[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