[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32114-32116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15368]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5839-4]


Science Advisory Board Notification of Public Advisory Committee 
Meeting, June and July 1997

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, 
notice is hereby given that the Science Advisory Board's (SAB's) 
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) will conduct a public meeting 
from Monday June 30, 1997 through Thursday July 3, 1997. The meeting 
will be held in conference rooms 120-126 at the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Andrew W. Breidenback Environmental Research 
Facility, 26 West Martin Luther King Boulevard, Cincinnati, Ohio. The 
Committee will convene at 8:30 a.m. on Monday June 30 and adjourn no 
later than 3 p.m. Thursday July 3. The Committee may begin earlier and 
end later otherwise as needed for the work.

Purpose of the Meeting

    On June 30-July 1 the EEC will review the Pollution Prevention 
Research Strategy and the Waste Research Strategy developed by research 
coordination teams in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). 
On July 2, the EEC will review the Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics (OPPT) TRI Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indicators Project 
and conduct a consultation on a proposed approach for developing the 
TRI Relative Risk-Based Chronic Ecological Indicator. (An SAB 
consultation is a discussion of an issue in its early stages which 
generates neither consensus advice nor a written report, but which may 
be helpful to the Agency in identifying areas that should be addressed 
in its further development of the topic.) July 3 is intended to be a 
day of writing and report preparation.
    During the meeting, the Committee also expects to review and 
possibly approve four reports prepared by the EEC or its subcommittees: 
(A) the research program and strategic directions of the National Risk 
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL); (B) Superfund's draft proposed 
national guidance on field filtration of ground water samples taken for 
metals analysis from monitoring wells for Superfund site assessment; 
 the use of toxicity weighting in the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Analysis Sector Facility Indexing Project; and (D) the 
Office of Solid Waste's proposed plan for a Congressionally required 
study of surface impoundments.

Review of the Pollution Prevention Research Strategy

    Copies of the review documents for the Pollution Prevention 
Research Strategy review can be obtained from Jonathan Herrmann of the 
NRMRL in EPA/ORD (phone 513/569-7839 or fax 513/569-7680). The current 
draft charge for the pollution prevention research strategy review is:
    (A) Is the research strategy on target in describing the current 
state of pollution prevention, where it should be focused in the near 
term, and where it needs to be directed in the future (i.e., 
sustainable development)?
    (B) Does the strategic review and program scoping provide a clear 
sense of priorities and role for ORD's pollution prevention research 
effort, and does it support the opportunities for pollution prevention 
research and development described in Chapter 3.0? Have any 
opportunities for ORD research in pollution prevention been missed and, 
if so, what are they?
     Are the four long-term goals consistent with the 
mission of the research strategy, and if thoroughly executed, will they 
effectively achieve the stated vision? If not, what improvements or 
changes are recommended?
    (D) Are the prioritization criteria listed in Chapter 2.0 the of 
the research strategy thorough and will they permit rational and 
reasoned decision making on which projects should be pursued as

[[Page 32115]]

part of a more detailed research and development implementation plan? 
If not, what needs to be done?
    (E) Are the research and development activities and project areas 
presented under each of the four long-term goals, generally 
understandable, and achievable? If not, what suggestions do you have 
for improvements?
    (F) Are the project areas described under Long-Term Goal II 
(Technologies and Approaches) appropriate for the broad scope of the 
research strategy? If not, what changes do you recommend?
    (G) Is the breadth and extent of Long-Term Goal IV (Social Science) 
sufficient to advance economic, social, and behavioral issues that 
enhance or limit the acceptance of pollution prevention?
    (H) Overall, does the research strategy support the position stated 
in the ORD strategic plan that pollution prevention (along with new 
technology) is one of six high-priority research areas that should be 
pursued? Is it supportive of a risk-based approach or is a stronger 
argument needed?

Review of the Waste Research Strategy

    Copies of the review documents for the Waste Research Strategy 
review can be obtained from Ben Blaney of the NRMRL in EPA/ORD (phone 
513/569-7852; fax 513/569-7680).The current draft charge for the waste 
research strategy plan is:
    (A) Has ORD clearly captured and presented the environmental 
problems associated with wastes?
    (B) Has ORD identified the high priority topics (e.g. contaminated 
ground water) that need to be addressed? Has too much or too little 
emphasis been placed on one or another of the topic areas? Do any other 
major topic areas need to be added?
    (C) Are the research activities proposed within each topic 
addressing the highest priority research needs? Has too much or too 
little emphasis been placed on one or another of the research 
activities? Do any other major research activities need to be added?
    (D) Are the criteria and processes used to filter and select the 
highest priority research clear and reasonable?
    (E) Are the future directions for research in the program clearly 
identified in the plan and are they reasonable and appropriate?

