U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
Homeland Security (HS) Subcommittee
Teleconference Meeting Summary
March 19, 2019
Dates and Times: March 19, 2019, 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Teleconference
Executive Summary
On March 19, 2019, the EPA BOSC HS subcommittee coin ened \ ia teleconference to finalize
the HS subcommittee report. HS program (HSRP) staff members were available during the
teleconference to address questions regarding HS Strategic Research Action Plan (StRAP)
content and specific areas of input from the BOSC The meeting format consisted of open
dialogue, subcommittee questions, and EPA responses to their questions
Mr. Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer (1)1 O) lor the BOSC HS subcommittee, opened the
call and introduced HS subcommittee members. I-I\\ staff, and one public attendee: Johanna
Bell from the Association of Idaho Cities Dr. Gregory Sayles. National Program Director for
HSRP, welcomed the subcommittee and announced that l)r Shawn Ryan would return to the
role of Division Director, and Dr. Sang Don l.ee would become the Acting Deputy Program
Director of HSRP.
Subcommittee Discussion of Homeland Security Subcommittee Report
Dr. Paula Olsiewski. Chair of the I IS subcommittee, explained that the objective was to reach
consensus on the subcommittee report recommendations. The report should respond to the
charge questions and pro\ ide concise, actionable recommendations to HSRP. Dr. Olsiewski
emphasized that the subcommittee should discuss changes during the call and focus on science,
not policy
Charge Question la - Does the research outlinedfor the 2019-2022 timeframe support the
relevant. \gency priorities as described in the EPA and ORD strategic plans?
Dr. Murray Cohen raised adding subject matter experts to conduct research and science where
there are gaps. The workgroup found a significant problem with the fact that EPA does not share
the great things they do The recommendation addressed applied science that had not been done.
Dr. Olsiewski suggested shortening the strengths directed towards ORD. Dr. Cohen agreed.
The subcommittee was unsure if the StRAP extended into two new areas: oil spill security and
cybersecurity. Dr. Cohen noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has
biological response for oil spills, but cleanup is EPA's responsibility. He said that the StRAP
does not clearly broadcast responsibilities.
Ms. Dana Tulis noted that there are anthrax cleanup procedures. She pushed ORD to publish the
acceptable detection value for anthrax, but it was an extensive project. She noted that zero
detectible spores are the high mark and explained that EPA was on board with this, but then the
1

-------
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not support it. Dr. Sayles said that the zero
detectible spores document is still available. However, it depends on local health agency
decisions. Dr. Ryan answered that they could put billions of dollars of research into one strain
that could go to waste if another strain comes about.
Dr. Olsiewski asked if the subcommittee has a consensus around the Recommendation la to
expand communication with the stakeholder groups. The subcommittee agreed.
Ms. Kari Cutting provided background information to the group on the Recommendation la. The
workgroup agreed that the research is in line with the priorities, but HSRP should apply the goal
of cooperative federalism. Ms. Tulis suggested the use of w chin a is The subcommittee agreed to
shorten Recommendation la.
Charge Question lb - Each ORD research program undertook a rigorous engagement process
to provide additional detail on specific EPA program and region, state, and tribal needs, the
results of which are summarized in the StR IP objectives and explanations of research topics
and areas. How well does the proposed research program respond to these partner-identified
needs?
Dr. Robert Scudder suggested revisiting all their recommendations and suggestions to make sure
they are relevant to the charge question
Ms. Tulis suggested mentioning specific materials and expanding beyond anthrax and
decontaminating asbestos. She liked the mobile platforms component Dr. Sayles said mobile
apps would be a good recommendation because IISRP wants experts to have tools out in the
field.
The subcommittee reached consensus 011 the recommendations.
Charge Question 1c - Does the StR. I P. including the topics, research areas, and proposed
outputs, dearly describe the strategic vision of the program? Given the environmental
problems and research objectives articulated, please comment on the extent to which the
StRAP provides a coherent structure toward making progress on these objectives in the
2019-2022 time frame.
Dr. Olsiewski emphasized that it would be great for HSRP to pursue the suggestions if resources
allow.
Ms. Tulis questioned u hat "realistic provisional advisory levels (PALs)" meant in the first
suggestion, because PA I s used to be for chemical warfare agents. Dr. Sayles concurred with Ms.
Tulis' question and said that the PALs are developed and ready to use in an emergency.
Dr. Michael Wichman added that his input depended on whether the EPA derived PALs from
public or military exposure. Ms. Tulis explained that EPA developed PALs for the public and
does not handle military-level processes. Dr. Scudder suggested that HSRP should use the
advisory levels on EPA's consolidated list of chemicals. The subcommittee reached consensus to
remove the first suggestion from the report.
2

