1

Summary Minutes of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) of the 

Science Advisory Board (SAB)

March 22-23, 2012

Date and Time: March 22, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; March 23, 2012, 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time

Location: The Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW, Washington, DC 

Purpose: To conduct quality reviews of a draft report on the President’s requested FY 2013 

budget for EPA research and a draft report on science integration at EPA; to discuss a 

joint meeting of the SAB and Office of Research and Development’s (ORD’s) Board 

of Scientific Counselors (BOSC); to receive a briefing on ORD and sustainability 

science; and to discuss the scientific and technical bases for four proposed agency 

actions.

SAB and BOSC Members:

SAB Members

Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Chair

Dr. George Alexeeff

Dr. David Allen

Dr. Pedro Alvarez

Dr. Joseph Arvai

Dr. Ingrid Burke

Dr. Thomas Burke

Dr. Terry Daniel

Dr. George Daston

Dr. Costel Denson

Dr. Michael Dourson

Dr. David Dzombak 

Dr. Taylor Eighmy

Dr. Elaine Faustman,

Dr. John Giesy

Dr. Barbara Harper (by telephone)

Dr. Kimberly Jones

Dr. Bernd Kahn

Dr. Agnes Kane

Dr. Nancy Kim 

Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing

Dr. Judith Meyer

Dr. James Mihelcic

Dr. Christine Moe

Dr. H. Keith Moo-Young

Dr. Eileen Murphy (by telephone, March 22, 

2012 only)

Dr. James Opaluch

Dr. Duncan Patten

Dr. Stephen Roberts

Dr. Amanda Rodewald

Dr. James Sanders

Dr. Jerald Schnoor (by telephone, March 23, 

2012 only)

Dr. Peter Thorne

Dr. Paige Tolbert

Dr. John Vena

Dr. Roberts Watts

Dr. Thomas Zoeller

Liaisons to the SAB:

Dr. James Johnson

Dr. Kenneth Portier

Dr. Pamela Shubat

Dr. Katherine van Stackleberg (by telephone, March 23, 2012 only)
2

EPA presenters:

Dr. Robert Kavlock, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, ORD

Dr. Peter Preuss, Chief Innovation Officer, ORD

Dr. Alan D. Hecht, Director for Sustainable Development, ORD

Dr. Joseph Fiksel, Sustainability Advisor, ORD

SAB Staff Office:

Dr. Angela Nugent, SAB Staff Office, Designated Federal Officer for the Chartered SAB

Dr. Vanessa Vu, SAB Staff Office

Mr. Thomas Brennan, SAB Staff Office

Meeting Summary March 22-23, 2012

The meeting generally followed the issues and timing as presented in the agenda.

1

Convene the meeting

Dr. Nugent formally opened the meeting and noted that the meeting had been announced in the 

Federal Register.2 She noted that participating SAB members had met the requirements of the 

Ethics in Government Act and the SAB Staff Office had reviewed these materials to determine 

that they had no conflict of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality. She noted that the 

Federal Register notice meeting announcement had provided the public with an opportunity to 

provide written and oral comment. There was one request for oral comment and no written 

comments had been provided by the public. Attachment A contains a list of other attendees.

Goals and agenda for the meeting

Dr. Vanessa Vu reviewed the agenda, thanked the agency and the public for participation, and 

thanked SAB members and liaisons and SAB staff for the meeting preparations.

Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, the SAB Chair, welcomed the group and asked advisory members and 

liaisons and members of the public to introduce themselves. She reviewed the agenda.

Discussion of draft report from the SAB Research Budget Work Group

Before the chartered SAB’s discussion of the draft report3, Dr. Robert Kavlock, ORD Deputy 

Assistant Administrator for Science, extended greetings from Acting Deputy Assistant 

Admininistration Lek Kadeli and from former ORD Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science 

Dr. Kevin Teichman, who had taken an EPA research post addressing indoor air issues at the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. In response to a question from Dr. Swackhamer, 

Dr. Kavlock underscored ORD’s commitment to implement the “Path Forward” vision 

previously articulated by then-ORD Deputy Administrator Paul Anastas.

Dr. Kavlock noted that the SAB’s draft report on the President’s FY 2013 requested research 

budget affirmed support for funding ORD’s six research programs and identified needs for 

strengthening support for several priority areas, including climate and energy, sustainability, and 
3

molecular design. ORD will make efforts to factor these recommendations into future research 

planning. He noted that the SAB called for budget items to strengthen integration across ORD’s 

six research areas. He suggested that this concern was more properly addressed as an 

implementation, rather than a budget, issue, and that this implementation concern might better be 

addressed at the July 10-12, 2013 meeting of the SAB and ORD Board of Scientific Councilors

(BOSC). He noted that ORD has just announced that five or six new postdoctoral fellows would 

be added to focus on integration issues.

He also noted that the distribution of resources across ORD’s six major programs resulted from 

ORD’s 2011 program restructuring. ORD did not anticipate major shifts in resources across these 

programs.

After Dr. Kavlock concluded his remarks, Dr. Taylor Eighmy, Chair of the SAB Research 

Budget Work Group summarized the major points in the draft report and thanked members for 

their comments.

4 The President’s requested budget provides a modest increase in funding for 

ORD overall, with increases in four program areas and modest declines in two areas. Although 

some topics merit more funding, the budget was reasonable in the context of a declining budget 

for EPA. Dr. Eighmy also noted that the report was prepared on an accelerated schedule and 

acknowledged the contributions of work group members, the DFO, and agency staff who 

addressed work group members’ questions.

Dr. Swackhamer asked SAB members who had been asked to serve as lead discussants to 

summarize their written comments. The first lead reviewer, Dr. David Allen, summarized brief 

comments to address the draft report’s comments on the FY 2013 requested funding for the Air, 

Climate, and Energy program. He considered the draft report very well done. It addressed the 

charge questions and was clear and logical. He suggested that the report would be improved by 

adding a conclusion to address cross-cutting themes and adequacy of resources.

