52 



Statement of Genevieve Matanoski, Chair, Science Advisory Board, 

 Environmental Protection Agency 



I am Genevieve Matanoski, Professor of Epidemiology of Johns Hopkins School of 

 Public Health and Chair of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of the Environmental 

 Protection Agency (EPA). I am testifying today as an individual and not in my ca- 

 pacity as Chair of the SAB as these remarks have not been reviewed by the Execu- 

 tive Committee of the SAB for approval. 



The SAB was established under the 1976 ERDDA as an independent body of sci- 

 entists to provide advice and review of the scientific information which form a basis 

 for EPA's activities. These reviews include an evaluation of how the Agency con- 

 ducts their scientific research as well as how EPA uses the science in regulations. 



The experiment has been quite successful. The SAB has grown in size and in ac- 

 tivities over the past decades. It now consists of 100 members divided among 10 

 committees coordinated by an Executive Committee. Additional scientists serve as 

 consultants for specific reviews. The committees hold about 60 public meetings a 

 year and generate more than 30 reports annually with a budget under $2 million. 



Over the years, the Board has played an expanding role in review of many con- 

 troversial scientific and technical issues. They have been asked to take on many ac- 

 tivities both from offices within the Agency as well as by Congress itself. SAB has 

 reviewed the scientific basis for whether there are health risks from environmental 

 tobacco smoke, from radon in drinking water and from electromagnetic fields. They 

 have reviewed whether there is a scientific basis by which environmental risks can 

 be compared quantitatively for their impact on the public. They currently have un- 

 dertaken a project to postulate from their scientific knowledge what might be the 

 environmental risks of the future. Thus, the Board has provided a public forum in 

 which major scientific and technical issues can be addressed independently of final 

 policy decisions. 



With the growing demands on the SAB for scientific advice and peer review and 

 with the current changes within the Agency, the SAB has undertaken a self-exam- 

 ination of what might be its optimum role for the future. We have evolved over al- 

 most two decades under many administrators. We now are in the process of com- 

 pleting this activity. We believe the SAB has a new vision and mission from that 

 seen at the time of its inception. The new vision will result in some changes in the 

 goals and functions of the body. We will be sharing these proposed perspectives with 

 the Administrator in the near future for her input. We would be happy to review 

 these views with Congress as well. We think that they will help focus our activities 

 for the coming years. 



In regard to ERDDA-94, I applaud many of the thrusts particularly as they relate 

 to the SAB. They fit with the mission and vision of the Board. I am confident that 

 the Board stands ready to lend assistance in helping EPA and Congress attain the 

 general goals of the legislation. 



S. 1545 contains several areas in which the SAB is explicitly designated as the 

 agent for external peer review of certain Agency reports to Congress. In so doing, 

 the Congress is indicating the importance that it attaches to the technical sound- 

 ness of the reports under discussion. However, there are a number of other impor- 

 tant technical reports to Congress for which the SAB (or other external peer review 

 agent) is not mentioned; e.g., the NHEXAS and EMAP programs (Sections 6 and 

 10 respectively). 



At the same time, I am sensitive to the fact that the resources of the SAB are 

 not sufficient to allow for the Board's review of all of the Agency's scientific and 

 technical documents. In fact, in a typical year, the SAB can address only about a 

 third of the issues that the Agency has asked that the Board address. Even among 

 the more limited subset of technical reports prepared for Congress, not all of these 

 would rank "high" for SAB review, based upon the selection criteria mentioned 

 above. 



Therefore, it would be most helpful if the Congress were to: 



a. Indicate its concern about technical merit of any specific Agency report to 

 Congress by explicitly indicating the need for external peer review and 



