckelshaus Institute of
Environment and Natural Resources
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2008)
Dr. Thomas Burke
Professor
Department of Health Policy
and Management
Johns Hopkins University
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Baltimore, MD
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2008)
Dr. G. Allen Burton
Professor and Director
Cooperative Institute for Limnology
and Ecosystems Research
School of Natural Resources
and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2006-2008)
Dr. Dallas Burtraw
Senior Fellow
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. James Bus
Director of External Technology
Toxicology and Environmental Research and
Consulting
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, MI
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Gilles Bussod
Principal Scientist
New England Research
White River Junction, VT
Albuquerque, NY
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. Trudy Cameron
Professor, Department of Economics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2006)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Peter Chapman
Principal and Senior Environmental Scientist
Environmental Sciences Group
Colder Associates Ltd.
North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Lauraine Chestnut
Managing Economist
Stratus Consulting, Inc
Boulder, CO
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. John Colford
Professor
Division of Public Health, Biology
and Epidemiology
School of Public Health
University of California
Berkeley, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2006-2008)
Dr. Loveday Conquest
Professor
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. George Corcoran
Professor and Chairman
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta
Professor
Department of Environmental Medicine
School of Medicine and Dentistry
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Ellis Cowling
University Distinguished Professor
At-Large Emeritus
Colleges of Natural Resources and Agriculture
and Life Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. James Crapo
Professor
Department of Medicine
National Jewish Medical and Research Center
Denver, CO
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Douglas Crawford-Brown
Professor Emeritus
Department of Environmental Sciences
and Engineering
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
-------
Dr. Noel Cressie
Distinguished Professor of Mathematical
and Physical Sciences
Department of Statistics
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. John Crittenden
Richard Snell Presidential Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Maureen Cropper
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Kenneth Cummins
Co-Director
Institute for River Ecosystems
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005)
Dr. Virginia Dale
Corporate Fellow
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2007)
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Faith Davis
Professor and Senior Associate Dean and
Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Epidemiology
and Biostatistics
School of Public Health
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Ricardo DeLeon
Microbiology Unit Manager
Water Quality Laboratory
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
La Verne, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. H. Barry Dellinger
Patrick F. Taylor Chair
Department of Chemistry
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. Kenneth Dickson
Regents Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
University of North Texas
Aubrey, TX
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Brian Dodd
Consultant
Las Vegas, NV
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Norman Drinkwater
Director
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Charles Driscoll
Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. David Dzombak
Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
College of Engineering
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Chartered Science Advisory Board (FY 2008)
Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy
Assistant Vice President for Research and
Director of Strategic Initiatives
Office of the Vice President for Research
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Jeff Everitt
Director
Comparative Medicine and Investigator
Support-U.S.
GlaxoSmith Kline
Research Triangle Park, NC
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Penelope Fenner-Crisp
Consultant
International Life Sciences Institute
North Garden, VA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
o>
id
n
0)
n
0)
45
-------
Dr. Richard Fenske
Professor
Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences
School of Public Health and
Community Medicine
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
lj Dr. Ivan Fernandez
Professor
<£ University of Maine
ID Orono, ME
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Baruch Fischhoff
2 Howard Heinz University Professor
Department of Social and Decision Sciences
Department of Engineering and
Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
46 Pittsburgh, PA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Jeffrey Fisher
Professor
Department of Environmental Health Science
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman
Research Professor
Department of Economics
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Shirley Fry
Consultant
Indianapolis, IN
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Montserrat Fuentes
Associate Professor
Department of Statistics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. James Galloway
Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Ted Gayer
Associate Professor
Department of Public Policy
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Shelby Gerking
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Cynthia Gilmour
Senior Scientist
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Edgewater, MD
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. Gary Ginsberg
Toxicologist
Division of Environmental
and Occupational Health
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Hartford, CT
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Benjamin Gitterman
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
and Public Health
Department of General Pediatrics
Children's National Medical Center
George Washington University
Washington, DC
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Lawrence Goulder
Department of Economics and Institute
for International Studies
Stanford University
Stanford, CT
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Stanley Grant
Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of California-Irvine
Irvine, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Domenico Grasso
Dean
College of Engineering and
Mathematical Sciences
The University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005 - Member and Vice-Chair of the
Chartered SAB)
Dr. Wayne Gray
Professor
Department of Economics
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
-------
Dr. Sidney Green
Associate Professor
Department of Pharmacology
College of Medicine
Howard University
Washington, DC
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Michael Greenstone
Professor
Department of Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge MA
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. William Griffith
Associate Director
Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences
Institute for Risk Analysis and Risk
Communication
School of Public Health
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths
Associate Professor
Public Health and Family Medicine
School of Medicine
Tufts University
Boston, MA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Helen Grogan
President
Cascade Scientific, Inc.
