American Geological Institute

Government Affairs Program

Science at EPA: Ozone, Superfund and Wetlands (9-24-97

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks to "protect public health and to safeguard and improve the natural environment." In conjunction with its 10 regional offices, EPA works to accomplish its responsibilities as mandated in environmental laws by gathering all relevant scientific information, analyzing the information, getting public input and finally, producing environmental policy. The EPA has been under fire lately for what many call lack of sound science and research in its decision making process. A few of the hot issues of late include ozone, Superfund and wetlands.


The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the Administrator of the EPA to identify certain pollutants which "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" and to issue air quality criteria for these pollutants. These criteria must "accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of a pollutant in the ambient air."

The Administrator is to promulgate "primary" and "secondary" National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 6 identified pollutants. Primary standards are those based on the air quality criteria and allow an "adequate margin of safety." The adequate margin of safety statement is set to address any uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific data available when the primary standards are set. It is also designed to take in to account any hazards that have not yet been identified. The decision on what approach to take in providing an adequate margin of safety is left to the Administrator as a policy choice. It is important to note that economics can play no part in setting primary standards.

Secondary standards must specify a level of air quality that protects the public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of a pollutant in the ambient air. This includes effects on wildlife, animals, manmade materials, weather, visibility and economic effects.

Ozone, commonly known as smog, is caused by the reaction of hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides with the presence of heat and sunlight. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA periodically review the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard through an independent scientific review committee and make revisions when needed. This committee is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) which is a standing committee of EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). For a complete list of Science Advisory Board members as of fiscal year 1996 see Appendix A at the end of this report. The current review and promulgation of standards began in August 1992.

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

The Administrator of the EPA appoints a chairperson and six members to CASAC for four year terms. Those appointments must include at least one member of the National Academy of Science (NAS), one physician and one representative of state air pollution control agencies. Members are individuals who have demonstrated high levels of expertise in the scientific and technical fields relevant to air pollution and air quality issues. The panel can also include of any number of consultant members to increase the expertise of the panel. Consultant members are selected from EPA's Science Advisory Board or from the 300 consultants associated with SAB.

A consultant member of SAB is invited by the SAB staff director to serve on an "as needed" basis. The number of consultants is flexible and the one-year terms they serve can be extended indefinitely. Consultants are required to meet the same standards as members. For the ozone review, the CASAC panel included 16 individuals. For a complete list of Clean Air Science Advisory Committee members see Appendix B and for a list of the ozone panel members see Appendix C . The breakdown of backgrounds is as follows: physicians, epidemiologists, toxicologists, atmospheric scientists, plant biologists, risk assessment experts, and one economist.

The panel selection process:

The committee chair and Designated Federal Official (member of SAB with the responsibility for servicing standing committees) are responsible for forming a review panel. The most important aspect of the process is the "charge," a mutually agreed upon description of what the EPA would like the review to accomplish and on what the SAB panel should expect to focus. Generally, the charge will raise specific questions or areas that need answers.

The Designated Federal Official solicits suggestions for potential members from EPA staff who are familiar with the issue being reviewed. Every effort is made to avoid selecting people who have had some involvement in the document being reviewed but selecting someone who has been involved in prior reviews is helpful. After the EPA staff have suggested nominees and provided background information, their role in panel selection is complete.

The next step is to make "discrete inquiries" about the nominees through colleagues, journal editors and experts "on the other side of the issue." If there is time and resources, a computer search of the nominee's publications and statements at public meetings are researched.

The final selection is compiled by the Designated Federal Official along with the Chair of the panel and then submitted to the SAB Staff Director for discussion and appointment.

The Process

The following is an outline of the process EPA follows when developing primary and secondary standards.

I. Criteria Document (CD)

A. The Criteria Document is developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development and is composed of the best scientific information available on the relationship between levels of pollutants and adverse health effects and includes thousands of studies published in peer reviewed journals. All scientific literature in the Criteria Document has undergone extensive peer review by EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment. The Criteria Document reviews the literature and identifies the most relevant scientific research. The most recent ozone and particulate matter review examined 3,000 published studies.
B. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) reviews the draft Criteria Document and makes recommendations. Review of the Criteria Document is an iterative process and usually takes 2-3 revisions by CASAC and the public before it reaches closure.

