A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development

Summary of the 

44th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FACE-TO-FACE MEETING 

Western Ecology Division 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Corvallis, OR 

July 12-13, 2010 

MONDAY, JULY 12, 2010 

Welcome and Introductions 

Dr. Gary Sayler, University of Tennessee, BOSC Executive Committee Chair 

Dr. Gary Sayler, Chair of the Executive Committee of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), called

the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m., and welcomed the BOSC members to the 44th face-to-face meeting of 

the Executive Committee. He mentioned that the BOSC Executive Committee meets once each year at an 

EPA facility outside the Washington, DC, area, and this year Corvallis was selected. Dr. Sayler thanked 

Dr. Tom Fontaine, Director of the Western Ecology Division (WED) of the National Health and 

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), for hosting the meeting. 

Dr. Fontaine welcomed the BOSC members to Corvallis and encouraged participants to take a copy of the 

booklet on WED, which was available on the handouts table. The booklet contains descriptions of the 

research being conducted by WED. He stated that the meeting agenda includes two field tours during 

which some of the laboratory’s research will be presented to the BOSC. He mentioned that 

representatives from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) were visiting WED and he would be 

dividing his time between the BOSC and GAO groups. 

Dr. Sayler announced the presence of four new BOSC members—Drs. John Tharakan, Susan Cozzens, 

and Ken Olden, and Ms. Marie Zhuikov—and welcomed them to the Executive Committee. He pointed 

out that two of the BOSC members—Drs. Dennis Paustenbach and Katherine von Stackelberg were 

unable to attend the meeting, but Dr. von Stackelberg would be participating by telephone. Although he 

was not present, Dr. Sayler mentioned that Dr. Henry Falk was expected to arrive late (Dr. Falk, however, 

was unable to attend). 

Review of April Teleconference Minutes

Dr. Sayler asked if there were any comments on the draft minutes for the April 1, 2010, conference call. 

When no comments were offered, Dr. Sayler called for a motion to approve the minutes. Dr. Barry Ryan 

moved to approve the minutes without any changes and Dr. Ken Demerjian seconded the motion. The 

minutes for the April teleconference were approved unanimously by the BOSC. 

Overview of Agenda

Dr. Sayler gave a brief overview of the meeting agenda. The morning of Day 1 included the remarks from

the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the BOSC, the remarks of the Assistant Administrator for 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

2 

Research and Development (AA/ORD), an overview of ORD’s chemical research realignment (Safer 

Products for a Sustainable World [SPSW]), presentation of the mid-cycle progress report for the Safe 

Pesticides/Safe Products (SP2) Research Program, and the mid-cycle progress report for the Human 

Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Research Program. The afternoon of Day 1 began with a session on 

ecosystem informatics, which included presentations on computer science approaches to species modeling

and mathematics of ecological dispersion. This session was followed by a 2-hour tour at the Corvallis

facility. Day 2 began with a presentation of the ORD response to the BOSC Human Health Research 

Program Review Report. The morning also included an update from ORD and a report on the status of 

the BOSC and Science Advisory Board (SAB) liaison, as well as time for public comment. Also on the 

agenda was a review of the methods and procedures used to identify and prioritize research needs at the 

ORD Nanomaterial Case Study Workshop. The morning concluded with a discussion of future business. 

Following adjournment of the meeting, the BOSC Executive Committee met informally with GAO 

representatives and the afternoon concluded with a field study tour. Dr. Sayler asked if there were any 

questions or additions to the meeting agenda and there were none. 

BOSC DFO Remarks 

Mr. Greg Susanke, BOSC Designated Federal Officer, ORD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Mr. Susanke, the DFO for the BOSC Executive Committee, welcomed the BOSC members to the 

meeting and thanked them for their participation. He explained that the BOSC is a federal advisory 

committee that is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

Mr. Susanke reviewed the procedures that are required for all BOSC meetings. He stated that the BOSC 

provides independent, scientific peer review and advice to EPA’s ORD, and it is his responsibility as the 

DFO to ensure compliance with all FACA rules. 

In compliance with FACA requirements, all BOSC meetings are open to the public and time has been 

designated on the agenda for public comment. Mr. Susanke noted that although he received several 

requests for the agenda and materials, no requests for comment were received prior to the meeting. Time 

has been set aside on Tuesday’s agenda at 10:15 a.m. (PDT) for public comment. He asked that 

comments be limited to 3 minutes each. An ORD contractor, Beverly Campbell from The Scientific 

Consulting Group (SCG), was present to take notes that capture the presentations and discussions. 

Following the meeting, she will prepare the meeting minutes, which will be made available to the public 

on the BOSC Web Site after approval by the Executive Committee and certification by the BOSC Chair. 

As required by FACA, a notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register. Mr. Susanke 

established an electronic public docket for the meeting on the Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS), which can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov. The number to search for this docket is 

EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0532. The agenda was made available to the public in the docket. Meeting 

materials are available upon request or they can be found on the BOSC internet site, 

http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc. As the DFO, Mr. Susanke ensures that the Executive Committee members 

receive annual ethics training and complete confidential financial disclosure forms. He asked members to 

notify him immediately if any potential conflict of interest arose during the meeting deliberations, and he 

asked if any member had a potential conflict to declare. Regarding the session on the identification and 

prioritization of nanomaterials, Dr. Sayler said he would discuss his work with nanomaterials with the

DFO to determine if a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality exists. 

Mr. Susanke reminded the BOSC members and other participants to sign in at the registration desk if they 

had not done so already, and mentioned that Denise Hoffman from SCG was at the desk to help with any 

logistical needs. 

Dr. Fred Hauchman said that he would be present for the entire meeting. He mentioned that Dr. Kevin 

Teichman, who usually attends the BOSC Executive Committee meetings, would be presenting the ORD 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

3 

Update via videoconference. He added that Dr. Paul Anastas, the AA/ORD, also would be providing his 

remarks via videoconference. Dr. Hauchman stated that Dr. Anastas is keen on advancing the work of the 

BOSC, and really appreciates the work of the Board on behalf of ORD. 

Dr. Sayler explained to the new Executive Committee members that the BOSC’s role is to provide advice 

to ORD (not EPA). The BOSC is not the SAB; there are distinct differences and the members should 

keep these in mind. He asked if any of the new members would like to offer any comments. 

Dr. Ken Olden said that it is important to him to know that ORD is listening and responding to the advice 

offered by the BOSC. He has been impressed with how responsive ORD has been to the BOSC in the 

past and he hoped that would continue in the future. Dr. Sayler agreed that ORD has been very 

responsive to the BOSC’s comments, criticisms, and advice. The Board clearly has the opportunity to 

impact the long-term goals (LTGs) and directions of ORD’s research. He noted that the work of the 

Decision Analysis Workgroup is a good example of how the BOSC is impacting ORD’s programs. 

Dr. Sayler stated that he hopes the BOSC can take on some additional tasks now that the Board is no 

longer conducting mid-cycle program reviews. This change has reduced the number of cyclical reviews 

and should free up some time to address other topics. Dr. Sayler mentioned that the meeting notebook 

contained a copy of Dr. Anastas’ “ORD: The Path Forward” memorandum. 

Dr. Sayler asked those joining the meeting via videoconference and telephone to identify themselves. 

When Dr. Anastas joined the meeting via videoconference, Dr. Sayler asked the BOSC members to 

introduce themselves. The Board members and other participants are included in the list of participants 

attached to this meeting summary. 

AA/ORD Remarks 

Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, ORD, EPA 

Dr. Anastas greeted the BOSC members and offered a specific welcome to the new members of the 

Executive Committee. He apologized for not being able to attend the meeting in person, and explained 

that he had been spending a great deal of time in the Gulf and would be going down there later in the 

week. Dr. Anastas said he wanted to focus on some of the big issues being addressed by ORD since the 

last BOSC meeting. The major one is the response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. ORD has a 

diverse range of programs and capabilities, and the Agency’s response to the oil spill has tapped into

every part of ORD. Dr. Anastas said he was very proud of ORD’s efforts; the staff has been putting in

long hours and a great deal of effort on this response. He noted that the BOSC would be hearing more on 

ORD’s involvement in the oil spill response from Mr. Lek Kadeli on Tuesday. Dr. Anastas also 

mentioned some recent stories in the press that questioned the scientific integrity of the Administration 

and EPA. He took exception to these stories and stressed the importance of confronting such stories 

quickly to dispel any misconceptions. 

Referring to his “Path Forward” memo that was issued a few months ago, Dr. Anastas stated that one of 

his priority areas for ORD is to work closer with its program and regional partners; ORD is taking steps to 

engage these partners in time for the 2012 ORD research program planning. Another goal is to ensure 

that ORD’s work is not fragmented and is conducted using a systems approach. ORD will be engaging in 

Integrated Transdisciplinary Research (ITR), which is defined as the process to develop sustainable 

solutions to environmental problems by engaging partners who transcend traditional scientific disciplines 

throughout each stage of the research process. Dr. Anastas also will be encouraging the development of 

sustainable technological innovations. He said he was meeting later that day with the EPA Administrator 

to discuss how to keep the Agency at the cutting edge of innovation and how to better communicate the 

impact of EPA’s work. The Agency will need to make adjustments on how it aligns the budgetary 

structure to facilitate the flexibility needed to achieve these goals. ORD will be initiating a “seed grants” 

program that encourages high-risk proposals for catalyzing innovation and sustainable solutions. These 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

4 

grants will allow investigators to prove the concept on a small scale, and those that are successful can 

apply for additional funding to continue their efforts. 

ORD will build the goals of sustainability into its grant solicitations, so that ORD is funding research that 

leads to sustainable solutions. ORD also is launching an impact initiative to improve the communication 

of how its research is impacting public health and the environment. Few of ORD’s successes are widely

known and that is impairing ORD’s ability to have a greater impact. ORD is working to collect and 

translate the results of its research, so that they can be communicated to stakeholders, the general public, 

and decision makers on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. He noted that ORD has not invested enough effort in 

this area in the past. 

Dr. Anastas said that he had asked the Laboratory and Center Directors to dedicate time to the 

implementation and institutionalization of the “Path Forward” goals. A group known as the Delta Team 

has been formed to develop action plans to implement and institutionalize these goals. Dr. Anastas meets 

with this group frequently, and he expects the action plans to be completed by the end of July 2010. 

 

Dr. Anastas asked if there were any questions from the BOSC members. 

Dr. Olden said he was very impressed with Dr. Anastas’ presentation, particularly the move to Integrated 

Transdisciplinary Research. He asked if ORD was considering a reorganization that would focus on 

problems rather than disciplines. Dr. Anastas replied that this exercise is not about a reorganization, 

rather it is a reorientation of ORD thinking. ITR will reorient the way ORD defines and implements 

approaches. Dr. Olden supported the increased emphasis on communicating the impact of ORD’s 

research. He noted that the Agency’s science is outstanding but often is poorly communicated. 

Dr. Martin Philbert complimented Dr. Anastas’ presentation and asked about ORD’s role in integrating 

with other “sister” agencies working on the BP oil spill. Dr. Anastas responded that there are 18 different 

agencies involved in the response, and the Coast Guard has the lead. EPA is very involved and has been 

at the table for all the discussions. EPA will be meeting with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) on July 19, 2010, to exchange data. Dr. Anastas pointed out that, as this moves

from an emergency response to a recovery and restoration operation, access to scientific and technical

input in real time will be required. EPA is working with other agencies to develop longer-term plans to 

provide this support. The Agency is fully aware that the crisis does not end when the oil stops flowing, 

and ORD is preparing to meet the future challenges.

Dr. Philbert asked if there is a coordinated attempt to collect meaningful data while the oil is flowing. 

Once the flow of oil is stopped, these data will be used to assess the human health and ecological impacts 

over time. Dr. Anastas replied that all the data collected are being consolidated on a unified interagency 

Website. The agencies have coordinated on the type and breadth of data that need to be collected, and

they are sharing and centralizing these data. EPA is working with one of the health agencies on an 

initiative to make the critical linkage between environmental and health impacts. The Agency also is in 

discussions with natural resource agencies and NOAA regarding the follow-on efforts. He reminded the 

BOSC members that they will be hearing more on EPA’s involvement in the oil spill response from 

Mr. Kadeli on Tuesday morning. 

Dr. Sayler asked about the role the BOSC could play with respect to ITR. Can the BOSC offer ORD 

advice on how to implement it? Dr. Anastas responded that one particular area on which he is eager to

obtain input from the BOSC is how to translate sustainability into the operational framework and then 

into research that affects the fundamental mission of the Agency. 

Dr. Sayler asked if there were any more questions for Dr. Anastas, and when there were none, he thanked 

Dr. Anastas for his presentation and for taking the time to respond to the BOSC’s questions. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

5 

Overview of ORD Chemical Research Realignment: Safer Products for a Sustainable 

World 

Dr. Elaine Francis, National Program Director, Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research Program, ORD, 

EPA 

Dr. Elaine Francis mentioned that many of the colleagues with whom she worked to develop the 

framework for this realigned program were from Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and Ada, 

Oklahoma, and they were participating by videoconference or telephone. She explained that today’s 

presentation was merely an overview; more information on the program will be presented at the next 

BOSC Executive Committee meeting and ORD hopes to engage the BOSC in a dialogue about the 

program at that time. 

A number of the research plans that are being incorporated into this new program are some of those that 

will be reporting to the BOSC at this meeting (e.g., SP2, Human Health). That is the primary reason that 

this briefing was included on today’s agenda. She noted that ITR, which was described by Dr. Anastas,

captures the essence of what ORD is trying to do with this new program. The research will be directed to 

finding sustainable solutions to environmental problems. This realignment is transforming what ORD 

does and how ORD does it in order to: 

 Ensure that ORD’s research addresses the most important environmental problems facing the 

Agency and the nation; 

 Fully capitalize on ORD’s ability to conduct ITR to solve these problems; 

 Be solution-oriented so that ORD’s work informs, enables, and empowers sustainable solutions to 

these problems; 

 Work closely with ORD’s partners to identify needs and conduct relevant research in a timely and 

responsive manner that meets actual, not perceived, partner needs, along with support for 

interpretation of complex data and conclusions; and

 Help ensure scientific integrity is the backbone of the Agency. 

Dr. Francis used five words to describe ITR. It is integrated because it involves implementing systems 

thinking and integrative approaches to solve complex challenging problems. It is transdisciplinary

because it involves the widest span of disciplines to bring different perspectives to the table. It is 

innovative because major challenges are not incremental problems and they require innovation. It is 

catalytic because of the need to act catalytically and spark further action among others. Finally, it is 

visible because communication is essential in the design, definition, conduct, transfer, and 

implementation of the work ORD does if it is to have an impact. 

The attributes of an ITR process are that it is participatory (end-to-end), follows a critical path, and 

delivers the desired product. The results must be: relevant to decisions, compatible with existing policymaking processes, accessible to appropriate policy makers, timely, and in a usable format. In addition, 

policy makers must be receptive to the research results. 

The vision for the new Safer Products for a Sustainable World (SPSW) Program is that EPA science will 

lead the sustainable development, use, and assessment of chemicals by providing a system of integrated

decision support tools for more effective and efficient chemical management. Dr. Francis explained that 

for the SPSW Program, “chemicals” refers to intentionally produced/manufactured chemicals, particles, 

and materials and the products into which they are incorporated. This program is needed because EPA 

cannot efficiently or effectively assure the safety of chemicals with currently available approaches. This 

new program will develop innovative, systematic, and efficient approaches and tools needed to inform 

more sustainable solutions to the design and management of chemicals throughout their life cycles in a

manner that reduces negative environmental and societal impacts while increasing economic value. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

6 

The SPSW Program will lead to smarter, more effective and efficient testing, assessment, and 

management of chemicals. It will focus on understanding the life cycle of chemicals and chemical 

mixtures, targeting those chemicals (or their byproducts) that are intentionally manufactured for 

commercial use. It will support research into alternative product formulations using green chemistry and 

green engineering principles, leading to the design of safer chemicals and products. It also will provide 

much higher throughput tools for the prioritization and biological screening of chemicals based on 

exposure and toxicity pathways. In addition, the program will: develop and apply innovative models for 

predicting exposures and dose and assessing risks for single and multiple chemicals, link predictive 

pathways with in-life effects using smarter testing and applying new principles for next-generation risk 

assessments, and improve technologies for managing risks and catalyzing solutions. The SPSW will 

include applications to human health and individual ecological species. 

ORD is working to collaboratively develop and implement this innovative research program. ORD is 

integrating elements across ORD’s current research portfolio into an ITR program, including resources 

from part or all of the following programs: Nanotechnology (all of this program), Computational 

Toxicology (all of this program), SP2 (part of this program), Endocrine Disruptors (all of this program), 

Human Health (part of this program), and Human Health Risk Assessment (part of this program). It will

include both intramural and extramural research. Because the SPSW will focus on the Agency’s highestpriority chemical needs, close collaboration across ORD and with the program and regional offices is 

required to develop and implement an innovative program that will serve to modernize the way chemicals

are designed, evaluated, and managed. For this program, ORD will need to develop and enhance 

partnerships with industry, academia, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and agencies in the United

States and other countries. 

ORD hosted an initial problem formulation workshop with the program and regional office partners. The

workshop was held on May 13, 2010, in Washington, DC. It provided the opportunity to work 

collaboratively during the problem formulation and to build a shared vision. Together, ORD and its 

partners identified key problem areas and began to develop a plan for working together to develop an ITR 

program. The program and regional offices were asked to nominate participants and 11 offices and 

Region 6 sent one or more representatives to the workshop. The program office and regional partners 

identified problem areas that need to be addressed.

A workshop with ORD senior scientists and managers was held on May 27, 2010. At this workshop, key 

scientific questions necessary to successfully solve the problem areas identified by ORD’s partners in the 

program and regional offices were developed. The science questions continued SPSW problem 

formulation, and will lead to an ITR portfolio that develops intelligent testing strategies and evaluation 

approaches of inherent properties, and improves the relevance of assessment methods. Twelve ORD 

laboratories and centers participated in this workshop with senior scientists and managers. 

A second workshop with the program and regional office partners was held on July 8, 2010, in 

Washington, DC. At this workshop, the problem formulation and scientific questions were verified. The 

strategy for engagement of stakeholders external to EPA was discussed, and ORD solicited review of the

draft framework and input on opportunities for stakeholder engagement. The program offices that 

attended this workshop were the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of 

Water (OW), Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP), Office of the Science Advisor (OSA), and 

Office of Environmental Information (OEI). 

Dr. Francis provided a diagram of the SPSW framework. She explained that Research Area 1 (RA1) is 

Developing Integrated Evaluation Strategies, and the parameters to consider are inherency, exposure, 

hazard, and management. The work on RA1 feeds into RA2, which is Improving the Relevance of 

Assessment and Management Methods for Chemical Safety. This area looks at how one takes the 

information and applies it for a regulatory decision, site assessment, or other purpose. The work under 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

7 

RA1 and RA2 feeds into the targeted research needs of the program and regional offices that will be 

addressed under RA3, which is Targeted Application of Integrated Evaluation, Assessment, and 

Management Methods. Dr. Francis noted that all work feeds back into improving the assessment and 

management methods. 