The second lead reviewer, Dr. David Dzombak, summarized comments on the report, with 

special attention to the section addressing the requested budget for the Safe and Sustainable 

Water program. He found the draft to be a very well written, well organized report. He suggested 

that the Board consider areas to disinvest, rather than only call for increased resources for ORD 

programs. He also suggested that the Board consider how ORD resources compared with 

investments in related EPA programs. He suggested that the report could be improved by making 

the tone of the letter more consistent with the neutral language of the report and by avoiding

verbs such as “troubled.”

The third lead reviewer, Dr. Amanda Rodewald, focused her comments on the draft report’s text 

addressing funding for the Safe and Healthy Communities program. She noted that the Board 

had identified this program previously as the most visionary, integrative, and potentially most 

transformative ORD program. She observed that the program had received the largest percentage 

cut. The report’s language describing the cut is very neutral. She advocated that the Board take a 

position on whether the program will be able to meet its goals with the requested resources. The 

language should be clearer on this point.
4

The fourth lead reviewer, Dr. Thomas Zoeller, noted that the draft report was clear and well 

organized. He suggested that the letter to the Administrator should provide additional detail 

about the major recommendations in the report. He also stated that the letter should highlight the 

limited information available to assess the budget’s adequacy for ORD programs. He had no 

issue with points raised regarding the requested funding for the Chemical Safety for 

Sustainability research program and agreed that the small proposed reductions in funding for the

Human Health Risk Assessment will make it difficult for that program to integrate new types of 

scientific information into risk assessments.

The fifth lead reviewer, Dr. James Johnson, provided comments on the section addressing 

funding for ORD’s Homeland Security program. He found the section well written and asked

whether more resources were needed for the water security program. He also suggested that the 

report more strongly endorse the Homeland Security program’s efforts to collaborate with other 

programs to leverage resources.

The sixth lead reviewer, Dr. Joseph Arvai, commented on the section of the report addressing 

Economics and Decision Science. He noted that the charge questions were handled well but that 

the mission statement did not clearly identify strategic research that reflected current work in 

decision science. The lack of clear objectives gave the impression of a research program 

“floundering without research directions.” 

The SAB Chair asked members to restrict their comments to budget-related topics and to defer 

discussions of strategic research directions to the SAB-BOSC meeting in July.

Dr. Eighmy responded to lead reviewer comments. He endorsed the idea of adding a conclusion 

section to address cross-cutting integration issues. He noted that the work group didn’t identify 

additional cuts. One option for FY 2014 might be to request additional information about one or 

two programs for a more detailed examination of resource needs or for an examination of budget 

allocations at EPA outside ORD. He agreed to revise the report to make language consistent to 

address the appropriate degree of concern.

Regarding funding for the Safe and Health Community program, Dr. Taylor noted that the 

program was to receive nearly 40 percent of ORD’s budget and that the reduction of 2.5 percent 

should be viewed in that context. He agreed that it was appropriate to acknowledge the success 

of the Homeland Security program in collaborations and successful product development.

Other members of the work group provided their comments. One member noted that the budget 

exercise was structured in terms of six research silos and provided no obvious accountability for 

integration across research programs. Another member expressed appreciation for the strategic 

research action plans made available to the work group for ORD’s six research programs. These 

plans identified outputs but did not identify milestones for multi-year outputs. Several members 

voiced frustration with the “mismatch” of charge questions and the amount and type of 

information provided to the SAB. Both EPA and the SAB should consider the appropriate level 

of detailed advice that would be useful and the amount and nature of information that would help 

the SAB address those questions. There is a need in the future to better map information in the 

strategic research action plans to the budget and to briefing materials provided to the Board. The 
5

SAB Chair noted that these questions were not new ones. The key question for the SAB to 

address is “how does the requested budget line up with the research needs of the agency?” Dr. 

Kavlock noted that the SAB’s report informs Congress as it considers EPA’s budget for the 

upcoming fiscal year and also informs ORD as it plans for budgets in future years. SAB 

members agreed that the issue of how best to conduct future budget reviews would be a good 

topic to address during the July meeting.

Other Board Members and Liaison made the following additional comments related to revising 

the report:

• The report should consider whether to include exposure assessment as a cross-cutting 

issue. Have budget cuts disproportionately hit exposure science, a topic being 

emphasized in a current National Academy of Sciences report? Some areas being cut are 

new exposure tools in the Chemical Safety for Sustainability program, Beach Monitoring 

in the Safe and Sustainable Water Program, and exposure science in the Air Climate and 

Energy programs. The report should clarify whether the Beaches program had a dual use 

(supporting regulatory development and ongoing exposure monitoring).

• The report should revise the discussion of the beaches program to frame comment about 

reductions narrowly. Do not say reductions are appropriate unless that is thoroughly 

evaluated.

• The report should eliminate specific references to programs (e.g., new estuarine center) if 

not needed).

• The report should suggest that ORD use the Federal Technology Transfer Act more 

actively to save resources and to work more collaboratively with the Food and Drug 

Administration, Centers for Disease Control on risk assessment, perhaps using Toxnet as 

a starting point for risk assessment. ORD might consider how to share information about 

chemical assessments between ORD’s National Center for Environmental Assessment 

and Homeland Security program.

• ORD had provided a sample table showing where different ORD programs had the lead 

for cross-cutting activities. The Sustainable and Healthy Communities had the lead for 

some activities. It might be useful to showcase these tables more clearly or discuss these 

examples. 

• The report should clarify language about Dashboard and Evaluation on page 18 to 

communicate that ORD has responded to the SAB’s recommendation for closer 

coordination between the Chemical Safety for Sustainability program and users of its 

science products.

• The letter should communicate more clearly that a 29 percent decrease in real dollars 

over a decade for research is not appropriate when there are tremendous needs to 

understand climate change, unusual events, and exposure issues. Programs and regions 

have significant science needs. It is important to invest in research to prevent future 

problems. 

• Overarching findings on page 3 line 16 of the report can be incorporated in the cover 

letter. The report should incorporate discussion of science integration page 4, line 13-19

and language on decision science from page 25 in the letter.

SAB members also noted that some content taken from the strategic research action plans 

merited SAB review and comment. One member noted that the vision statement of the 
6

Sustainable and Health Communities program was very vague. Members agreed that this topic 

was appropriate for discussion in July.