Bend, OR
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. James Hammitt
Professor of Economics and Decision Science
Center for Risk Analysis
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Michael Hanemann
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics
University of California
Berkeley, CA
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Cynthia Harris
Director and Professor
Institute of Public Health
Florida A&M University
Tallahassee, FL
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Dale Hattis
Research Professor
Center for Technology
Environment and Development
Clark University
Worcester MA
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007)
Dr. Charles Hawkins
Professor
Department of Aquatic, Watershed, and Earth
Resources
Utah State University
Logan, UT
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. Gloria Helfand
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Rogene Henderson
Senior Scientist Emeritus
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
Albuquerque, NM
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotta
Associate Professor
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive
Medicine
University of California
Davis, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Philip Hopke
Bayard D. Clarkson Distinguished Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Richard Hornung
Division of Biostatistical Research
Institute of Health Policy and
Health Science Research
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Joseph Hughes
Professor
School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
o>
id
n
0)
n
0)
47
-------
i
u
Dr. F. Reed Johnson
Senior Fellow and Principal Economist
RTI Health Solutions
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. James Johnson
Professor and Dean
College of Engineering
Architecture and Computer Sciences
Howard University
Washington, DC
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Bernd Kahn
Professor Emeritus and Director
Environmental Radiation Center
Nuclear and Radiological Engineering Program
School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee (FY 2008)
Chartered Science Advisory Board (FY 2008)
Dr. Agnes Kane
Professor and Chair
Department of Pathology
and Laboratory Medicine
Brown University
Providence, RI
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Meryl Karol
Professor Emerita
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Michael Kavanaugh
Vice President
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc
Emeryville, CA
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. James Kehrer
Dean
College of Pharmacy
Washington State University
Pullman, WA
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Donna Kenski
Data Analysis Director
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
Rosemont, IL
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Madhu Khanna
Professor
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Economics
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana,IL
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2008)
Dr. Katherine Kiel
Associate Professor
Department of Economics
College of the Holy Cross
Worcester, MA
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Byung Kim
Technical Leader
Ford Research and Advanced Engineering
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, MI
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. Gary King
Professor of Microbiology
Department of Biological Sciences
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
SAB Drinking Water Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. James Klaunig
Robert B. Forney Professor of Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
School of Medicine
Indiana University
Indianapolis, IN
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Catherine Kling
Professor
Department of Economics
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Catherine Koshland
Vice Provost of Academic Planning
and Facilities
Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences
School of Public Health
University of California-Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Nino Kuenzli
Associate Professor
Department of Preventive Medicine
Keck School of Medicine
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. George Lambert
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Director
Center for Childhood Neurotoxicology
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey
Piscataway, NJ
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
-------
Dr. Wayne Landis
Professor and Director
Institute of Environmental Toxicology
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Joseph Landolph
Associate Professor
Department of Molecular Microbiology and
Immunology Pathology
Keck School of Medicine
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Desmond Lawler
Bob R. Dorsey Professor of Engineering
Department of Civil, Architectural and
Environmental Engineering
University of Texas
Austin, TX
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Cindy Lee
Professor
Department of Environmental Engineering
and Sciences
Clemson University
Clemson, SC
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Arik Levin son
Associate Professor
Department of Economics
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Reid Lifset
Director
Industrial Environmental
Management Program
School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, CT
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Jonathan Links
Professor
Department of Environmental Health Sciences
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2006-2008)
Dr. Jill Lipoti
Director
Division of Environmental Safety and Health
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. John List
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. George Lucier
Consulting Toxicologist
Pittsboro, NC
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Ulrike Luderer
Assistant Professor
Department of Medicine
University of California
Irvine, CA
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Randy Maddalena
Indoor Environment Department
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA
SAB Integrated Human Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Lawrence Master
Chief Zoologist
NatureServe
Boston, MA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Professor
Department of Epidemiology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Virginia McConnell
Senior Fellow and Professor
of Economics
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Michael McFarland
Associate Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
o>
id
n
0)
n
0)
49
-------
i
u
50
Dr. Judith Meyer
Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus
Odum School of Ecology
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Jana Milford
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2006-2008)