The four levels for RA1 are: 

 Level 1: Inherent Properties of Chemicals 

 Level 2: Prioritization and Screening 

 Level 3: Targeted Testing 

 Level 4: Systems Models of Adverse Outcomes 

The two levels for RA2 are: 

 Level 1: Next Generation Risk Assessments 

 Level 2: Risk Management Approaches 

Dr. Francis then presented a schematic that illustrates the different levels in the research areas. 

Information on the chemical is gathered and decisions are made about its inherency, exposure, hazard, 

and management. Parameters for all levels are used in the integrated evaluation strategies. She pointed 

out that as the resource needs and level of effort increase, the residual uncertainty decreases. 

Dr. Francis concluded her presentation by describing the next major steps for the SPSW. There will be a 

more detailed briefing for the BOSC at the October Executive Committee meeting. ORD will continue to 

work with program and regional partners to identify other opportunities and will develop a research 

portfolio. The SPSW Program is expected to be operational by October 2011. 

Dr. Francis asked if there were any questions. 

Referring to the schematic presented by Dr. Francis, Dr. Chuck Haas mentioned that the BOSC has been 

looking at various decision analysis techniques, including value of information (VOI). He suggested that 

ORD may want to consider moving modeling up earlier in the stream to help assess the needs 

downstream. He also mentioned the work on portfolio evaluation that had been undertaken by the BOSC. 

Dr. Francis responded that she was aware of these efforts and ORD is discussing how to incorporate 

them. 

Dr. Philbert asked about the intended customers for the program’s outputs. Dr. Francis replied that the 

program will develop tools for use by all the EPA program offices. These tools also can be used by 

others; for example, they can be used by other federal agencies to prioritize chemicals for testing and by 

industry for making decisions about safer chemicals. There is a broad audience of users. Dr. Philbert 

asked about the technical proficiency of these various audiences. The presentation did not mention 

communication and efforts to train the various users on how to use the tools. Dr. Francis responded that 

the users will have different levels of technical proficiency and the program will need to include efforts to 

ensure that those who need the tools know how to use them to address their needs. 

 

Dr. Ryan complimented Dr. Francis on her presentation. He expressed some concern that the process 

might become unwieldy with so many different offices involved. He asked if this new program would 

subsume the SP2 Program and others or if these current programs would maintain their integrity and 

somehow report to the SPSW Program. Dr. Francis replied that the primary client of the new program is

OCSPP and this office is working closely with ORD, along with Region 6 (the lead region for this area), 

to develop the program. The SPSW Program represents a new way of doing business and it is expected 

that the EPA program offices involved with the program will communicate it to other partners and 

catalyze their involvement. With respect to the SP2 Program, the entire program will become part of the 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

8 

SPSW Program and the SP2 Program will no longer exist. This also is true for the Nanotechnology, 

Computational Toxicology, and Endocrine Disruptors Programs. 

Dr. Olden noted that there was no mention of susceptibility studies as a function of exposure or risk in the 

presentation. He asked Dr. Francis to comment on this. Dr. Francis explained that the presentation was a 

brief overview. Life styles, genetics, age, and other issues are addressed in the scientific questions but 

she did not go into that level of detail. Dr. Olden asked how the program planned to engage social and 

behavioral scientists; he noted that they are important in reaching communities. He suggested that they 

should be involved in providing advice on translation. Dr. Francis replied that there are not many social 

and behavioral scientists in ORD so the program probably will seek this expertise through extramural 

grants; however, ORD wants to engage them in the design process so that they can provide valuable 

advice, particularly on how to get the tools into a format that users can apply. 

Dr. Sayler thanked Dr. Francis for her presentation and said that the Board is looking forward to the 

discussion of this program in October. 

Mid-Cycle Progress Report for the Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research Program 

Dr. Elaine Francis, National Program Director (NPD), Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research Program, 

ORD 

Dr. Francis provided some background and history on the SP2 Research Program. The program is 

providing OCSPP with test methods for use in developing testing guidelines by which chemical and 

agricultural industries conduct and submit data to assess potential human and ecological risks for more 

than 25 years; conducting research on underlying science to assist in interpretation of data from industrysubmitted studies; and responding to OCSPP’s requests on specific shorter term research needs by 

providing results on the effects, exposures, risk assessment, and/or risk management of chemicals or 

classes that are of immediate concern to the program office. The biotechnology research program was 

initiated in FY 2002. 

The SP2 Research Program has three LTGs: 

 LTG 1—(1) prioritization of testing requirements, (2) enhanced interpretation of data to improve 

human health and ecological risk assessments, and (3) decision making regarding specific 

individual or classes of pesticides and toxic substances that are of high priority. 

 LTG 2—probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, 

and non-target plants. 

 LTG 3—decision making related to products of biotechnology. 

The BOSC program review of the SP2 Research Program took place February 7-9, 2007, in Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Dr. Anna Harding chaired the BOSC Subcommittee, and Dr. Barry Ryan 

served as the Vice-Chair. Seven additional experts completed the Subcommittee. The program was 

assessed in terms of relevance, structure, performance, quality, scientific leadership, and coordination and 

communication. The final report for this program review was transmitted to ORD on July 23, 2007, and 

ORD submitted a response to the BOSC’s review on January 12, 2008. 

The BOSC thought the SP2 Research Program was a very successful program. Its quality was high, 

which was supported by strong evidence of relatively high publication and citation rates in high-visibility 

journals of significant scientific reputation, by the immediacy with which the papers were recognized, and 

by the ultimate use of the research by the Agency. The program’s goals were well articulated and its 

framework was well thought out, logical, and laid out in a reasonable and integrated manner. The 

relevance of the program to the Agency’s mission was clear and apparent, and it was filling a unique 

niche. The program appeared to be making solid progress on achievement of all three LTGs and in 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

9 

meeting intermediate range milestones. The scientific leadership of the program was strong. It included a 

community of highly trained and energized researchers, many of whom are leaders in their field. The 

strategies for coordination and communication were very good and there was vertical and horizontal 

coordination and communication within and outside EPA. There was extensive interaction with the 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS, which now is OCSPP) demonstrated at 

the review, and good communication with Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grantees and other 

researchers at STAR meetings as well as professional meetings. 

The BOSC assigned a rating of exceeds expectations for LTG 1, and a rating of meets expectations for 

LTGs 2 and 3. The 22 recommendations in the BOSC report were organized under the following nine 

categories: 

 Clarify Annual Performance Goals (APGs) and Annual Performance Measures (APMs) (4 

recommendations) 

 Strengthen Exposure Research (2 recommendations) 

 Clarify Criteria for Decisions Made (2 recommendations) 

 Improve Ecological Modeling Research (3 recommendations) 

 Improve Biotechnology Research (2 recommendations) 

 Enhance Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, Collaborations, and Communications (5 

recommendations) 

 Continue Current Practices (2 recommendations) 

 Nanotechnology Research (1 recommendation) 

 Additional Information for Further Reviews (1 recommendation) 

The mid-cycle progress report builds on the original comments and recommendations made by the BOSC 

at the program review. It captures the original comments, ORD’s 2008 response, and the anticipated 

actions and timeline for implementation. The progress report also describes the program’s progress in

addressing each comment and recommendation and identifies further actions and the timeline for those 

actions. The report includes a table that summarizes all of this information. 

Four of the original recommendations fell under the topic Clarify APGs and APMs. These included: 

Recommendation 2–Retain flexibility of research structure to emerging science and clarify the 

APGs/APMs; Recommendation 3–Clarify the relationship between APGs and APMs, and ensure 

consistency between the text and the research; Recommendation 7–Emphasize the need for transparent 

validation/verification of research products; and Recommendation 14–Revise APGs to ensure there are 

sufficient resources to reach goals. In its 2008 response, ORD noted that improving APGs and APMs is 

an ongoing process. ORD indicated that the next update of the MYP will: clarify the generic relationship 

between APGs and APMs, reflect new metrics for APGs/APMs agreed upon with OMB, and reflect 

improvements in clarity and consistency in APGs/APMs. In addition, ORD will reword the specifically 

identified APG to clarify the distinction that ORD develops methods/models, while the validation is 

conducted by an independent group of experts. The updated MYPs will continue to have APGs/APMs 

that are achievable given the program’s available resources. 

The SP2 Program has made progress in addressing these recommendations and implementing the 

response actions. Revised MYP guidance was issued in 2008, which provides more details concerning 

ORD’s approach to capturing the program’s work through APGs and APMs. The APMs/APGs now are 

Web-based to allow more flexibility and to facilitate the evolving nature of both the research and the

efforts to capture and communicate the results. ORD’s National Homeland Security Research Center 

(NHSRC) initiated a 1-year pilot in October 2009 for which the APMs include explicit mention of 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

10 

partner(s) and delivery dates as well as a partner “feedback loop.” The results of this pilot will be

evaluated later this year to inform ORD’s guidance on APGs and APMs. 

The SP2 Research Program MYP has not been revised since the program review because the program is 

undergoing a merger with other research programs to develop the SPSW Research Program. The BOSC’s 

recommendations will be considered in this new program, which is expected to be operational in FY 

2012. 

Two of the BOSC’s recommendations fell under the topic of Strengthen Exposure Research. These 

included: Recommendation 4–Greater emphasis is needed on exposure-related research and 

Recommendation 6–Perform an integrated evaluation of human health to provide advice on program 

balance, especially with respect to exposure. ORD’s 2008 response was that it would shift FTEs for 

exposure research into the SP2 Program. ORD was developing an Implementation Plan for exposure 

research that was being integrated with the effects research; it was expected to be completed in 2008. 

ORD’s response also indicated that the next update of the MYP would incorporate the strengthened 

exposure research, and include an approach that provides stronger evidence of linkages to exposure 

research conducted through other ORD programs, and that is relevant to OPPTS’ needs, for improved 

communication. 

With regard to these recommendations and responding actions, ORD shifted exposure research FTEs into 

the SP2 Research Program. ORD also is developing integrated exposure-effects spatially explicit 

ecological risk assessment models. A partners’ workshop on models development will be held July 13-15

with OCSPP. A draft research plan should be prepared by September 2010, and a final research plan by 

January 2011. 

Integrated multidisciplinary research is being conducted to address the Agency’s highest priorities related 

to perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). The exposure research is integrated with that of effects and risk

management, and it is informing Agency decisions. The exposure research strategy workshop was held in

March 2010, and a workshop report was completed in July 2010. The draft research plan is expected to 

be completed by August 2010, and finalized by December 2010. Since the BOSC program review, there 

have been two international PFCs symposia—one in June 2008, and the other in June 2010. A special 

journal issue was published in 2009 from the 2008 workshop, and two special journal issues from the 

2010 workshop will be published late 2010 or early 2011. 

The SPSW Research Program is being developed with resources from parts or all of the SP2, EDCs, 

Computational Toxicology, Human Health, HHRA, and Nanotechnology Research Programs. This new 

program will improve the leveraging of resources, research planning, and the implementation and 

communication of ORD’s research products. The BOSC’s recommendations will be considered in under 

that new program, which is expected to be operational in FY 2012. 

The two recommendations under the topic of Clarify Criteria were: Recommendation 8–Clarify criteria 

used to select new compounds for study and expand the current list, and Recommendation 16–Describe 

criteria for prioritization of future work should additional resources become available. ORD’s 2008 

response was that the next update of the MYP will: (1) clarify how OPPTS identifies and prioritizes 

those research elements needed in the shorter term, based on impending regulatory decisions or data gaps; 

(2) provide greater detail on the prioritization process used to accelerate research previously identified as 

high priority, should additional resources become available; and (3) provide stronger descriptions of 

potential new research directions based on discussions with OPPTS senior managers. 

The ORD transformation and the development of the SPSW Research Program will provide ORD a more 

rigorous and reiterative process to work with program and regional office partners as well as external

stakeholders, across all of its laboratories and centers. Prioritization of the science questions will be 

included from problem formulation through product delivery. The leveraging and prioritization of 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

11 

resources and research efforts as well as communication of research products will be improved. As the

SPSW Program develops, the BOSC’s recommendations will be considered. Dr. Francis reminded the 

BOSC members that the SP2 MYP had not been updated because of development of the SPSW Program. 

The three recommendations under the topic Improve Ecological Risk Assessment Approaches were: 

Recommendation 9–Begin movement towards an ecosystems approach that fully assesses population and 

community risks; Recommendation 10–Further develop mathematical foundations that underpin current 

efforts; and Recommendation 11–Pursue collaborations and extend development to advance high 

performance computing methods for probabilistic risk assessment. ORD’s response in 2008 indicated 

that the shift of exposure FTEs into the program will result in moving toward an integrated (exposureeffects), spatially explicit risk assessment program for targeted population and communities that will

expand their utility. ORD indicated that these recommendations would be addressed through the 

development of the exposure Implementation Plan and would be incorporated into the next iteration of the 

MYP. At the time of the response, efforts were ongoing to develop Web-based applications of ORD 

products and to seek research partners to help provide tools that ORD’s clients can readily access. 

Since the BOSC review, exposure FTEs have been shifted into the SP2 Research Program and integrated 

exposure-effects ecological risk assessment tools are being developed. The program is working with 

EPA’s OEI to incorporate state-of-the-science high performance computing and visualization techniques.

In addition, the program is working with the National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) on 

its research to build a Virtual Tissues knowledgebase and a cell-based tissue simulator focused on the

Virtual Liver (v-LiverTM) and the Virtual Embryo (v-EmbryoTM). The knowledgebase will be a free 

publicly available tool that synthesizes published experimental observations on the effects of chemicals 

on the potential toxicological processes. The cell-based tissue simulator will simulate chemical-induced 

effects in the liver and the embryo using three interconnected systems micro-circulation, cell and 

molecular response, and tissue response. 

The two BOSC recommendations under the topic Improve LTG 3–Biotechnology were: 

Recommendation 1–Include approach to address issues of mitigation potential on gene transfer, effects 

on non-target organisms, and targeted species resistance; and Recommendation 12–Broaden the scope of 

the program to include additional topics identified by the reviewers. ORD’s 2008 response indicated the 

following: (1) field-scale protocols for non-target species effects were being developed/applied; (2) a 

workshop on Pollen Mediated Gene Flow was held in 2007; (3) a report on testing and evaluation of 

resistance management models that track development of resistance in genetically modified crops will be 

released in 2009; (4) limitations in resources prevent expansion into other areas; and (5) the program is 

continually seeking partners (e.g., in 2007, a joint Request for Applications [RFA] on food allergenicity 

was issued with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID]). 

Since the BOSC review, budget constraints have resulted in resources either being eliminated or realigned 

to address higher priority Agency issues. An integrated exposure-effects ecological assessment research 

program is being developed and the program has leveraged resources to characterize the effects of 

chemical and non-chemical environmental stressors on plant populations. In addition, the SP2 Program is 

supporting ORD’s new Biofuels Research Program. In the area of food allergenicity, the program issued

a joint RFA with NIAID, the Food Allergy Project, and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, 

which collectively awarded 16 grants (4 by EPA) that are being tracked. This research will be completed 

in late 2010/early 2011. A joint workshop, held in 2008, led to publication of a paper on the state-of-thescience and remaining research needs as well as a session at the 2009 Society of Toxicology meeting. 

EPA issued a new RFA in 2009, and the awards are pending. It is anticipated that there will be four 

awards, each with a period of 3 years. The results from past activities have been published or submitted 

for publication and are either in press, accepted, or in review. No further biotechnology research will be 

conducted. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

12 

There were five BOSC recommendations under the topic Enhance Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, 

Collaborations, and Communications. These were: Recommendation 5–Mechanisms to improve 

communications between groups doing research on LTGs 1 and 2 are recommended; Recommendation 

13–Maintain and build upon existing cross-disciplinary and cross-organizational collaborations; 

Recommendation 17–Grow and collaborate in the areas of statistical analyses, bioinformatics, 

theoretical mathematical model building, and probabilistic risk assessments; Recommendation 21–

Emphasize communication with other federal laboratories; and Recommendation 22–Develop a more 

focused communications program to regions and other program offices. ORD’s 2008 response indicated 

that the update of the MYP will provide greater detail on the extensive ongoing collaborations with 

scientists in other federal agencies and research organizations. Significant collaborations were occurring 

in the area of bioinformatics with STAR-funded Environmental Bioinformatics Research Centers and the 

program would continue to seek new collaborations. Four senior bioinformaticians and systems 

biologists had been hired. The program had initiated efforts to improve coordination and 

communications. An ORD-OPPTS (and other program/regional offices) senior managers’ meeting was to 

be held in 2008. 

Since the BOSC review, the SP2 Research Program has strengthened its cross-organizational and crossdisciplinary partnerships across the ORD laboratories/centers, within EPA, with other federal agencies, 

and with states. Examples of these partnerships are provided in the progress report. ORD implemented 

actions to enhance efforts in bioinformatics and systems biology. ORD awarded two new STAR Centers 

in the form of cooperative agreements to allow for greater interactions between EPA and academic 

scientists (in 2008 and 2009). The program is using community of practice (CoP) approaches to 

communicate and receive input from scientists across sectors from around the world. In addition, 

NHEERL has established a new Integrated Systems Toxicology Division and has advertised for a seniorlevel Director. ORD and OCSPP senior scientists and managers met in November 2009, to identify and 

prioritize research needs. Addressing these needs will be advanced further through the development and

implementation of the SPSW Research Program, which is expected to be operational in 2012. 

The two recommendations under the topic Continue Current Practices included: Recommendation 19–

The peer-review process should be continued, and Recommendation 20–Continue to reward scientific 

excellence and minimize administrative burdens. ORD’s 2008 response indicated that the program 

continually follows existing guidance and policies to ensure that programs and products are appropriately 

peer reviewed. In addition, ORD uses all available mechanisms to reward and retain its scientists and to 

recruit new ones. 

The progress report states that the 2006 Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition still governs ORD’s 

approach to peer review, and that approach is used by the program. Efforts are ongoing to use all 

mechanisms available to reward and retain the SP2 Research Program scientists and managers and to 

recruit new ones when warranted. The program has brought on board postdoctoral fellows, graduate 

students, student interns, and Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) fellows. In addition, some 

of the senior scientists hired by ORD through the Title 42 authority spend some of their time on SP2 

issues. Researchers and managers continue to receive rewards for their efforts devoted to the SP2 

Research Program through the EPA and ORD awards processes and the Science and Technology 

Achievement Awards. 