After the Board concluded its discussion, the Chair requested a motion to determine whether the 

report was appropriate to transmit to the Administrator and under what conditions. Dr. George 

Daston made a motion to accept the report with changes identified in written comments and in 

the Board’s discussion and to have the revised report sent to the Board chair. Dr. Peter Thorne 

seconded the motion. The Board discussed the motion. One member noted that if decadal 

research funding trends were discussed, it should be stated factually without a policy judgment. 

The SAB chair and the workgroup chair agreed. The motion passed by voice vote with no 

members opposed and no abstentions.

SAB members then discussed mechanisms for providing the report to Congress. One member 

expressed concern that Congress had not requested written or oral testimony from the SAB on 

the President’s requested research budget this year. The SAB Director noted that the SAB Staff

will brief Hill Staff about the report when it is complete and enquire whether the House Science, 

Space and Technology Committee would like additional information.

Planning for the July 2012 Meeting of the SAB and the Office of Research and 

Development’s (ORD’s) Board of Scientific Counselors

Dr. Robert Kavlock, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, ORD, provided a presentation 

entitled “Planning for July 2012 SAB/BOSC Meeting.”5 He underscored ORD’s commitment to 

integrated transdisciplinary research and welcomed the opportunity for joint advice from the 

SAB and the BOSC. He identified three topics for possible discussion: 1) progress in developing 

the six research programs; 2) integrating across the six programs; and 3) stimulating innovative 

research. He envisioned the meeting as offering an opportunity for each of ORD’s six programs 

to provide an overview of progress in the past year, describe the impact of SAB/BOSC 

comments (Oct. 2011) on program development, and raise specific questions to SAB/BOSC for 

advice. There would be an opportunity to discuss case studies that demonstrate integration at 

different stages of development. Three possible case studies to explore integration might be 

climate change, nitrogen, and integration of results from Chemical Safety for Sustainability into 

Human Health Risk Assessment.

Dr. Peter Preuss, the ORD Chief Innovation Officer, provided a presentation on ORD 

innovation.6 He described ORD’s innovation strategy, which aims to support innovation at the 

bench in ORD laboratories, demonstrate the power of transdisciplinary research, use open 

innovation to broaden the network of environmental problem solvers (building on the strong 

federal government program showcased at the website challenge.gov), and showcase research 

that exemplifies the principles of the “Path Forward” described by former Assistant 

Administrator Paul Anastas (i.e., by expanding an understanding of innovative research and 

sustainability). He suggested that it would be helpful to get SAB and BOSC advice about how to 

encourage innovation in the labs, how to apply design thinking in ORD to diverge from present 

approaches to identify creative choices and creative solutions, and how to measure/evaluate 

innovations.
7

After both presentations, SAB members and liaisons engaged in discussion with Drs. Kavlock 

and Preuss. They touched on the following points relating to the July meeting:

• It may be helpful to discuss one or more case studies where success has been difficult to 

achieve, such as the integration of economics and environmental justice.

• In July breakout groups, National Program Directors can discuss how sustainability is 

addressed in each of their programs.

• It would be useful to discuss the strategy and structural basis for integration of research 

programs, and identify where ORD needs integration vs. better coordination. Discussion 

of specific activities or case studies would be helpful.

• ORD should describe how its “communities of practice” described in EPA’s 2012 Budget 

in Brief, will operate.

• It would be helpful to hear how ORD plans to update the strategic research action plans 

(e.g., timing for updates, content of updates, especially related to milestones).

• There is a need for ORD to address how it will involve decision sciences in 

considerations of sustainability, tradeoffs, problem formulation, evaluation, and adaptive 

management, key issues for ORD’s six new programs.

• Evaluation is important for the innovation program; ORD is planning to work with the 

program evaluation group in EPA’s Office of Policy. Issues of timing and how to 

measure success are important to understand. Sometimes an innovation may not be 

successful for its intended purpose and is successful for other purposes, a difficult 

situation to evaluation.

• It may be useful to talk about innovation in terms of innovative problem formulation and 

possible use of futures scenarios.

• The July discussion should also include how to foster innovation across ORD and not 

only for recipients of Pathfinder Innovation grants.

SAB members spoke of the desirability of break-out groups to discuss ORD’s research programs 

in detail and also noted the importance of plenary presentations to break down stove pipes and 

feature discussions of how ORD research programs interact and fit together. The SAB Staff 

Office Director noted the importance of logistics. A full two-day meeting will be necessary to 

address the topics discussed and she asked members to commit to a two-day meeting.

ORD and Sustainability Science

Dr. Alan D. Hecht, Director for Sustainable Development, ORD and Dr. Joseph Fiksel, 

Sustainability Advisor, ORD, provided an “Update on EPA Response to NRC Report and ORD 

Sustainability Science.”7 Dr. Hecht described how EPA’s commitment to Dr. Paul Anastas’

“Path Forward” and awareness of the need to meet future environmental challenges led to EPA’s 

request for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2011 report, Sustainability and the U.S. 

EPA, informally called the “Green Book.” In response to the report, ORD prepared a draft 

inventory of sustainability tools and approaches for EPA’s Science and Technology Policy 

Council. The goal is to provide guidance on how tools and approaches can be integrated to 

facilitate sustainability assessment. He also noted that EPA is participating in a wider federal 

government sustainability effort, where the White House National Science and Technology 

Council Committee on Environment, and Natural Resources had been renamed as the Committee 

on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability. He also noted that EPA has participated 
8

in several months of listening sessions with stakeholders (November 2011-April 2012), where 

the role of science was identified as critical for sustainability.

Dr. Joseph Fiksel introduced himself as the Director of the Center for Resilience at Ohio State 

University and explained that he had taken the temporary post of Sustainability Advisor to ORD 

to seek opportunities to introduce systems thinking to the EPA. He focused his presentation on 

an ORD collaboration with Region 1 to address nutrient pollution in Narragansett Bay. ORD 

collaborates with stakeholders to address sustainability goals to explore integrated (i.e., 

regulatory and voluntary) strategies for nutrient mitigation. The project used the “Triple Value 

(3V) Model,” a conceptual model linking the environment, economy and society, which gave 

scientists and stakeholders a common framework and language and offered an opportunity to 

identify opportunities for intervention, knowledge gaps, and research needs. He noted that the 

Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program and the Sustainable and Healthy Communities 

programs have used the model. The Narragansett research team populated the model with data to 

develop a working systems-dynamics simulation model. He described this model as a “crude 

model approximation of reality” that captured key trends and drivers. He described the 

“Dashboard” human interface that allows a nontechnical user to change variables and project 

implications.