II. Staff Paper (SP)

Usually, a Staff Paper is not done until the Criteria Document is finalized but in this case, the Staff Paper and Criteria Document were done in parallel to accelerate the review process.

A. The Staff Paper is a "policy" document. It is put together by the Office of Air and Radiation to identify the most policy-relevant information in the Criteria Document and any information EPA staff feels is critical and should be considered in the review of the standards. The Staff Paper contains risk analyses, staff recommendations for a range of alternative standards and justification for these recommendations.
B. CASAC reviews the draft Staff Paper and makes recommendations. The review is an iterative process and takes 2-3 revisions by CASAC and the public before it reaches closure.

III. Public Notice

Throughout the development of the Criteria Document and Staff Paper, the EPA keeps the public informed by publishing proposed NAAQS in the Federal Register.

IV. When the Criteria Document and Staff Paper are completed and CASAC reaches closure, the documents are ready for review by the Administrator.

V. EPA's promulgation is published in the Federal Register.

VI. Research Needs Assessment

CASAC plans to meet early in FY 1998 (Oct.-Dec.) to discuss research needs for ozone.

While the above steps are taking place, EPA assesses the implications of implementing new standards. It is important to note that EPA is required to consider the advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee but it does not have to agree with the committee's recommendations.

The Science

Much of the hoopla over EPA's standards is what some say is a lack of "sound science" to back up the new standards. After reviewing the scientific information, CASAC concluded that it could not identify a "bright line" separating pollutant concentrations having an adverse effect and those having no effect, i.e. a threshold could not be determined. This vagueness has contributed to the notion that EPA's standards are seen as policy based and not science based.

The ozone review relied on four types of health effect studies: animal studies, controlled human chamber studies, field studies of ambient exposures, and associational hospital admission studies.

The associational study most heavily relied upon was a study in New York City conducted by Thruston et al., 1992 for which the most adequate air quality information was available. Most of the associational studies were conducted in the northeastern US and southeastern Canada. These studies reported excess daily respiratory-related hospital admissions associated with elevated ozone levels.

Other key studies were field studies of camp children and quantitative health risk assessments to estimate ozone exposures and related risks for the general population and two at-risk groups, outdoor children and workers, in nine US urban areas. Risk assessments conducted by EPA staff characterized outdoor children as those between the ages of 6 and 18 years old who tend to be active outdoors, which included approximately 30 to 45 percent of all children in this age group. Studies involving modeling different primary standards scenarios were also considered. (All models used for these studies were approved by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee).

Some of the key studies examined by CASAC:

Several research and information centers and databases were used in the review process.

Peer Review

EPA's peer review process has been under fire the last few years. A GAO report completed in September 1996 and GAO testimony at congressional hearings indicate that the peer review implementation at EPA is uneven. GAO reported finding instances where peer review was used inadequately or not used at all. The Office of Research & Development does use an extensive peer review process for developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). According to EPA, one of the biggest reasons peer reviews are not done or done inadequately is time constraints, such as court-ordered deadlines.

An interesting endnote

The same issues and problems that EPA faces today were addressed in an October 1981 article in Environmental Science & Technology, called "The Role of Science in EPA Decision Making," written by Richard Dowd and Terry Yosie. Dowd at the time was Director of the Science Advisory Board and Yosie a member of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

They concluded that policy decisions should be based on the soundest science available and that policy decisions "should be the final sequence in a continuum of scientific evaluation." They pointed out that congressional appropriation cycles and research cycles do not always mesh and that the "pollutant-of-the-year" syndrome often results in research that focuses on short-term goals. With research communities focused on short-term results, the development of a scientific database for standard setting in atmospheric science can be "stalled" and long-term results of exposure remain unknown.

The authors went on to say that the budget cycle views research as a series of isolated results instead of results that build on each other and often projects are shut down after certain specific results are gained for the pollutant-of-the-year. Science relies on concepts, hypotheses, peer review and the assurance that even limited data is good data, whereas policy makers are concerned not only with quality of data but also with the utility of the data for standard settings. They ended by saying that "not all scientific data are of equal value for the development of regulations."