-------
Dr. Debra Reinhart questioned the meaning of "further prioritized outputs given." Dr. Wichman
replied that their workgroup based the statement on HSRP's aggressive timeline, and Dr.
Reinhart and Dr. Justin Teeguarden suggested the statement be clarified.
Mr. Edwin Roehl explained that Recommendation lc. 1 should not be limited to chemical
contamination and suggested broadening it to any type of contamination. He said he would send
drafted text to Dr. Olsiewski.
Dr. Olsiewski asked HSRP whether Recommendation lc.2 was actionable and scientific.
Dr. Sayles replied that the recommendation is good, but that HSRP wanted to further establish
decontamination means to ensure water used in a contamination e\ ent does not get pumped to
local drinking water. He asked whether the subcommittee meant "premise plumbing systems"
and asked for their intent in distinguishing between a water clisirihntion system and a local water
system. Dr. Wichman clarified that they meant a distribution system within a community.
Dr. Sayles agreed and liked the idea of being able to purge a contaminated area so that the whole
distribution system is not contaminated.
Ms. Tulis asked Dr. Sayles if HSRP makes "chemical unknowns" a priority within the program.
Dr. Sayles said HSRP does not, but they should develop more generalized chemical screening
methods that are not chemical-specific to enable quick identification of unknown chemicals.
Dr. Olsiewski suggested the subcommittee change the recommendation to a suggestion.
Dr. Teeguarden said it can be a recommendation, but the subcommittee should clarify whether
HSRP should focus on the chemical unknow 11 screening or analysis. Ms. Tulis reinforced that
idea and said that is w hy l-IW re\ iews integrated risk assessments, to make sure they are picking
the most relevant chemicals (eg, anthrax). I)r Sayles noted that IISRP typically uses specific
analytical methods lor the highest priority chemicals or adapt their already existing methods.
HSRP does have chemical-specillc detectors
Dr. Da\ id Klein commented that he has been deeply involved in chemical unknowns with the
CDC and \:.I\\ I le emphasized that 110 one has authority over unknown threat powders from
environmental sources, such as anthrax I le noted that if an anthrax-laced letter was detected,
CDC would lead the biological side and I -PA would not. He suggested EPA use time of flight to
research unknow 11 unknowns l)r Klein further noted that having a list of knowns to pick an
unknown from could be done relatively easily.
Dr. Teeguarden said that the effort is cutting-edge science, and he does not believe HSRP has the
resources to address it. I le noted that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded efforts into
the field of unknown unknowns. It involves advanced computational methods and creating
libraries. He also noted that another complication is that one cannot buy standards for many of
the compounds. Dr. Teeguarden suggested moving the recommendation to the suggestions or
clarifying to HSRP so they can expand the list of compounds for which they can analyze in water
samples. He added that HSRP could collaborate with other offices in EPA and NIH to build
capabilities.
Dr. Wichman said chemical unknowns are real problems in laboratories. He explained that
researchers could use a screening method to characterize a general class of compounds quickly
for easy identification, and then use a more targeted method to identify the exact compound.
3

