[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41820-41823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20897]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6136-4]
Science Advisory Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee
Meetings
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
notice is hereby given that several committees of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) will meet on the dates and times described below. All times
noted are Eastern Daylight Time. All meetings are open to the public.
Due to limited space, seating at meetings will be on a first-come
basis. For further information concerning specific meetings, please
contact the individuals listed below. Documents that are the subject of
SAB reviews are normally available from the originating EPA office and
are not available from the SAB Office.
1. Environmental Health Committee (EHC)
The Environmental Health Committee (EHC) of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) will meet on Tuesday, August 18 and Wednesday, August 19,
1998, beginning no earlier than 8:30 a.m. and ending no later than 5:30
p.m. on each day. All times noted are Eastern Standard Time. The
meeting will be held at the Madison Room at the Quality Hotel
Courthouse Plaza, 1200 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
Purpose
The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a technical review of the
Lead 403 Rule, focusing on the proposed standards that were developed
by the EPA to prioritize abatement and hazard control activities under
Title X of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act on August 18-19,
1998. The review is scheduled for August 18 and the Committee plans to
begin preparation of a working draft on August 19. Both sessions are
open to the public.
Draft Charge Questions
The EHC has been asked to respond to the following draft Charge
questions which are subject to revision:
General Questions
(a) In each of the specific areas identified below, have we used
the best available data? Have we used this data appropriately? Have we
fairly characterized the variability, uncertainties and limitations of
the data and our analyses?
(b) Are there alternative approaches that would improve our ability
to assess the relative risk impacts of candidate options for paint,
dust, and soil hazard standards?
(c) The approach employs risk assessment models that were primarily
developed for use in site-specific or localized assessments. Has the
use and application of the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
(IEUBK) and empirical model in this context been sufficiently explained
and justified? Is our use of these tools to estimate nationwide impacts
technically sound?
(d) Are there any critical differences in environmental lead-blood
lead relationships found in local communities that should be considered
in interpreting our results at the national level?
(e) In view of the issues discussed and analyzed in sensitivity
analyses contained in the two documents, in what specific areas should
we focus (e.g., refine our approach, gather additional data, etc.)
between now and the final rule? (The timing of the final rule will be
dictated by a consent agreement. We should be in a position to present
a firm schedule prior to the SAB meeting.)
Specific Questions
(a) The HUD National Survey, conducted in 1989-90, measured lead
levels in paint, dust, and soil in 284 privately owned houses. Does our
use of this data constitute a reasonable approach to estimating the
national distribution of lead in paint, dust, and soil?
(b) The approach employs conversion factors to combine data from
studies that used different sample collection techniques. Is this
appropriate? Is the method for developing these conversion factors
technically sound?
(c) IQ point deficits.
(1) The approach characterizes IQ decrements in the baseline blood-
lead distribution, essentially implying that any blood-lead level above
zero results in IQ effects. Have we provided a sufficient technical
justification for this approach? Is this approach defensible and
appropriate?
(2) The characterization of IQ point loss in the population
includes the summation of fractional IQ points over the entire
population of children. Have we provided a sufficient technical
justification for this approach? Is this approach defensible and
appropriate?
(3) One of the IQ-related endpoints is incidence of IQ less than
70. Should consideration be given to what the IQ score was, or would
have been, prior to the decrement (i.e., should different consideration
be given to cases where a small, or even fractional, point decrement
causes the <70 occurrence vs. being <70 due to larger decrements)? If
so, how might this be done?
(d) Are the assumptions regarding duration, effectiveness, and
costs of intervention activities reasonable?
(e) Are the combinations of standards used in Chapter 6 of the risk
analysis reasonably employed given the potential interrelationships
between levels of lead in different media? Is additional data available
on the interrelationship between lead levels in paint, dust, and soil
prior to and after abatement?