He concluded his comments with a brief discussion of indicators and metrics, since the NAS 

“Green Book” emphasized the importance of sustainability metrics and the public listening 

sessions reiterated this theme. ORD has introduced several sustainability indicators for the 2012 

Report on the Environment.

After the ORD presenters concluded their presentation, SAB members and liaisons engaged 

them in a question and answer session. In response to questions, Dr. Fiksel clarified that the 

graphical interface had been used to support discussions at stakeholder meetings. The model is 

transferable and would take a month to populate with different data. Dr. Hecht responded to a 

question about ORD’s Homeland Security program by noting he was working with that program 

to broaden its efforts related to resilience, building on a National Council on Environment and 

Security conference held in January 2012. Dr. Fiksel clarified that resilience is not a wellunderstood concept across ORD.

An SAB member asked about ORD’s definition of sustainability. Dr. Hecht responded that the 

Green Book defined sustainability as both a goal and a process and that the NAS relied on the 

definition of sustainability from the National Environmental Policy Act, i.e., “to create and 

maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that 

permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”

An SAB member noted that the “Triple Value (3V) Model” did not show benefits from 

industries that invest in protection and innovation. Dr. Fiksel responded that the “benefit arrow” 

properly belonged in the model and had been eliminated for simplicity in this presentation. In 

response to another SAB member, he noted that the model could be used to help stakeholders 

better understand tradeoffs involved in choices. Modeling involves educating decision makers, 

the community, and sometimes states to understand trade-offs.
9

An SAB member and a liaison noted that the term”resilience” did not make sense in a public 

health context. Children may be resilient, but that may not mean they are healthy. She asked for a 

presentation focused on sustainability and public health. Dr. Fiksel responded that another 

example could show the application of the model in a public health context. Health is a driver of 

resilience, but resilience doesn’t equal health. EPA has discussed these issues in the context of 

environmental justice and children’s health and is sensitive to these concerns. The model might 

also be used in integrating social impact assessments and community vulnerability 

considerations that affect children’s health.

Yet another SAB member stated that the “Triple Value (3V) Model” is useful but requires true 

investment in decision science to reap benefits. Simply showing information and tools to people 

is not the same as studying the alignment of the outcome of decisions with people’s priorities.

Dr. Fiksel agreed that people need more than data to make decision-support tools such as his 

model operational. ORD has “not crossed the threshold” into decision science that would make 

the model most useful. He noted that the tool is primarily being used within EPA and not 

generally currently being used in program offices. ORD potentially envisions the tool being used 

to help develop regulations and/or policies promoting green infrastructure for treatment of 

wastewater and storm water. It may also be used for policies related to greenhouse gases and 

biofuels, where there are complex considerations and a variety of regulatory and voluntary 

management approaches that could be used.

An SAB member asked how ORD is identifying problems at different scales that would be most 

appropriate for using the “Triple Value (3V) Model.” Dr. Fiksel responded that ORD has not yet 

identified where there are decisions at the national scale that would be appropriate to the use of 

the model.

Dr. James Johnson, SAB Liaison and Chair of the National Advisory Committee on 

Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), noted that NACEPT was meeting to provide 

advice to the Administrator regarding EPA actions in response to the NAS report, especially as 

they relate to sustainability objectives, metrics, and fostering an agency culture related to 

sustainability.

The SAB Chair noted that the language chosen to describe the model will be very important to 

promote the interdisciplinary collaboration that will be needed. She also noted that the July SABBOSC meeting might benefit from a discussion of sustainability and resilience and ORD’s role 

in developing science to support EPA’s work in these areas.

Discussion of draft report from the SAB Committee on Science Integration for Decision 

Making

Dr. Thomas Burke, Chair of the SAB Committee on Science Integration for Decision Making,

described the ambitious efforts undertaken by the committee to talk with hundreds of EPA 

scientists, managers, and leaders in all 10 EPA regional offices and major program offices. The 

SAB conducted its fact-finding efforts at a time when EPA was experiencing great changes since 

2008. The report8 has had to adapt to the changing science environment at a time when EPA 

science was under great scrutiny. The committee developed the report to reflect major themes 
10

heard during the interviews and to make the report relevant to current EPA science. The field 

work conducted by committee members offers the SAB an opportunity to provide advice to 

change the culture of science in ways that will be important to EPA’s future success integrating 

science for decision making. Although EPA regions and program offices develop and use their 

science in very different ways, common themes emerged from the discussions regarding the need 

for science integration. He acknowledged the contributions of chartered SAB members Drs. 

Terry Daniel, Taylor Eighmy, and John Giesy, as well as the NACEPT liaison, Dr. James 

Johnson, and many other committee members.

The advisory activity was prompted by a request from then-Administrator Stephen Johnson, who 

asked for advice on how EPA could better integrate science into agency decisions. This request 

had “some of its origins” in the 2009 NAS report, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk 

Assessment (sometimes called the “Silver Book”), which emphasized the importance of problem 

formulation.

The SAB’s science integration report repeats this theme. EPA has no consistent process for 

problem formulation, a step that helps EPA “ask the right scientific questions” and get the right 

expertise. In some cases at EPA, problem formulation is not done; in other cases, it is “hit or 

miss.”

Although EPA might emphasize the importance of science integration, the necessary 

implementation steps are not in place and very often EPA program offices’ “silo” approach to 

environmental problem-solving is a barrier to science integration. Managers are not accountable 

for science integration.

Significantly, regions and program offices are isolated from ORD. Two thirds of EPA’s 

scientific staff are located in program and regional offices. Scientists outside ORD are 

responsible for translating science into decisions and voiced frustrations about accessing and 

using ORD science to solve their specific problems. To obtain needed science, program and 

regional scientists developed their own networks, drawing on science at the state or local level, 

colleges and universities, other federal agencies, or non-governmental organizations where 

science was available to them. The SAB committee concluded that there is a need for EPA to 

have a stronger community of science to encourage cross-silo communication, mentoring and 

outreach, and collaboration. There is a need for new measures of success for EPA science.

