United Slates-Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
SAB-EC-88-040
FUTURE RISK:
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
FOR THE 1990s
September 1988
-------
Cover photo by Steve Delaney
-------
FUTURE RISK:
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
FOR THE 1990s
The Report of The Research Strategies Committee
Science Advisory Board
United States Environmental Protection Agency
to
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
September 1988
-------
Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
September 1, 1988
Mr. Lee Thomas
Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
In the spring to 1987, you asked the Science Advisory Board to
provide you with advice on ways to improve strategic research
planning at EPA. Today we are transmitting to you the results of our
investigation. This Report of the Research Strategies Committee has
drawn upon the expertise of nearly fifty nationally-recognized
scientists, engineers, and administrators in government, industry,
academia, and environmental organizations.
We believe that this country's overall approach for protecting
human health and the environment must evolve in response to
changing circumstances, and that EPA's strategy for R&D must evolve
to reflect that new approach. In essence, we are recommending that
the Agency emphasize the prevention of pollution as its primary goal.
This expansion of EPA's traditional role is necessary it we are to
harness the energy and resources of Federal, state, and local
governments, the private sector, and individual families in a national
effort to reduce the health and environmental risks facing us in the
1990s and beyond.
This report, together with its five detailed appendices, provides
clear guidance for shaping the strong environmental research
program needed to reduce future risk. The recommendations
described here, if implemented, would facilitate the successful
conduct of that research.
We appreciate the opportunity to have conducted this study, and
we look forward to a formal response trom the Agency on the advice
provided here.
Finally, we want to express our appreciation for the assistance
we received from Tom Super of your immediate office and from the
staff of the Science Advisory Board. All were instrumental in helping
us prepare this report. W;e are very grateful for their efforts.
Sincerely,
Akin L. Aim
Chair, Research Strategies Committee
\\ •}• • ' '
Norton NelsonV i-(J W-> [((\j' C:<
-Chair, Executive Committee
-------
Contents
Members of the Research Strategy Committee iv
Chapter One: Executive Summary 1
The Fundamental Importance of Research and
Development 1
The Research Strategies Committee 2
Conclusions 3
The Ten Recommendations 5
Chapter Two: Background 6
Chapter Three: The Ten Recommendations 8
Recommendation 1 8
Recommendation 2 10
Recommendation 3 11
Recommendation 4 12
Recommendation 5 13
Recommendation 6 14
Recommendation 7 15
Recommendation 8 16
Recommendation 9 17
Recommendation 10 18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of
the Science Advisory Board, a public advisory group
providing extramural scientific information and advice to
the Administrator and other officials of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is
structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of
scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency;
hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily
represent the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency or of other Federal agencies.
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Research Strategies Committee
Steering Committee
Mr. Al Aim, Chairman
President
Alliance Technologies Corporation
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
Dr. Stanley Auerbach
Senior Staff Advisor
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6035
Dr, Anthony Cortese
Director
Center for Environmental Management
Curtis Hall
Tufts University
Medtord, Massachusetts 02155
Dr. Bernard Goldstein
Chairman
Department of Environmental and
Community Medicine
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School
675 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, New jersey 08854-5635
Dr. George Hidy
Vice President
Environment Division
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillvievv Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94303
Dr. Raymond Loc-hr
H.M. Alharthy Centennial Chair and
Professor
Civil Engineering Department
8.614 ECJ Hall
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712
Dr. Norton Nelson
Professor of Environmental Medicine
Institute of Environmental Medicine
New York University Medical Center
550 First Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Dr. David Rail *
Director
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (P.O. 12233)
111 Alexander Drive, Bldg. 101
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
* Alternate: Dr. James R. Fouls
iv
Dr. Ellen Silbergeld
Chief, Toxics Program
Environmental Defense Func
1616 P Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Mr. Roger Strelow
Vice President
General Electric Company
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, Connecticut 06431
Sources, Transport and Fate Group
Dr. George Hidy, Chairman
Vice President
Environment Division
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94303
Dr, Anders Andren
Water Chemistry Laboratory
660 N. Park Street
University of Wisconsin in Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Dr. jack Calvert
National Center for Atmospheric Research
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Mr. Richard Coriway
Union Carbide Corporation
South Charleston Technical Center
3200 Kanawha Turnpike (Bldg. 770)
South Charleston, West Virginia 25303
Dr. Robert Huggett
Virginia Institute ot Marine Science
School of Marine Sciences
9 Raymond Drive
Seaford, Virginia 23696
Dr. Donald O'Connor
307 Dunham Place
Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452
Dr. Barbara Walton
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Post Office Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6038
Dr. Herbert Ward
Rice University
Department of Environmental Science and
Engineering
6100 South Main
Room 102, Mechanical Lab Building
Houston, Texas 77005
Exposure Assessment Group
Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Chairman
Department of Environmental and
Community Medicine
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School
675 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-5635
Dr. Rolf Hartung
School of Public Health
University of Michigan
3125 Fernwood Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
Dr, Brian Leaderer
Pierce Laboratory
290 Congress Avenue
New Haven, Connecticut 06519
Dr, Morton Lippmann
Institute of Environmental Medicine
New York University
Lanza Laboratory
Long Meadow Road
Tuxedo, New York 10987
New York, New York 10471
Dr. Donald O'Connor
307 Dunham Place
Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452
Dr. jack Spengler
Harvard University
HSPH Building #f, Room 1305
655 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
Ecological Effects Group
Dr. Stanley Auerbach, Chairman
Senior Staff Advisor
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Dr. Phillippe Bourdeau
Director, Environment and Non-Nuclear
Energy Research
Directorate General for Science, Research ancl
Development of the Commission of the
European Communities
200 Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Dr. Dan Goodman
Montana State University
Department of Biology
Louis F-lall
Bozeman, Montana 59717
-------
Dr. Roll I Lulling
School of Public i lealth
University ot Michigan
3125 Fernwood Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
Dr. Allan 1 Iirscli
Health and l-'nvitomnental Review
Division-- -I )yn.iniic Corp.