Superfund was created in 1979 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and amended in 1986 under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Before the taxes expired in December 1995, the Superfund trust fund was raising $1.5 billion per year from excise taxes on petroleum and chemical feedstocks, and environmental income tax. Money entering Superfund now is entirely from fines, penalties and interest on the fund's investments. The Congressional Budget Office reports that Superfund has enough money to last through fiscal year 2000.

The National Contingency Plan explains the actions EPA is to take when hazardous substances are released. The first National Contingency Plan (NCP), created in 1968, provided a comprehensive system of accident reporting, spill containment, and cleanup. Over the years, the NCP was expanded to include hazardous waste and oil spills. After Superfund was created, the NCP was again expanded to include hazardous waste sites that required emergency action. The current National Contingency Plan explains everything from methods for discovering and investigating hazardous waste sites to the role of federal agencies. It also covers the National Priorities List (NPL) and Hazard Ranking System (HRS).

The two types of Superfund responses are those requiring short-term "removals" and those requiring long-term "remedial actions." The long-term projects are what are commonly referred to as Superfund sites and are placed on the National Priorities List.

Steps in Superfund cleanup process

I. Site Discovery

II. Evaluation of the potential for release of hazardous substance

A. Preliminary Assessment (PA) This is a limited-scope investigations performed on all CERCLIS sites. CERCLIS is EPA's computerized list/inventory of potential hazardous substance release sites. Information is collected on sites and the surrounding area to distinguish between sites that pose little to no threat and those that do pose a threat and require more investigation. The Preliminary Assessment also identifies sites that may need emergency response actions. This phase generally requires 95-145 hours.
B. Site Inspection (SI)
A Site Inspection is performed if data gathered in the Preliminary Assessment recommends further investigation. For example, sites that are identified as threatening or that require emergency response action undergo an SI. A Site Inspection identifies which sites have the possibility of qualifying for the National Priorities List and begins the process of collecting data for the Hazard Ranking System. During the Site Inspection, EPA conducts a risk assessment to estimate the current and possible future risks associated with a site if no action is taken. There are four steps in this assessment.

(1) Analyze contamination: Scientists collect water, soil, air, plant and animal samples to determine the type and level of contamination. Scientific literature relative to the contaminant is then studied to determine the effects on human and animal health.
(2) Estimate exposure: Scientists examine all ways people may have been exposed to the contaminant and for how long. A Reasonable Maximum Exposure scenario is developed to get an understanding of possible effects on human health.
(3) Assess potential health dangers: The toxicity of the contaminant is established and an estimation of the dose a person may be exposed to is developed.
(4) Characterize site risk: Site risks are examined in order to measure possible human health problems.

III. Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
The HRS uses information gathered during the Site Inspection to score sites according to the danger they may pose to public and environmental health. The system is divided into three categories and a site is given a score for each.

(1) Likelihood that the site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment.
(2) Characteristics of the waste. (toxicity, waste quantity etc.)
(3) People or sensitive environments affected by the release or potential release.

Scores are calculated and combined using a root-mean-square equation to get a score between 0 and 100.

IV. National Priorities List (NPL)
A site is added to the National Priorities List based on its score in the Hazard Ranking System. Additional ways that a site can be added to the NPL is for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to issue a health advisory for the site or a state to chose a site as its top priority. The average time from site discovery to reach this point in the process is 43 months. As of June 5, 1997, there were 1,208 sites on the National Priorities List with 1,056 in the general Superfund section and 152 in the Federal facilities section.

V. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is an in-depth study done to gather all the data necessary to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a particular site. It is also during this step that criteria are established for cleaning up the site, preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions are identified, and technical and cost analyses of the alternatives are considered. The three broad groups of alternatives are treatment, containment or removal. Treatment is generally used for sites with water contamination where actions are taken to reduce volume, toxicity or mobility of the substance. Containment is generally used for sites with large volumes of contamination and action is taken to seal off all possible exposure routes between the substance and the environment. Removal is just that, removal of the contaminated material. Historically, the remedy used has been based on permanent treatment that balances protection of health and the environment, cost, long-term reliability, short-term risks, acceptance by the local community and technical feasibility. Current trends indicate many disagree with this approach and want instead to make remedy selection based on cost-effectiveness with protection of human health and the environment. This phase generally requires 18-30 months.