Science should be measured in terms of science integration for decision making and not just in 

terms of publication success. EPA needs to develop an approach for attracting, training, 

retraining and mentoring scientists that addresses the importance of transdisciplinary science.

Dr. Thomas Burke acknowledged the written quality review comments from chartered SAB 

members and liaisons.9 He noted that many commenters asked for more examples but that the 

committee found that there were no examples of science integration that did not have some 

problematic aspect.

Dr. Elaine Faustman, the first lead reviewer, commended the committee for extensive factfinding and supported the three recommendations in the report. She suggested that the report 

mention the 1992 ecological risk assessment framework’s emphasis on problem formulation and 
11

explore whether that framework informed decisions or resulted in lessons learned. She suggested 

that it may have been more useful to use the science integration diagram from the Silver Book, 

which emphasized problem formulation. She suggested that the revised figure be shown or an 

explanation be provided for omitting it.

She suggested that the report provide more support for discussion of sustainability and its link to 

science integration. She also called for the report to provide a definition of science not just as an 

“enterprise” that builds knowledge, but also the knowledge itself. She also asked that the 

description of EPA’s mission be expanded to include protection of human health.

Dr. Ingrid Burke commended the report for its important focus and message. She suggested that 

the letter to the Administrator be strengthened to convey more clearly that program and regional 

science is separate and somewhat disconnected from ORD research and that science integration 

was not happening consistently.

Dr. Ingrid Burke supported the three major recommendations. She suggested that the more 

detailed recommendations in Appendix D should be nested, if possible, in the discussion of the 

three major recommendations. She also suggested that the report also make a recommendation 

regarding translation of science, drawing on literature and study of “metrics for translation”

developed by extension scientists, who study how their science is used.

She suggested that the report refer to “Science Integration Councils,” rather than “Science Policy 

Councils.” She also suggested that the report refer to science to “inform” decision making, rather 

than to “support” decision making.

Dr. George Daston, the third lead reviewer, found the report a “bit vague and generalized” and 

called for more specifics. He suggested that the report more clearly communicate the charge 

questions. If the report diverged from the questions originally provided by Administrator 

Johnson, the report should better explain how the questions evolved. He called for additional 

details and findings from the interviews beyond the description of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) review, which is unusual because the NAAQS review is a major, 

mandated review process. He suggested that the scientific response to the Gulf Oil Spill and the 

work conducted by the National Center for Computational Toxicology might provide good 

examples. He called for the report to provide stronger recommendations and to highlight changes 

that can be made immediately. The conclusions generally are reasonable but should be more 

detailed. He took issue with the second recommendation, which seemed to recommend 

rewarding managers for integrating more science. He argued, instead, that managers should be 

rewarded for outcomes where science integration was instrumental. He took issue with the third 

recommendation, which included support for exchanges of scientists between program or 

regional offices and ORD for developmental details. He argued that ORD’s depth of expertise 

would be diluted by such exchanges.

Dr. Otto Doering, the fourth lead reviewer suggested that information in the conclusion drawing 

from the Ash Commission be moved to the introduction. He suggested that clearer charge 

questions, based on the committee’s experience with the EPA interviews, be presented in the 
12

scoping section, even if these questions diverged from the charge questions in the letter from 

Administrator Johnson.

Dr. Doering suggested that the report drop figure 1 because it contained outdated terms. He 

suggested that the report use the figure from the Silver Book or create a new figure. He 

recommended that the definition of integrated science be simplified.

Dr. James Sanders found the report a short, clearly written and straight-forward report. He would 

have liked more support for the findings and recommendations. He asked that the report 

communicate more clearly that the interviews were available as a stand-alone document. He 

suggested that the letter provide additional explanation for each finding and recommendations so 

that the reader can more easily understand the findings and major recommendations.

After the lead reviewers finished their remarks, Dr. Thomas Burke noted that the committee 

grappled with these issues. It should be feasible to move recommendations in Appendix D into 

the body of the report. He committed to considering possible case examples, such as science 

supporting the Gulf Oil Spill, Region 3’s use of the Multi-criteria Integrated Resource 

Assessment (MIRA), or the estuary program. He also noted the call to provide more support for 

the recommendations, to consider using the Silver Book diagram or redrawing figure 1 and to 

provide additional support for the sustainability references.

After Dr. Burke finished his brief response, other members of the committee provided 

comments. Dr. Johnson noted that the committee had found it difficult to use examples, because 

different members of the committee made objection, on different grounds, to the use of every 

example chosen. Dr. Terry Daniel supported the idea of crafting fresh charge questions without 

being tied directly to the original language provided by Administrator Johnson. 

Dr. John Giesy noted that the impetus for this report resulted from criticism of EPA past 

practices that generally are no longer a problem. Rather than criticize those past practices, the 

committee chose to make positive recommendations to strengthen EPA science. 

Recommendations for this report were especially tricky. The committee found EPA scientists to 

resourceful and innovative in solving their problems, often in unexpected ways. The committee 

did not have grounds to criticize regions or program offices for these strategies nor did it have 

grounds to criticize ORD for not providing all the science required by the Agency, because ORD 

cannot conduct all the research and science needed by program and regional offices. As a result, 

it became difficult to develop recommendations that were clear and pointed at the high level of 

this report, which addressed an overview of EPA science. The messages from the interviews 

cannot be neatly diagramed; “they were all over the map” addressing how program and regional 

offices were “doing things and not doing things.” The committee decided to keep the message 

simple and address only a few key points.

After members of the Committee on Science Integration for Decision Making who were also 

members of the chartered SAB concluded their remarks, other members provided comment. One 

member noted that the report is important because it addresses science beyond ORD, the SAB’s 

usual customer. The committee has engaged EPA’s scientific community outside ORD and has 

an important message to communicate to the Administrator. It should communicate that message 
13

clearly to help the agency strengthen its use of science. The recommendations are systematic and 

fundamental. The SAB should complete this report and follow-up to see that recommendations 

receive attention and are addressed. The recommendations are important to decisions made in 

program offices, regions and states that look to EPA as a model. Other SAB members supported 

this view and suggested that the SAB consider how to continue efforts to better understand 

science outside ORD and how to provide advice to support science in program and regional 

offices.