11140 Rock viile "Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Dr. Robert Huggctt
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
School of Marine Science
9 Raymond Drive
Seaford, Virginia 236%
Dr. John Neuhold
Utah State University
Department ot Wildlife Sciences
College of Natural Resources
Logan, Utah IW22-5210
Dr. Scott Nixon
University ot Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Narragansett, Rhode !siand''02882-H97
Dr. Paul Risser
University of New Mexico
200 College Road
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
Dr. William Smith
Yale University
1302A Yale Station
New Haven, Conn. 06520
Dr. Frieda Taub
University of Washington
104 Fisheries Center
Seattle, Washington 98195
Dr. Richard Wiegart
University of Georgia
Department of Zoology
Athens, Georgia 30602
Health Effects Group
Dr David Rail, Chairman
Director
National Institute ot Environmental Health
Sciences
III Alexander Drive, Blcig. 101
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Dr. Eula Bingham
Department of Environmental Health
University of Cincinnati Medical College
Kettering Laboratory
3223 Eden Avenue "
Cincinnati, Ohio -45267
Dr. Bernard Goldstein
Chairman, Department of Environmental and
Community Medicine
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School
675 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-563.5
Dr. David Hoel
Director, Division of Biometry and Risk
Assessment
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Dr. Jerry Hook
Vice President, Predinical R&D
Smith, Kline and French Laboratory
709 Swedland Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dr. Philip Landrigan
Director, Division of Environmental and
Occupational Medicine
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine
I Gustave Levy Place
New York, New York 10029
Dr. Donald Mattison
Director, Division of Human Risk
Assessment
National Center for lexicological Research
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
Dr. Frederica Perera
School of Public Health
Division of Environmental Sciences
Columbia University
60 Haven Avenue
New York, New York 10032
Dr. Ellen Silbergeld
Chief, Toxics Program
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P Street, N. W.
Room 150
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dr Arthur l^iton
Director, institute o! Environmental Medicine
New York University Medical Center
550 First Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Risk Reduction Group
Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman
H.M. Alharthy Centennial Chair and
Professor
Civil Engineering Department
8.614 EC) Hal!
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712
Mr. Richard Conway
Union Carbide Corporation
South Charleston Technical Center
3200 Kanawha Turnpike (Bldg. 770)
South Charleston, West Virginia 25303
Dr. Anthony Corte.se
Director
Center for Environmental Management
Curtis Hall
Tufts University
Medford, Massachusetts 02155
Dr. Anil Nerode
Cornell University
Department of Mathmatics
White Hall
Central Avenue
Ithaca, New York 14853-7901
Dr. Adel Sarofim
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Building 66 Room 466
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Dr. Paul Slovic
Decision Research
1201 Oak Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Mr. Roger Strelow
Vice President
General Electric Company
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, Connecticut 06431
-------
CHAPTER
ONE
Executive
Summary
The Fundamental
Importance of Research
and Development
The ongoing national debate over the
direction of U.S. environmental
policy rarely focuses on the basic
technical understanding that allows
environmental problems to be
identified and solved in the first
place. Without a substantial
investment in research and
development, we would not
understand the processes and
practices that cause pollution, the
means by which it is transported, the
mechanisms of human exposure, the
kinds of risks that pollution poses, or
potential ways to reduce those risks.
Without our knowledge base, we
would be like those people in the
Middle Ages who could not correlate
lack of sanitation with mortality.
Fundamentally, most
environmental contaminants are the
inadvertent byproducts of a
scientifically sophisticated and
technologically advanced society;
they can only be controlled through
the application of the same scientific
and technological skills. Our success
at protecting public health and
environmental quality in the modern
world will be measured by the extent
to which we understand and manage
those human activities that can affect
the environment both for better and
for worse. We must have the
technical capacity to anticipate
environmental problems, whether
those problems are birth detects
caused by chemical exposures or
changes in the global climate. We
must be able to estimate the kinds
and degrees of environmental risk,
whether such risk is posed to
segments of populations or to large
ecosystems. And we must have the
ability to define the most practical
and efficient solutions to our
environmental problems, whether
those solutions are high-temperature
combustion technologies for the
incineration of wastes or the
increased use of carpools and mass
transit to reduce air pollution.
The longer we remain ignorant of
environmental problems and their
possible solutions, the greater the
risk of adverse consequences to
human health and environmental
quality. Without our past and
continuing research, we would not
understand how seriously our
children's intelligence and behavior
can be damaged by lead
contamination. We would not know
that stratospheric ozone depletion is
threatening the protective layer that
shields the earth from the sun's
ultraviolet rays. We would not
understand the nature of the health
risk posed by the naturally-occurring
radon that sometimes seeps into
people's homes. Even more
important, without scientific research
we would not have undertaken the
different kinds of control actions that
already have begun to reduce risk in
these—and many other—areas.