The recommendation that falls under the topic Nanotechnology was Recommendation 15–More rapidly 

develop a research program in nanotechnology and encourage other international organizations. In 

2008, ORD responded that a Nanomaterial Research Strategy (NRS) had been developed. The response 

also indicated that EPA was collaborating with other federal agencies to develop complementary research 

portfolios and with academia and industry to fill knowledge gaps. In addition, the program was 

collaborating internationally and was part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development’s (OECD) efforts. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

13 

Since the BOSC review, ORD has implemented the NRS (in 2009) and added an intramural component to 

the program. ORD’s nanotechnology program complements those of other federal agencies, and is 

collaborating with the research of other government agencies through the OECD. In addition, joint and

coordinated RFAs with other federal agencies, the United Kingdom, and the European Commission have 

been issued under the STAR Program. 

Recommendation 18–Map service awards (as well as peer-reviewed papers) to individual program 

elements to better designate high quality products was the only recommendation under the topic 

Additional Information for Reviews. In 2008, ORD responded that it will continue to include service 

awards in staff members’ biosketches for all reviews and in integrated tabular format, where possible. 

Guidance regarding the value-added of collecting and presenting more detailed information for BOSC 

reviews was being discussed by ORD and the BOSC at the time of the response. 

The BOSC Executive Committee meeting that took place at the time of the response did not result in any

agreement regarding the tracking and reporting of awards for ORD’s program reviews. The subject of 

demonstrating the high quality of the program’s research remains a priority. The current plan is to 

demonstrate the perceived quality of the research team and its technical and scientific products by 

providing partner/client testimonials and interviews, and by using bibliometric analysis. ORD is 

exploring new bibliometric approaches to measure not only quality of the work but also performance of 

the various research programs. These new approaches will be implemented in 2011. ORD will continue 

to engage the BOSC Executive Committee in developing appropriate bibliometric measures to be used in 

the program reviews. 

In closing her presentation, Dr. Francis expressed the Agency’s gratitude to the BOSC Subcommittee that 

conducted the review and provided thoughtful comments and recommendations. She also thanked the 

BOSC Executive Committee for the opportunity to present the progress that had been achieved since that

review. Many comments and recommendations have been addressed. For example, there is improved 

integration of exposure research, expanded collaborations with partners, and improved communication of

research products. In addition, the SP2 Program has continued with commendable good practices. The 

other comments and recommendations from the review will be taken into consideration as the new SPSW 

Research Program develops. Dr. Francis said that she looks forward to continued interactions with the

BOSC Executive Committee. 

Dr. Sayler thanked Dr. Francis for her presentation and asked if the BOSC members had any questions. 

Dr. Olden stated that in the section on metrics for measuring impact, bibliometrics was mentioned; 

however, the ultimate metric is the impact on public health. Is ORD making an effort to gather 

information on the impact of the program on public health? Dr. Francis replied that ORD has been 

grappling with how to measure the impact of its programs. ORD currently does not have the tools to do

so. EPA has asked the National Academies for its input on effective measures and ORD has been 

working with other agencies on this as well. Most of the measures are anecdotal rather than quantitative. 

Dr. Francis said that ORD would welcome input from the BOSC on effective metrics for measuring the 

impact of ORD research programs. Dr. Olden also asked if ORD had used the Agency’s Title 42 

authority to bring in scientific leadership from outside EPA. Dr. Francis responded that most of the 

experts who have been hired under the Title 42 authority are from outside the Agency. 

Dr. Philbert asked if the $8 million for nanotechnology research was for both intramural and extramural 

research. Dr. Francis responded that both were included, and she added that the FY 2011 budget is $20

million. Dr. Philbert inquired about the split between the two, and Dr. Francis replied that approximately 

$7 million is for extramural research and the remainder is for intramural research, personnel, and other 

expenses. Dr. Philbert then asked about the fate of the SP2 Program given the new SPSW Program. Will

the work be carried on under that new program? Dr. Francis explained that some of the SP2 research 

would be continued under the SPSW, in particular, the spatially explicit modeling. The work dealing 

with population level research would be carried out under another program. In response to Dr. Francis’ 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

14 

request for input from the BOSC on appropriate metrics, Dr. Philbert mentioned that the BOSC had 

recommended that ORD look at how the research program and its products affect legislation, rulemaking,

policy, and other outputs beyond publication in the scientific literature. 

Dr. Olden asked if the program was allowed to do public education. He stressed the need to educate the

public about the safety of new technologies, genetically modified plants, and many other issues. Dr. 

Francis answered that she was not aware of any restrictions with respect to educating the public; however, 

that is more the role of the program office, which has a division that deals with outreach and education. 

Dr. Olden noted that ORD plays an important role in translating research so that it has an impact on 

public health, and public education is an essential component of that effort. Those who develop the 

research also should plan for public education at the outset of the program. Dr. Sayler pointed out that 

there are limited funds within ORD to perform this important role. 

Dr. Ryan, who served on the BOSC Subcommittee that conducted the program review of the SP2 

Research Program, said that he thought the mid-cycle progress report addressed all of the questions and 

issues that were raised by the Subcommittee. 

Mid-Cycle Progress Report for the Human Health Risk Assessment Program 

Ms. Becki Clark, Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) 

Ms. Becki Clark explained that she was serving as the Acting Director of NCEA while Dr. Peter Preuss is 

on a temporary assignment. She introduced the other EPA staff members who were joining her on the 

videoconference from Washington, DC. Ms. Clark said that she moved to NCEA in 2007, just before the 

BOSC conducted its review of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Program. Since that review, 

Ms. Clark has seen substantial progress within NCEA on addressing the issues raised by the BOSC; she 

added that the BOSC review was very helpful in moving the HHRA Program forward. 

The HHRA Program is managed by NCEA, which is the entity within ORD that develops human health 

assessments, conducts research on human health risk assessment methods, and develops guidance for 

assessments. NCEA occupies a critical position in ORD between the researchers in other ORD 

components that are generating new findings and data and the regulators in the EPA program offices and

regions who must make regulatory, enforcement, and remedial action decisions. 

The three LTGs of the HHRA Program are: 

 LTG 1: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other priority health hazard 

assessments—Agency, state, and local risk assessors use the state-of-the-science health hazard 

assessment information provided on priority substances in their decisions and actions to protect 

human health from risks posed by environmental pollutants. 

 LTG 2: State-of-the-science risk assessment models, methods, and guidance—EPA 

programs, states, and other risk assessors use the risk assessment models, methods, and guidance 

provided to enhance, through the incorporation of contemporary scientific advances, the quality 

and objectivity of their assessments and decision-making on environmental health risks. 

 LTG 3: Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs)—As mandated in the Clean Air Act, the 

ambient air criteria pollutants are reviewed and ISAs revised to reflect the best available scientific

information on identifiable effects on public health and the environment from exposure to the 

pollutant, and this information is used by the EPA Office of Air and Radiation in its review and 

promulgation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health 

with an adequate margin of safety. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

15 

These LTGs are identified in the HHRA Multi-Year Plan (MYP) that was last updated in August 2007; 

Ms. Clark noted that the MYP will be updated following further consideration of the Path Forward in 

implementing integrated transdisciplinary research programs across ORD. 

The activities for LTG 1 (IRIS and other priority health hazard assessments) include: 

 Developing human health assessments (e.g., tetrachloroethylene, methyl tertiary butyl ether, 

ethylene oxide, trichloroethylene [TCE], acrylamide, formaldehyde, asbestos, and 72 others). 

 Preparing Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) for EPA’s waste site clean-up 

program (Superfund): PPRTVs for 69 chemicals were completed in FY 2009. 

 Developing Incidence Response Assessments (e.g., Hurricane Katrina health impact assessment 

of debris incineration, impacts assessment of dust from collapse of the World Trade Center, Gulf 

Oil Spill). 

The activities for LTG 2 (state-of-the-science risk assessment models, methods, and guidance) include:

 Uncertainty analysis 

 Identification of possible modes of action 

 Physiologically-based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) modeling 

 Approaches to quantification 

 Approaches for assessing risk of environmental exposures to susceptible populations 

 Approaches for cumulative risk assessment. 

Under LTG 3, the program produces ISAs that provide the scientific bases for EPA’s air quality decisionmaking. The activities include: 

 Ozone—completed February 2006; underway – first draft November 2010 

 Lead—completed September 2006; Lead ISA Information Call-in – 2010 

 Particulate Matter—Completed 2009 

 Nitrogen Oxides—ISA and Health and Environmental Criteria – both final in 2008 

 Sulfur dioxide—ISA and Health and Environmental Criteria – both final in 2008 

 Carbon Monoxide—Completed 2010. 

In the report on the 2007 review of the HHRA Program, the BOSC provided positive feedback on all 

aspects of the program: relevance, structure, quality, performance, leadership, collaboration, and 

outcomes. LTGs 1 and 3 received a rating of meets expectations from the BOSC, and LTG 2 was 

assigned a rating of exceeds expectations. The BOSC offered 10 specific recommendations that fell into 

three major areas: (1) planning and implementation, (2) customer needs, and (3) coordination and 

communication. 

To address Recommendation 1: Assess program needs in order to increase production of IRIS and 

PPRTV Assessments and Recommendation 5: Establish goals for increasing the number of IRIS 

assessments to meet client needs, the program implemented a new, streamlined IRIS process in May 

2009, and the HHRA Program has quickly demonstrated progress. The IRIS logistics team was created to 

centralize all aspects of the administrative support for IRIS, enhance efficiency, and relieve the 

administrative burdens from the scientific staff. In addition, the program meets with the client office to 

better understand its assessment needs. Also, to address these two recommendations, the HHRA Program 

streamlined the production of PPRTVs and in FY 2009, 69 PPRTV assessments were added to the 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

16 

database. New program metrics were negotiated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

which take into consideration the complexity and number of assessments. The program also initiated the 

NexGen Risk Assessment pilot project in May 2009, which involves incorporating molecular systems 

biology and gene-environment interactions to advance risk assessment, with the goal of evaluating more

chemicals in less time. 

The old IRIS process involved 26 steps and the new, streamlined process has only 7 steps. The new 

process allows more control of the scientific review, which accounts for much of the acceleration. Step 4 

of the new process includes a listening session, which is designed to increase the transparency of the

process. 

The HHRA Program has quickly demonstrated progress under the new IRIS process. In FY 2006 and FY 

2007, only 2 final assessments were posted on IRIS each year. In FY 2008, 5 final assessments were 

posted on IRIS. In the first three quarters of FY 2009, only 1 final assessment was posted on IRIS; 

however, after the new process was implemented, 6 final assessments were posted on IRIS in the fourth 

quarter, and 3 were posted in the first three quarters of FY 2010. Ms. Clark pointed out that in May

2009, there were 15 assessments undergoing interagency review; since implementing the new process, 13 

of those assessments have been moved forward. In comparing the actual number of final assessments 

posted on IRIS with the number targeted in the program metrics, Ms. Clark said that she thinks the 

program will reach its target for posting in FY 2010. 

To address Recommendation 2: Develop a mechanism for retaining IRIS assessments older than 10 years 

on the Web site, the program will: 

 Update assessments that are more than 10 years old and have new studies that may impact a 

toxicity value or a cancer weight of evidence descriptor. 

 Put assessments requiring extensive analysis into the standard IRIS process; update those with no 

new data to indicate they are still current. 

 Place assessments requiring limited analysis into the update process (chemicals will be batched). 

The IRIS Update Project was started in FY 2009, and the first batch of assessments is anticipated to start 

the review process in the fourth quarter of 2010. The update process will include the following: 

 A Federal Register notice announcing the IRIS Update Project agenda and calling for scientific 

information. 

 Comprehensive search of scientific literature on each chemical. 

 Draft health assessment development. 

 Combined simultaneous review of the draft by EPA and other federal agencies via the Federal 

Standing Science Committee. 

 Public comments on draft assessments, followed by independent external peer review under 

FACA. 

 Final IRIS assessment reflecting public comments and independent external peer review will 

replace old assessments on the IRIS database. 

The HHRA Program has made considerable progress in addressing Recommendation 3: Continue to 

develop ties with the National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) and provide formal input. 

The program participated in the May 2009 NCCT ToxCast meeting. Based on NCEA’s suggestion, 

chemicals on the IRIS agenda or nominated for assessment in the PPRTV program, are being added to 

ToxCast Phase II. NCEA also is participating in the cross-ORD postdoctoral fellows program, and some 

NCEA scientists have been detailed to NCCT. Also, NCEA has made joint presentations with NCCT on 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

17 

the future of toxicology and risk assessment. Most importantly, the program is collaborating with NCCT 

on the NexGen Risk Assessment pilot project. The challenge is to figure out how to take the toxicity data 

and translate them into information that is important for risk assessment. Three assessment tiers have 

been proposed for NexGen. 

To address Recommendation 4: Capture HHRA responsiveness to national emergencies and difficult 

clean-up sites in overall framework of the program, the HHRA Program is tracking past and present 

emergency response support activities and is engaged in internal discussions about how to describe this 

support in the next version of the HHRA MYP. Ms. Clark pointed out that it is very difficult to predict 

how much effort will be needed to support future emergencies; therefore, NCEA is determining what 

resources have been needed in the past as one means of estimating what might be needed in the future. 

NCEA is making an effort to reach out to the regions through the NCEA “Regional Road Shows,” which 

are briefings designed to inform the regions about what NCEA is doing and how the Center might be of 

assistance to them. They are working to make NCEA the “go to” organization for high quality and rapid

scientific support. Some examples of this include: development of the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

exposure estimation tool for PCBs in caulk; review of the University of Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study

to provide perspective for Region 5 on how the study results could inform Agency decision making; 

assistance to Region 7 by accelerating the completion of the hexavalent chromium IRIS assessment; and 

assistance to Region 9 (Hawaii) and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) on 

assessing the health risks associated with sulfur dioxide from volcanic activity. In addition, NCEA is 

assisting with the Gulf oil spill emergency response. These activities include: 

 Dioxin Formation and Risk Assessment 

– Prepared screening risk assessment for workers and general population. 

– Informed development of sampling plan measuring dioxin during controlled burns at sea. 

– Developing approaches that will use measured dioxin emission factors to estimate potential 

risks to human health. 

 Fish Consumption Rates Assessment 

– Providing information to characterize fish consumption rates, which will be used with 

measurements of oil-related contaminant concentrations to assess human health risks 

associated with consuming Gulf fish. 

– Collaborating with OW and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

 Risk Assessment for Gulf Swimmers 

– Assisting OW in developing guidelines to inform decisions concerning risks of spilled oil to 

swimmers. 

– Developed risk assessment exposure scenario, the exposure factors used for the scenario, and 

specific health-based benchmarks. 

 Toxicity of Chemicals in the Gulf 

– Provided toxicity information for chemicals of concern related to the Gulf oil spill, including 

those likely to be present in crude oil as well as those used in chemical dispersants. 

In response to Recommendation 6: Consider well developed PPRTVs as source for IRIS assessments, 

NCEA reviewed the PPRTVs and found two—cobalt and vanadium pentoxide—to develop into IRIS 

assessments. The program also has sought advice from the programs and regions on their assessment 

needs. The highest priority needs will be addressed through IRIS; for more targeted needs, NCEA is 

consulting with the programs and regions to determine if a PPRTV assessment would meet their needs. 

 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

18 

NCEA has taken action to address Recommendation 7: Steps need to be taken to ensure the transparency 

of decisions made in the process of performing assessments. These actions include: 

 IRIS Assessments 

– Implemented new IRIS process in May 2009, which includes multiple opportunities for 

federal agency review, external peer review, and public comment. 

– Incorporated IRIS listening sessions for the public and stakeholders, and briefings for other 

agencies (e.g., Department of Agriculture, FDA) on high profile chemicals. 

– Making comments from federal agency review publicly available. 

 HERO (Health and Environmental Research Online)—a database of scientific studies used to 

develop EPA risk assessments (http://www.epa.gov/hero) 

– Expanded to include IRIS assessments as they are developed, which allows the pubic to 

readily access studies on which decisions are based. 

 ISAs and NAAQS 

– Restructured ISA with concise summary and integrative synthesis of key findings. 

– Focusing on key policy-relevant findings. 

– Developed causality framework used in ISAs, which provides transparency and consistency 

in drawing conclusions and causal judgments. 

 EPA’s Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and Response to NAS Comments 

– Defined process clearly for study selection. 

– Held a scientific workshop (February 2009) to ensure that EPA’s response to the National 

Academies focused on key issues and reflected the most meaningful science. 

In response to Recommendation 8: Consider recruitment of senior scientists, the program has hired 

senior Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) fellows to provide support for complex 

science issues (e.g., quantitative application of genomics and high-throughput data into chemical risk

assessment, mutagenic mode of action). In addition, an internationally recognized senior science manager 

has been hired under Title 42 as one of the program’s Division Directors. The program is expanding its 

capacity in LTG 2 (NexGen) with post-doctoral fellows from ORISE, the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science (AAAS), and ASPH. 

NCEA has made some progress in addressing Recommendation 9: The program is encouraged to make 

PPRTVs more available for use in hazardous waste site assessments and promote use as appropriate. 

The program currently makes PPRTVs available to all EPA staff and by request to state and other 

partners in waste site assessments. The HHRA Program is reaching out to the program offices (beyond 

the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response [OSWER]) to publicize the existence of PPRTVs. 

NCEA is engaged in ongoing discussions with OSWER to make the PPRTV database publicly available. 

It is anticipated that this will happen in the near future. 

Several steps have been taken to respond to Recommendation 10: The program needs to consider 

information on potential public health as it prioritizes chemicals. The HHRA Program has participated in 

extensive meetings with the program and regional offices regarding the selection of priority chemicals. In 

addition, the process for adding chemicals to the IRIS agenda has been revised to include public health 

information, to make it more transparent, and to add a “feedback” loop to the programs and regions. The 

Federal Register notice for new nominations includes more transparency on how decisions are made. 

Public health information (exposure and toxicity) is being considered in identifying priority chemicals. 

As an example, several phthalates have been added to the cumulative health assessment because of public 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

19 

health concerns. Ms. Clark noted that the phthalates cumulative assessment is the first step in considering 

risks of exposure to multiple chemicals and it may serve as a framework for extension to other 

compounds in the future. 

Ms. Clark closed her presentation by stating that she is excited about what the program has been able to 

achieve in the past few years since the BOSC review. 

Dr. Sayler thanked Ms. Clark for her presentation and asked if there were any questions. He noted that 

Dr. George Daston, a former BOSC Executive Committee member who chaired the HHRA 

Subcommittee that conducted the program review, had joined by telephone and he asked if Dr. Daston 

had any questions or comments. Dr. Daston said that this program is a cornerstone of EPA’s work; so 

many programs and processes within EPA rely on it. Therefore, the program must be designed and 

implemented well, and both are true for the HHRA Program. These assessments are valued by 

organizations throughout the world and the demand for IRIS assessments far exceeds the available 

resources of the program to do the assessments. Dr. Daston indicated that he is very pleased with the

effort the program has put into streamlining the IRIS process. The review process (both internal and 

external) has been an impediment to completing assessments in a timely manner. 

