[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43394-43396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21705]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6144-1]
Science Advisory Board, Notification of Public Advisory Committee
Meetings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notification is hereby given that two committees of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on the dates and times described below.
All times noted are Eastern Time. All meetings are open to the public,
however, 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. Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
The Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on Thursday, September 3 and Friday
September 4, 1998, beginning no earlier than 9 am and ending no later
than 5 pm on each day. The meeting will be held at the Sheraton City
Centre Hotel at 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037.
The hotel is Metro accessible. For directions, please call the hotel at
202-775-0800.
Purpose--The purpose of the meeting is to review the methodologies
for the Basic Relative Burden Analysis Methodology (BRBA), the Enhanced
Relative Burden Analysis Methodology (ERBA), and the Cumulative Outdoor
Toxics Concentration and Exposure Methodology (COATCEM) for scientific
merit.
Charge--The IHEC has been asked to respond to the following Charge
questions presented in the document, Questions for the Science Advisory
Board on the Title VI Relative Burden Analyses and the Cumulative
Outdoor Air Toxics Concentration and Exposure Methodology, referred
hereafter as ``the review document.'' The following charge questions
are from the review document which provides the necessary context for
each question. Instructions for obtaining copies of the review document
are provided below.
I. Regarding the Relative Burden Analyses
Charge Question #1: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI) toxicity weights that Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) developed have been reviewed and commented upon by the SAB
within the past year (EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007). OPPT has addressed the major
concerns of the SAB as to having the weights ordered on a continuous
scale directly related to their toxicity values rather than in order of
magnitude ``bins'' and avoiding truncation of the value range. The use
of these weights for the specific purpose of doing relative burden
analyses in the way outlined in the review document has not been
commented upon by the SAB. What are the strengths and weaknesses of
this approach, which applies the toxicity weights to a number of
chemicals released into the air, for the purpose of developing a burden
measure?
Charge Question #2: The Basic Relative Burden Analysis (BRBA)
method is relatively simple and may not consider important parameters
such as relative proximity, weather, stack height. Please provide
comment on the strengths, weaknesses, and utility of the ``basic''
method in estimating the distribution of burden to areas proximate to
facilities with air emissions.
[[Page 43395]]
Charge Question #3: The Enhanced Relative Burden Analysis (ERBA)
method was an extension of the BRBA by using the Industrial Source
Complex--Long Term, Version 2 (ISCLT2), a standard air model, to model
the toxicity-weighted air emissions from each facility. The toxicity-
weighted air emissions are modeled as if they were one ``pseudo-
chemical,'' although stack and fugitive emissions were treated
separately for each facility. This approach has been adopted in order
to make more manageable the screening evaluation of potentially
hundreds of chemicals and multiple sources. Please provide comment on
the utility and limitations of modeling several chemicals
simultaneously as one pseudo-chemical with the model. If individual
chemical properties would make this modeling method problematic, which
classes of air release chemicals are likely to need to be modeled
separately? Within the relatively small geographic areas analyzed, will
atmospheric degradation play a major factor in the analysis?
Charge Question #4: In the ERBA method, modeling of the air
emissions was truncated at 2, 4, or 6 miles. For example, in the 4-mile
run, burden was added to census blocks within 4 miles from each
facility, but not beyond that, and correspondingly for the 2- and 6-
mile runs. Computationally, the number of census blocks potentially
affected increases dramatically with increasing radius from the
facility and the burden values drop off as the radius increases. (For
example, with 314 facilities in Louisiana, the total number of census
block-facility combinations within 6 miles of any facility was over
300,000.) What are the strengths and weaknesses of limiting the
modeling to a certain radius from the facility for the purpose of
evaluating burden, and specifically, 2, 4, or 6 miles?
Charge Question #5: Please provide comment on the strengths and
weaknesses of the ERBA methods for analyzing the relative burdens from
airborne emissions from nearby facilities for one population subgroup
versus another in populations proximate to fixed air emissions sources?
Charge Question #6: The average toxicity weighted concentration, or
burden, for each census block has been calculated. Please provide
comment on the strengths and weaknesses of additional information which
can be derived from the BRBA and ERBA methods, such as ranking census
blocks in the state or smaller geographic area by average burden value
or comparing the average burden in blocks near one facility to those
near another for the purpose of identifying potential problem areas.