Moreover, past environmental
R&D efforts have proven to be very
good investments. For example, the
new technologies that EPA has
developed to treat wastewater and
dispose of hazardous wastes have led
to substantial reductions in the cost
of controlling pollution. If we are to
-------
continue enjoying the enormous
health, environmental, and economic
benefits of environmental research,
then our research investments must
be guided by a comprehensive
strategy that defines the most
efficient and cost-effective
approaches to reducing
environmental risk in the future.
In order to reduce environmental
pollution and its associated risks to
public health and welfare, we use
many tools—national environmental
standards, control technology
requirements, and enforcement
procedures. But none of those tools
can be used effectively until research
has characterized the environmental
problem at hand and helped define
and develop the possible controls.
Thus research is the most
fundamental of the tools that
promote environmental quality.
Without the strong scientific and
technical knowledge that results from
research and development programs,
standard-setting would not be
possible, control technologies would
not exist, and there would be
nothing to enforce.
The Research Strategies
Committee
Recogni/ing the overriding
importance of research and
development, EPA Administrator Lee
Thomas asked the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) to establish a special
committee to advise him on ways to
improve strategic research planning
at EPA. The Administrator was
concerned about an apparent
imbalance between the Agency's
short-term, program-related research
and its longer-term, basic research.
He sensed that EPA's immediate
regulatory needs were driving its
research and development efforts,
while longer-term research equally
important to achieving EPA's overall
risk reduction goals was being
neglected. Consequently, he asked
the SAB for an independent,
objective assessment of EPA's
long-term research needs, and advice
on how to incorporate those needs
into EPA's research planning
process.
The Research Strategies Committee
of the SAB was created in response
to the Administrator's request.
Headed by Al Aim, former Deputy
Administrator of EPA, and composed
of nationally-recognized scientists,
engineers, and managers with broad
experience in environmental
research, the Committee reviewed
EPA's R&D program in the context of
the nation's continuing need to
understand environmental pollution
and the risks it poses to human
health and ecological systems.
As part of its review, the members
of the Committee prepared detailed
documents in five specific research
areas:
• Sources, Transport, and Pate;
• Exposure Assessment;
• Ecological Effects;
• Human Health Effects; and
• Risk Reduction.
Among other things, those
documents suggest directions to EPA
for planning and implementing the
environmental research needed by
this country in the 1990s and
beyond. Furthermore, they describe
specific types of research that EPA
should undertake in order to protect
public health and environmental
quality over the long term.
This summary report to the EPA
Administrator is derived mainly from
the more detailed findings and
recommendations contained in the
five Committee documents, which
are listed as appendices on the inside
back cover of this report. The five
individual documents containing the
complete findings of the Research
Strategies Committee can be ordered
from EPA's Science Advisory Board.
-------
Conclusions
The Environmental Protection
Agency is usually understood to be a
regulatory agency. EPA indeed has
the responsibility to regulate a wide
range of sources—large and small,
mobile and stationary—that emit
pollutants into the environment. In
the past, the Agency typically has
fulfilled its regulatory responsibilities
by mandating certain kinds ot
controls to capture pollutants betore
they escape into and contaminate the
environment.
However, the Research Strategies
Committee believes that EPA is more
than a regulatory agency. EPA is also
a research agency responsible, along
with other Federal agencies such as
the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, for
defining the nature of—and possible
solutions to—the nation's
environmental problems. EPA is a
technology transfer agency
responsible for sharing with industry
and state and local governments all
the information, training, and
technology needed throughout the
country to protect the environment.
EPA is an education agency
responsible for teaching people how
their individual actions can
sometimes degrade—or protect—the
environment. All these functions
depend on a strong R&D program to
identify and characterize
environmental problems and develop
effective solutions.
Based on this fundamental belief
that EPA is a multi-faceted agency
with diverse responsibilities, the
Research Strategies Committee
concludes that EPA needs to reshape
its strategy for addressing
environmental problems in the next
decade and beyond. In addition to
the current emphasis on
Eecierallv-mandated controls that are
put in place to clean up pollutants
after they have been generated, the
Agency must develop a strategy that
emphasizes the reduction ot
pollution before it is generated. A
strategic shift in emphasis from
control and clean-up to anticipation
and prevention is absolutely essential
to our future physical,
environmental, and economic health.
Over the first 18 years of its
existence, EPA has tended to
emphasize the use of pollution
control equipment to reduce health
and environmental risks. That
approach, commonly called "end-of-
pipe" control, was appropriate
considering the kinds of
environmental problems that faced
the nation in the 1970s, and the
kinds of environmental laws that
were enacted during the 1470s.
The approach was predicated on a
number of factors, including the
notion that "the polluter pays". That
is, the person/organixation
responsible tor the problem should
bear the brunt of correcting the
problem. For example, for the
nationwide control of automobiles,
powerplants, refineries, and
municipal wastewater, Federally-
mandated end-of-pipe controls were
sensible, targeted, relatively efficient,
and reasonably cost-effective, and
such controls will continue to play an
important role in our future
environmental protection efforts.