Dr. Daston thought the program was doing a good job of leveraging the efforts of other organizations. He 

was very pleased to see the collaboration with NCCT. He stated that NCEA and NCCT are leaders in 

their fields and they need to work together to make useful tools available for risk assessments. He 

encouraged the program to continue this interaction. He stressed the need to be diligent about ensuring 

the transparency of the process for prioritizing chemicals for risk assessments. Dr. Daston thought the 

next BOSC program review should assess whether the transparency of that process is adequate. Although

the program has attempted to address Recommendation 8, which dealt with recruiting senior scientists, 

the program has not been able to fulfill the spirit of that recommendation. Therefore, the program should 

keep this recommendation on its radar screen for future action. Dr. Daston noted that the HHRA Program 

received very good ratings in the last program review and it has taken steps to make the program even 

better. 

Dr. Cozzens asked how the program plans to build emergency response into its program planning. From 

the presentation, it appears that NCEA is attempting to assess how much effort has been expended on 

such efforts in the past. Do you have a record of how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) are allocated to 

emergency response each year? Ms. Clark replied that NCEA is trying to document that effort. 

Ms. Kacee Deener explained that she has been working on assessing the emergency response effort 

during the past 2 years so that the program can use this information to predict future effort. There are 

discussions underway about the best way to incorporate this into the MYP. Dr. Stan Barone 

acknowledged that this is a difficult task because emergencies are unpredictable; however, having the 

historical data will be beneficial in planning for future emergency response needs. He added that, in

recent years, NCEA has seen an increase in the number of requests for assistance and the time that it takes 

to respond to these requests. Therefore, this is not just an historical assessment. Dr. Cozzens praised the 

program for attempting to track its emergency response support. She also suggested that having this 

information available could be valuable in justifying to OMB why certain performance goals were not 

met when resources were diverted to emergency response support. Dr. Olden agreed, stating that it is 

important to communicate what percentage of the program’s effort is dedicated to emergency response 

support and what percentage is devoted to achieving the program’s strategic LTGs. Ms. Clark agreed and 

added that the percentage allocated to emergency response support is probably around 10 to 15 percent. 

NCEA would like to have a better handle on this, however, so it can set aside resources to meet these 

needs. 

Dr. Tharakan asked if the program had done a risk assessment for the workers responding to the Gulf oil 

spill. Ms. Clark replied that the program participated in the risk assessment for the workers that was done 

by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

20 

Dr. Demerjian asked about the volatilization of the oil, formation of semi-volatile organic compounds 

(SVOCs), and the photochemical transformation to secondary organic aerosols (SOAs). Is this aspect 

being considered in the assessment? Dr. Barone responded that ORD is involved in the efforts of the 

other federal agencies, and those aspects are being considered. Dr. Demerjian asked if areas around the 

spill are being monitored to determine its effects. Dr. Barone replied that measurements are being taken 

real time and the focus is on the safety of the workers. The longer term focus will be the environmental 

effects, and additional research and monitoring will be needed. 

Dr. Philbert asked what is being done on an interagency basis to ensure that appropriate data are being 

captured now so that they can be used in follow-up research. Dr. Barone responded that a database is 

being created to store all of the data being collected and the database is being made publicly available on 

the Internet. 

Dr. Olden stated that he did not hear any mention of epigenetic regulation. Is that being considered? 

Dr. Barone replied that other parts of ORD (e.g., NCCT) are looking at epigenetic regulation. The 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) is 

involved as well. ORD is trying to incorporate this work into its assessment. 

Ecosystem Informatics Session 

Ecosystem Informatics: Interdisciplinary Graduate Education and Research Linking Ecology, 

Computer Science, and Mathematics 

Dr. Julia Jones, Ecosystem Informatics Program, Oregon State University (OSU) 

Dr. Julia Jones explained that ecosystem informatics involves collaboration among natural scientists 

(ecologists), computer scientists, and mathematicians. It addresses pressing problems of natural resource 

management and explores alternative approaches to conceptualizing problems, modeling ecosystem 

processes, and uncertainties. 

Important contributions to key problems in ecology include: uncertainty in ecosystem models, predicting 

extreme events, automatically detecting events and organisms, predicting community response to 

disturbance, and quantifying species responses to environmental change. The experiences OSU has 

gained during these collaborative effects provide valuable lessons for educators and resource managers. 

Dr. Jones explained that ecosystem informatics does not merge the different disciplines involved but 

fosters collaboration among them. For biophysical scientists, ecosystem informatics can help with huge 

data streams from burgeoning sensor networks. It also can help with alternative conceptualizations and 

models of ecological and ecosystem processes. For mathematical scientists, ecosystem informatics 

provides the opportunity for developing entirely new methods in computer and mathematical sciences. It 

also brings together a more diverse study group to contribute to environmental problem resolution. Some 

ecosystem topics that can benefit from ecosystem informatics include: scaling and uncertainty in cycling 

of carbon and nitrogen; stability and resilience of ecological communities; natural disturbance processes; 

temporal and spatial predictions; and structure and function of hierarchical branching networks. 

Ecosystem informatics research builds on large datasets and ecological process understanding, develops

new models, and compares alternative modeling approaches. 

The work on ecosystem informatics began at OSU with the award of a National Science Foundation 

(NSF) Interdisciplinary Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) program grant in 2003. The 

effort was initiated by Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) senior natural scientists who asked 

mathematicians and computer scientists to collaborate to expand the scope of LTER. In 2005, the 

Ecosystems Informatics program had its first Ph.D. students and OSU hired two young faculty members. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

21 

In 2007, there were 15 Ph.D. students in the program and OSU hired three more young faculty members. 

By 2009, there were 30 Ph.D. students, the faculty was getting additional grants, and two postdocs were 

hired. 

Dr. Jones described a study of the collaborative networks in the ecosystem informatics group. The study 

found that 87 percent of new ties in the program were with people in different departments; 50 percent of 

the collaborative ties resulted in new ideas that could not have been produced individually; 68 percent of 

new idea ties were between fields; and 76 percent of new idea ties were between departments. She noted 

that working together has produced ideas or findings that could not have been produced individually or by 

a single department. 

One example of ecosystems informatics research involved the problem of habitat selection. Organisms 

do not select the first habitat they encounter. They visit some number of habitats and then select one. 

The “refractory period” is the time spent visiting habitats before making the selection. This is a 

mathematical problem—to select the optimal stopping time. What is the optimal number of potential 

habitats to visit before selecting one? The optimal “refractory period” is n/e where n = total number of 

possible habitats and e = natural logarithm. How can we use this problem to understand organism 

behavior in space? 

Another example of ecosystems informatics research focused on the question: How do the spatial 

dynamics of emergent stream insects affect population dynamics? The mechanisms are drift and flight. 

The “critical domain” is the minimum size of habitat required to maintain persistence of a population. In 

a single channel, the answer is a length, but in a stream network, the answer is more complex. What is the 

effect of network structure on time to extinction? What is the effect of arrangement of predators (fish) on 

time to extinction? The persistence of the population depends on the balance between the net reproductive 

rate, downstream advection, and upstream dispersion by diffusion or other process. The outcome of 

interest are the critical values of the variables governing those competing processes, the thresholds below 

which extinction is certain. 

A third example of ecosystems informatics research concerned fire effects on forest stand dynamics. 

How does non-stand-replacing fire affect forest stand age distribution? How does time-varying fire affect 

forests? Hazard rate is used to formulate the model and it is solved analytically. This yields a model that 

can predict how long it will take for a forest stand experiencing a change in fire return interval to reach a 

new equilibrium. 

A fourth example of ecosystems informatics research involved anomaly detection. Many environmental 

sensors produce large datasets (temperature, carbon flux, etc.) and the data contain erroneous 

observations. How does one automate the process of error detection? Machine learning of Bayesian 

hierarchical models provides the necessary quality control. This is done by creating a probabilistic model 

of the domain, represented by a Bayesian Network. The process model (how the true temperature 

behaves) models normal behavior and the observation model (how the temperature is measured by the 

sensor) includes a generic fault model. If the difference between the sensor reading (O) and computed P 

(process model) is large enough, then an anomaly is declared. An ideal quality control model should 

produce two things: (1) a label that distinguishes data anomalies, and (2) an imputation of the true value 

(with some confidence measure). 

A fifth example of ecosystems informatics research concerns bioacoustics. Many organisms are difficult 

to census (e.g., birds). Acoustical recordings of these organisms may help detect their movement and 

abundance. New low-cost sensors provide continuous audio data and machine learning can automatically 

identify bird songs in recordings. 

A final example of ecosystems informatics research involves species modeling. Many species have been 

monitored (e.g., birds) and the datasets are large and of variable quality. These long-term datasets contain 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

22 

information on species’ responses to climate variability and machine learning can infer species 

distribution (single or multiple species). The goal of a multiple-species model is to simultaneously 

predict the occurrence of multiple species. It offers the advantages of identifying and understanding

communities, detecting competitive exclusion, exploiting inter-species correlations to improve prediction 

accuracy, and predicting hard-to-detect species based on easy-to-detect species (e.g., detect understory 

based on canopy). The three methods are to model each species separately (M0), model each species 

separately but perform model selection jointly (joint model selection, M1), or capture the correlation

structure among the species (M2). It is hypothesized that M2 will be better than M1, and M1 will be 

better than M0. Seven different modeling methods for species distribution of birds at Hubbard Brook 

were compared and it was determined that stacked random forests (a model of type M2) were best for this 

dataset and measure. 

In summary, Dr. Jones stated that ecological problems offer many challenging opportunities for 

mathematicians and computer scientists. Collaborations of ecologists with computer scientists and 

mathematicians can address major problems in environmental science and contribute to sustainable 

management of ecosystems. These collaborations require significant investment of time and energy by 

senior faculty in participating disciplines, and they can enhance participation and diversity in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. They also help to create a workforce 

trained to succeed in the new information-based, highly technological society. Successful collaborations 

in ecosystem informatics involve exposure to ecosystem and resource management issues in shared field 

experiences, interdisciplinary communication for problem formulation, attention to disciplinary and 

interdisciplinary balance, committed senior researchers, and development of a network of collaborators. 

These collaborations can contribute fundamental insights to basic and applied ecology, and also may lead 

to new advances in computer science and mathematics. 

Dr. Jones then asked if there were any questions. Dr. Olden asked about validating the ecosystem model. 

Do you make predictions and then see how close they are to reality using a standard procedure for 

validation? Dr. Jones replied that the model is validated using data that were not used to build the model. 

She also noted that it is important to make sure that the methods do not take advantage of scale. They use 

the same type of validation that is used in other fields (e.g., validate against standard bioassays and 

pathology). 

Mathematics of Ecological Dispersion 

Dr. Enrique Thomann, Department of Mathematics, Oregon State University 

Dr. Thomann referred to the project on the effects of fire on forest stand dynamics that was mentioned by 

Dr. Jones in her presentation. Initially, there was a significant communication barrier between the 

ecology student and the mathematician working on this effort; however, after some time the ecologist 

began asking questions that were almost mathematical. It is important for the ecologists and the 

mathematician to use a common “language.” For this project, the ecologist had to figure out if he wanted 

to develop a model that would predict the future or detect the effect of changes. 

Dr. Philbert asked if the “language” they developed was universal. If a group on the East Coast carried 

out a similar project, how similar would their “language” be to that developed for this OSU project? 

Dr. Thomann replied that the language is not universal and this effort is just the beginning of developing 

such a language. A great deal of effort must be expended in the beginning to communicate and describe

the project and what needs to be done. After there is agreement on definitions, the project can move 

forward. 

Referring to two graphs that were included in Dr. Jones’ presentation, Dr. Sayler asked if they were 

generated from a model or from actual data. Dr. Thomann replied that they were generated from the 

model. Dr. Sayler commented that this almost becomes a sensitivity analysis to point the researcher in a 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

23 

particular direction. Dr. Thomann responded that the graph identifies different age classes and how long 

it will take to transition from one to another. 

Dr. Tharakan asked if it was possible to take the ecosystem informatics model and work backwards to see 

if it accurately modeled the changes. Dr. Thomann answered that it was an important part of the thesis 

for this project to use historical data to assess the accuracy of the model. He added that the data could not 

justify strong conclusions. Dr. Jones mentioned that this student began as a field scientist who had a math 

phobia; however, he was drawn to complex computer simulations to explain what he was observing in the 

field. Therefore, he collaborated with mathematicians to develop an analytical model that did a much 

better job at explaining the observations than a simulation model. Dr. Sayler commented that, now that 

the processing power is available, the issue is how to assemble and interpret the data. Dr. Philbert stated 

that when a human population is exposed to some drug, only a small subset of people have an adverse 

effect. Can such singularities be detected with this model to explain why individuals in a group behave 

differently? One participant replied that it would be difficult because trees can reproduce asexually and 

they do not grow in a constant temperature. In some forests, there has not been a fire for 1,000 years, and 

other forests burn frequently. Dr. Jones noted that different species of trees respond differently to fire. 

The model could detect that difference by age of tree and species. This approach could be applied to 

detecting the singularities to which Dr. Philbert referred. She added that one colleague is looking into 

how to predict disease epidemics with this model. A participant commented that one of the advantages of 

this model is that it goes from a conceptual view to a more rigorous mathematical view to help explain

phenomena. 

Dr. Haas observed that the OSU collaboration works because that organization has ecologists, 

mathematicians, and computer scientists who are used to inquiry-based research. EPA, for the most part, 

relies on contractor-based mathematical and computer science support rather than internal staff. Could 

that restrict the degree of cross-over interaction at EPA? Dr. Demerjian thought that collaboration would 

more likely be restricted because of the discipline. He noted that ecologists do not have a long history of 

building models. In addition, it is difficult to find 50 years of data to offer an adequate dataset. 

Dr. Thomann commented that an ecologist would typically rely on computer simulation to explain 

observations; however, that is not the approach that would be used by a mathematician. One participant 

mentioned that there has been some reluctance at EPA to hire mathematicians because the Agency is an 

applied science organization and it is not obvious where a mathematician would fit in. In addition, 

computer scientists usually are not viewed as part of the interdisciplinary team solving an environmental 

problem. 

Computer Science and EcoInformatics 

Dr. Tom Dietterich, Director of Intelligent Systems Research, School of Electrical Engineering and 

Computer Science, Oregon State University 

Dr. Tom Dietterich described two data driven science projects: (1) Species Distribution Modeling and 

(2) Computer Vision for Automated Identification of Arthropods. The Species Distribution Modeling 

project involved predicting spatio-temporal distribution of species (single and multiple). The model could 

be used for: species mapping to guide field surveys, reserve design to optimize conservation benefit 

versus cost of acquisition/opportunity costs, and real-time management of barriers to bird migration 

(skyscraper lighting, wind farm operations, airplane-bird interactions). OSU collaborated with the 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Ebird.org, which is a real-time, online checklist program that provides basic 

information on bird abundance and distribution at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Volunteer

“birders” upload checklists of birds observed and not observed. Ebird.org receives 1.5 million data points 

per month, from birders with a wide mix of expertise. The challenges for the Species Distribution Model 

are fourfold: 

1. Detectability—Bird may be present but not be detected by observer. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

24 

2. Experts versus Novices—Novices are more likely to fail to detect, and they may confuse a bird 

with other species. 

3. Sampling Bias—Birders stay close to home so the sampling is skewed to population centers. 

4. Partial Information—Observations may provide only partial information. 

Dr. Dietterich stated that birds are most detectable during migration and mating. Models that ignore 

detectability can become confused (e.g., predict that forests are poor bird habitat in July and August). 

Detectabilty depends on the observer and his/her effort as well as the species, time of year, density of 

vegetation, weather, and other factors. 

Occupancy/detection models (Mackenzie et al.) attempt to separate occupancy and detection given the 

observation data by using two logistic regression models—one for occupancy and one for detection 

probability. In machine learning, the logistic regression models are replaced with boosted regression trees 

(BRTs), which are known to be one of the best methods for species distribution modeling under perfect 

detection. This novel BRT methodology can handle latent variable models unlike existing BRT methods. 

To address the challenge of birder expertise, they looked at what species the novice birders over- and

under-reported. They also estimated the expertise level of each birder. The hypothesis was that the 

Species Distribution Modeling accuracy could be improved by down-weighting (but not discarding) 

novice data. This added an expertise component to the Occupancy/Detectability model. As the model 

becomes more sophisticated, it will be able to make better predictions. 

Because the citizen scientists reporting observations stay fairly close to home, the sampling tends to be 

skewed to human population centers. The challenge was how to make good predictions across the entire 

United States. They accomplished this by using covariate shift reweighting. They confirmed that the 

weighting approach improved the model results. 

Dr. Dietterich noted that partial information comes from, for example NEXRAD weather radar, which 

provides an approximate measure of the number of birds but does not indicate the species. Similarly, 

night flight calls are a diagnostic for some species, but not for others. These data can be incorporated 

using a collective Hidden Markov Model (cHMM), which provides algorithms for inferring the most 

likely state and path. 

Dr. Dietterich indicated that direct observations of bird migration (e.g., by radio tagging) are limited. The 

goal of BirdCast, a pilot radar ornithology project that focuses on the mid-Atlantic region, is to generate 

real-time migration forecasts. These data will help scientists understand how birds “decide” when to 

continue along their migration path, how they “choose” their path and where they decide to stop over, and 

predict how climate change and land use will affect these decisions. The data also can be used to identify 

and remove migratory hazards; for example, reduce lighting in skyscrapers during major migrations, 

manage wind farms to minimize migration interference, and alert air traffic to bird/plane collision risk. 

The data also provide birders with information on where and when they can observe target species. 

Dr. Demerjian asked if anyone had done any correlations with weather patterns and conditions. 

Dr. Dietterich replied that the current belief among ornithologists is that, for short-distance migrations, 

the birds usually wait for favorable winds, but for long-distance migrations, the birds have a particular 

time that they must leave. 

The second data driven science project described by Dr. Dietterich was Computer Vision for Automated 

Identification of Arthropods. He explained that arthropod population surveys of freshwater streams are 

used for assessing stream health, measuring the success of stream restoration, and understanding basic

stream ecology. This project involved the development of a new survey concept in which the technician

would collect the samples in the field and manually clean the samples. The specimens would be dumped 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

25 

into a robotic device that automatically singulated, photographed, identified, and sorted them. An expert 

would manually identify the “rejects.” 

The pilot project focused on using this new survey concept to identify nine taxa of stoneflies. There were 

3,826 stonefly image; 773 specimens and 9 classes were identified. The error was estimated by threefold 

cross-validation. The error rate using the state-of-the-art method was 16.1 percent, and the error rates for 

pilot Method 1 (using boosted dictionaries) and Method 2 (using stacked evidence trees) were 4.9 percent 

and 5.6 percent, respectively. 

The current work is focusing on identifying the 50 most abundant taxa of Ephermeroptera, Plecoptera, 

and Trichoptera (EPT), which are the basis of EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Plan 

(EMAP) surveys. The EPT are identified independently by two experts. The initial results for 29 taxa

indicate that the precision varies from species to species. The challenge is detecting and rejecting “novel” 

species. Can the system detect that a specimen does not belong to any of the training classes? This 

question poses interesting problems for the computer scientists. 