-------
Dr. Teeguarden disagreed and said that, in his experience, current screening methods are not
"quick and fast" and identifying anything from these methods besides the molecular formula is
impossible. He noted that there is not a definition of known chemical space to track that
molecular formula into all possible compounds, so it is difficult to determine next steps.
Dr. Teeguarden said the subcommittee should suggest or recommend HSRP partner with Dr. Jon
Sobus, EPA, and Dr. David Balshaw, NIH, to stay abreast of the development. Dr. Olsiewski
agreed.
Dr. Lucinda Johnson, Vice Chair of the BOSC Executive Committee, also agreed and raised a
great opportunity to direct future EPA investments to address unknown unknowns in the future,
saving money and addressing challenges HSRP cannot foresee. Dr. Olsiewski agreed but
cautioned saying "if we have more money or people " Dr Johnson encouraged making all
recommendations actionable within the report boundaries, hul thai HSRP should keep track of
what future investments should be.
Dr. Teeguarden asked why the subcommittee selected the two recommendations versus other
suggestions. He suggested the subcommittee \\ rile a paragraph for how lhey reached the
recommendations. Dr. Olsiewski liked the idea of ha\ing a narrative with the recommendations.
Dr. Teeguarden asked which of the strengths or suggestions are responsive to the specific charge
question. He is not sure where the charge question says. "If you [HSRP] wants more coherent
structure towards progress, here is u hat you do with the plan." or, "If you [HSRP] want to
clearly represent the plan, you should rewrite it this way " Dr Ryan agreed that HSRP could
have more focus.
Dr. Olsiewski emphasized the subcommittee wants to recognize all the great science and
planning happening in IISRP and pro\ ide suggestions to assist. She said that the report should
only include several actionable recommendations l)r Teeguarden offered the sentence: "We
find the StRAP pro\ ides a coherent structure towards making progress, and the elements that
describe that structure are the following ""
Dr. Cohen noted Recommendation la might better fit under Charge Question lc. The
recommendation suggests N\\ assemble reference oil samples from worldwide oil samples.
Charge Question Id - Recognizing ORD's focus on addressing identified partner research
needs, in the presence of reduced scientific staff and resources, are there any other critical
emerging environmental needs or fields of expertise and/or new research methods where this
program should consider investing resources?
Dr. Teeguarden suggested prioritizing the suggestions to make them easier to read and less
overwhelming. He agreed with the one sentence recommendation, but after many great
suggestions, he did not understand why there was just one recommendation that seemed small in
comparison. Dr. Monica Schoch-Spana agreed and commented that perhaps they need rationale
behind the suggestions. She noted that the subcommittee did not prioritize the suggestions during
the face-to-face meeting, so she and Dr. Shawn Gibbs tried to organize the suggestions into three
major bins.
4

-------
Ms. Tulis had similar impressions but struggled to relate the ideas to the charge question. She
suggested the workgroup revisit the suggestions and promote some of them to recommendations.
She also suggested adding a second recommendation concerning leveraging agencies for
resources. Mr. Brooks added that he thought the suggestions linked to the one recommendation
made. He said that Dr. Schoch-Spana and Dr. Gibbs could use the suggestions to expand on the
recommendation.
Ms. Cutting noted that the suggestions were divided into three general "buckets" with detailed
language in the form of bulleted lists below them. She said they would simplify the suggestions
by including the details in paragraph form and leaving the three main "buckets." Dr. Schoch-
Spana said that she and Dr. Gibbs tried to provide HSRP with many options, knowing they will
have to make contextual decisions.
Dr. Cohen and Ms. Tulis suggested adding private industry for le\ eiaging and partnerships. The
subcommittee agreed to keep one recommendation with a summitry
Dr. Reinhart added that EPA's Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool helps EPA manage
solid waste management and suggested the subcommittee refer to the tool in the report.
Charge Question le- What are some specific ideas for innovation (including
prizes/challenges) and market-based approaches that the program could use to advance
solutions to existing and emerging environmental problems?
Mr. Roehl commented that HSRP might be doing too much given limited resources. He
suggested HSRP employ interns to reduce labor cost. He mentioned that a cooperative research
and development agreement (CRADA) is another avenue where HSRP can collaborate with
companies to invest their resources into the program. EPA already offers prizes for innovations,
and Mr. Roehl commented that HSRP could benefit from that direction. Mr. Roehl continued
that HSRP could research le\ criming expertise from outside sources. Ms. Tulis noted that there is
an o\ ei lap among federal agencies in leveraging. She mentioned that the U.S. Coast Guard
(US( (i). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and EPA work on joint projects.
She noted that I SCG is doing their best to connect various agencies to make an investment in oil
spill response.
Ms. Tulis explained the need to lu ing in relevant experts to form an innovation council. She
noted that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has innovation program ideas to
allow people to compete and pro\ ide clever ideas. She entertained the possibility of making a
cross-agency council to pose specific questions and then filter them, allowing the agencies to
figure out whom to focus on to obtain answers.
Mr. Roehl was impressed by the wet vac sampling. He noted that there are intelligent engineers
that will work for free, or through a CRADA, and suggested HSRP investigate getting employees
to spend extra time to strive towards an award or prize.
Dr. Olsiewski noted that Recommendations le.2 and le.3 were very specific. She asked why it is
important to have two specific recommendations, with one around hardware and one around
software. Mr. Roehl answered that developing hardware versus software is different, and he
separates the two. Mr. Brooks suggested the subcommittee be specific about candidates
5