As we move into the 1990s,
however, our strategy for reducing
environmental and health risks must
evolve in response to changing
circumstances. For one thing, we are
discovering environmental
contamination in our homes—e.g.,
radon—and in the stratosphere—
e.g., chlorofluorocarbons—that are
not emitted by "pipes" in the
traditional sense. Some kinds of
environmental contamination, such
as run-oft from farms and
construction sites, are decentralized
and therefore not amenable to
Federal command-and-control solu-
tions. Anil because so many new or
residual environmental problems,
such as indoor air pollution and
ground-level ozone, are linked to
thousands—if not millions—of small
sources of pollution, traditional
approaches to pollution control are
not likely to be as effective in the
future as they have been in the past.
Furthermore, we have learned that
traditional end-of-pipe controls have
tended to move pollution from one
environmental medium to another,
not eliminate it. For example, air and
water pollutants captured at the end
of the pipe usually are disposed of
on land. However, land disposal of
hazardous pollutants now is being
curtailed, and land disposal ot
non-toxic wastes is increasingly
constrained by a scarcity of disposal
sites. The shrinkage of our land
disposal capacity will limit the
shifting of pollutants between media,
thus forcing us to find alternatives to
end-of-pipe controls.
There is a further reason why we
will have to augment our traditional
approaches to pollution control with
innovative alternatives. Despite the
success of our past efforts, some
pollutant loadings are still too high,
and they are overwhelming the
capacity of the environment to
assimilate them. For example, since
their introduction in the early 1970s,
factory-installed controls on
automobile exhausts have proven to
be an effective way of reducing the
air pollutants—like carbon monoxide
(CO) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)—emitted by individual cars.
However, total loadings of CO and
-------
VOCs still pose environmental
problems in many parts of the
country, because the total number of
cars, and the total number of miles
they are driven, have increased
substantially since 1970.
Finally, we have to develop a new
environmental protection strategy to
address future environmental
problems that may not be as
reversible as past forms of air and
water pollution. We may not be able
to add ozone, or subtract carbon
dioxide, from the upper atmosphere,
no matter how much risk is posed by
stratospheric ozone depletion or
global warming trends. We will find
it extremely difficult to replace
estuarine ecosystems, and impossible
to replace species of plants and
animals, if they are lost. Clearly, the
magnitude of these risks requires
that we develop and maintain a
national environmental strategy that
emphasizes prevention, because, in
some cases, we will not be able to act
after the fact.
Besides working to improve the
end-of-pipe controls we have relied
on in the past, this country has to
develop new, less toxic substitutes
for the waste products that end up in
the environment. We have to
redesign our manufacturing
processes so they generate less
waste. We have to improve the
efficiency of our energy use so that
total combustion emissions are
reduced. We have to educate all our
citizens about the actions they can
take during their daily lives to reduce
pollution. As we modernize our
industry in response to the
competitive pressures of a global
marketplace, we must recognize that
less waste and increased efficiency
are often two sides of the same coin;
our ability to reduce waste and
pollution will be one measure of our
ability to compete in the international
economy of the 1990s and beyond. In
short, EPA's R&D program has to be
planned and implemented to support
the wide range of activities, examples
of which are shown in Figure 1, that
must be undertaken throughout our
society if we hope to protect our
health and environment from future
risk.
This inevitable shift in EPA's
long-term environmental protection
strategy will have enormous
implications for EPA's R&D program.
Just as EPA has emphasized
com ma nd-and-control approaches
because of statutory requirements, its
R&D program has emphasized short-
term, program-related research that
supports regulatory development.
That kind of R&D emphasis is
understandable given the fact that
EPA's statutorily-mandated
regulatory responsibilities have
grown dramatically over the past
decade, while its R&D budget lias
shrunk.
However, if EPA's environmental
protection strategy is to be refocused
on the reduction of pollution at its
source in anticipation of
environmental problems, then EPA's
R&D program has to be expanded
and reoriented to include much more
basic, long-term research not
necessarily tied to the immediate
regulatory needs of EPA's program
offices. Moreover, EPA must expand
and improve the pool of scientific
and engineering talent necessary to
identify and solve environmental
problems.
FIGURE 1
Example Risk Reduction Strategies
Individuals Communities and industry
Community Groups
Conserve Reduce
Energy pesticide use
l-edcra! and State
Government*
PREVENT
POLLUTANT
GENERATION:
RECYCLE
ANT) REUSE
TREAT AND
CONTROL
REDUCE
RESIDUAL
EXPOSURE
Return wastes to Promote RecLmn
recycling centers and operate solvent
recycling censers
Inspect
and remove supplies
asbestos
Purchase
recycled products
-------
The Ten Recommendations
needs to improve the education,
training, technology transfer, and
research programs that support such
actions.
9. EPA needs to increase the
numbers and sharpen the skills of
the scientists and engineers who
conduct environmental research.
EPA should increase grant programs
and initiate training programs to
increase the national supply of
technical personnel, and it should
use existing mechanisms, such as the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, to
bring about a closer collaboration
between EPA scientists and
engineers and the external scientific
and engineering community.
10. EPA's R&D budget should be
doubled over the next five years. If
the nation is willing to spend $70
billion per year cleaning up and
protecting the environment, then it is
reasonable—indeed, barely
sufficient—to spend one percent of
that amount on EPA research that
helps determine how the national
environmental protection budget can
be allocated most effectively.