Dr. Dietterich closed his presentation by identifying the next steps for this project, which are to improve 

shape descriptors, conduct tests on EMAP specimens, initiate the soil mesofauna project, improve the 

rejection of distracters, and initiate in situ video surveillance. He asked if the BOSC members had any 

questions. 

Dr. Philbert asked if Dr. Dietterich had looked at the pathology literature on the automated reading of 

pathological slides. Dr. Dietterich responded in the affirmative, particularly for breast cancer tissues. 

OSU’s goal is to develop something similar. Dr. Philbert suggested that Dr. Dietterich contact Dr. Daniel 

Farkas, Bioengineering Department, The Weizmann Institute of Science at the University of Pittsburg and 

Dr. Simon Watkins, Department of Cell Biology and Physiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of

Medicine about the work they are doing. Dr. Philbert asked if the specimens were dead and Dr. 

Dietterich confirmed that they were and that they were preserved in alcohol. 

Dr. Haas asked if the stonefly data were from local streams, and Dr. Dietterich replied that they were

collected in streams from New Mexico to Oregon. Dr. Haas then asked if they had looked at the value of 

incorporating contextual information. Dr. Dietterich indicated that they had not, and added that his dream 

is to develop a retrainable technology that can be used for many problems. 

Dr. Sayler thanked Drs. Jones, Thomann, and Dietterich for their presentations. 

Ecosystem Informatics Framework for Marine Biogeography and Natural History at 

Regional to Global Scales 

Dr. Henry Lee II, EPA, ORD, NHEERL, Western Ecology Division 

Dr. Henry Lee explained that the present goal of this effort is to capture the global biogeographic 

distributions of all the near-coastal nonindigenous species in the North Pacific along with their relevant 

habitat and invasion traits. The future goal is to adapt the Pacific Ecosystem Information System (PCEIS) 

to capture climate related traits for near-coastal species in the Northeast Pacific and Arctic. The database 

then could be used as a knowledge engine for generating species’ climate risk profiles. 

The basic principles and assumptions are: (1) for many questions, classes for habitat requirements and/or 

physiological tolerances will suffice; (2) information will be capture by hierarchical classes where 

possible to accommodate different levels of knowledge and needs; (3) geography is biology—use 

distributions to infer habitat specificity; and (4) queriable natural history requires standardization even at 

the loss of some ecological nuances. A graphical interface is used for capturing distributions of native 

and nonindigenous species because this is much easier to use than a spreadsheet format. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

26 

The first step in the management strategy for the research data is to develop an informatics topology to 

collect and store biological data. The regional and local databases from EMAP are feeding into the 

database. Presently, more than 17,000 taxa are in PCEIS. The objective is to have at least 95 percent of 

the reported species in the Northeast Pacific and Arctic for fishes and most invertebrate taxa. Dr. Lee 

presented an atlas of the nonindigenous species in the North Pacific and then did a brief demonstration of 

PCEIS. 

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, biodiversity will decline globally if there is a 

continued focus only on ecosystem services. Dr. Lee noted that although extinction is the ultimate 

ecological insult, there are many lesser insults, including population decline, range contraction, 

population fragmentation, and loss of associated ecosystem functions for services. The objectives of the 

project are to: (1) develop automated procedures to identify near-coastal species at greatest risk to

different types of climate alterations using rule sets based on biogeographic distributions, natural history 

attributes, and physiological traits; (2) overlay species’ biogeographical and habitat distributions with 

projected climatic alterations at multiple scales; and (3) analyze risk for suites of taxa from the Gulf of 

California to the Arctic. 

The Arctic is predicted to experience larger temperature increases than the mid- and low-latitudes. 

Additionally, polar species have “nowhere to run” in response to a warming ocean. The results of this

effort can be used to help shape public opinion and policy, identify locations that will be most impacted 

by climate change, identify types of climatic alterations that will have the greatest impact on biodiversity, 

and develop potential mitigation options. Dr. Lee presented a framework for a climate-induced 

alternative futures species distribution prediction system. He noted that, because of the complexity of the 

rule sets, PCEIS will migrate from Access to the Web. 

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List approach needs to be modified for 

climate risk, specifically for near-coastal species. EPA needs to work with the IUCN more closely in the 

future to accomplish this. A major challenge is that there is considerably less data available for nearcoastal species than for terrestrial flora and fauna. Vulnerability is being predicted based on the three 

components of rarity. Multidimensional analysis of rarity types is based on Rabinowitz’s Rarity Classes 

(which are similar to the criteria used by the IUCN for its Red List). The first component of rarity is 

whether the species has a high or a low population size. The second is whether the species has a large or 

small geographic range. The third component is whether the species can occur in a broad range of 

habitats or whether it is restricted to a more narrow range. How vulnerable is the habitat to different types 

of climatic alterations? 

Data from PCEIS can be used to assess, for example, the species of chiton in the Northeast Pacific (Gulf 

of California to Chukchi Sea) that are most at risk to temperature increases or those most at risk to ocean 

acidification. The number of species endemic to each ecoregion and the number of species in more than

one ecoregion were identified. A cross-walk between ecoregions and depth was done using the PCEIS 

depth classification schema for chitons. Dr. Lee presented the preliminary rule set for pCO2 and ocean 

acidification organism traits affecting vulnerability. He noted that developing these rule sets is a large 

part of the research. One possible output could be a color-coded matrix that identifies the risk to climate 

change (e.g., increase in air temperature, increase in water temperature, loss of wetland habitat) for

various species. 

Ms. Zhuikov asked if the PCEIS database is available to those outside of EPA. Dr. Lee responded that 

the Agency will make a version of PCEIS available to the public in October 2010. This version will 

contain information on about 1,000 non-native species in the North Pacific. EPA has an interagency 

agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to get the database online. Ms. Zhuikov said she 

thought that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had an invasive species database. Dr. Lee replied that it is 

USGS that has that database. He added that EPA is working with USGS and also is trying to connect 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

27 

with the Smithsonian and its database. Dr. Lee mentioned that there are several hundred nonindigenous

species databases. 

Dr. Sayler asked if there were any international connections. Are other countries attempting to do 

anything like this? Dr. Lee responded that the work is funded partly by the Japanese. WED has had 

limited success in working with China, and complications with Canada because the database did not run 

on Canadian systems since they had not installed Windows updates. Dr. Lee said that WED hopes to 

foster the relationship with Japan. 

Dr. Olden asked how many species have been entered into PCEIS and if there was a limit to the number it 

can contain. Dr. Lee replied that they have data on all of the fish on the West Coast and PCEIS will 

include all of the major taxa. Dr. Haas asked if there is a precise definition of a native species. Dr. Lee 

answered that they are considering native species that are from the pre-Columbian era. Dr. Demerjian 

asked if the database users are entering data into the PCEIS. Dr. Lee replied that Microsoft Access does 

not allow multiple, simultaneous users, but he can take the back ends and merge them. Unfortunately, 

this approach makes Dr. Lee the gatekeeper. Dr. Demerjian asked about quality control and Dr. Lee said 

that he is responsible for quality control at this point. Dr. Philbert pointed out that allowing users to enter 

data makes quality control much more difficult because these users operate under different assumptions. 

Dr. Lee agreed and added that there is a user’s manual and documentation for the database. 

Laboratory Tour: Western Ecology Division 

Modeling Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs in Response to Land Use and Climate 

Bob McKane, EPA, ORD, NHEERL, Western Ecology Division

Dr. Fontaine introduced this presentation by Dr. Bob McKane, which was prerecorded, from the 

Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) Seminar Series held July 1, 2010. 

WED is involved in developing ecosystem service tradeoffs for alternative forest management scenarios 

in support of the ESRP. The seminar included: an overview of the VELMA ecohydrology model and 

goals; monitoring, mapping, and modeling demonstration (forest management alternatives and ecosystem 

service tradeoffs); the decision support framework Envision-VELMA; and current place-based 

applications and clients (Willamette Ecosystem Services Project and Flint Hills Regional Applied 

Research Effort [RARE]). Dr. McKane noted that the work described in the seminar is the collaborative

effort of EPA, Georgia Institute of Technology, Kansas State University, Marine Biological Laboratory–

 Woods Hole, and Oregon State University. 

Interaction of processes across wide spatial and temporal scales requires a systems approach for managing 

bundled ecosystem services. An example of an ecosystem service is the regulation of water quality; 

supporting processes include transforming, cycling and retaining nutrients and toxics in plants and soils. 

Because the many processes supporting various ecosystem services are interconnected, actions taken to 

optimize one service will tend to affect other services, either negatively or positively.. Well tested models 

are needed to show this interconnectedness across large landscapes. A model developed by the Georgia 

Institute of Technology and EPA-WED specifically for this purpose is the ecohydrological model, 

VELMA – Visualizing Ecosystems for Land Management Assessment. VELMA is a spatially-distributed 

soil column based model, typically using 30 x 30 meter columns, or pixels, for watershed and landscapescale applications. It simulates the transport of water, nutrients and toxics down slope to streams and 

other surface waters. The pixel size can be changed if necessary. The data needs of the model are 

relatively simple. 

The features of this model include: coupled hydrological and biogeochemical cycles; flexible landscape 

units and soil layers; and spatially explicit soil and vegetation dynamics–days to centuries, plots to basins. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

28 

The goals are to develop a model that: (1) links effects to causes (identify processes controlling 

ecosystem service tradeoffs), (2) is applicable to a wide variety of ecosystems and regions, (3) maps 

“bundles” of ecosystem services across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, (4) is easy to 

implement (data and calibration requirements), and (5) provides a user-friendly decision support 

framework to assess outcomes of alternative policies and management decisions. VELMA simulates the 

effects of climate, land use, land cover, and soils on multiple ecosystem services (water quality and 

quantity regulation, food and fiber production, carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas regulation, and 

regulation of reactive nitrogen [Nr]). 

VELMA has a very simple hydrological submodel. It computes the soil water balance daily for 

individual pixels, typically represented at 30 x 30 meters soil columns divided into four layers. Drainage 

and runoff occur as a function of soil moisture content, which is related to soil porosity. For sandy soils, 

the logistic curves controlling drainage and runoff would shift to the left to simulate rapid drainage; for 

clay soils, the curves would shift to the right to simulate slower drainage and greater retention of water. 

VELMA also has a biogeochemical submodel that computes the exchange of carbon and nitrogen 

between the atmosphere, soils, plants, and streams. VELMA links the hydrological and biogeochemical 

processes within soil columns, hill slopes and watersheds. The goal is to develop a model that is broadly 

applicable; for example, it will work for the Arctic LTER, Hubbarb Brook LTER, Chesapeake Bay, 

Konza Prairie LTER, and HJ Andrews LTER. 

The Willamette Ecosystem Services Project is focused on assessing the effects of changes in land use and 

climate on the provisioning and long-term sustainability of ecosystem services in the 30,000 km2

Willamette River Basin in Oregon, a diverse landscape consisting of 70 percent forest, 20 percent 

agriculture, 8 percent urban, and 2 percent wetlands and other. An initial demonstration of VELMA was

conducted for the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest and LTER site, a 64 km2

 headwater basin in the 

Cascade Mountains of the Willamette River Basin. VELMA was used to assess the effects of several 

alternative forest management scenarios on tradeoffs among key forest ecosystem services, including the 

regulation of water quality and quantity; timber production; carbon sequestration; greenhouse gases; and 

retention of reactive nitrogen. 

The application of VELMA to the HJ Andrews LTER study site is a good example of how monitoring, 

modeling, and mapping can be used together to support land management and policy decisions. EPAWED and LTER personnel have collaborated to facilitate the exchange of information among those doing 

monitoring, those doing modeling, and those doing mapping. The HJ Andrews VELMA application is an 

example of ESRP’s national program to develop these linkages. Monitoring provides data on ecosystem 

service indicators (status and trends); modeling links ecosystem services effects to specific stressors and 

provides alternative future ecosystem services projections; and the mapping effort synthesizes this 

information to provide a national atlas and maps of ecosystem services (status and trends). 

Communications among these three ESRP activities is critical to support client decisions, including 

problem formulation; scenario definition; ecosystem services metric needs; integration of data, scenarios, 

and models; and assessment of tradeoffs. 

Dr. McKane presented several graphs and explained that the model was calibrated to simulate the 

dynamics of forest biomass following a fire and following clear cutting in the Pacific Northwest. The

model predictions were validated against local and regional scale data. The model results showed that

within 70 years following clear cutting, plant biomass only recovered to about 80 percent what would be 

expected following a natural stand-replacing fire.. Because logs (and nutrients) are transported offsite 

during clear cutting, the nutrient level after clear cutting is much reduced relative to burned areas (>90% 

of pre-fire biomass typically remains as dead but unburned wood following fire). The clear cut area could 

be fertilized to replace the lost nutrients, but that may potentially have an impact on stream water quality. 

The model allows decision makers to look at the effects of such scenarios. Dr. McKane explained that the 

model did a good job of simulating the response of streamflow to clear cutting, and to daily and seasonal 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

29 

changes in precipitation and temperature – an important requirement for simulating the combined effects 

of land use and climate change. 

VELMA also did a good job of capturing the long-term data on an old growth forest before it was clear 

cut in 1975; there was good correlation (R2 = 0.91) between the simulated streamflow and the observed 

streamflow. Following the clear cut in 1975, the model also did a good job of simulating streamflow (R

2

= 0.91). Clear cutting induced a 28 percent increase in annual average streamflow during the first 5 years 

after harvest, and a 4 percent increase after 25 years. These responses have implications for flood 

protection, maintenance of streamflow during summer low flow conditions, and water quality issues. 

VELMA’s hydrologic submodel held up well when validated across multiple spatial scales. There was 

good correlation between observed and simulated stream discharge as well as observed and simulated 

steam chemistry. Dr. McKane noted that the rain typically starts at the study area in late September/early 

October after very dry summer months. The soil is like a sponge and it must become saturated before 

significant increases in streamflow begin. Therefore, streamflow increases only after the hill slopes

saturate, which also leads to greater nutrient flushing. The intent of the model is to capture how such 

fundamental hydrological and biogeochemical processes respond to human decisions affecting land use, 

land cover and climate. 

VELMA’s biogeochemical submodel was validated using long-term data describing the response of 

stream chemistry to clear cutting. There was good correlation (R2

 = 0.86 for 1994 – 2006) between 

observed and simulated dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) stream losses; there also was good correlation 

between observed and simulated dissolved organic carbon (DOC) stream losses (R2 = 0.81 for 1994 – 

2006). Dr. McKane said that there are plans to do more spatially extensive biogeochemical validation 

when stream chemistry data for the 64 km2 HJ Andrews Basin become available in 2011. He noted that 

the model did a good job simulating recovery of soil organic matter and vegetation biomass following the 

stand replacing fire in 1525. 

Dr. McKane stated that the model can be used as a tool for mapping ecosystem services and supporting 

processes. He showed maps of simulated plant and soil carbon in the HJ Andrews landscape. The maps 

reflect the fire and harvest history in the area. 

VELMA was used to model three alternative land uses for the 64 km2 HJ Andrews Basin. Scenario 1—

all old growth forest (historical condition)—has maximum ecosystem carbon stocks, maximum carbon 

sequestration, maximum greenhouse gas sink, less stream discharge (25% less), and minimal stream 

nitrogen load. Scenario 2—all clear cut (hypothetical)—has highest fiber (timber) production, reduced

ecosystem carbon stocks, less carbon sequestration, maximum greenhouse gas emissions, and maximum 

stream discharge and nitrogen load. Scenario 3—present-day landcover (~45% harvested, ~55% old 

growth)—has intermediate ecosystem carbon stocks (more than Scenario 2 and less than Scenario 1), 

some carbon sequestration (more than Scenario 2 and less than Scenario 1), greenhouse gas sink (slightly 

less than Scenario 1), intermediate stream discharge (more than Scenario 1 and less than Scenario 2). 

Thus, there are tradeoffs among the three scenarios. For example, the present-day landcover for Scenario 

3 represents one sort of compromise, providing for at least some timber production while maintaining 

most other terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem services close to those for the all old growth Scenario 1. The 

model does not make value judgments; it just provides the science to inform policy decisions. There is 

work ongoing to incorporate a habitat and biodiversity (fish and wildlife populations) link to the model. 

VELMA has been applied successfully at various scales, from stands to catchments to basins to 

landscapes. Next steps include scaling up to larger landscape-scale applications, for example, the 2,000 

km2

 area surrounding JH Andrews, the predominantly agricultural Willamette Valley and, ultimately, the 

entire 30,000 km2 Willamette River Basin. 

VELMA is being linked with Envision, a GIS-based decision support tool for constructing alternative 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

30 

future scenario applications for community and regional planning and environmental assessments. 

Envision was created by Dr. John Bolte and colleagues at Oregon State University to allow examination 

of the nature and properties of coupled human and natural environmental systems. It employs scenarios, 

data, evaluative models produced by past research, and utilizes prior work in agent-based modeling and

biocomplexity theory. Central to Envision, are the three-way interactions of actors, who have decisionmaking authority over parcels of land, the landscape which is changed as these decisions are made, and

the policies that guide and constrain decisions. Envision enables multi-model linkages, and additional 

ecological models (e.g., HexSim, FishNet) are being integrated as plug-ins. Work is underway to link all 

of the models (for stressors, ecology, terrestrial services, and aquatic services) into a common framework. 

To demonstrate some of the features of Envision, Dr. McKane presented a “flyover” visualization of

Puget Sound alternative futures—current conditions, unconstrained growth, managed growth, and status 

quo. Such visualizations allow decision makers to view how alternative future scenarios of population

growth, land use and climate may affect changes in carbon storage, water quality and other ecosystem 

services across large landscapes. The goal is to produce animations that help decision-makers visualize 

the impacts of various decision options. Dr. McKane commented that this is a good example of linking 

basic research to societal needs. 

At this point, Dr. Fontaine stopped the recording because of time and asked if there were any questions. 

Dr. Demerjian asked about the 30 x 30 meters resolution. Is there a profile of the soil every 30 meters? 

Dr. Denis White replied that the selection of 30 x 30 meter pixels is based on digital elevation models. 

He noted that 30 meters is used because 30 meters resolution is standard for satellite data (Landsat is 30 

meters). The soil data are for arbitrarily shaped polygons on soil maps. He mentioned that they use 

LTER sites because a lot of this work already has been done for these sites. [Subsequent note from Dr. 

McKane – yes, there is a 4-layer soil profile for every 30-m pixel; total profile depth and depths of 

individual layers can vary from pixel to pixel, as determined from soil mapping information from NRCS 

and other sources.] 

Dr. Olden commented that the policy makers need information on water runoff, greenhouse gas emissions 

or recapture, and habitat and biodiversity. Not all of these have been integrated into the model yet so 

inputs are needed from other sources. An information management tool is needed that will predict the 

impacts of alternative land management decisions so that the decision makers can assess the tradeoffs. 