VI. Record of Decision (ROD)
At this point, the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is examined and the public is given a chance to comment on the action taken thus far and on the proposed cleanup criteria. After this 30-day public comment period, the Record Of Decision is issued (on average, 38 months after the RI/FS is issued) explaining which cleanup alternative will be used for a site that has been listed on the National Priorities List. Generally, it is the Regional Administrator who chooses which remedy is used.

It is estimated to take an average of 8 years to go from site discovery to the start of the remediation phase. Most of those eight years are spent in litigation between EPA, state agencies, responsible parties, insurers, and municipalities.

VII. Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) The Remedial Design/Remedial Action are based on the ROD. The Remedial Design is the phase in the cleanup process where technical specifications for cleanup remedies and cleanup technologies are designed. The Remedial Action is the actual construction phase of the cleanup. This phase generally takes 12-43 months to complete.

VIII. Construction Completion Activities
It is during this step that a site is examined to determine if it goes on the Construction Completed List (CCL). To be put on the CCL, a site must have all necessary construction completed and all requirements achieved.

XI. Operation and Maintenance
This step is designed to protect the integrity of the selected remedial action. The state where the site is located is responsible for this step. The state maintains the site under the site Operational and Functional (O&F) agreement between the state and federal government.

X. National Priorities List site deletion
To be removed from NPL, the state and EPA must determine that the responsible parties have used all response actions required. The Regional Administrator approves the "close-out" report, then the regional office obtains state agreement. Meanwhile, EPA publishes a notice of intent in the Federal Register and local newspapers and there is a public comment period. If the comments received indicate that the site should be deleted from NPL and all other steps have been approved, the Environmental Protection Agency prints a deletion notice in the Federal Register. As of August 14, 1997, 149 sites have been deleted from the National Priorities List.

The role of the states and EPA

EPA acts as lead oversight agency, entering into cooperative agreements which authorize states to take charge of most of the cleanup activities. In most cases, EPA or the state is in charge of the process up until the listing on the National Priorities List. The rest of the process is handled by the EPA, state and any Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), with PRPs taking up most of the burden. The Record of Decision is issued only by the EPA. Despite the fact that states are doing much of the work, EPA still has the controlling authority over sites.

EPA's Science Advisory Board does not have a specific committee devoted to Superfund. The Science Advisory Board has dealt with Superfund issues but the reviews are done by several of the standing committees including the Environmental Engineering Committee, the Environmental Health Committee, the Integrated Human Exposure Committee, and the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee.

Cleanup Decisions and Technologies
EPA has the final say with respect to which cleanup technology is used. Under CERCLA, EPA must select a remedy that protects "human health and the environment." The remedy must be "cost effective" but it also has to be used "to the maximum extent practicable" and the result must be a permanent solution. EPA has routinely used the most permanent solution and therefore the most costly remedy. A study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that public health is the main reason given for decisions to take remedial action but that site-specific risk assessments play a very minor role in the choice of remedial action. The remedial actions are not chosen based on what the land may be used for or whether the public will have access to the site but instead, are chosen based on the assumption that the land will definitely be used by future generations and must be free of contamination.


The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Wetland, Oceans and Watersheds is the facilitator of EPA's wetlands protection program. The program is build on two principles, the establishment of national standards and the assistance of others in meeting the standards. The Wetlands Division is divided into two branches, the Wetlands and Aquatic Resources Regulatory Branch and the Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Branch. The latter deals with long-term planning of policy and technical aspects of the program while the former deals with policy development, scientific research and state, local and tribal involvement.

The EPA definition of a wetland is as follows:

Areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season.

Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world. They are homes for a variety of species of microbes, plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish and mammals. Wetlands offer a variety of benefits and "services" speak including important filtering capabilities that provide natural water quality improvement, flood protection by acting as natural sponges, and a habitat for many endangered species. Wetlands also offer a variety of recreational activities from hunting and fishing to birdwatching.