In support of its belief in the
essential value of a strong,
coordinated EPA R&D program that
has as its long-term goal the
prevention or reduction of
environmental risk, the Research
Strategies Committee makes the
following recommendations:
1. EPA should shift the focus of its
environmental protection strategy
from end-of-pipe controls to
preventing the generation of
pollution. EPA should use a
hierarchy of policy tools that support
national efforts to 1) minimize the
amount of wastes generated; 2)
recycle or reuse the wastes that are
generated; 3) control the wastes that
cannot be recycled or reused; and 4)
minimize human and environmental
exposures to any remaining wastes.
2. To support this new strategy, EPA
should plan, implement, and sustain
a long-term research program. In
conjunction with EPA's program
offices and the external scientific
community, EPA's Office of Research
and Development should develop
basic core research programs in areas
where it has unique responsibilities
and capabilities.
3. EPA needs to establish better
mechanisms to ensure that a
coherent, balanced R&D strategy is
planned and implemented. EPA
needs to establish an internal
Research Strategy Council to oversee
its R&D program; a standing
committee of the Science Advisory
Board should provide an
independent review of EPA's core
research program; and the Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development should be changed
from a political to a career position.
4. EPA must improve its capability
to anticipate environmental
problems. EPA should explicitly
develop and use monitoring systems
that help the Agency anticipate
future environmental conditions, and
it should create a staff office that
would be responsible for anticipating
environmental problems and then
recommending actions to address
them.
5. EPA should provide Federal
leadership for a national program of
ecological research by establishing
and funding an Environmental
Research Institute. The Institute
would conduct a core ecological
research program, monitor and
report on trends in ecological quality,
and provide a catalyst for ecological
research efforts funded by other
Federal agencies, state governments,
universities, and the private sector.
6. EPA should expand its efforts to
understand how and to what extent
humans are exposed to pollutants in
the real world. To help improve
current understanding of human
exposure, EPA should place much
greater emphasis on the use of
personal monitors and biornarkers,
and it should validate many of its
human exposure models.
7. EPA should initiate a strong
program of epidemiological research.
Such studies should be designed to
support regulatory efforts and to
develop information on potential
new environmental and health
problems.
8. EPA should expand its efforts to
assist all those parts of society that
must act to prevent/reduce
environmental risk. Since state,
local, individual, and private sector
actions will become increasingly
important for reducing the amount of
waste and pollution generated, EPA
-------
CHAPTER
TWO
Background
When the Environmental
Protection Agency was
established in 1970, one of its major
missions was to integrate the
different environmental protection
responsibilities then existing in
different Federal agencies. Before
1970, those responsibilities had been
organized primarily by the different
environmental media—air, water,
and land—that they were meant to
protect. Yet, as President Richard
Nixon noted in his message to
Congress establishing EPA: "Despite
its complexities, for pollution control
purposes the environment must be
perceived as a single, interrelated
whole." EPA's organization plan
recogni/ed the intermedia causes and
effects ot air, water, and land
pollution, and proposed a "far more
effective approach to pollution
control" which would:
* Identify pollutants.
• Trace them through the entire
ecological chain, observing and
recording changes in form as they
occur.
• Determine the total exposure of
man and his environment.
• Examine interactions among forms
of pollution.
• Identify where in the ecological
chain interdiction would be most
appropriate.
Thus EPA was launched with the
explicit assumption that it would be
concerned not simply with the effects
of particular pollutants in the
different environmental media, but
with the larger, overarching issues
related to human health and
environmental quality. The Agency
was intended to take a long-term
view of the overall condition of the
environment and its capacity to
support a healthy life for all species,
including humans.
EPA's R&1J responsibilities were
defined in the same broad terms.
According to the 1970 Reorganisation
Message:
" llic EPA would have the capacity to
do research on important pollutants
irrespective of the media in which they
appear, and on the impact of these
pollutants on the total environment.
Both by itself and together with other
agencies, the EPA would monitor the
condition of the environment—
biological as well as physical. With
these data, the EPA would be able to
establish quantitative 'environmental
baselines'—-critical if we are to
measure adequately the success or
failure of our pollution abatement
efforts."
In the years that followed, the new
Agency was given a host of specific
responsibilities beyond its more
general mandate. In response to
widespread public concerns,
Congress passed a series of major
environmental laws requiring EPA to
protect air quality, water quality, and
drinking water, control pesticides
and toxic substances, ensure the safe
disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes, and clean up abandoned
hazardous waste sites.
In each of these areas of specific
responsibility, EPA faced substantial
scientific uncertainty. The risks posed
by the different pollutants in
different media were not well
understood. In many cases the
technologies needed to control them
were unknown or not yet fully
developed. Thus, despite its original
charter to take a long-term view of
human health and environmental
quality, EPA has had to devote a
larger and larger share of its R&D
budget to the support of near-term
regulatory development required by
environmental law.
EPA's emphasis on R&D that
supports its specific legislated
responsibilities has had two negative
effects on its long-term research
efforts. First, it has sharply limited
the resources available for long-term
research. Second, the long-term
research that has been planned by
EPA often has been subject to
funding cuts in favor of projects with
more immediate public and political
interest. In short, funding tor
long-term research at EPA is not only
very limited, but it is also tenuous
from year to year, conditions that
tend to undermine the research itself,
the morale of the scientists and
engineers who conduct it, and the
respect and cooperation of the
scientific community outside EI'A.
This situation, which is
understandable in terms of
immediate public concerns and
limited R&D budgets, is very short-
sighted in terms of national policy.
