[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44343-44344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21340]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL--7042-2]


EPA Science Advisory Board; Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 
Cleanup and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C 
Program Benefits, Costs and Impacts Review Panel Request for 
Nominations

ACTION: Notice. Request for nominations to the Underground Storage 
Tanks (UST) Cleanup and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
Subtitle C Program Benefits, Costs and Impacts Review Panel of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB).

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science 
Advisory Board is announcing the formation of an Underground Storage 
Tanks (UST) Cleanup and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
Subtitle C Program Benefits, Costs and Impacts Review Panel 
(hereinafter, the ``Panel'') and is soliciting nominations to this 
Panel. The EPA Science Advisory Board was established to provide 
independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and 
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for EPA 
regulations. In this sense, the Board functions as a technical peer 
review panel.
    Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified 
individuals for membership on the Panel. Nominees should be identified 
by name, occupation, position, address, telephone number, and e-mail 
address. To be considered, all nominations must include a current 
resume, preferably in electronic format, providing the nominee's 
background, experience and qualifications.

Background:

    In 1996, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 
began to develop methodologies to better characterize the costs and 
benefits (including environmental, health, and other human welfare 
benefits) and other impacts of its various environmental programs. The 
OSWER draft documents to be reviewed as an advisory by the Panel 
address the proposed benefits, costs and impacts review methodology for 
two pilot programs in a coordinated fashion, namely the Underground 
Storage Tank (UST) Cleanup and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) Subtitle C prevention programs. The purpose of these draft 
documents is to present a range of potential methods OSWER could use to 
characterize or quantify each of the relevant attributes for the UST 
Cleanup and RCRA Subtitle C Programs, together with the advantages, 
disadvantages, and uncertainties. The methods range from relatively 
simple to more complex, resource-intensive methods.

The Proposed Charge

    The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is 
requesting that the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) review the 
following draft documents dated October 2000: ``Approaches to Assessing 
the Benefits, Costs, and Impacts of the Office of Underground Storage 
Tanks Cleanup Program,'' and ``Approaches to Assessing the Benefits, 
Costs, and Impacts of the RCRA Subtitle C Program.'' The draft Charge 
to the SAB is:
    (1) Does the ``OSWER Attributes Matrix'' (Exhibit 1-1 in both 
reports) provide a good list of program attributes that could 
appropriately be used to describe OSWER program benefits, costs, 
impacts, and other key factors

[[Page 44344]]

influencing program performance? Does the list provide a reasonable 
starting point for an analysis of an OSWER program that would ensure 
consideration of a broad range of program impacts and features? Should 
any attributes be modified, or deleted or added to this list, and if 
so, why?
    (2) Keeping in mind that it was OSWER's intention to evaluate a 
range of methodological options, and to include some relatively less 
resource-intensive options (recognizing these are likely to be less 
technically rigorous), are the methods presented viable and technically 
sound? Will the methods lead to defensible conclusions? Are the 
assumptions associated with the methods reasonable? If you believe any 
of these methods or assumptions are not viable, sound, or defensible, 
why not? Are the methods consistent with EPA's Guidelines for Economic 
Analyses, to the extent the guidelines address the OSWER program 
attributes?
    (3) Are the methods clearly and adequately described, for purposes 
of making a decision to select preferred methods for additional 
development and implementation? Are the advantages, disadvantages, and 
data requirements associated with each option clearly and adequately 
described? Is additional information needed for any of these methods in 
order for OSWER management to make an informed decision? If so, what 
information?
    (4) Are there alternative methods (or modifications of methods 
presented in the reports) that could be used to better characterize any 
of the attributes addressed in the two reports, keeping potential 
resource limitations in mind? If so, what are they and how would they 
help? We are particularly interested in seeking SAB advice on 
methodologies to characterize the more traditional human health/
environmental benefits (which represent EPA's core areas of 
responsibility), but OSWER would also welcome any recommendations the 
SAB might have on better ways to characterize and/or quantify some of 
the more ``non-traditional'' attributes such as sustainability and 
other long-term program impacts; the value of regulatory requirements 
that focus on providing information to the public; and the influence on 
program performance of factors such as stakeholder concerns and 
statutory/legal constraints.
    The charge listed above can also be found on the EPA Science 
Advisory Board website at www.epa.gov/sab/. 
    The expertise needed to address the charge questions includes 
environmental economics, preferably with experience in waste, 
groundwater and surface water contamination issues, particularly in the 
UST and RCRA contexts, health risk assessment, and ecological impact 
assessment. Finally, it would be helpful to have a reviewer who is 
familiar with social science issues related to topics such as 
environmental justice, stakeholder values, the value of regulations 
requiring that information be provided to the public, and changes in 
the long-term behavior of the regulated community resulting from 
environmental regulatory requirements.
    The criteria for selecting Panel members and consultants (M/C) are 
that they be recognized experts in their fields; that Panel M/C be as 
impartial and objective as possible; that public pronouncements, if 
any, by any prospective Panelist reflect balance and objectivity on the 
subject matter, that Panel M/C are free from conflicts of interest, as 
determined by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) (see the OGE Form 
450 and the OGE web site: http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_otherdocs/fpo_files/forms/fr450fill_00.pdf); that Panelists 
represent an array of backgrounds, perspectives and balance (within the 
disciplines relevant to this review); and that the Panelists be 
available to participate fully in the review, which will be conducted 
over a relatively short time frame (i.e., within approximately 3 to 6 
months). Panelists will be asked to attend at least one public meeting 
followed by at least one public teleconference meeting over the course 
of the review; they will be asked to participate in the discussion of 
key issues and assumptions at these meetings, and they will be asked to 
review and to help finalize the products and outputs of the Panel. The 
Panel will make its recommendations to the SAB Executive Committee (EC) 
for approval of the Panel's report and transmittal to the EPA 
Administrator.
    Nominees selected as Panelists are appointed as Special Government 
Employees (SGE) and are subject to government conflict of interest 
statutes. SGEs serving on the EPA Science Advisory Board are 
compensated for their time and are reimbursed for their expenses in 
accordance with standard government travel practices.
    Nominations should be submitted to Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian, 
Designated Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-4557; FAX (202) 501-0582; or 
via e-mail at [email protected] no later than (September 4, 
2001).

General Information

    Additional information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board, 
its structure, function, and composition, may be found on the SAB 
Website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) and in the EPA Science Advisory Board 
FY2000 Annual Staff Report which is available from the SAB Publications 
Staff at (202) 564-4533 or via fax at (202) 501-0256.

    Dated: August 15, 2001.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, EPA Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 01-21340 Filed 8-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P