The national wetland policy is to achieve "no net loss" of wetlands. This policy does not mean that wetland areas are off limits but rather that losses and gains must balance or be in equilibrium. The current approach to wetland protection is through partnerships between federal, state, local, tribal, non-profits, and private landowners. Wetlands are protected through laws, regulations, economic incentives and disincentives, cooperative programs and acquisition. Laws that address wetland protection include the Clean Water Act, the Food Security Act, which includes the Swampbuster program and the Conservation Reserve Program, the Water Bank Act, the Farm Bill, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

The EPA's major role in wetland protection is funding state and federal agency involvement in wetland research and protection especially in biological assessment and monitoring techniques. The EPA also develops rules to regulate municipal and industrial wastewater discharge, stormwater discharge, and oversees the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulating activities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers has permitting authority over the discharge of dredged and fill materials into "water of the US," including wetlands. EPA develops and interprets environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications and has veto power over a permit granted by the Corps. To date EPA has vetoed 11 out of 150,000 permits. Most of EPA responsibilities are carried out by regional offices as opposed to the national headquarters. EPA's Office of Research and Development established a wetland classification scheme for states but for the most part has deferred wetland delineation authority to the Corps.

By September 30, 1993 states were to have adopted narrative water quality standards applying directly to wetlands. States also had to define wetlands as "state waters." States are required to assess the quality of their "state waters" every two years. The states designate uses for water bodies (i.e. recreation, fishing, preserve etc.) and determine which should be protected. States then adopt water quality criteria that define the level of pollutant or conditions under which uses of the water body are impaired. This can be numerical, such as 10 milligrams per liter, narrative, such as "no toxic pollutants in toxic amounts," or they can be broader measures such as determining the overall stream quality based on the amount of wildlife, fish, etc. States are not required to adopt EPA levels and can use relevant scientific information to develop their own standards but the EPA has to approve the levels chosen.

EPA must review and approve standards which should identify concentrations at which a pollutant becomes a problem and evaluate the effectiveness of the actions to control it. Criteria is defined as the number EPA sets where as standards are what each state adopts.

The Science Advisory Board standing committee that handles wetlands issues is the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.