(f) The approach for estimating health effect and blood-lead
concentration endpoints after interventions is based upon scaling
projected declines in the distribution of children's blood-lead
concentrations to the distribution reported in Phase 2 of the National
[[Page 41821]]
Health and Human Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III. Under this
approach, data collected in the HUD National Survey are utilized to
generate model-predicted distributions of blood-lead concentrations
prior to and after the rule making. The difference between the pre
section 403 and post section 403 model predicted distributions is used
to estimate the decline in the distribution of children's blood-lead
concentration. This decline is then mathematically applied to the
distribution reported in NHANES III. Is this adjustment scientifically
defensible in general, and in the specific case where the environmental
data--from the HUD Survey--and the blood lead data--from NHANES III--
were collected at different times (1989-90 vs. 1991-1994)?
Background
Under Title X of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with promulgating
standards to identify dangerous levels of lead, which includes hazards
from lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated
soil (Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 403). The presence of
these ``lead-based paint hazards'' triggers various requirements (e.g.,
abatement workers must be certified if lead-based paint or lead-based
paint hazards are present in a residence.)
The Office Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substance's (OPPTS)
approach is to promulgate standards that can be used to prioritize
abatement and hazard control activities, rather than to attempt to
define health threshold levels (i.e., to target the worst cases rather
than to establish ``safe'' levels). While this will ultimately be a
risk management decision, analyses of the prevalence of environmental
lead levels in U.S. residences, incremental costs and benefits
(estimated reductions in children's blood lead), and implementation/
enforceability issues will be used to choose between various options
for dust and soil lead levels. OPPTS seeks an SAB review of its
technical approach to characterizing the incremental differences in
costs and benefits between various candidate dust and soil lead levels.
For Further Information Contact: Copies of the review document and any
background materials for the review are not available from the SAB.
Requests for copies of the background material may be directed to Mr.
Dave Topping by telephone (202) 260-7737, by fax (202) 260-0770 or via
E-Mail at: [email protected]. Technical questions regarding the SAB
review of the TSCA Section 403 Rule may also be directed to Mr.
Topping. Members of the public desiring additional information about
the meeting, including an agenda, should contact Ms. Wanda Fields,
Management Assistant, EHC, Science Advisory Board (1400), U.S. EPA, 401
M Street, SW., Washington DC 20460, by telephone (202) 260-5510 by fax
(202) 260-7118; or via E-Mail at: [email protected].
Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation at the meeting must
contact Ms. Roslyn Edson, Designated Federal Officer for the EHC, in
writing, no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 1998, by
fax (202) 260-7118, or via E-mail: [email protected]. The request
should identify the name of the individual who will make the
presentation and an outline of the issues to be addressed. At least 35
copies of any written comments to the Committee are to be given to Ms.
Edson no later than the time of the presentation for distribution to
the Committee and the interested public.
2. Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
The Environmental Economic Advisory Committee of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB), will meet on August 19, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to
no later than 4:00 p.m. at the Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 726-5000. The purpose of the
meeting will be to discuss the economic analysis guidelines being
developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EEAC will also
complete its work on an advisory that addresses economic research
topics.
Background Information on Economic Analysis Guidelines
The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC or the
Committee) has been asked to conduct an advisory review of the revised
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, a document produced under
the direction of the EPA's Regulatory Policy Council. The guidelines
are designed to reflect Agency policy on the conduct of the economic
analyses called for under applicable legislative and administrative
requirements, including, but not limited to Executive Order 12866.
These guidelines are intended to provide EPA analysts with a concise
but thorough treatment of mainstream thinking on important technical
issues so that they can conduct credible and consistent economic
analyses. They refer to methods and practices that are commonly
accepted in the environmental economics profession; however, they are
not intended to preclude new or innovative forms of analysis. The
guidelines account for some of the practical limitations on time and
resources that EPA analysts must contend with when preparing economic
analyses. They are shaped by administrative and statutory requirements
that contain direct references to the development of economic
information during the development of regulations (e.g., evaluations of
economic achievability). The guidelines provide some flexibility to
analysts to enable them to ``customize'' analyses to be as complex and
complete as is necessary to conform to administrative and legal
procedures. The document also emphasizes the need for the EPA analyst
to ensure that their analytic efforts are commensurate with the value
of the information to the regulatory and policy making process.