For a number of reasons, an R&D
program shaped almost exclusively
by the near-term needs of EPA's
program offices will not necessarily
provide the scientific and engineering
information needed to protect human
health and environmental quality
over the long term.
First of all, EPA's regulatory
activities are not necessarily focused
on the environmental problems that
pose the greatest risks to public
health and welfare. Rather, they are
focused on the environmental
problems defined in EPA's enabling
legislation, which in turn reflects
public concern about the effects of
different contaminants in different
environmental media. Yet neither the
depth of public concern nor the
stringency of environmental law is
necessarily an accurate measure of
the relative seriousness of the
environmental risks facing us today.
The public ultimately will understand
those risks, just as they are
beginning to understand the
implications of global warming, but
not until unnecessary health and
environmental costs have been
imposed, or irreversible damages
have occurred.
Second, the environmental laws
that EPA currently administers in
most cases require EPA to impose
-------
end-of-pipc controls on classes of
pollutant sources across the nation as
a whole. I hose end-of-pipe
controls -usually on targe pollution
sources like powerplants, or on large
classes ot pollution sources like
automobiles—have worked
reasonably well, and they have
resulted in measurable improvements
in environmental quality. However,
the steady increase in some pollutant
loadings—like solid waste-—and the
intractability of some pollution
problems -like ground-level ozone-
despite end-of-pipe controls
necessitate that more and more
small, decentralized sources be
controlled. Controlling such sources
will require the use of a number ot
different risk reduction approaches
like materials substitution,
redesigned products and production
processes, recycling, and lifestyle
changes. Yet the kinds of research
that would support such approaches
are not likely to be initiated by EPA
program offices with extensive and
immediate Federal command-and-
control responsibilities.
Third, implementing pollution
control alternatives like materials
substitution, recycling, and lifestyle
changes will require that state and
local governments, private industry,
and individual families ail take steps
to reduce the generation of wastes
and contaminants. This
decentralization of risk reduction
responsibilities is positive and
necessary in light ot our growing
recognition that significant
environmental risks are linked to the
typical activities of our everyday
lives.
Although the Federal government's
role in such circumstances may
change, EPA still has the
responsibility to conduct research
that will help other parts of our
society act to reduce environmental
risks. EPA must fulfill that
responsibility, because no one else
will. The private sector is unlikely to
undertake research on risk reduction
techniques that will not have wide
commercial application. \'o one
company, or industry, is likely to
have a unique, sizeable stake in
many future environmental issues,
thus making basic environmental
research hard to justify to
management or investors. Municipal
governments—one important user of
risk reduction research —traditionally
have not invested in such research,
because they can barely afford the
cost ot the traditional technologies
needed to manage solid waste, treat
wastewater, or protect drinking
water.
In short, no individual local
government or private business is
likely to fund research needed by
many local governments and private
businesses to help reduce their waste
streams. Yet, as more and more
elements of our society become
directly involved in the business of
risk reduction, such research clearly
is needed.
Fourth, the specific regulatory
requirements of EPA's program
offices often result not in the
eradication of a pollutant, but in the
transfer of that pollutant from one
medium to another. Even though
EPA was established explicitly to
address the cross-media effects ot
pollutants, their sources, and their
control technologies, the Agency's
media-oriented program structure,
developed to implement
media-oriented legislation, has found
it difficult to integrate cross-media
concerns. The same media-oriented
programs are unlikely to have an
immediate interest in research that
addresses cross-media issues.
Cross-media environmental
problems are especially troubling in
light ot recent concerns over the risks
posed by land disposal of solid and
hazardous wastes. In the 1970s air
and water pollutants concentrated
and collected by end-of-pipe controls
were routinely disposed of on land.
Now, however, the disposal of
wastes on land is strictly regulated.
Our growing need to eliminate
pollution, not simply move it from
place to place, is i ausmg us to look
beyond end-ot-pipe pollution
controls. Yet program-related
research is not likely to provide the
kind of information needed to
develop and implement those new
controls.
Finally, an K&D program driven by
existing policy consideration^ will be
inherently weak to the extent thai it
tails to anticipate the future. As the
history of human disease clearly
demonstrates, curing a disease
already afflicting large numbers of
people is much more difficult and
expensive than preventing the
outbreak ot disease in the lirsi place.
Similarly, reducing the presence of a
pollutant in the environment in
tinticipiition (if an environmental
problem, rather than in ratilion to an
environmental problem, is a more
sensible national policy. LI'A's
program offices must react to the
environmental problems that caused
their enabling legislation to be
passed; consequently, they have
insufficient incentive to support
long-term research that investigates
the fundamental relationships of
ecosystem structure and function that
can give early warning of possible
environmental problems in the
future. Yet that kind of research,
seen in the perspective of long-term
quality ot life and long-term costs,
may be the most important ot all.
In summary, although EI'A's
near-term research provides essential
support to the program offices in
their efforts to carry out their
immediate statutory responsibilities,
that research does not support the
kind of integrated approach to risk
reduction that will be needed to
protect human health and the
environment over the long term. The
long-term research that is critical to
the shaping of future national
environmental policy is not being
adequately planned or funded at
EPA today.
-------
CHAPTER
THREE
1
EPA should shift the focus of its environmental
protection strategy from end-of-pipe controls to
preventing the generation of pollution.