Members made the following additional suggestions to consider in strengthening the report:

• Consider commenting on how to communicate uncertainties in science assessments. The 

report might emphasize the importance of “getting the science right” and communicating 

it effectively.

• Highlight any findings related to states.

• Edit the report with consideration to where text can be pulled out of context to be 

misconstrued and cause problems for EPA.

• Highlight EPA institutions that foster integration: the Science Policy Council, Risk 

Assessment Forum, and historical Integrated Risk Information System consensus work 

groups. Dr. Thomas Burke responded that the committee found all these topics complex 

and had not reached agreement on conclusions to include them in the report.

• Make it clearer that the type and level of integration can depend on the type and 

significance of the decision to be made.

Members discussed the importance of clarifying the nature of the committee’s fact-finding. 

Members of the Committee on Science Integration for Decision Making explained that, although 

there was an ambitious interview protocol, the dynamics of the discussion depended on the 

“dynamic of who was in the room.” The interview summaries are available and are cited in the 

report, but they do not provide an objective data set. The committee used the interview 

summaries as a base set of information to extract themes. One theme that came across in many 

interviews is that that science integration played little or no part in interviewees’ work. Those 

interviewees reported that the law prescribed what was necessary, or that they didn’t have time 

for science integration, or that they were following precedent. Other interviewees made different 

kinds of efforts to integrate science. The major “take-home message” is that there is no single 

way to integrate science to support EPA’s decisions. “It’s all over the map. There are a lot of 

really dedicated people. They don’t have resources they need for science. There isn’t time for 

them to get training and learn and get ready for all the decisions they need to make. Approaches

differ at every level of organization and across programs.” The Committee decided to distill a 

few key findings and recommendations. The available interview materials defy deeper analysis. 

Members agreed that the report would be strengthened by a description of the “messy” nature of 

the interviews and the “incredible group of EPA scientists” meeting challenges in different ways.

The report should explain that it distilled only a few clear themes relating to the need for 

education, networking, data sharing, and convening the right people.

After the discussion had concluded, Dr. Swackhamer asked for a motion to dispose of the report. 

Dr. Ingrid Burke made a motion to accept the report with changes discussed during the quality 

review and to have the revised report sent to the Board Chair. Dr. Duncan Patten seconded the 
14

motion. The Board discussed the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no members 

opposed and with one abstention from Dr. Michael Dourson.

The DFO recessed the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Friday, March 23, 2011

The DFO reconvened the meeting at 9:00 a.m.

Discussion of the scientific and technical bases for several rules proposed by the Office of 

Air and Radiation

Dr. Deborah Swackhamer provided background about a pilot activity undertaken by the SAB in 

response to a new EPA initiative to strengthen coordination with the SAB by providing the SAB 

with information about proposed agency actions. This initiative was described in a January 2012 

memo from Office of Policy Associate Administrator Michael Goo, as provided to the SAB in 

Attachment A of the meeting material entitled “Screening Consideration of Four EPA Proposed 

Regulatory Actions and Supporting Science.”10 She noted that this new process is intended to 

provide the SAB a meaningful opportunity to provide advice and comment, where appropriate, 

on the science supporting proposed agency actions, even when there isn’t an explicit request for 

SAB advice. The initiative is consistent with language of the Environmental Research and 

Development Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978.

As the SAB develops an implementation process for this initiative, the Board conducted a pilot 

exercise to evaluate four proposed rules to determine the information needed to provide advice 

and comment on the supporting science. The pilot exercise focused on two sets of proposed 

regulations. On December 23, 2011, the SAB Staff Office was informed by EPA’s Office of Air 

and Radiation of proposed rules relating to: 1) standards for air toxics from boilers and 

incinerators and 2) greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles.

To assist the SAB deliberations, SAB members Drs. David Allen, Peter Thorne and Jerry 

Schnoor agreed to serve as lead discussants. In that capacity, they worked with SAB staff to 

conduct fact-finding and developed initial recommendations to the chartered SAB on 

information needed to evaluate if the SAB should develop advice and comment relating to the 

OAR proposed rules. 

After Dr. Swackhamer’s introduction, SAB members briefly discussed the nature of this new 

activity. There are 164 actions identified in EPA’s most recent semi-annual regulatory agenda 

that the SAB might consider. The SAB Staff Office Director noted that the SAB DFO, Dr. 

Angela Nugent, was leading an agency work group to identify a process for screening actions for 

SAB attention and to identify the supporting information that would be publicly available.

Chartered SAB members would decide which agency actions had supporting scientific and 

technical documents that would be the focus of SAB review. Review of the science supporting 

these actions would be conducted by an appropriate panel of experts. The SAB Staff Office 

would follow its standard process for identifying the appropriate type of panel to conduct the 

review, and, if a new panel of experts were needed, the SAB Staff Office would follow its 

established panel formation process. SAB members agreed that the process would need to take 
15

account of EPA’s time constraints and still meet the requirements of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. They also noted that although the effort would be time-intensive, it might offer

the SAB a new opportunity to provide science advice to strengthen EPA decision making.

EPA’s proposed rule addressing 2017 and Later Model Year Light-duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and CAFE Standards

Dr. Jerald Schnoor, the lead discussant of the science supporting EPA’s proposal related to the 

2017 and Later Model Year Light-duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and CAFE 

Standards, participated via teleconference. Dr. Schnoor summarized the background for this 

proposed rule and his major findings, documented in Attachment G of the meeting material 

entitled “Screening Consideration of Four EPA Proposed Regulatory Actions and Supporting 

Science11.” He noted that the proposed rule under consideration amended EPA’s rule 

promulgated on April 1, 2010. To evaluate the science issues, he considered the historical 

evaluation criteria for determining whether science issues merited SAB attention (Attachment 

D12), the proposed rule, public comments, Agency fact sheets and technical documents, and 

information gathered through agency fact-finding conducted13 with the assistance of SAB DFO 

Ms. Stephanie Sanzone. 