Charge Question #7: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
BRBA methodology for assessing relative impacts on population
subgroups?
Charge Question #8: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
ERBA methodology assessing relative impacts on population subgroups?
Charge Question #9: Please provide comment on the appropriateness
of the review document's interpretation of the Relative Burden Ratio,
given the methodology and data used?
Charge Question #10: Please provide comment on the strengths and
weaknesses of the ERBA method of estimating general risk and hazard
numbers from concentration burdens and its utility for screening out de
minimis burdens.
II. Regarding the Cumulative Outdoor Air Toxics Concentration and
Exposure Methodology (COATCEM)
Charge Question #11: The ambient concentration modeling methodology
associated with COATCEM is similar to that used in several previous
studies conducted by EPA and reviewed by the SAB (e.g., EPA-SAB-IHEC-
96-004; EPA-SAB-EEC-98-007). Are there any assumptions or input data
involved in the COATCEM approach which would change the SAB's earlier
judgements? Please provide comment on the strengths and weaknesses of
the approach for assessing concentrations for the disparate impact
analysis given the large number of sources and chemicals considered in
the analysis?
Charge Question #12: Please provide comment on the strengths and
weaknesses of the COATCEM method for: (1) evaluating the relative
burdens from airborne emissions from nearby facilities for one group
versus another in a population proximate to fixed air emissions
sources, and (2) its utility in screening out de minimis burdens.
Charge Question #13: The BRBA, ERBA, and COATCEM approaches
described in the review document may be applied to various geographic
scales (e.g., national, regional, state, basin, county, place) and
collections of sources. Given the inherent uncertainties described in
the review document, please comment on how the results of the analysis
relate to the resolution of the input data, the varying geographic
scales, and numbers of sources being analyzed.
Charge Question #14: Overall, what are the other major
uncertainties involved in using the BRBA, ERBA, and COATCEM methods?
Are there situations where these methods would have to be modified
because the models or approaches used are not suitable? What research
or improvements in the methodologies would be most helpful to focus
upon in the next few years?
Background--Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended
(Title VI) prohibits recipients of Federal financial assistance (such
as state environmental departments) from discriminating on the basis of
race, color, or national origin in their programs or activities. Title
VI requires Federal agencies that provide financial assistance,
including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to ensure that
recipients of Federal financial assistance do not discriminate on the
basis of race, color, or national origin. Discrimination can result
from policies and practices that are neutral on their face, but have
the effect of discriminating. In addition to prohibiting intentional
discrimination, EPA's Title VI regulations (40 CFR part 7) prohibit
facially-neutral policies or practices that result in a disparate
adverse impact, unless it is shown that they are justified and that
there is no less discriminatory alternative.
Since 1993, EPA has received an increasing number of Title VI
complaints that allege violations of EPA's discriminatory effects
regulations from the issuance of pollution control permits by EPA
recipients. EPA's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) currently has 15 open
investigations, as well as 12 awaiting processing, of complaints which
allege discriminatory effects of permitting decisions. On February 5,
1998, EPA released its Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI
Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Title VI Interim
Guidance) which is an internal guidance document that describes how OCR
will process these types of complaints. Generally, Title VI complaints
are subject to the following process: (1) initial finding of disparate
impact, (2) presentation of rebuttal evidence, (3) identification of
legitimate justifications, and (4) identification of less
discriminatory alternatives. EPA is currently focused on developing
sound methods for establishing the first element of this process--the
initial finding of disparate impact. OCR is interested in developing
tools that can be used repeatedly with some ease so that ultimately
they may be used by recipients and others as a means of identifying
potential Title VI disparate impacts in the context of individual
permit decisions.
The investigation and resolution of Title VI complaints regarding
potential discriminatory effects of environmental permitting decisions
is precedent-setting and may have implications on
[[Page 43396]]
how recipient agencies implement their environmental permitting
programs to ensure no person is discriminated against based on race,
color, or national origin. As a result, the issue of how to measure
disparate adverse impacts from permitted facilities has had high
visibility in the news media, as well as generated interest and debate
within the industrial, state/local government, and environmental
justice communities.