The Ten
Recommendations
Many of the most serious
environmental problems facing
this country will not be solved
through the use of end-of-pipe
controls alone. In some cases, like
ground-level ozone, end-of-pipe
controls have already been applied,
but more needs to be done. In some
cases, like indoor air pollution,
end-of-pipe controls simply are not
appropriate or practically feasible.
And in some cases, like hazardous
waste disposal, end-of-pipe controls
are becoming more and more
expensive. If we hope to protect the
environment and human health from
environmental problems like
stratospheric ozone depletion,
hazardous wastes, and surface water
and estuarine pollution, we have to
begin controlling pollution long
before it reaches the end of the pipe.
We have to prevent pollution at its
source.
As the Federal agency primarily
responsible for protecting human
health and environmental quality,
EPA should refocus its strategy for
controlling pollution. As it has
already begun to do in some areas,
EPA should encourage the use of a
broader array of policy tools,
including those that foster changes in
individual, community, industry, and
institutional behavior. EPA should
make a greater effort to apply
different policy tools in the following
order:
• Whenever possible, environmental
protection efforts first should be
aimed at minimizing the amount of
wastes or pollutants generated. Thus
waste reduction at its source—for
example, through product design
changes, industrial process changes,
or material substitution—should be a
primary objective.
• For those wastes or pollutants that
are generated, every effort then
should be made to recycle or reuse
them in an environmentally sound
manner. For example, community
recycling programs should be an
important feature of the nation's
solid waste disposal efforts, and
industry should be encouraged to
reuse as much of its hazardous
process wastes as possible,
• For those wastes or pollutants that
cannot be recycled or reused,
treatment, destruction, and disposal
technologies should be applied.
These risk prevention/reduction
tools, like municipal wastewater
treatment facilities and automobile
emissions controls, are usually the
basic regulatory component of EPA's
existing programs.
• After all reasonable waste
reduction options have been applied,
human and environmental exposures
to any remaining wastes should be
minimized. Containment and
isolation of radioactive wastes is one
example of this approach. Figure 2
illustrates this hierarchy of policy
options for reducing risk.
-------
There are a number of advantages
associated with shifting our pollution
control emphasis from the end of the
pipe to the source of the pollution.
For one thing, it is often cheaper to
redesign industrial processes, or
separate and recycle solid waste,
than it is to pay for the disposal of
wastes in well-controlled landfills or
incinerators. They are certainly more
cost-eflective than the remedial
programs that are sometimes
necessary to remove wastes or
contaminants from the environment.
Reducing pollution at its source
also avoids the cross-media problems
that may result when end-of-
the-pipe control of pollution
in one medium simply transfers the
pollution to another medium. Finally,
by reducing the use of materials
known to be harmful to human
health or the environment, we can
reduce the worker and consumer
exposures that sometimes occur even
if the end of the pipe is well
controlled.
Just as EI'A's regulatory role will
change as it incorporates this broader
approach to environmental
protection, its R&D role will change
as well. EPA must conduct research
that supports materials substitution,
industrial process changes, and
recycling technologies, because it is
unlikely that anv individual
community or small business will
have the incentive or resources to do
it. Even though such R&D may not
directly support EPA's regulatory
activities, it will support this
country's broader environmental
goals. It also will be an invaluable aid
to all the businesses and
communities and families across the
country that must change their
everyday lives if we are to solve
some ot our most pressing
environmental problems.
FIGURE 2
Hierarchy for Risk Reduction Research
Potential
wastes and
contaminants
generated
nmKHB
f Prevent Generation
4-
Actual
wastes and
contaminants
generated
m^momom
f Reuse/Recycle
J
*
Wastes and
contaminants
after
recycle/reuse
•••••BBi
r TreaL'Control
*
Residual
wastes and
contaminants
' Minize exposure
-------
2
To support this new strategy, EPA should plan,
implement, and sustain a long-term research program.
As is evident in the language used
/\to establish EPA in 1970,'the
Agency's responsibilities gu beyond
the regulatory actions mandated by
environmental statutes. EPA is also
responsible for supporting in a
broader way the basic health and
environmental objectives from which
its regulatory programs are derived,
Therefore, EPA's R&D efforts have to
be targeted not only on short-term,
program-related issues, but also on
longer-term issues related to risk
prevention/reduction in general.
EPA should begin immediately to
identify those core areas of research
where it has unique responsibilities
and capabilities, and where
lone-term efforts are needed to
identify, assess, and mitigate serious
risks. Those core research areas
should be selected according to their
ability to:
• Address environmental problems
that can be expected to persist for a
decade or more;
• Generate scientific results that are
likely to support a number of existing
and/or anticipated Federal, state, or
local control programs, whether
regulatory or non-regulatory; and
• Provide scientific information,
engineering innovations, or new
technology unlikely to be generated
by the private sector, other parts of
the Federal government, or state
governments.
The Research Strategies Committee
has prepared five separate
documents—listed as appendices to
this report—that examine the current
state of environmental research and
recommend a number of important
core research areas related to: 1) the
sources, transport, and fate of
pollutants; 2) the assessment of
human and environmental
exposures; 3) ecological effects; 4)
human health effects; and 5) risk
reduction in general. A list of
candidate core research areas
discussed in the five appendices to
this report is shown in Figure 3. EPA
should use those suggestions as the
starting point in its formal efforts to
define a specific list of core research
areas.