Dr. Schnoor noted that the proposed rule is mostly an extension of the previous rule (April 1, 

2010) establishing standards for 2012-2016 model year vehicles. There are no new scientific or 

technical issues with the possible exception of the advanced technical credits for electric vehicles 

and (partially) plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs). These proposed credits are intended to provide 

incentives to facilitate market penetration of the most advanced vehicle technologies as rapidly 

as possible. He concluded that there is not a major new scientific issue associated with these 

regulations, and recommended that it should not be a high priority for SAB action.

After Dr. Schnoor concluded his remarks, SAB members asked several questions. In response to 

a query, Dr. Schnoor noted that he might have made a different recommendation if he were 

reviewing the April 2010 rule, where there was a new major regulatory initiative. He noted that 

he spent approximately six hours considering information related to the pilot. Mr. William

Charmley, from EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

responded to a question about EPA’s lifecycle analysis for electric vehicles. He noted that the 

cost-benefit analysis included upstream emissions, including projected increased electricity use, 

as compared with previous tailpipe analyses. 

SAB members discussed the pilot’s significance for future SAB activities. One member noted 

that it may be more appropriate for the SAB to focus on new science issues, rather than whether 

EPA is applying existing science correctly. Another member noted that the economic analysis 

supporting the rulemaking may raise science issues; how consumers value fuel economy is a 

complex topic that may merit SAB attention.

EPA’s proposed air toxic rules for boilers and incinerators

Drs. David Allen and Peter Thorne, the lead discussants for SAB pilot examination of the 

science underlying EPA’s proposed air toxic rules for boilers and incinerators, summarized their 
16

findings and experience with the pilot. Dr. David Allen provided comments on proposed rules 

published in December 2011 that amended four final rules issued in March 2011 that set national 

emission standards for control of hazardous air pollutants from industrial, commercial and 

institutional boilers at major and area source facilities, revised the definition of non-hazardous 

secondary material to clarify the scope of biomass and other solid wastes used as fuels, and 

emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units. The December 2011 

rules were major rules because they had estimated costs of $1.5 billion; affected a large number 

of boilers; and were estimated to result in major risk reductions.

For both lead reviewers, the most significant science issue was the proposal to replace numerical 

dioxin limits with workplace standards. EPA assumed that dioxin emissions would scale with 

reductions of fuel burned. Dr. Allen considered this rule “fell squarely in the middle” – it might 

merit SAB attention because of the significance of the rulemaking and the novel science issue.

More information would be needed to determine whether workplace standards involving tuning 

up boilers and changing flame temperatures would necessarily result in changed emission of 

dioxin.

Drs. Allen and Thorne reported that they had participated in a very useful fact-finding session 

with senior EPA staff organized by Ms. Sanzone14. Dr. Allen concluded that historical SAB 

evaluation criteria are not well suited to evaluating the significance of science supporting

rulemaking. The SAB will need more focused criteria that will allow the SAB to rank order 

different proposed agency actions and their related science in terms of relative significance for 

SAB attention. For him the key questions were: 1) whether the science was new; 2) whether the 

right science was done; and 3) whether the science was done right.

Dr. Thorne commented on the proposed rule addressing commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration units. He noted that these regulations generally imposed more restrictive limits for a 

wide variety of incineration units, from very large to small units that might operate in a 

laboratory and would also affect Portland cement kilns.

Drs. Allen and Thorne each spent approximately 12 hours reviewing documents for the pilot and 

“felt fairly confident” in concluding that the proposed changes did not involve much new science

that should be examined by the SAB. 

After the lead discussants concluded their remarks, Mr. Timothy Hunt from the American Forest 

and Paper Association provided public comment, supported by a factsheet on dioxin workplace 

standards15 and a bar chart comparing dioxin limits in various U.S. regulations.

16 The American 

Forest and Paper Association supports EPA’s December 2011 proposal to use workplace

standards, rather than a numeric standard because dioxin levels from these units are below the 

limits of detection given current measurement protocols. Drs. Allen and Thorne questioned 

whether EPA might use a longer, 24-hour sample, rather than a one-hour sample, and noted that 

costs of such sampling might be the barrier to such a requirement. 

In response to other questions from SAB members, Mr. Hunt noted that many industry 

stakeholders supported the December proposal because it made the more standard achievable and 

affordable. He also noted that the rule was highly technical. Public comment was difficult 
17

because EPA’s accelerated schedule made it impossible for stakeholders to develop test data as 

part of their public comment. If the SAB were to provide comment on such issues, “timing 

would be critical,” and the SAB would need to set priorities to focus on the most significant 

issues within the complex context of the regulatory decisions to be made. He noted that the 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology rules were not based on health effects and were 

technology-based standards. An SAB member noted that science integration issues relate to 

whether technology-based standards meet health-based concerns.

Another SAB member expressed the view that the regulated industry and public interest groups 

often have a good sense of the scientific issues related to regulations. Comments from these 

groups can help inform SAB decisions about whether to review the science associated with a 

proposed rule.

Discussion of lessons learned from the pilots

Chartered SAB members and liaisons addressed the following points in discussing the future 

evaluation of the science supporting proposed Agency actions:

• Members discussed the need to know answers to key questions: 

o What are the science issues?

o Is EPA’s evaluation of the literature sufficient?

o What was the methodology used?

o Was the analysis well done?

o What was the problem formulation associated with the action (e.g., why the 

proposed action is needed, what methodology/science/data is needed; how will 

the data be gathered and assessed to support the action).

• Refining/updating SAB’s historical evaluation criteria would be useful

• Members discussed how the evaluation should be done

o One option – a subgroup of approximately six chartered SAB members could 

evaluate the set of proposed rules and propose a ranking or triage

o Another option: the full chartered SAB could evaluate the entire list and delegate 

more detailed exploration of high priority actions to a small group that would

work with the SAB Staff to do fact finding and then return to the chartered SAB 

with recommendations.

o Another option: SAB would develops criteria and EPA could do initial screening. 

The SAB and SAB staff could focus attention on EPA offices that typically do not 

seek review or advice from the SAB.

• Members generally agreed it would be desirable to engage in the early stage of regulatory

development.

• The SAB should keep in mind that the goal is to identify a small (e.g., two or three) 

number of actions for SAB attention each year.