Dr. White responded that Envision is the tool that will provide that information. It can integrate fish 

models, ecological models, timber harvesting models, and water quality models to provide the 

information needed to assess tradeoffs. 

Dr. Sayler asked if emergy is being used as a subcomponent of these models to look at sustainability. Dr. 

White answered that Dan Campbell at Narragansett is involved in such work. He added that emergy is 

one of the factors included in a study in the San Luis Valley area that WED is working on with the 

Cincinnati laboratory. An EPA report on this work will be released soon. 

Dr. Haas asked if it would be helpful to get input on stakeholder preferences, noting that they have 

different preferences. Dr. White responded that there has been some work with Envision to incorporate 

the values of decision makers. Dr. Olden cautioned against getting involved in the policy side; Dr. Haas 

said there is a fine line between developing tools for decision makers and making the decisions and 

establishing policy. Dr. White stated that the tool can show the decision makers the environmental 

impacts of their decisions. Dr. Olden commented that this is good science but most Americans would not 

know anything about this work. Ms. Zhuikov asked if ORD had someone working on communicating 

this research to the public. Dr. Fontaine responded that this research is quite new and ORD will ensure 

that it is communicated to the appropriate audiences as well as the public. 

Dr. Sayler thanked Dr. Fontaine for sharing the presentation with the BOSC and adjourned the meeting 

for the day at 5:19 p.m. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

31 

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 

Dr. Sayler called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. He then asked Dr. Sally Darney if she was ready to 

begin her presentation. 

ORD Response to BOSC Human Health Report 

Dr. Sally Perreault Darney, EPA, ORD, NPD for Human Health 

Dr. Sally Darney, acting NPD for the Human Health Research Program (HHRP) since January 2008, 

started the presentation by acknowledging the four Long Term Goal (LTG) leads who helped with the 

review and this report. The BOSC review of the HHRP was conducted in January 2009, and the report on 

the review was transmitted to ORD in December 2009. ORD prepared a detailed response to that report 

and transmitted it to the BOSC in June 2010. She stated that this presentation summarizes the ORD 

response. 

Dr. Darney next acknowledged the BOSC Subcommittee that conducted the review, and pointed out that 

it included people with broad mix of interdisciplinary expertise, including toxicologists, exposure 

scientists, public health experts, epidemiologists, and modelers, that corresponds with the mix of expertise 

in HHRP. Dr. Darney noted that social science expertise is limited in HHRP and on the Subcommittee, 

but desirable for the future. She indicated that the BOSC review provided valuable feedback for the 

program and significantly influenced ORD’s thinking. 

 

The Subcommittee was charged with evaluating the HHRP’s relevance, structure, quality, coordination/ 

communication, performance, and scientific leadership. The BOSC indicated that the program had 

matured since the 2005 BOSC review, and increased its emphasis on public health. The BOSC found the 

program to be robust and that it was responsive to emerging issues. The scientific content of the HHRP 

was deemed to be excellent by the BOSC and the program was better integrated than at the 2005 review. 

The BOSC found the program’s productivity to be strong with formidable impact. In addition, the BOSC 

thought the program’s leadership was excellent to outstanding. 

The overall rating for the HHRP was meets expectations. The ratings for the program’s four Long Term 

Goals (LTG) were: 

 LTG 1–Use of Mechanistic Data in Risk Assessment: Meets Expectations 

 LTG 2–Cumulative Risk: Meets Expectations 

 LTG 3–Susceptible and Vulnerable Populations: Meets Expectations (the children’s health 

component exceeds expectations) 

 LTG 4–Developing Tools to Evaluate Risk Management Decisions: Exceeds Expectations. 

Dr. Darney noted that the goals are interrelated and the BOSC suggested that ORD revisit this structure. 

The BOSC offered a number of general recommendations for the program. These included: 

 Add linkage with risk assessments conducted by the Agency 

 Document use of models and tools by research partners. 

 Translate research to bring the exposure and toxicology science to bear on epidemiology and 

community work and thereby address real world public health problems. 

 Make tools and models more “user-friendly” and Web-based. 

 Consider altering the program structure to do these things. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

32 

 Expand partner engagement (generally for all health programs) both within EPA and with other 

agencies, institutions, and non-governmental groups. 

In its original concept, the HHRP was designed to be a “core” program that supported other ORD 

research programs, such as SP2, EDCs, and Clean Air by addressing cross-cutting issues of interest to 

multiple EPA program offices and Regions, as opposed to solving problems for a single office. HHRP 

also collaborates directly with the Computational Toxicology Program and the Human Health Risk 

Assessment Program in ORD to help these programs achieve their goals. 

 Since the January 2009 review, there have been a number of changes in ORD that will affect the next 

steps for HHRP. In particular, the newly proposed integrated transdisciplinary SPSW Program described 

earlier in this BOSC meeting by Dr. Francis, will integrate all chemical-related research (exposure 

science, toxicology, and context-specific assessment approaches) from several programs, including 

HHRP, into one program. Dr. Darney said that she is supportive of the new SPSW Program because it 

brings ORD’s research on chemicals together into one program and should make communication with 

EPA’s program offices more efficient. 

There are many drivers for the SPSW program and over the last two years HHRP has been building 

capacity and conducting new research that is motivated by these same drivers, which include: 

 NRC’s Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (2007)—highlights need for high throughput, smarter 

testing. 

 EPA’s Strategic Plan for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals (2009)—emphasizes use of 

computational toxicology approaches to elucidate pathways of toxicity and develop predictive 

models and addresses EPA’s role in an interagency Memorandum of Understanding with NIEHS, 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], FDA, and National Institutes of 

Health [NIH]). 

 NRC’s Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment (2008). 

 Administrator’s five goals for EPA’s new strategic plan include “Assuring the Safety of 

Chemicals.” 

 ORD/AA Paul Anastas’ focus on green chemistry approaches and the over-arching theme of 

sustainability. 

Components of the HHRP related to risks of chemicals would be incorporated into the new SPSW 

Program, including the research described under LTGs 1 and 2 and part of LTG 3. This would include: 

Exposure Models, Factors, and Databases (e.g. developing data for the Exposure Factor Handbooks 

developed by NCEA, and reverse dosimetry models); Cumulative Risk of Pesticides and Disinfection 

Byproducts (e.g., Pyrethroids Cumulative Risk Assessment to be reviewed by OCHPP’s Scientific 

Advisory Panel, 2012); Toxicity Pathways (with NCCT); Virtual Liver/Embryo (with NCCT); PB/PK and 

BBDR Models to link exposure and health effects; Intrinsic Susceptibility Factors (life stage, gender,

(epi-)genetics); Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect; and Interpretation of Biomonitoring Data (e.g., 

NHANES data and risk assessment). 

It is envisioned that after these chemically related components of HHRP migrate into the new SPSW 

program, ongoing elements related to public health, clean communities and children’s health will be 

incorporated into a new HHRP theme called, for the purposes of this presentation, healthy people in 

sustainable communities. This new theme would align with EPA’s goal of “cleaning up our 

communities” and focus on EPA’s cross cutting strategies including working for environmental justice 

and protecting vulnerable populations (especially children) and strengthening State, Tribal and 

international partnerships. Dr. Darney reported that in addition to working with EPA program offices and 

regions, this new theme would address the research needs of EPA’s Offices of Children’s Health 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

33 

Protection and Environmental Justice (working with the EPA Administrator-appointed Special Assistants 

for Children’s Health Peter Grevatt and Environmental Justice Lisa Garcia. Relationships would also be 

established with the new Office of Sustainable Communities in the Office of Policy, Economics, and 

Innovation (OPEI). The program would continue to support research needs in children’s health, including 

partnering with the National Children’s Study (NCS) and contributing to the Interagency Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. In addition, there is a growing need for the

Agency to address environmental justice concerns. EPA was issued a 100-day challenge from 

community groups following the ORD-Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) Symposium, 

“Strengthening Environmental Justice Research and Decision Making: A Symposium on the Science of 

Disproportionate Environmental Health Impacts.” This challenge calls for a holistic and participatory

research program in community health that includes community involvement. 

Existing components of the HHRP are relevant to the new theme including LTG 3–Susceptible and 

Vulnerable Populations and LTG 4–Accountability. Some of the questions addressed by this research 

are: How and why are children differentially exposed to pollutants? What are long-term consequences of 

in utero exposures/stress? Are aging populations at higher risk? What metrics and indicators are needed 

to evaluate and remediate communities at risk? and How do we measure success (i.e., effectiveness of 

risk management decisions)? 

The BOSC praised HHRP’s Children’s Health Program in the review and ORD is continuing its 

commitment to children’s health. Six new full centers (five year grants) and six formative centers (three 

year grants) are to be funded in 2010 under the Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention 

Centers Program which is co-funded with NIEHS. The centers’ work includes participatory research with

involvement of community partners. Two workshops planned for fall 2010 will identify data gaps and 

research needs to help guide future ORD research planning. These workshops include the ORD-Regional 

Science Workshop on children’s health and risk assessment, and the ORD-NIEHS-OCHP workshop 

Children’s Health for a Lifetime: Where Research Meets Clinical Practice and Policy (with ATSDRSuperfund Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units). 

ORD will continue to support the NCS Interagency Coordinating Committee and Workgroup and 

development of methods and sampling strategies for the NCS. For example, ORD sponsored a workshop 

on exposure metrics for NCS in April 2010 and the resulting report was well-received by NCS. In 

addition, ORD is conducting research to identify and evaluate potential sources of polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in schools to better understand exposures to children, teachers, and other school 

workers, and to improve risk management decisions. EPA will investigate PCB-contaminated caulk, as 

well as other potential sources of PCBs in schools. Future planned research areas include factors that 

impact exposures in very young children and in child care settings as well as school building practices 

and child/teacher performance. 

Dr. Darney then highlighted a number of key recommendations by the BOSC that will help direct and 

prioritize future research directions. ORD’s responses to these key recommendations are summarized 

below. 

BOSC Recommendation: The program should conduct more translational research to link advances in 

fundamental exposure and toxicology science (LTGs 1 and 2) with environmental public health 

applications (LTGs 3 and 4). 

ORD Response: The program is working to implement this recommendation. Some of the actions 

include: 

 STAR grants and intramural “accountability” studies (LTG 4) are providing information on 

public health indicators. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

34 

 The Community-Focused Exposure & Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST), an innovative Webbased tool with Google map interfaces, is being developed in collaboration with 

regional/community projects (LTG 2). 

 An “Environmental Quality Index” is being developed (LTG 4). 

 A STAR RFA soliciting new research on “Understanding the Role of Nonchemical Stressors and 

Developing Analytic Methods for Cumulative Risk Assessment” was issued in 2009. 

 A STAR RFA soliciting new research on “Exploring Linkages between Health Outcomes and 

Environmental Hazards, Exposures, and Interventions for Public Health Tracking and Risk 

Management” was issued in 2009. 

 A third in a series of STAR RFAs for the Tribal Grants Program is planned for release in 2011. 

These grants promote community-based participatory research. 

 The program is considering a STAR RFA on school environments and performance (in 

collaboration with OCHP and the Department of Education). 

 The program is considering a STAR RFA on Centers of Excellence on Environmental Justice 

(modeled after the Children’s Environmental Health Research Centers) to include communitybased participatory research. 

BOSC Recommendation: Redress program imbalance within the life-stage arm of LTG 3 such that the 

strengths of the childhood susceptibility research thrust are matched with an expanded research program 

addressing the elderly as well as potential subgroups across the entire age range. 

ORD Response: The HHRP does not anticipate additional new resources but is using available resources 

on a number of projects related to this goal. Research objectives include: (1) evaluate the response of 

different aged rats to air pollutants with the goal of informing PBBK models, (2) compare the responses 

of younger versus older asthmatics to air pollution, and (3) use an animal model to explore early in-utero

exposures and long-term consequences on chronic diseases later in life, such as hypertension, diabetes, 

and metabolic syndrome. Related to the latter effort, in 2009, ORD co-sponsored an international 

meeting: “Contribution of Environmental Stressors to the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease,”

with NIEHS, ATSDR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institute 

of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Several HHRP scientists were plenary speakers at 

this meeting, the proceedings of which are currently in press. 

BOSC Recommendation: Rethink the approach to asthma (LTG 3) as a target condition so that it is not 

simply approached as a surrogate of childhood susceptibility to new disease onset, but rather considered 

across the entire age range and in terms of pre-existing disease. 

ORD Response: ORD will hold a workshop on asthma in fall 2010 that is focused on both community 

health and climate change. A major goal of this workshop is to engage partners in the Office of Air and 

Radiation and OCHP by updating them on past research accomplishments and prioritizing continuing 

needs for research on asthma in relationship to environmental stressors. Current HHRP studies include

controlled exposure studies on older asthmatics exposed to inhaled particles with both respiratory and

cardiovascular outcomes to understand whether older asthmatics are at increased risk to endothelial injury 

and accelerated coagulation. In addition, the HHRP is examining the role of severity of asthma disease in 

conferring susceptibility to pollutants. This research will link to the new SPSW (whether toxicity 

pathways studied via gene expression and microRNA profiles are perturbed by pollutants in different 

ways in individuals with different asthma severity). The new Children’s Centers will address 

fundamental questions about the interactions among biological allergens and ozone in the etiology and 

progression of asthma, and about how asthma symptoms may be controlled by dietary intervention. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

35 

BOSC Recommendation: Incorporate additional case studies into LTG 4 and attempt to extrapolate from 

existing case studies to other examples. 

ORD Response: Additional case studies are underway with the Agency’s “Community Action for a 

Renewed Environment” (CARE) and “EJ Showcase Communities” programs. Also, the results from two 

intramural “accountability” projects summarized during the 2009 BOSC review are being extrapolated to 

other situations as follows: (1) salivary antibodies to water-borne pathogens are being evaluated for use 

in “Beaches” studies for OW, and (2) air pollution models that integrate and predict impacts of national 

and local (voluntary) actions, developed in New Haven, Connecticut (collaborative effort with Region 1), 

are being extrapolated to Bridgeport, Connecticut, a “Showcase Community.” Additional case studies are 

expected from the new series of STAR grants on public health indicators, the new Children’s Centers 

funded in 2010, and the new RFA for Tribal grants planned for 2011. 

BOSC Recommendation: Restructure the HHRP for better linkages between the exposure and toxicology 

research and public health applications. 

ORD Response: The HHRP is being restructured. Components related to managing chemical risks will 

go to the new SPSW Program and components related to public health will remain in the revised HHRP. 

The new theme for the HHRP is healthy people in sustainable communities. The latter will address the 

administrator’s goal of “cleaning up our communities” and cross cutting strategies of working for 

environmental justice and building strong state and tribal partnerships. Research to protect children’s 

health will be conducted in both programs. 

Dr. Darney closed her presentation with several “take home” messages. The HHRP has a long history as 

a “core” program that has benefitted multiple ORD and EPA partners. The 2009 BOSC review 

influenced new directions for the HHRP and ORD. Integrated transdisciplinary programs in ORD will 

provide new tools for solving 21st century environmental health problems, such as: 

 Reducing risks of chemicals by identifying key events along toxicity pathways (existing 

chemicals) and designing safe new chemicals. 

 Using advanced exposure and PBPK models to link exposures to health outcomes, interpret 

biomonitoring data, and inform risk mitigation. 

 Protecting children and other vulnerable populations by considering their unique exposures and 

susceptibilities. 

 Enabling communities, states, and tribes to participate in research to identify multiple stressors, 

reduce harmful exposures, and improve their environments to create sustainable well being. 

The research portfolios will include complementary intramural and extramural efforts, and invest 

specifically and strategically in the Administrator’s priorities. 

Dr. Sayler thanked Dr. Darney for her presentation and then asked about the definition of sustainable 

communities. Dr. Darney responded that sustainability means maintaining a balance between our 

consumption of natural resources and our use of ecosystem services so that we can maintain well being 

and growth without the negative impacts that ultimately will lead to our demise. She noted that EPA 

cannot accomplish sustainability on its own. It has to be defined on a basic level so that everyone can get 

involved. The Agency needs to look for starting points in community-based projects and work with 

partners to flesh out a program. Dr. Darney said that ORD would like to get the BOSC’s input on the 

SPSW in October, so the subject of sustainability can be discussed more at that meeting. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

36 

Dr. Olden complimented the program’s efforts to focus on sustainable communities. He mentioned that 

Dr. Darney’s definition of a sustainable community meshes with that used at the City University of New

York. He also was impressed with the new agenda for the revised HHRP. 

Dr. Tharakan asked if ORD is investing any effort in the development of a checklist or criteria to measure 

whether a community is moving toward sustainability. Dr. Darney replied that Rick Linthurst, the NPD 

for the Ecosystem Services Program, is working on this issue for ecosystem services and it is expected

that similar efforts will be made in the health program in the future. 

ORD Update—Potential Relationships Between Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water 

Resources 

Dr. Kevin Teichman, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, ORD, EPA 

Dr. Teichman said that his presentation would focus specifically on updating the BOSC on ORD’s efforts

on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. He mentioned that if there were follow-up questions 

concerning Dr. Anastas’ earlier remarks, he and Mr. Kadeli would try to respond to those questions. 

The FY 2010 Congressional Appropriations Conference Report urged “EPA to carry out a study on the 

relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the 

best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to 

be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of 

the data. The Agency shall consult with other federal agencies as well as appropriate state and interstate 

regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which should be prepared in accordance with the Agency’s 

quality assurance principles.” 

Dr. Teichman presented a diagram of the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle. A well is installed at the site, and 

these wells are much deeper than in the past. A recent development is for the well to turn horizontal once 

it reaches the shale. A mixture of water, sand, and chemical agents is pumped into the well. The shale is 

fractured by the pressure of the fluids inside the well, and fissures form in the shale around the well. Sand 

keeps the fissures open, and natural gas flows from the fissures into the well. Water, hydraulic fracturing 

fluid, and water from the subsurface, which may be contaminated with other things such as arsenic, are

pumped to the surface. 

The FY 2010 budget amount allows EPA to spend $1.9 million on this effort. Another $2.5 million will 

be added in 2011. This amount would not be enough to fund a single hydraulic fracturing installation. 

Therefore, EPA must work with industry to move forward with the study. The Agency must be careful to 

avoid working too closely with industry, so that EPA is not accused of favoring industry. ORD wants to 

involve stakeholders in the study design and hear from people who think their homes have been affected

by hydraulic fracturing sites. People from the local communities and local authorities as well as tribal 

representatives will be involved in study design, so that the results will be more usable to them and the 

study’s credibility will be evident. 

The steps in the study design are as follows: (1) define the scope of the study; (2) identify key research 

questions; (3) evaluate background information, literature, and data relevant to the research questions to 

identify research and information needs; (4) develop an initial framework for the study and criteria for 

prioritization; (5) prioritize the research and develop an initial study design; (6) engage stakeholders to 

inform study design; (7) peer review initial study design and revise as needed; (8) implement the study; 

(9) monitor and report progress; (10) develop research products; and (11) peer review the research 

products. 