Review of the TRI Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indicators 
Project

    Copies of the reference documents supporting this review can be 
obtained from the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, Room B-607, 
Northeast Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, 12 noon to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. Requests for 
documents should be sent in writing to fax number (202) 260-0569 or E-
mail to [email protected]. Refer to Administrative Record 
Number AR181. Documents available are: (1) Toxics Release Inventory 
Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indicators Methodology (203 pages); 
(2) Toxics Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based Environmental 
Indicators Project: Interim Toxicity Weighting Summary Document (230 
pages); and (3) Toxics Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based 
Environmental Indicators Project: Summary of Comments Received on the 
1992 Draft Methodology and Responses to Comments (63 pages).
    Acting upon the recommendations of the 1990 EPA Science Advisory 
Board (SAB) report, Reducing Risk, (EPA-SAB-EC-90-021) OPPT has 
designed an indicator to assess the releases of TRI and other chemicals 
from a relative risk-based perspective. The TRI Environmental 
Indicators are numeric relative ranking values, based upon reported TRI 
multimedia emissions and weighting factors representing toxicity, 
exposure characteristics, and receptor populations using current EPA 
models and databases.
    OPPT plans to use the TRI Environmental Indicators for relative 
risk-based trends analysis or for targeting and prioritization of 
chemicals and chemical facilities. This tool can effectively conserve 
Agency resources in project planning and analysis; it also has 
environmental justice applications. OPPT will maintain a high degree of 
flexibility in just how the TRI Environmental Indicators will be 
applied by the Agency, states, and the public. OPPT requests the SAB to 
assess the technical merits of the methodology in order to:
    (A) Evaluate whether appropriate approaches have been selected to 
assess hazard, exposure and population parameters;
    (B) Determine if these elements have been properly integrated 
within the methodology;
    (C) Assess whether this screening-level tool will provide 
reasonable results for relative risk-based analyses;
    (D) Consider whether the overall methodology accomplishes OPPT's 
objective to provide a measure of risk-related impacts pertaining to 
TRI chemical emissions; and
    (E) Identify research needs that could influence future 
enhancements and improvements of the methodology.

Consultation on a Proposed Approach for Developing the TRI Relative 
Risk-Based Chronic Ecological Indicator

    There are no additional documents for the consultation on OPPT's 
proposed approach for developing the TRI Relative Risk-Based Chronic 
Ecological Indicator. Regarding the consultation, OPPT is seeking input 
from the individual SAB members and consultants on:
    (A) Whether to expand the ecological indicator beyond representing 
solely aquatic toxicity and, if so, how could this be accomplished? 
Which toxicological endpoints should be used for assigning hazard 
rankings and should similar scoring matrices be developed?
    (B) OPPT proposes to eliminate the concept of receptor population 
in the ecological indicator. Is this appropriate and, if not, what 
would be alternative approaches?
    For Further Information--After June 9, agendas and rosters can be 
obtained from the Subcommittee Secretary, Mrs. Dorothy Clark, (phone 
202/260-8414; fax 202/260-7118; or Email CLARK.DOROTHY @ 
EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV). Members of the public desiring additional information 
about the meeting, including the complete charges, or who wish to 
attend either the conference call or face-to-face meeting should 
contact the Designated Federal Official for the Environmental 
Engineering Committee, Mrs. Kathleen Conway, (phone and voicemail 202/
260-2558; fax 202/260-7118; or Email CONWAY.KATHLEEN @ 
EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV). Mail for Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Conway should be sent to 
the Science Advisory Board (1400), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    Members of the public who wish to make a brief oral presentation to 
the Committee must contact Mrs. Conway in writing (by letter or by 
fax--see previously stated information) no later than 12 noon Eastern 
Time, Monday, June 23, 1997 in order to be included on the agenda. 
Public comments will be limited to five minutes per speaker or 
organization. The request should identify the name of the individual 
who will make the presentation, the organization (if any) they will 
represent, any requirements for audio visual equipment (e.g., overhead 
projector, 35mm projector, chalkboard, etc), and at least 35 copies of 
an outline of the issues to be addressed or the presentation itself.

[[Page 32116]]

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings

    The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented 
at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or 
written statements. In general, for meetings, opportunities for oral 
comment will usually be limited to no more than five minutes per 
speaker and no more than thirty minutes total. Written comments (at 
least 35 copies) received in the SAB Staff Office sufficiently prior to 
a meeting date (usually one week before the meeting), may be mailed to 
the relevant SAB committee or subcommittee; comments received too close 
to the meeting date will normally be provided to the committee at its 
meeting. Written comments may be provided to the relevant committee or 
subcommittee up until the time of the meeting.
    Information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure, 
function, and composition, may be found in The FY1996 Annual Report of 
the Staff Director which is available from the SAB Committee Evaluation 
and Support Staff (CESS) by contacting US EPA, Science Advisory Board 
(1400), Attention: CESS, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 or via 
fax (202/260-1889). Single copies of the SAB's Reducing Risk (EPA-SAB-
EC-90-021) can also be obtained from CESS. Additional information 
concerning the SAB can be found on the SAB Home Page at: HTTP://
WWW.EPA/SCIENCE1/

    Dated: June 3, 1997.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 97-15368 Filed 6-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P