• There might be a “checklist” of questions that EPA staff could address to provide 

background on the science supporting a planned agency action.

• EPA could provide the SAB with its Data Quality Objectives to help the Board to screen 

for appropriate actions for attention.

• EPA could provide information about key technical documents and associated peer 

review plans/history and summary of science issues identified by public commenters.
18

• Both EPA and stakeholders can provide the SAB with information about whether new or 

controversial science is associated with the proposed action.

• The output or work product of the SAB’s screening would be a letter to the Administrator 

identifying the proposed action(s) and related science the SAB has elected to 

review/provide comment on

• The SAB should examine how the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel provides advice on 

science supporting rulemaking.

• The SAB will need to develop a process for: 1) evaluating the backlog of planned and 

proposed agency actions (164 actions) and 2) examining actions on a semi-annual basis, 

as EPA releases its semi-annual regulatory agenda.

The SAB Chair noted that the Board had reached several areas of agreement: 1) involvement is 

appropriate early in the process; 2) a three-stage evaluation process is appropriate (the full Board 

sees the whole list and screens actions down to 10; a subgroup looks in depth at those 10 to make 

recommendations on a few actions for SAB attention; the full Board decides the actions to take 

on as SAB advisory activities); and 3) there is a need to further develop/refine criteria.

She also noted that the Board had not agreed on how to conduct the initial screening and how to 

meet the many concerns about resources, time, and staff needed to address this new activity. She 

called for formation of a small group to focus on how best to conduct the initial screening. The 

following SAB members were identified to participate in a work group on this issue: Drs. David 

Allen, Michael Dourson; Elaine Faustman; David Dzomback; Duncan Patten; Jerry Schnoor; 

Deborah Swackhamer; and Peter Thorne.

Action Items/Next Steps

Dr. Deborah Swackhamer thanked participants for the successful meeting and expressed 

appreciation for ORD and EPA staff involvement.

The DFO adjourned the meeting at 12:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted: Certified as Accurate:

/Signed/ /Signed/

_______________________ _____________________________

Dr. Angela Nugent Dr. Deborah Swackhamer

SAB DFO SAB Chair

NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: The minutes of this public meeting reflect diverse ideas and

suggestions offered by committee members during the course of deliberations within the

meeting. Such ideas, suggestions, and deliberations do not necessarily reflect definitive

consensus advice from the panel members. The reader is cautioned to not rely on the

minutes represent final, approved, consensus advice and recommendations offered to the

Agency. Such advice and recommendations may be found in the final advisories,

commentaries, letters, or reports prepared and transmitted to the EPA Administrator

following the public meetings.
19

Attachment A: Other attendees

Thomas Armitage,EPA

Amy Battaglia, EPA

James Berlow, EPA

Thomas Carpenter

Dan Costa, EPA

Bill Charmley, EPA

Bob Wayland, EPA

David Cozzie, EPA

Ed Hanlon, EPA

Jenny Hopkinson, Inside EPA

Michael Loughran, EPA

Steve Potts, EPA

Alexandra Reyes, CQ Transcriptions

Stacy Rabkin, EPA

Matt Richards, EPA

Gail Robarge, EPA

Chris Saint, EPA

Stephanie Sanzone, EPA

Phil Sayre, EPA

Greg Susanke, EPA

Kevin Teichman, EPA

Marilyn Tenbrick, EPA

Tim Watkins, EPA

Larke Williams, EPA
20

Materials Cited

The following meeting materials are available on the SAB Web site,

http://www.epa.gov/sab, at the page for the March 22-23, 2012 meeting:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/a84bfee16cc358ad85256ccd006b0b4b/b7520f11667e

df858525795600699ba9!OpenDocument&Date=2012-03-22

 1 Agenda

2 Federal Register Notice Announcing the Meeting

3 Science Advisory Board Comments on the President's Requested FY 12 2013 Research Budget 

(March 13, 2012 Draft)

4 Comments from Board Members and Liaisons on the drart report "SAB Comments on the 

President's Requested FY 2013 Research Budget (March 13, 2012 Draft) as of noon 03/21/12.

5 Planning for July 2012 SAB/BOSC Meeting, Presentation by Robert Kavlock

6 ORD Innovation, Presentation by Peter Preuss

7 Update on EPA Response to NRC Report and ORD Sustainability Science, Presentation by 

Alan Hecht and Joseph Fiksel

8 Science Integration for Decision Making at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Draft 

03/05/12)

9 Comments from Board Members and Liaisons on the draft report entitled "Science Integration 

for Decision Making at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Draft 03/05/12)" (rec'd as of 

03/22/12). .

10 Attachment A, Coordination with the Science Advisory Board Regarding Proposed Criteria 

Documents, Standards, Limitations and Regulations (Memorandum from Michael Goo, 

Associate Administrator for Policy), page 2 of the Screening Consideration of Four EPA 

Proposed Regulatory Actions and Supporting Science

11 Attachment G, Science Topics Raised by Commenters at Public Hearings for Light-Duty 2017-

2025 GHG and CAFE Standards NPRM (EPA Staff Draft Summary), page 20 of the Screening 

Consideration of Four EPA Proposed Regulatory Actions and Supporting Science. 12 Attachment D, SAB Evaluation Criteria, page 11 of the Screening Consideration of Four EPA 

Proposed Regulatory Actions and Supporting Science. 13 Attachment H, Peer Reviewed EPA Studies Utilized in the LD 2017-2025 GHG and CAFE 

Standards NPRM (EPA Staff Summary), page 11 of the Screening Consideration of Four EPA 

Proposed Regulatory Actions and Supporting Science. 14 Attachment F, Summary of Fact-Finding Meeting on Scientific and Technical Issues for EPA 

Proposed Rules Relating to HAPs Emission Standards for Boilers and Incinerators (SAB Staff 

Office Summary), page 16 of the Screening Consideration of Four EPA Proposed Regulatory 

Actions and Supporting Science.

15 American Forest and Paper, Why EPA’s Work Practices for Dioxin/Furan in the Industrial 

Boiler MACT Are Scientifically Justified (March 23, 2012)

16 Comparison of Dioxin Limits in Various U.S. Regulations, bar chart provided by Tim Hunt, 

American Forest and Paper