Tentative Charge to the Committee
The Agency is seeking external advice because of the pervasive
influence of the documents on the conduct of agency-wide economic
analyses. The Agency charge asks the following:
(a) Do the published economic theory and empirical literature
support the statements in the guidance document on the treatment of
discounting benefits and costs in the following circumstances:
(1) Discounting private and public costs for use in an economic
impact analysis?
(2) Discounting social benefits and costs in an intragenerational
context?
(3) Discounting social benefits and costs in an intergenerational
context?
(4) Discounting social benefit and cost information that is
reported in nonmonetary terms?
(b) Do the published economic theory and empirical literature
support the statements in the guidance document on quantifying and
valuing the social benefits of reducing fatal human health risks?
(c) Do the published economic theory and empirical literature
support the statements in the guidance document on the treatment of
certainty equivalents in the assessment of social benefits and costs of
environmental policies?
(d) Do the published economic theory and empirical literature
support the statements in the guidance document on the merits and
limitations of different valuation approaches to the measurement of
social benefits from reductions in human morbidity risks and
improvements in ecological
[[Page 41822]]
conditions attributable to environmental policies?
(e) Do the published economic theory and empirical literature
support the statements in the guidance document on the relationships
and distinctions between the measurement of economic impacts and net
social benefits?
(f) Does the guidance document contain an objective and reasonable
presentation on the published economic theory, empirical literature,
and analytic tools associated with computable general equilibrium (CGE)
models, and description of their relevance for economic analyses
performed by the EPA?
(g) Does the guidance document contain an objective and reasonable
presentation on the measurement of economic impacts, including
approaches suitable to estimate impacts of environmental regulations on
the private sector, public sector and households? This includes, for
example, the measurement of changes in market prices, profits, facility
closure and bankruptcy rates, employment, market structure, innovation
and economic growth, regional economies, and foreign trade.
(h) Does the guidance document contain a reasonable presentation
and set of recommendations on the selection of economic variables and
data sources used to measure the equity dimensions identified as
potentially relevant to environmental policy analysis?
The EPA requests that the Committee provide written review and
documentation, when applicable, to support recommended changes to the
guidance document. The EPA also seeks recommendations from the
Committee on alternative methodologies, assumptions and data sources
that will improve the presentation of economic issues addressed in the
guidance document.
Background Information on Economic Research Plan
The Agency is in the early stages of preparing an economic research
plan to guide its research in this area which is important to
environmental policy making. The EEAC was asked at its April 9, 1998
meeting to provide the Agency with its advice on a list of topics
proposed for inclusion in the EPA economic research program. The
Committee has drafted this Advisory and will discuss it with the
intention of reaching closure at this meeting.
For Further Information: Single copies of the guidelines information
provided to the Committee can be obtained by contacting Mr. Brett
Snyder, Director, Economy and Environment Division, Office of Policy
(2172), 401 M Street SW., Washington DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-
5610, fax (202) 260-2685, or via E-Mail at: [email protected].
Copies of the draft Advisory can be obtained by contacting Ms. Diana
Pozun, Management Assistant, Committee Operations Staff, Science
Advisory Board (1400), US EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington DC 20460,
telephone (202) 260-4126, fax (202) 260-7118, or E-Mail at:
[email protected]. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation at the
meeting must contact Mr. Thomas Miller, Designated Federal Officer for
the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, in writing no later
than 4:00 pm, August 12, 1998, at the above address, via fax (202) 260-
7118, or via E-Mail at: [email protected]. The request should identify
the name of the individual who will make the presentation and an
outline of the issues to be addressed. At least 35 copies of any
written comments to the Committee are to be given to Mr. Miller no
later than the time of the presentation for distribution to the
Committee and the interested public. To discuss technical aspects of
the meeting, please contact Mr. Miller by telephone at (202) 260-5886.