Appendix A: Science Advisory Board Members for FY96

Name Affiliation
William J. Adams Kennecott Utah Cooper Corporation
Jesse Ausubel The Rockefeller University
Stephen M. Ayres Virginia Commonwealth University
Paul Bailey Mobil Business Resource Corp.
William Bair Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab
Steven Bartell SENES Oak Ridge Inc.
Judy Bean University of Miami
Nancy E. Bockstael University of Maryland
Stephen L. Brown Risks of Radiation Chemical Comp
Trudy Cameron University of California
Keith E. Carns Washington University
Calvin Chien DuPont Company
Lenore Clesceri Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Theodora Colborn World Wildlife Fund
Edwin Cooper University of California
Adolfo Correa Johns Hopkins University
Maureen L. Cropper The World Bank
Kenny Crump ICF Kaiser
Ronald G. Cummings Georgia State University
Kenneth Cummins Ecosystem Res. Depart
Joan M. Daisey Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Virginia Dale Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Daniel J. Dudek Environmental Defense Fund
June Fabryka-Martin Los Alamos National Laboratory
Anna Fan-Cheuk California EPA
A. Myrick Freeman Bowdoin College
Michael Gallo UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Charles P. Gerba University of Arizona
William Glaze University of North Carolina
Ricardo Gonzalez-Mendez University of Puerto Rica
Mark A. Harwell University of Miami
Robert Hazen NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection & Energy
Owen Hoffman SENES Oak Ridge, Inc.
Philip Hopke Clarkson University
Hilary Inyang University of Massachusetts-Lowell
Jay S. Jacobson Boyce Thompson Institute at Cornell University
James H. Johnson Howard University
Janet A. Johnson Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Carol A. Johnston University of Minnesota
Wayne M. Kachel Mele Associates
Bernd Kahn Georgia Institute of Technology
Curtis Klaassen University of Kansas Medical Center
Allan Kneese Resources for the Future
Charles Kolstad University of California
Margaret Kripke University of Texas
JoAnn S. Lighty University of Utah
Paul J. Lioy Environment & Occupational Health Sciences Institute
Morton Lippmann New York University Medical Center
Kai-Shen Liu California Department of Health Services
Alan Maki Exxon Company, USA
Ellen Mangione Colorado Department of Public Health
Genevieve Matanoski Johns Hopkins University
Donald Mattison University of Pittsburgh
Joe Mauderly Lovelance Biomedical & Environmental Resources Institute
Anne McElroy State University of New York
Thomas McKone University of California
Robert Mendelsohn Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
James W. Mercer GeoTrans, Incorporated
Paul Merges NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
Paulette Middleton Science & Policy Associates, Inc.
Maria Morandi Unviersity of Texas
M. Granger Morgan Carnegie Mellon University
Ishwar Murarka Electric Power Research Institute
William Nordhaus Yale University
Jerome Nriagu University of Michigan
Ellen O'Flaherty University of Cincinnati
Wallace Oates University of Maryland
Edo. D. Pellizzari Research Triangle Institute
Frederica Perera Columbia University
Barbara J. Petersen Technical Assessment Systems, Inc.
Frederic K. Pfaender University of North Carolina
Emil A. Pfitzer Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.
Henry C. Pitot University of Wisconsin
Frederick Pohland University of Pittsburgh
Robert B. Pojasek Cambridge Environmental, Inc.
Paul Portney Resources for the Future
Lynne Preslo Earth Technology
James Price Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
Verne A. Ray Pfizer, Inc.
Robert Repetto World Resources Institute
Jonathan M. Samet Johns Hopkins University
Richard Schmalensee Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jerry Schubel The New England Aquarium
W. Randall Seeker Energy & Environmental Research Corporation
Ellen Silbergeld University of Maryland at Baltimore
William H. Smith Yale University
Vernon L. Snoeyink University of Illinois
Robert Stavins Harvard University
Thomas Tietenberg Colby College
R. Rhodes Trussell Montgomergy Watson Consulting Engineers
Mark Utell University of Rochester Medical Center
W. Kip Viscusi Harvard Law School
James E. Watson University of North Carolina
Ronald White American Lung Association
George T. Wolff General Motors Environment & Energy Staff
Marylynn Yates University of California
Terry F. Young Environmental Defense Fund
Lauren Zeise California EPA

Appendix B: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

Name Affiliation
Chair: Dr. Joe Mauderly Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM
Dr. Stephen M. Ayres Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
Dr. Phil Hopke Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Dr. Jay S. Jacobson Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, NY
Dr. James H. Price, Jr. Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Austin, TX
Dr. Warren White Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Dr. George Wolff General Motors Corporation, Detroit, MI
Mr. Robert Flaak US EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC

Appendix C: Ozone Panel Members

Name Affiliation
Dr. George T. Wolff-Chair General Motors Environmental & Energy Staff, Detroit, MI
Dr. Stephen M. Ayres Office of International Health Programs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
Dr. Jay S. Jacobson Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Dr. Joe L. Mauderly Inhalation Toxicology Research Inst., Lovelace Biomedical & Environmental Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM
Dr. Paulette Middleton Science & Policy Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO
Dr. James H. Price, Jr. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX
Dr. Stephen D. Colome Intergrated Environmental Services, Univ. Tower, Irvine, CA
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman Dept. of Economics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME
Dr. Allan Legge Biosphere Solutions, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dr. Morton Lippmann Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU Medical Center, Tuxedo, NY
Dr. William Manning Dept. of Plant Pathology, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
Dr. Roger O. McClellan Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Research Triangle Park, NC
Dr. D. Warner North Decision Focus, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Dr. Frank E. Speizer Harvard Medical School, Channing Lab, Boston, MA
Dr. George Taylor Biological Services Center, Desert Research Institute, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV
Dr. Mark J. Utell Pulmonary Disease Unit, Univ. of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY


Please send any comments or requests for information to the AGI Government Affairs Program at

Contributed by Catherine Runden, AGI Government Affairs Intern.
Last updated September 24, 1997

American Geological Institute Home Page

Government Affairs Program Home Page