The potential elements of the study include collection of background data and information, chemical 

characterization, potential field studies, modeling, and technology assessment. Dr. Teichman noted that 

because of competition among the various companies that do hydraulic fracturing, some companies 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

37 

consider the chemical characterization of the hydraulic fracturing fluid to be confidential; however, many 

in the industry also think the information should be shared. Because of the differences across the country, 

EPA would like to do multiple field studies, which will require a collaboration of stakeholders. 

In April 2010, EPA asked the SAB to provide input on the scope of the study, the research questions, the 

process to be used for prioritizing research, and the process used for obtaining balanced input from 

stakeholders. Representatives from other federal agencies, state and local governments, NGOs and 

associations, industry, trade associations, and private citizens participated in the SAB meeting which was 

held April 7-8, 2010. Sixty-four written comments and 15 oral comments were received at that meeting. 

The final report from the SAB was released on June 24, 2010, and the primary recommendation was to 

focus on drinking water resources while also recognizing the hydraulic fracturing life cycle to help 

identify partners. 

EPA will engage stakeholders (including individual citizens, communities, state and federal partners, 

industry, trade associations, tribes, and environmental organizations) in a variety of ways to exchange 

information and provide progress updates as the Agency plans, implements, and completes this study. 

Stakeholder involvement includes: 

 Facilitated public meetings (Summer 2010): EPA Regions 2, 3, 6, and 8 

 Sector-specific meetings (Summer 2010): federal agencies, states, NGOs, and industry 

 Technical workshops (Fall 2010) 

 Web-based outreach 

 Peer review panel meetings, including requests for input via Federal Register notice 

 Public comment during meetings and written comments

 State and federal partner consultations. 

The timeline for the project indicated that meetings with state and federal partners would be conducted in 

late May/early June 2010, the Website would be posted in June, and public meetings would be held in 

July and August. The draft study design will be completed in September, technical workshops will be 

conducted in September and October, and peer review will be initiated in October. The study is expected 

to begin in January 2011, and initial study results are expected to be published by late 2012. 

Dr. Sayler asked if there were any questions for Dr. Teichman. Dr. Demerjian said he was very 

concerned that the air side of this issue is not being addressed. Very little has been done on this topic. In 

addition, there are some concerns about fugitive emissions from lateral drilling. He mentioned that New 

York requires companies to provide information on the organic materials in the hydraulic fracturing 

fluids, which often contain benzene, xylene, and toluene. There are no data on the emissions from 

hydraulic fracturing processes. Is lateral drilling exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions? The Agency 

needs to look at these processes to ensure that they are safe and the emissions should be monitored. 

Dr. Teichman thought Dr. Demerjian made some important points. ORD is discussing with the Office of 

Air and Radiation (OAR) the possibility of supplementing ORD’s funding so that the study can examine 

some of these air-related issues. 

Ms. Zhuikov commented that this study will spark the interest of the public. She was pleased to see the 

SAB’s recommendation on developing a communications plan, but she did not see it in the study design 

process. What does ORD plan to do to communicate this study and its results? Dr. Teichman responded 

that OW will be assisting with these public meetings and communications. ORD is working with the 

Office of Public Affairs to develop materials that will inform the public about this study. In addition, the 

meetings will be professionally facilitated to ensure that the discussion remains on topic. He noted that it 

is important that the meetings do not become too bureaucratic or too technical. EPA wants the public to 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

38 

participate in the study and to conduct it in an open and transparent fashion. There will be efforts to 

communicate with the local communities and with the media. 

Dr. Olden said he thought this was a case where the BOSC should make a strong statement to ORD about 

the government’s need to review of the safety of the hydraulic fracturing process. He was surprised to 

learn that companies did not have to inform EPA about the composition of their hydraulic fracturing 

fluids. The Agency needs to make sure that hydraulic fracturing is not irreversibly contaminating our

water sources. 

Dr. Tharakan commented that this appears to be an engineering study at this point. What are the health 

agencies doing on this topic? Dr. Teichman replied that he has been in contact with NIEHS about the 

public meetings, because ORD believes that the public will call for testing to be done. He pointed out 

that hydraulic fracturing fluids cannot be recovered in many cases, so testing is important to assess their 

safety. 

Dr. Hauchman said he attended the stakeholder meeting that was held in Dallas. The Agency received 

100 comments, the meeting was attended by more than 600 people, and it lasted 4 hours. Representatives 

from industry and the state regulatory commission along with some members of the public said they were

not concerned about hydraulic fracturing and they supported the process. Others did not share their view, 

however, and it was clear that many commenters had little faith in the state oversight of these operations. 

Similar meetings will be held in Denver and New York. To address Dr. Demerjian’s comment, Dr. 

Hauchman mentioned that Region 6 is doing a little work on air emissions associated with hydraulic 

fracturing, and ORD is supporting some work under the Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) 

program. He noted that there was considerable concern about air emissions at the Texas meeting. 

Dr. Sayler asked if the SAB report was available. Mr. Susanke responded that it was provided as 

background material and is in the meeting notebook. Dr. Sayler thought it would be helpful for the 

BOSC members to review that report before commenting further on this topic. 

ORD Update—Gulf Oil Spill Update 

Lek Kadeli, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Management, ORD, EPA 

Mr. Kadeli stated that his comments would focus on ORD’s efforts to support the Agency’s response to 

the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He explained that it had been 84 days since the explosion that 

killed 11 workers and the oil rig sank and the platform capsized. This is one of the worst environmental 

disasters to occur in United States’ history and it has and will continue to have significant environmental 

and economic impacts. Eighty thousand square miles of fishing waters have been closed and many 

wildlife refuges have been threatened. There are many people in the Gulf working on mitigation and 

getting ready to start remediation efforts once the spill is finally contained. EPA has 165 workers from 

field offices, the EPA Regions, and headquarters who are dedicated to the response efforts and this 

number will grow as the activities move toward remediation. 

Mr. Kadeli noted that Admiral Thad Allen is familiar with the work EPA did following Hurricane Katrina

so he is aware of what the Agency can do to help. He thought the Admiral had done an effective job in

leading the response efforts of the various federal agencies. This is a huge effort—770,000 barrels of oil 

have been recovered or flared over the past 80+ days, 600 vessels are assisting in the cleanup, and dozens 

of aircraft have been employed in the response. Remote vehicles are being used to do much of the work

to plug the well because of the depth of the leak. Millions of feet of skimmers and booms are being used 

to contain the oil with varying degrees of success. There are concerns about the volatile organic carbon 

from the oil as it evaporates, the air emissions from flaring, and the effects of the dispersants, which ORD 

is currently evaluating. Mr. Kadeli stated that the monitoring data, which are available on EPA's Website, 

have not revealed any extraordinary air emissions or water contaminants. Procedurally, the data are 

subjected to quality assurance/quality control before they are posted, which, for the water data, usually 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

39 

occurs about 5-7 days following the sampling. 

Although the use of dispersants in the Gulf response has been highly scrutinized, the dispersants are 

working as expected to break up the oil. Just 20 km from the site, the plumes are breaking up and the oil 

is being dispersed into droplets. The EPA Administrator has been clear that if there is evidence that the 

dispersants may be having a negative impact, EPA will ensure that BP stops using the dispersants. It 

appears that the use of dispersants has been effective. 

The Coast Guard directed BP to reduce the amount of dispersants used by 75 percent from the peak level. 

On May 26, EPA issued a directive to BP stating that dispersant spraying should be used as the last resort 

and subsea dispersant use should be limited to 15,000 gallons a day, which was much less than BP had 

been using. BP can only use dispersants with rigorous monitoring; weather conditions, however, can be

grounds for an exception. Monitoring is occurring all along the coastline and oxygen and toxicity levels 

are being tested. Both oxygen and toxicity have been at stable and viable levels. 

In June, EPA did independent toxicity testing of eight different dispersants to determine if some were

more toxic than others and if there were any concerns about endocrine disruption. The preliminary data 

of this independent testing were released on June 30. The tests indicated that Corexit, the most widely 

used dispersant in the gulf, is probably as good as any of the other dispersants tested with respect to 

toxicity. 

EPA also has set up a Website to accept submissions on technological approaches for mitigating the oil 

spill. More than several thousand suggestions have been submitted to the government; approximately 

2,000 to EPA alone. Some of the ideas were creative but not deemed to be useful at this time. Following 

evaluation by EPA, a number of the ideas were forwarded to BP (the ones focused on the well head) and 

others were sent to the Coast Guard. There may be some demonstration projects conducted to evaluate 

the efficacy of some of the proposed ideas. The Coast Guard established a new Website about 3 weeks 

ago, which now serves as the one-stop-shop for suggestions to deal with the oil spill. 

EPA is conducting monitoring in the Gulf and providing technical expertise on the best approaches to 

remediate the oil spill, particularly bioremediation. This approach is especially important for oil that has 

moved into marshland. Some companies want to use “super” microbes to deal with the oil and others 

want to optimize conditions to allow the indigenous microorganisms to clean up the oil. This latter 

approach appears to be the growing consensus. There are concerns about people trampling nesting areas

during remediation efforts and doing more damage to the ecosystem. EPA will be receiving supplemental

funding of $2 million to be used for engaging institutions along the Gulf in conducting research to look at 

the longer term impacts of the spill. 

Dr. Sayler thanked Mr. Kadeli for his comments and asked if the BOSC members had any questions. 

Dr. Philbert said that he found it bewildering that the taxpayers should have to pay for this testing. The 

testing should be funded with money set aside from the restitution funds. Mr. Kadeli responded that BP 

has committed to provide at least $50 million for research on the long-term effects of the spill; it is 

important for the Federal Government to be involved in this research. Dr. Philbert stated that he did not 

think BP should do that research. He then asked if BP had required response workers to sign a waiver 

concerning any health impacts associated with responding to the spill. Mr. Kadeli replied that he did not 

have information on any such waiver. He added that the exposure of workers and their health are of 

concern. There have been discussions about engaging the National Academies to look at the exposure 

and health issues so that there is an independent group of experts making this assessment and reporting to 

the Federal Government. 

Dr. Philbert noted that the use of dispersants has been substantially reduced, and most of the oil is staying 

in the subsurface where the water is cold. Is anything known about accumulation of oil and associated
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

40 

pollutants in benthic organisms and their effects on the food chain? Will EPA be examining this issue? 

Mr. Kadeli responded that both the oil and the dispersants are toxic, but there is a tradeoff being made and

the experts think it is less risky to use the dispersants. With regard to the question about accumulation in 

benthic organisms, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are examining the implications to 

organisms in the water column, however, more work needs to be done before the effects are understood. 

For example, they are finding oil under the shells of blue crabs in the Gulf but it is not clear if this oil is 

coming through the crab’s digestive system. In addition, it is not certain that the oil being detected is 

from the BP spill. More work needs to be done on bioavailability, especially with dispersant use, and the 

focus should be on the lower organisms in the food chain. 

Dr. Demerjian asked if there was any monitoring along the shore for hydrocarbon species. Are they 

looking for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) that may have a role in aerosol formation? Is 

there anyone trying to measure the flux of emissions from the surface plumes and the burden this is to the 

background hydrocarbon levels? Mr. Kadeli replied that there is sampling for VOCs but he was not 

certain about SVOCs. There is air sampling and testing all around the coastal area. He was not aware of 

any samples that exceeded the normal background levels of air toxics for the Gulf area. Dr. Demerjian

encouraged the collection of data to measure the flux of the air emissions at the plumes. EPA and others 

will want these data when they are working on the modeling. 

Dr. Haas commented that accidents are research opportunities. NSF has a mechanism in place to conduct

research on little notice when these events occur. EPA does not have a similar mechanism that can be 

used to engage extramural researchers rapidly. Perhaps the Agency should consider setting aside some 

funding for such circumstances. Mr. Kadeli replied that EPA has had discussions with NSF about 

utilizing NSF’s mechanism to do research. EPA could use that mechanism. He added that EPA’s 

research budget for oil-related issues had been only $500K to $700K per year for the last 5-6 years. 

Therefore, EPA had very limited resources available to address this issue. In addition, the Agency is

trying to address potential issues associated with biofuels. 

Public Comments 

Dr. Gary Sayler, University of Tennessee, BOSC Executive Committee Chair 

At 10:15 a.m., Dr. Sayler asked if anyone wished to make a public comment. No comments were offered. 

Mr. Susanke confirmed that no one had contacted him by e-mail or telephone to request time for public 

comment. 

BOSC and SAB Liaison Update 

Dr. Gary Sayler, University of Tennessee, BOSC Executive Committee Chair 

Dr. Sayler stated that in the past there has been an SAB member who served as the liaison to the BOSC. 

There currently is no liaison; Dr. John Giesy, a former member of the BOSC Executive Committee, has 

volunteered to serve as the liaison to the BOSC but that has not been approved yet by Dr. Vanessa Vu. 

The SAB has invited the BOSC to participate in any activity that may be of interest. The only stipulation 

is that the BOSC member who attends the SAB activity must report back to the Executive Committee on 

what transpired. 

Dr. Hauchman said that Mr. Susanke will follow up with Dr. Vu to get a status report on the appointment 

of a new liaison. Dr. Sayler said that, in the absence of a new liaison, he had been trying to keep the SAB 

informed of the activities of the BOSC. The work of the Decision Analysis Workgroup has dovetailed 

nicely with the efforts of the SAB on decision making. The SAB had interviewed the regional and 

headquarters staff about decision making, and Dr. Sayler participated in an SAB meeting at which this 

was a central topic. He alerted the SAB about the BOSC Workgroup’s efforts and informed them of the 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

41 

report from that Workgroup. He agreed to share that report with the SAB. Mr. Susanke prepared a 

synopsis of the salient features of the report and informed the SAB that it fits well with its recent 

hydraulic fracturing report. The SAB decided to reference the BOSC’s decision analysis report in the 

hydraulic fracturing report and suggested that EPA consider decision analysis techniques in establishing 

research priorities. 

Dr. Sayler mentioned that he also serves on the SAB’s Committee on Science Integration for Decision 

Making, which is preparing a report. He noted that Drs. Ryan and Haas also serve on the SAB, and can 

share information on their SAB involvement. He asked the Executive Committee members to notify him 

and Mr. Susanke if they are interested in participating in an SAB activity. Dr. Sayler mentioned that the 

mission of the BOSC is different from that of the SAB, but there are some activities that are of mutual 

interest. 

Future Business/Open Forum 

Dr. Gary Sayler, University of Tennessee, BOSC Executive Committee Chair 

 

Dr. Sayler informed the BOSC members that the next Executive Committee meeting would be held in 

Washington, DC, probably in early to mid-October. After some discussion, it was decided that October 

18-19, 2010, would be the best dates for the next meeting. 

There is a program review of the Land Research Program coming up. Dr. Ryan has agreed to chair that 

Subcommittee, and Dr. Sayler thought it would be good experience for one of the new Executive 

Committee members to serve as the co-chair for that Subcommittee. The BOSC needs to prepare a short 

response to the mid-cycle progress reports from the SP2 and HHRA Research Programs. Dr. Sayler 

suggested discussing these responses on a conference call in late August. 

Dr. Sayler indicated that the BOSC wants to continue its discussion of informatics and data mining at the 

October meeting in Washington, DC. He asked Drs. Philbert and Haas to work with him to identify some 

knowledgeable presenters for the October meeting. Mr. Susanke suggested tailoring the presentations 

toward ORD’s needs. Dr. Haas suggested that knowledge repositories be a topic for the Washington 

meeting. Dr. Sayler said he was looking at what the Department of Energy has been doing to use 

technology to integrate information across many different scales. He thought it might be helpful to bring 

several different experts to the October meeting to discuss these various activities. Dr. Philbert stated that 

another area to address is how to use old data with new frameworks—cross-platform continuity and 

compatibility. Dr. Sayler mentioned that bibliometric analysis is another topic for the October meeting. 

The BOSC has struggled with how to discriminate between intramural and extramural researchers; he 

noted that the National Research Council (NRC) report suggested that the program be considered as a 

whole—not divided between intramural and extramural. There have been arguments, however, to support 

both opinions. 

Dr. Sayler mentioned that another issue to consider is how ORD makes its scientific capabilities available 

to the regions. An upcoming SAB report will reflect the regions’ view that ORD is not providing the 

support that they need. 

Dr. Haas said that the Drinking Water Subcommittee probably will not have a draft report ready for the

October meeting. The face-to-face review meeting will likely take place in September or October. 

Dr. Hauchman asked the Executive Committee members to share their views on how the BOSC could 

assist with ORD’s technical support issue. Historically, the BOSC has not dealt with the issue of 

technical support and the loop back to inform research. There is value in conducting a needs assessment 

and dealing with the tension between the need for technical support and the research that the ORD staff 

wants to do. Dr. Hauchman noted that ORD would welcome the BOSC’s input on this task. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

42 

Dr. Sayler asked that the BOSC be allowed to provide input early in this effort. He pointed out that it 

falls within the Board’s purview and comes up at every program review. Dr. Demerjian commented that 

it is one of the charge questions and most subcommittees have found it difficult to answer. Dr. Hauchman 

stated that the BOSC will hear more about this in the review of the Land Research Program. 

Referring back to the issue of bibliometrics, Dr. Philbert stated that the NCER Standing Subcommittee 

pointed out in its last report that academic bibliometrics—impact factors and immediacy indices—are not 

that helpful to ORD. It is more important for ORD to determine how the research outputs have impacted

public health through regulations, policies, guidance, and similar means. Dr. Haas commented that the

BOSC has been conditioned to look at outcomes rather than outputs. The NRC report noted that 

outcomes are very difficult to measure; therefore, ORD needs to look for early markers of outcomes that 

predict the outcome is likely. Dr. Cozzens mentioned that the term used in that report for these early 

markers was “intermediate outcomes,” and that concept is now widely accepted. 

Dr. Sayler said that there will be plenty of topics for discussion on the August teleconference and at the 

October meeting. Mr. Susanke thought it might be necessary to postpone some of the topics to a future

meeting. Dr. Sayler asked if it would be possible to postpone the presentation on the SPSW Program, and 

Mr. Susanke replied that the program has made a lot of progress and would like the BOSC to consider 

forming a standing subcommittee to provide ongoing advice. It may take 6 months to form the 

subcommittee so it would be best not to postpone that presentation. Drs. Philbert and von Stackelberg

indicated that they would like to serve on that subcommittee. Mr. Susanke said that he would be working 

on forming a subcommittee. Dr. Sayler asked if the ORD response to the decision analysis report would

be ready for the October meeting, and Mr. Susanke indicated that ORD will try to have a response ready. 

Dr. Hauchman indicated that he had to leave soon but he wanted to thank the BOSC members for their 

time and input. Referring to Dr. Olden’s early comment about the importance of ORD responding to the 

BOSC’s recommendations, he emphasized that ORD values the input and he has been impressed with 

how many changes have been implemented by programs as a result of the BOSC reviews. 