Dr. James Mihelcic
Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Frederick Miller
Vice President for Research
Chemical Industry Institute of Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Mark Miller
Public Health Medical Officer
Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Oakland, CA
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. William Mitsch
Professor
Olentangy River Wetland Research Park
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
SAB Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee (FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Horace Moo-Young
Dean and Professor
College of Engineering
Computer Science and Technology
California State University
Los Angeles, CA
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. Maria Morandi
Assistant Professor
Division of Environmental and
Occupational Health
School of Public health
University of Texas
Houston, TX
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. M. Granger Morgan
Lord Chair Professor in Engineering
Department of Engineering and
Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Tom Mueller
Professor
Department of Plant Sciences
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Mr. Bruce Napier
Staff Scientist
Environmental Technology Division
Radiological Science and
Engineering Group
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Michael Newman
Professor
School of Marine Sciences
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William & Mary
Gloucester Point, VA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. James Opaluch
Professor
Department of Environmental and Natural
Resource Economics
College of the Environment and Life Sciences
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. James Oris
Professor
Department of Zoology
Miami University
Oxford, OH
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Bart Ostro
Chief
Air Pollution Epidemiology Unit
Office of Environmental
Hazard Assessment
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Oakland, CA
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Christine Owen
Water Quality Assurance Officer
Tampa Bay Water
Clearwater, FL
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
-------
Dr. David Ozonoff
Professor
Department of Environmental Health
School of Public Health
Boston University
Boston, MA
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Rebecca Parkin
Professor and Associate Dean
Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health
School of Public Health and Health Services
The George Washington University
Washington, DC
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. George Parsons
Professor
Department of Economics
College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Catherine Peters
Associate Professor
Environmental Engineering and Water
Resources Program
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. William Pizer
Fellow
Resources for the Future
Washington DC
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Mr. Richard Poirot
Environmental Analysis
Air Pollution Control Division
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Waterbury, VT
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Stephen Polasky
Fesler-Lampert
Professor of Ecological and Environmental
Economics
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2007)
Dr. David Popp
Associate Professor of Public Administration
Center for Policy Research
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Susan Powers
Associate Dean and Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Charles Rabeni
Leader
Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO
SAB Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. David Rejeski
Director
Foresight and Governance Project
Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars
Washington, DC
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Stephen Roberts
Professor
Department of Physiological Sciences
Director
Center for Environmental and
Human Toxicology
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Amanda Rodewald
Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology
School of Environment and
Natural Resources
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
SAB Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Mark Rood
Professor
Department of Environmental Engineering
University of Illinois
Urbana,IL
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Joan Rose
Professor and Homer Nowlin Chair
for Water Research
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
o>
id
n
0)
n
0)
51
-------
i
u
52
Dr. Armistead Russell
Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Richard Sakaji
Manager
Planning and Analysis for Water Quality
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2006-2008)
Dr. Jonathan Samet
Professor and Chair
Department of Epidemiology
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2008)
Dr. James Sanders
Director and Professor
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
University of Georgia
Savannah, GA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2008)
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Gary Sayler
Beaman Distinguished Professor of
Microbiology
University of Tennessee
and
Director
Joint Institute for Biological Sciences
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Knoxville, TN
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Robert Schnatter
Senior Scientific Advisor
Occupational and Public Health
ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Annandale, NJ
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008))
Dr. Jerald Schnoor
Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Co-Director, Center for Global and Regional
Environmental Research
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. David Sedlak
Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of California
Berkeley, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Kathleen Segerson
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2005-2006)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2006-2008)
Dr. Bryan Shaw
Commissioner
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Austin, TX
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. James Shortle
Professor
Department of Agricultural and
Environmental Economics
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2008)
Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette
O'Neil Professor of Philosophy
Department of Biological Sciences
and Engineering
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Philip Singer
Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences
and Engineering
School of Public Health
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. John Smith
Division Manager
Environmental Science and
Sustainable Technology
Alcoa Technical Center
Alcoa Inc.