For Further Information--Copies of the review document and relevant
background materials are not available from the SAB Staff. Single
copies of these documents may be obtained from Ms. Jahleezah Eskew by
telephone (202) 260-0507, by fax (202) 260-4580 or via E-mail at:
[email protected]. The review document can also be obtained from
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/sab. Technical questions on these
materials should be directed to Mr. Loren Hall by telephone at (202)
260-3931 or via E-mail at [email protected].
Copies of SAB referenced reports (e.g., EPA-SAB-IHEC-98-004) may be
obtained from the SAB staff at the address listed at the end of this
notice.
The SAB has reserved a portion of its agenda in order to receive
public comments on the scientific/technical issues associated with the
disproportionate impact methodologies being reviewed by the IHEC.
Comments on other matters reflect legitimate concerns but are not
appropriate for this technical forum. Each individual speaker will be
allotted five minutes for his/her presentation. Arrangements can be
made for coordinated presentations from groups of speakers by
contacting Ms. Roslyn Edson, Designated Federal Officer for the IHEC.
Anyone wishing to make a brief oral presentation at the meeting must
contact Ms. Edson, in writing, no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time on August 25, 1998, at USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400), 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, by fax (202) 260-7118, or via E-mail
at [email protected] to request time on the agenda. The request
should identify the name of the individual who will make the
presentation, the organization he/she will represent (if any), and an
outline of the issues to be addressed. In the event that the number of
requests exceed the time available for oral comments, requests will be
granted on the time of receipt in the SAB Office. All written comments
will be accepted and provided to the IHEC Panel.
Oral, as well as written, commenters are expected to send twenty
(20) copies of their written comments to Ms. Edson by August 26, so
that they can be provided to and considered by individual IHEC Members
and Consultants prior to the public meeting. In order to be most
effective, oral public comments at the meeting should highlight, but
not duplicate, written comments.
2. Executive Committee (EC)
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Executive Committee will conduct
a public teleconference meeting on Friday, September 11, 1998, between
the hours of 2 pm and 4 pm, Eastern Time. The meeting will be
coordinated through a conference call connection in the Science
Advisory Board Conference Room, Room 3709M, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The public is
welcome to attend the meeting physically or through a telephonic link.
Additional instructions about how to participate in the conference call
can be obtained by calling Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson at (202) 260-
4126 by September 4, 1998.
In this meeting the Executive Committee plans to review drafts from
several of its Committees. These anticipated drafts include:
(a) Environmental Economics Advisory Committee's Advisory of the
Economic Research Topics
(b) EC Models Subcommittee's Review of TRIM.FaTE Model
(c) Drinking Water Committee's Review of National Containment
Occurance Database.
(d) EC Residual Risk Subcommittee's Review of the Agency's Residual
Risk Report to Congress.
For Further Information--Any member of the public wishing further
information concerning the meeting or wishing to submit comments should
contact Dr. Donald G. Barnes, Designated Federal Officer for the
Executive Committee, Science Advisory Board (1400), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-4126; FAX
(202) 260-9232; and via E-Mail at: [email protected]. Copies of the
relevant documents are available from the same source. Draft documents
will also be available on the SAB Website (http:///www.epa.gov/sab) at
least one week prior to the meeting.
Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings
The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented
at its meetings will not repeat previously submitted oral or written
statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral
presentation will be limited to a total time of ten minutes. This time
may be reduced at the discretion of the SAB, depending on meeting
circumstances. Oral presentations at teleconferences will normally be
limited to three minutes per speaker or organization. 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, which may of any length, may be provided to the
relevant committee or subcommittee up until the time of the meeting.
The Science Advisory Board
Information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure,
function, and composition, may be found in The FY1997 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.
Copies of SAB prepared final reports mentioned in this Federal
Register Notice may be obtained immediately from the SAB Home Page or
by mail/fax from the SAB's Committee Evaluation and Support Staff at
(202) 260-4126, or via fax at (202) 260-1889. Please provide the SAB
report number when making a request.
Meeting Access
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.
Dated: August 8, 1998.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 98-21705 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P