-------
competing for those areas and consider including that text in the recommendation. Dr. Olsiewski
suggested including rationale below the recommendations, provide examples, and then combine
them into one recommendation.
Charge Question 2 - Homeland Security Research is designed to address known threats and
vulnerabilities. At the same time, the Nation regularly faces unforeseen challenges in public
health and the environment (e.g., Ebola and Zika viruses, opioid misuse). Please comment on
the extent to which the Program's design enables use of its scientific contributions in also
addressing unforeseen needs of the EPA programs and regions, states, and tribes. How can
HSRP improve is applicability to unanticipated urgent threats?
Ms. Cutting thought that expanding Charge Question 2 into other agencies is a good idea. She
noted that she and Dr. Cohen discussed, in Charge Question I a. that other stakeholders could be
state emergency response groups. She asked if the subcommittee should add them in Charge
Question 2. The subcommittee agreed.
Ms. Cutting asked if fusion centers are state organizations. Mr. Brooks replied that there are
fusion centers at the federal, regional, and stale le\ els. Those at the federal level look specifically
at weapons of mass destruction threats. Dr. Olsiewski wondered if the suggestion should include
making sure HSRP staff has the appropriate security clearance Dr. Teeguarden agreed that it
should be included.
Dr. Teeguarden explained that the subcommittee should become more analytical in identifying
HSRP gaps. Ms. Tulis worried that the discussion is expanding to emerging agents, and the
subcommittee should be aware of budget constraints I )r Teeguarden seconded that point. He
noted that he wants IISRP to not expand into new space but grow in existing space.
Dr. Teeguarden asked if it was a problem that Recommendation 2.2 enters classified space.
Dr. Olsiewski stated EPA is sensitive to classified information. Dr. Teeguarden said that he
could modify the recommendation to ask for unclassified reports in describing the threats.
Dr. Olsiewski wondered iI" Recommendation 2.2 is too similar to their first suggestion.
Dr. Teeguarden preferred the text as a recommendation because it is best if HSRP collaborates
with groups that address unforeseen agents if they want to have a program to address unforeseen
needs. Mr Brooks agreed. Dr SayIes agreed that Recommendation 2.2 is fine. HSRP works with
other agencies on detection technologies and does it in an unclassified environment, but
sometimes the ^ork goes into classified space. He asked if that part was there to clarify the
sentence above it. Dr Teeguarden said that it could be dropped. Mr. Brooks agreed that it can be
dropped to allow HSRP to locus on the information and identify potential gaps. The
subcommittee agreed to remove the sentence and focus on detection technologies.
Conclusions
The combined responses from each workgroup's follow-up recommendations from the
teleconference will be compiled into the draft BOSC HS StRAP review. The BOSC EC will
convene in June 2019 to review and consider the subcommittees' recommendations and finalize
the overall BOSC report, which will include reviews of each of ORD's research programs.
6

-------
Meeting Charge Questions
The draft charge can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/bosc/homeland-securitv-subcommittee-
december-12-14-2018-rtp-nc.
Meeting Participants
BOSC Homeland Security Subcommittee Members:
Paula Olsiewski, Chair
Lance Brooks, Vice Chair
Charles Barton
Murray Cohen
Kari Cutting
Andrew DeGraca
Shawn Gibbs
Edward Hackney
David Klein
Debra R. Reinhart
Edwin A. Roehl, Jr.
Monica L. Schoch-Spana
Robert Scudder
Justin Teeguarden
Dana Tulis
Michael Wichman
EPA Designated Federal Officer (l)IO): Tom Tracy, Office of Research and Development
Other KPA Attendees:
Sang Don I cc. Acung! K-pmy I'rogram Director. Homeland Security Research Program
Shawn Ryan. Pmsion Pircclor. I tome land Security Research Program
Gregory Sayk-s. Sational I'rogram Pircclor, Homeland Security Research Program
Public Attendees:
Johanna IJell.. \ssocnuion oj Idaho Cities
Other Participants:
Lucinda Johnson, Vice Chair, BOSC Executive Committee
Contractor Support (ICF):
Blake Riley
7

-------