Alcoa Center, PA
SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. V. Kerry Smith
W.P. Carey Professor
Department of Economics
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2008)
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2006)
-------
Dr. Gina Solomon
Senior Scientist
Health and Environment Program
Natural Resources Defense Council
San Francisco, CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Frank Speizer
Edward Kass Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Robert Stavins
Albert Pratt Professor of Business
and Government
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Laura Steinberg
Professor
Department of Environmental and
Civil Engineering
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Daniel Stram
Professor
Department of Preventive Medicine
Division of Biostatistics
University of California
Los Angeles, CA
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Deborah Swackhamer
Professor of Environmental Health Sciences
and
Co-Director Water Resources Center
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Anne Sweeney
Professor
Commonwealth Medical Education
The Commonwealth Medical College
Scranton, PA
SAB Environmental Health Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Laura Taylor
Director
Center for Environmental and
Resource Economics
and
Department of Agriculture and
Resource Economics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2007-2008)
Dr. Susan Teefy
Principal Engineer
Water Quality and Treatment
Solutions, Inc
Castro Valley CA
SAB Drinking Water Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Thomas Theis
Professor and Director
Institute for Environmental Science
and Policy
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Valerie Thomas
Anderson Interface Associate Professor
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Barton Thompson
Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural
Resources Law
Stanford Law School
University Stanford, CA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2006-2008)
Mr. Timothy Thompson
Senior Environmental Scientist
Science, Engineering, and
the Environment, LLC
Seattle, WA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Robert Twiss
Professor Emeritus
Department of Landscape Architecture and
Environmental Planning
University of California-Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Ivor van Heerden
Associate Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
SAB Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (FY 2006-2008)
Dr. Richard Vetter
Professor of Biophysics
Safety Department
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN
SAB Radiation Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. Chris Walcek
Senior Research Scientist
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center
State University of New York
Albany, NY
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis (FY 2005-2008)
o>
id
n
0)
n
0)
S3
-------
i
u
54
Dr. Jed Waldman
Chief
Indoor Air Quality Section
California Department of Health Services
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA
SAB Integrated Human Exposure committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Charles Weschler
Adjunct Professor
Department of Environmental and Community
Medicine
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey
Piscataway, NJ
SAB Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(FY 2005)
Dr. Peter Wilcoxen
Associate Professor
Department of Economics and
Public Administration
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2008)
Dr. Terry Young
Consultant
Environmental Defense
Oakland, CA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2007)
Dr. Lauren Zeise
Chief
Reproductive and Cancer Hazard
Assessment Branch
Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
Oakland, CA
Chartered Science Advisory Board
(FY 2005-2008)
Dr. David ZHberman
Professor
Department of Agriculture and
Resource Economics
College of Natural Resources
University of California
Berkeley, CA
SAB Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (FY 2008)
Dr. Barbara Zielinska
Research Professor
Desert Research Institute
Reno, NV
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(FY 2005-2006)
Dr. Thomas Zoeller
Professor and Chair
Department of Biology
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(FY 2007-2008)
-------
SAB Staff Office Roster
Vanessa Vu
Anthony Maciorowski
Health Scientist, Director
Biologist, Deputy Director
Thomas Armitage
Kyndall Barry
Wanda Bright
Fred Butterfield
Daniel Fort
Jack Kooyomjian
Tom Miller
Angela Nugent
Carolyn Osborne
Diana Pozun
Res ha Putzrath
Debra Renwick
Suhair Shallal
Holly Stallworth
Patricia Thomas
Priscilla Tillery-Gadson
Vivian Turner
Kathleen White
Mary Winston
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Scientist
Staff Assistant
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Protection Specialist
Management Analyst
Management Analyst
Biologist
Management Analyst
Environmental Scientist
Economist
Management Analyst
Information Management Specialist
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Engineer
Management Analyst
3
ff
1X1
Q
n
m
£
n
0)
55
Personal photos of committee and panel chairs courtesy of advisory members. Other photos by Eric Vance and other photographers,
U.S. EPA, courtesy of U.S. EPA.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Physical Location:
SAB Staff Office
Woodies Building
1025 F. Street, N.W.
Ste., 3600
Washington, DC 20004
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory
Board (1400F)
Washington, DC
EPA-SABSO-09-001
Mailing Address:
SAB Staff Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail code 1400F
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
For more information, please contact the SAB Staff office directly at
202-343-9999 or visit www.epa.gov/sab
Recycled/Recylable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Ink on 100%
Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
------- |