Dr. Sayler said that he was a guest observer on the Nanomaterial Case Study review. He noted that this 

was a perfect opportunity for the decision analysis pilot. 

BOSC Decision Analysis Workgroup—Review of ORD Nanomaterial Case Study 

Workshop: Methods and Procedures to Identify and Prioritize Research Needs 

Dr. Mike Davis, Senior Science Advisor, NCEA, ORD, EPA 

Dr. Davis explained that ORD wanted to identify nanomaterial research needs and directions and refine a 

strategic approach for establishing priorities. They took a bottom-up approach, looking at specific 

applications. The case studies are not an end in themselves, but a starting point for a collective judgment 

process. The case studies were used to identify questions that would need to be addressed if they were 

doing a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment (CEA). The case studies are not completed risk 

assessments but are structured around a CEA approach, which combines a product life cycle framework 

with the risk assessment paradigm. The CEA approach considers primary and secondary contaminants, 

multiple environmental media, fate and transport processes, cumulative and aggregate exposure, and 

ecological as well as human health risks across the life cycle of a product. The features of the CEA 

framework approach include: 

 Holistic and systematic, not just a checklist 

 Qualitative and quantitative 

 Primary and secondary substances 

 Single, cumulative, and aggregate exposure 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

43 

 Direct and indirect impacts 

 Comparative—alternative choices and risks vs. benefits. 

This approach provides guidance to risk managers (highlighting tradeoffs, focus on monitoring and 

mitigation, and adaptive management). In addition, the CEA framework approach can be used to identify

information gaps and priorities. Dr. Davis mentioned that there is confusion about life cycle assessment 

(LCA) and CEA. He noted that CEA is more qualitative than LCA. CEA, as a process, uses collective 

judgment and involves diverse perspectives (multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder). It also involves a 

substantial number of participants, avoids arbitrary boundaries, and is iterative. 

The key questions for the nanomaterial case studies were: What do we know? and What do we need to 

know to be able to do a CEA of nanomaterials? Nanoscale titanium dioxide (nano-TiO2) and nanoscale 

silver (nano-Ag) were selected for the case studies. Case Study #1 focused on nano-TiO2 for water 

treatment, Case Study #2 focused on nano-TiO2 in sunscreen lotion, and Case Study #3 focused on nanoAg in disinfectant spray. 

The EPA Nanomaterial Case Study Workshop was held September 29-30, 2009, in Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. Diverse technical and stakeholder perspectives were represented. Fifty participants 

were invited and they were balanced across sectors (academia, government, industry, NGOs, and other) 

and disciplines (technical, scientific, policy, and other). There was a pre-workshop review and ranking of 

research/information needs. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to rank priority research needs. 

Participants identified and prioritized research needs for: (1) specific applications of nano-TiO2, (2) 

nano-TiO2 regardless of application, and (3) nanomaterials in addition to nano-TiO2. 

NGT is a method that enables a set of persons to identify and rank choices. NGT’s typical features 

include: (1) each individual is allowed the same amount of time to state his/her highest priorities, (2) the 

number of participants is up to ~25 per group, (3) facilitators guide consolidation of similar or related 

priorities, and (4) there is multi-voting for the 10 highest priorities. For the EPA workshop there were 

two NGT groups, each with 25 members. The two NGT groups’ priorities were consolidated, and 

breakout groups (5 members per group) prepared narratives on the top priorities. 

The top-ranked issues using NGT were: 

 Approaches and methods for evaluating the ecological and human effects of nano-TiO2. 

 Physicochemical characterization of nano-TiO2 throughout the life cycle stages, environmental 

pathways, and fate and transport. 

 Analytical method evaluation, development, and validation for analysis of nano-TiO2 in relevant 

matrices. 

 Nano-TiO2 product-focused physicochemical characterization; changes and possible effects 

through the life cycle. 

 Exposure pathways and life cycle stages. 

 Spatial and temporal distribution and magnitude of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic nanoTiO2 in the environment. 

 Using mechanism of action (MOA) information to drive toxicity testing. 

 Long-term effects. 

Dr. Davis mentioned that eight top issues emerged through the NGT process and the distribution of votes 

by the workshop participants (rather than just picking an arbitrary number such as 10). He summarized

the top issues in terms of three prominent themes (not necessarily in rank order): 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

44 

 Physicochemical characterization 

• Identify key properties 

• Develop/apply methods 

• Relate to life cycle stages, fate and transport, matrices, exposure, effects 

 Effects characterization (ecotoxicity, human health) 

• Standardize/harmonize test protocols for acute, subacute, and chronic studies 

• Reference materials 

• Mechanisms 

 Exposure characterization 

• Sources/life cycle stages, pathways, routes 

• Typical and atypical (high-end) 

• Environmental spatial/temporal distribution, background levels, natural vs. 

anthropogenic, bioaccumulation. 

Dr. Davis closed his presentation with some of the lessons learned from the 2009 workshop. The 

questions and research needs could have been refined and one, smaller NGT group of 25 to 30 members 

could have been used. More formal “argument” could have been encouraged and there could have been 

less consolidation of issues. In addition, mid-level priorities could have received more focus and 

additional time could have been allocated to the breakout group session. 

Dr. von Stackelberg explained that the BOSC Decision Analysis Workgroup was asked to review the 

Nanomaterial Workshop Report and comment on the process that was used to identify priority research 

needs. She reminded the Executive Committee members that nearly 2 years ago, ORD indicated that it 

was interested in using VOI or a similar decision analytic approach to help in identifying research needs 

and priorities. The BOSC formed a workgroup to discuss this topic and, in conjunction with the National 

Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), convened a workshop to discuss the topic. The 

workshop included representatives from other federal agencies and academia as well as private 

consultants. The report prepared by the workgroup following that workshop included nanomaterials as 

one of the case studies. 

Dr. von Stackelberg indicated that the workgroup was asked to review the process that is described in the 

Nanomaterial Case Study Report rather than the outcomes (the priorities identified). She noted that 

decision analysis approaches are used to make the decision-making process more transparent and to arrive 

at better decisions; however, it is not always easy to implement these approaches. 

Dr. von Stackelberg stated that NGT may have worked for ORD in this case study and the group may 

have arrived at the desired outcomes (a list of priority research needs); however, NGT, as a process, falls 

short of the BOSC Workgroup’s expectations to quantitatively, rigorously assess how research is 

allocated and the tradeoffs being made by funding project “x” rather than project “y.” There is a lot that 

is not addressed by NGT. In the mid-1980s, there were numerous exercises to link NGT with more 

formal decision analysis methods. Our understanding of optimization in the mathematical sense has 

increased dramatically since 2005, so now there are many tools available for formal decision analysis, but 

analysts often do not know how to use them. 

Dr. von Stackelberg said that she recently attended a meeting on the SPSW Program where the attendees 

talked about employing some formal decision analysis method that goes beyond NGT. She mentioned 

that although the nanomaterials case study was used at the decision analysis workshop, not much was 

done with it because of the different opinions within those attending the workshop. She added that 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

45 

research on nano-TiO2 as a sunscreen agent will be different from research on nano-TiO2 for water 

treatment. The case studies help EPA figure out the important questions that need to be addressed. 

If ORD’s ultimate goal is to develop a broad long-range strategy for formal decision analysis, then 

perhaps ORD should convene a workshop on comprehensive evaluation frameworks to develop a 

decision tree, which indicates that “x” has to be done before “y” can be started. This may be a better 

approach than using the case studies. The NGT process helped ORD prioritize the research 

questions/issues but it did not identify what research needs to be done or what ORD needs to get from that 

research. Dr. von Stackelberg said she had trouble transferring the ranked questions into research 

priorities. 

Dr. Sayler asked Dr. von Stackelberg to submit her comments on the Nanomaterial Case Study Workshop 

Report in writing. Dr. von Stackelberg replied that she had prepared a formal response to distribute to the 

Executive Committee for comment. 

Dr. Philbert said that it is important to remember that “perfect is frequently the enemy of good.” The 

report was exactly what he would expect to achieve from the process. The group identified the top eight 

issues that EPA should address for these case studies. The process worked and it resulted in valuable

information. Now, ORD should consider doing a second workshop to identify the research that needs to 

be done to address these priority needs. Dr. von Stackelberg agreed that the workshop was a great first 

step, but she thought ORD could go further. Dr. Haas thought it was a good brainstorming session to 

identify a list of priority needs. Now, ORD needs to determine what tasks need to be done, how much 

those tasks will cost, and how each task helps answer the underlying questions. That will move ORD 

beyond the NGT process and toward finding the answers it is seeking. 

Dr. von Stackelberg agreed to send her draft response to the workshop report. Dr. Sayler stresssed the 

need to specifically mention the prioritized research needs. Dr. Philbert said he could provide comments 

on the list of priorities developed at the workshop. Dr. von Stackelberg did not think the BOSC was 

supposed to comment on the priorities, just the process. Mr. Susanke said that the BOSC needs to 

comment on the workshop priorities which are in essence the workshop recommendations. Does the 

BOSC agree that these are the top priorities? Dr. Philbert replied that he would have no difficulty 

providing such input. 

Dr. Demerjian asked if water treatment and sunscreen lotion were the two major uses of nano-TiO2 or if 

there were many other uses. Dr. Davis responded that the majority of nano-TiO2 is not going into these 

two uses, but it is difficult to obtain information on all the different applications. It was difficult to find 

information on its use in water treatment and it turns out that nano-TiO2 is not being used in this 

application. Dr. Philbert thought these two applications were appropriate in that they impact the 

environment and data are available. Dr. Davis mentioned that ORD wants to use this approach with 

coating materials and extend it to carbon nanotubes. 

Dr. Cozzens said that she would have expected to see much more input from worker organizations and 

consumers at the workshop; however, it does not appear that these folks were invited to participate. 

Dr. Davis responded that they tried to include that input through representatives of labor unions and 

consumers unions, as well as worker safety representatives. Dr. Sayler commented that the workshop 

included a very diverse group and ORD made a concerted effort to ensure reasonable stakeholder 

representation. Dr. Davis added that they tried to get NGOs involved as well. Dr. Cozzens stressed that 

the groups to be affected need to be involved in the process. Dr. Philbert pointed out that Appendix E of 

the report identifies the workshop participants. There are a number of individuals from consumer 

protection groups as well as representatives from NIH and FDA. It may not be a complete list but it is 

very good from EPA’s perspective. 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

46 

Dr. Sayler thought the response from the BOSC should identify any weaknesses of the process and make 

suggestions for improving it. Dr. Tharakan asked if ORD is seeking the BOSC’s approval of the process. 

Dr. Sayler replied that the BOSC is acknowledging that a verified process was used at the workshop and

that it yielded bona fide results. Dr. Tharakan then asked if the report will identify the weaknesses of the 

process as well. Dr. Sayler confirmed that it would. Dr. Cozzens asked about the baseline. Dr. von 

Stackelberg responded that the baseline would be a group of people coming together and making a 

decision using no process. She noted that with NGT it is important to ensure that there are no dominant 

voices. 

Dr. Sayler asked Drs. von Stackelberg and Philbert to communicate and move the response forward 

within the next few days. Dr. Philbert asked the Executive Committee members to e-mail their comments

on the workshop report to him so that he can incorporate them into a draft BOSC EC response. 

Dr. Sayler explained that there would be an informal discussion with representatives of GAO immediately 

following the BOSC meeting. In addition, the afternoon would include a field study tour. He thanked the 

members for their participation and adjourned the Executive Committee meeting at 12:20 p.m. 

Action Items

 Mr. Susanke will follow up with Dr. Vanessa Vu about the status of appointing a new liaison from the 

SAB to the BOSC. Specifically, he will determine if a decision has been made about Dr. John Giesy 

serving as the liaison. 

 

 Executive Committee members will notify Mr. Susanke and Dr. Sayler if they would like to 

participant in any of the upcoming SAB activities. 

 Dr. Sayler will work with Drs. Philbert and Haas to identify knowledgeable presenters on informatics 

and data mining for the October meeting in Washington, DC. 

 Dr. Ryan will draft a response from the BOSC—a short summary of the Executive Committee’s 

comments—on the mid-cycle progress report for the SP2 Research Program. 

 Dr. Sayler will draft a response from the BOSC – a short summary of the Executive Committee’s 

comments – on the mid-cycle progress report for the HHRA Research Program. 

 Dr. von Stackelberg will send her draft response on the Nanomaterial Case Study Workshop Report 

to Dr. Philbert and Mr. Susanke by July 16, 2010. Mr. Susanke will distribute the draft response to 

the Executive Committee for review and comment. 

 Mr. Susanke will schedule a conference call in late August to discuss and approve the BOSC 

responses to: 1) the mid-cycle progress report for the SP2 Research Program; 2) the mid-cycle 

progress report for the HHRA Research Program; and, 3) the nanomaterial workshop summary. 

 Mr. Susanke will distribute materials to the Executive Committee to be discussed on the August 

conference call. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

All materials that were transmitted during and for this 

meeting are in the public meeting binder in the BOSC 

central files in Washington, DC.
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

47 

Executive Committee Members: 

Gary S. Sayler, Ph.D., Chair 

Center for Environmental Biotechnology 

The University of Tennessee 

Susan Cozzens, Ph.D. 

School of Public Policy 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Kenneth L. Demerjian, Ph.D. 

Atmospheric Sciences Research Center 

State University of New York 

Henry Falk, M.D., M.P.H. (not present) 

Coordinating Center for Environmental Health 

and Injury Prevention 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Charles N. Haas, Ph.D. 

Department of Civil, Architectural, and 

Environmental Engineering 

Drexel University 

Kenneth Olden, Ph.D., Sc.D., L.H.D. 

School of Public Health 

City University of New York 

Dennis Paustenbach, Ph.D., CIH, DABT (not 

present) 

ChemRisk, Inc. 

Martin Philbert, Ph.D. 

Department of Environmental Health Sciences 

School of Public Health 

University of Michigan 

P. Barry Ryan, Ph.D. 

Department of Environmental and Occupational 

Health 

Rollins School of Public Health 

Emory University 

Katherine von Stackelberg, Sc.D. (via 

telephone)

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 

Harvard School of Public Health 

John Tharakan, Ph.D. 

College of Engineering, Architecture, and 

Computer Science 

College of Medicine 

Howard University 

Marie Zhuikov, M.A. 

Private Communications Consultant 

Committee Staff: 

Greg Susanke, DFO 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Office of Science Policy 

Heather Drumm (via videoconference)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Office of Science Policy 

Kevin Teichman, Ph.D. (via videoconference) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

EPA Participants: 

Paul Anastas, Ph.D. (via videoconference) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Stan Barone (via videoconference)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Renée Brooks, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Becki Clark (via videoconference) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Sally Perrault Darney, Ph.D. (via 

videoconference) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

PARTICIPANTS LIST
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

48 

Mike Davis, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Joe Ebersole, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Tom Fontaine, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Elaine Francis, Ph.D. (via videoconference) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Tom Griffin 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Carry Hamilton 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Public Health Fellow 

Fred Hauchman, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Lek Kadeli (via videoconference) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Bob Kavlock, Ph.D. (via videoconference) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Steve Klein 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Steve Knowles 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Henry Lee II, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Jeff Morris (via videoconference)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Bob Ozretich, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Dale Pahl 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Don Phillips, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Lidia Watrud, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Denis White 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Joe Williams (via telephone) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Other Participants: 

Tom Dietterich, Ph.D. 

Oregon State University 

Julia Jones, Ph.D. 

Oregon State University 

Summer Lingard 

Government Accounting Office 

Nadia Rhazi 

Government Accounting Office 

Enrique Thomann, Ph.D. 

Oregon State University 

Ed Waymire, Ph.D. 

Oregon State University 
BOSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JULY 12-13, 2010, MEETING SUMMARY

49 

Contractor Support:

Beverly Campbell 

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. 

Denise Hoffman 

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
50 

44th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FACE-TO-FACE MEETING 

AGENDA

July 12 - 13, 2010 

Office of Research and Development 

National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory 

Western Ecology Division 

200 SW 35th Street, 

Corvallis, Oregon 97333 

Monday, July 12, 2010

8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Registration 

9:00 a.m. – 9:20 a.m. Welcome and Introductions Dr. Gary S. Sayler, Chair, 

 - Review of April Executive Committee 

 Meeting Minutes 

 - Overview of Agenda 

9:20 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. BOSC DFO Remarks Mr. Greg Susanke, 

 - Administrative Issues Designated Federal Officer (DFO), 

 Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) 

 

9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Overview of ORD Chemical Dr. Bob Kavlock, Director 

 Research Realignment: Safe National Center for 

 Products for a Sustainable World Computational Toxicology, 

 ORD 

 

9:45 a.m. – 10:45 p.m. Mid-Cycle Progress Report Dr. Stan Barone, 

 - Human Health Risk Assessment National Program Director, 

 Research Program, ORD 

10:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Break 

 

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon Mid-Cycle Progress Report Dr. Elaine Francis, 

 - Safe Pesticides/Safe Products National Program Director, 

 Research Program ORD 

 

12:00 noon – 1:00 p.m. Lunch 
Agenda for July 12-13, 2010 Executive Committee Meeting

51 

1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Ecosystem Informatics Session

 - Overview Ecosystem Informatics Dr. Julia Jones, Director 

 Program Oregon State University 

 (OSU) 

 

 - Computer Science Approaches Dr. Tom Dietterich, 

 to Species Modeling OSU 

 

 - Mathematics of Ecological Dr. Ed Waymire, OSU 

 Dispersion and 

 Dr. Enrique Thomann, 

 OSU 

 - Questions and Discussion 

3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Lab Tour: Western Ecology Division, 

 National Health and Environmental 

 Research Laboratory, ORD 

 

5:00 p.m. Recess 

 

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. ORD Response to BOSC Human Dr. Sally Perrault Darney, 

 Health Report National Program Director 

 for Human Health, ORD 

9:15 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. ORD Update Dr. Kevin Teichman, Deputy 

 Assistant Administrator for 

 Science, ORD 

10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. BOSC and SAB Liaison Update Dr. Gary Sayler, Chair 

 Executive Committee 

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 p.m. Public Comment 

10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. Break 

10:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. BOSC Decision Analysis Workgroup Dr. Katherine von Stackelberg, 

 - Review of ORD Nanomaterial Workgroup Chair, Executive 

 Case Study Workshop: Committee 

 Methods and Procedures to 

 Identify and Prioritize Research Dr. Mike Davis, 

 Needs Senior Science Advisor, 

 National Center for 

 Environmental Assessment, 

 ORD 

 
Agenda for July 12-13, 2010 Executive Committee Meeting

52 

12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Future Business/Open Forum Dr. Gary Sayler, Chair, 

 - Next EC Meeting Executive Committee 

 - Future Work 

 - Questions/Discussion 

1:00 p.m. Adjourn