3. D-Cormix Review Subcommittee
The D-CORMIX Review Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) will meet on August 25-26, 1998 in the Science Advisory Board
Conference Room (Room M3709), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460.
Background
Understanding the fate of dredged material disposed at open water
sites is essential in order to predict potential effects of released
contaminants on aquatic life and human health. Mathematical models of
the physical processes determining the fate of the disposed material
can be used to provide an estimate of concentrations in the receiving
water as well as the initial deposition pattern of material on the
bottom. The draft Inland Testing Manual for the evaluation of dredged
material discharges, previously reviewed by the SAB, contains a
mathematical model for evauating the mixing of instantaneous discharges
from barges and hoppers. D-CORMIX predicts the initial dilution and
mixing zone of a typical continuous dredge outfall operation (e.g.
pipeline discharge). The model, when fully validated, will be an
important tool to evaluate potential exceedences of water quality
standards due to continuous dredged material or other negatively
buoyant discharges. The Office of Water has asked that the Science
Advisory Board conduct a review of the model, addressing the questions
raised below.
Tentative Charge to the Subcommittee
(a) Technical aspects of D-CORMIX
(1) Is D-CORMIX an appropriate water quality model to use for
continuous dredged material discharge mixing zone analysis?
(2) Does the model accurately capture the physics of negatively
buoyant surface plumes, in particular, behavior of the density current
and particle settling associated with dredged disposal plumes?
(3) Is D-CORMIX, a model based on conservation of mass, momentum
and energy principles that provides continuous simulation of near-
field, intermediate-field, and far-field physical processes, preferable
to models which make empirical assumptions on the amount of suspended
materials available for transport (e.g. CD-FATE)?
(4) Does the SAB approve of our outline for laboratory validation?
What further suggestions can be offered?
(b) Implementation of model with regard to use of an allocated
impact zone
(1) What factors should be used in determining the vertical,
horizontal and/or downstream extent of the mixing zone?
For Further Information. Copies of the review materials and model
diskette are not available from the SAB. Requests for copies of these
material may be directed to Mr. Michael Kravitz, Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water (4305), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460, phone: (202) 260-8085, fax (202) 260-9830 or E-Mail at:
[email protected]. Technical questions regarding the SAB review
of the materials may also be directed to Mr. Kravitz. Members of the
public desiring additional information about the meeting, including an
agenda, should contact Ms. Wanda Fields, Management Assistant,
Committee Operations Staff, Science Advisory Board (1400), US EPA, 401
M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460, by telephone (202) 260-5510 by fax
(202) 260-7118; or via E-Mail at: [email protected].
Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation at the meeting must
contact Mr. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal Officer, in writing, no
later than 5:00 pm Eastern Time on August 18, 1998, by fax (202) 260-
7118, or via E-Mail: [email protected] The request should identify
the name of the individual who will make the presentation and an
[[Page 41823]]
outline of the issues to be addressed. At least 35 copies of any
written comments to the Committee are to be given to Mr. Flaak no later
than the time of the presentation for distribution to the Committee and
the interested public.
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, each individual or group making an oral
presentation will be limited to a total time of five minutes. For
conference call meetings, opportunities for oral comment will be
limited to no more than five minutes per speaker and no more than
fifteen minutes total. Written comments (at least 35 copies) received
in the SAB Staff Office sufficiently prior to a meeting date, may be
mailed to the relevant SAB committee or subcommittee prior to its
meeting; 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. Individuals requiring special accommodation at SAB
meetings, including wheelchair access, should contact the appropriate
DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
Information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure,
function, and composition, may be found in The FY 1997 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. Additional information concerning the SAB can be
found on the SAB Home Page at: http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Dated: July 30, 1998.
A. Robert Flaak,
Acting Deputy Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 98-20897 Filed 8-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P