FlGUKl- 3
Candidate Core Research Areas
Sources, Transport, and Fate
• Characterizing sources and discharges
• Transport, conversion, and interaction in the environment
• Models for predicting form and concentration of pollutants
• Methods for anticipating future environmental problems
Exposure Assessment
• Total exposure assessment methodology
• Personal monitoring
• Models for predicting exposure
• Biological markers of exposure
Ecological Effects
• Assessing risks to ecological systems
• Defining the status of ecological systems
• Detecting trends and changes in ecological systems
• Predicting changes in ecological systems
Health Effects
• Neurotoxicity
• Reproductive toxicity
• Respiratory system effects
• Carcinogenicity
• Biological markers of disease
• Methods of extrapolating animal effects to humans
• Epidemiology
Risk Reduction
• Preventing pollutant generation
• Combustion and thermal destruction
• Separation technologies
* Biological approaches for detoxification and degradation
• Chemical treatment of concentrated wastes and residues
• Ultimate containment methods and approaches
• Exposure avoidance
• Risk communication
• Incentives for risk reduction
• Education and technology transfer
• Environmental management and control systems
10
-------
EPA needs to establish better mechanisms to ensure that
a coherent, balanced R&D strategy is planned and
implemented.
EPA's torrnal process of defining
core research areas should begin with
the Agency's senior scientists and
engineers in consultation with its
program offices. It is important that
the program offices be included in
the process, so that the Agency's
long-term R&D efforts are related to
the basic scientific uncertainties that
impede EPA's short-term regulatory
efforts. Program office involvement
in defining core research areas also
will help link the two different—but
complementary—aspects of EPA's
overall R&D program.
EPA also should find ways to
involve the external scientific
community and other affected
groups—such as state governments
and universities—in defining core
research areas and the R&D
programs undertaken in those areas.
For example, the Science Advisory
Board could convene periodic
workshops involving EPA's scientists
and engineers, EPA's program
offices, and external interests in
order to build consensus and external
support for EPA's core research
programs.
EPA's commitment to an R&D
strategy that balances short-term
and long-term research needs must be
institutionalized. Unless an
appreciation of the relative value of
long-term research is built into EPA's
planning and management structure,
such research will continue to be
underemphasized.
EPA should take steps to ensure
that long-term research needs and
risk reduction opportunities are
considered as part of a coherent,
balanced R&D strategy. First, EPA
should establish a new Research
Strategy Council made up of the
Administrator, Deputy
Administrator, the Assistant and
Deputy Assistant Administrators for
Research and Development, and the;
Deputy Assistant Administrators of
the program offices. Using their
broad Agency experience, the
members of the Council would
oversee the process of defining core
research areas, and they would
review and approve the core research
programs planned each yc-ar. The
Council would focus especially on
long-term, cross-media
environmental problems that are not
the specific responsibility of any EPA
program office, and they would
ensure that R&D funds are available
to study such problems. In short, the
Research Strategy Council would
work to ensure that EPA's R&D
plans respond to environmental
concerns beyond those addressed by
EPA's statutorily-mandated
regulatory programs.
In order to assist the Council
incorporate a long-term perspective
into EPA's research planning
process, the Science Advisory Board
should establish a standing Research
Strategies Committee that would
review EPA's core research programs
and advise the Research Strategy
Council on its content and quality.
That kind of external, independent
review would bring a broader
perspective and wider range of
scientific expertise to EPA's R&D
planning process.
Finally, in order to improve the
likelihood that long-term research
plans in fact are implemented over
the long term, EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development (ORD) should be
changed from a political to a career
position. Throughout EPA's history,
no ORD Assistant Administrator has
held the position for more than three
years; since 1980, no individual has
remained in that position more than
two years. Consequently, no leader
of EPA's R&D program has stayed at
the Agency long enough to
implement a sustained, long-term
research strategy. If the Assistant
Administrator for ORD could expect
to stay in office for an extended
period, then it is more likely that a
long-term research strategy would be
carried forward to completion.
11
-------
4 EPA must improve its capability to anticipate
environmental problems.
Because environmental legislation
tends to be driven by public
concerns about existing
environmental problems, EPA's
statutorily-mandated regulatory
programs tend to be focused on
existing environmental problems.
EPA's R&D program, in turn, is
almost entirely devoted to the
definition, assessment, and control ot
existing problems.
Yet, as history has shown again
and again, cleaning up chemicals in
the environment after biological
damage already has occurred is
difficult, expensive, or impossible
from a practical standpoint. Worker
illness led to the discovery of Kepone
in the James river; dead and dying
cattle led to the discovery of
polybrominated bipheriyls in feed;
malformed oysters led to the
discovery of tributyltin in harbors. In
each case, the problem was not
discovered until substantial health
and/or economic costs had been
incurred, and each case entailed a
long and expensive clean-up
program.
Clearly, great benefit can be
derived from the identification of
trends in environmental quality
before they begin to cause serious
ecological or human health problems.
With more lead time, material
substitutes can be developed,
manufacturing processes redesigned,
or traditional end-of-pipe controls
put in place at substantially lower
cost. Early identification and
response to a potential problem can
sharply reduce adverse effects on
human health and environmental
quality. Public discussions of
different possible courses ot action
are likely to be more reasonable and
less emotionally charged, if the
public does not feel a sense of
emergency or catastrophe.
There are a number of steps EPA
should take to enhance its ability to
anticipate environmental problems
before public fears are aroused, and
before costly, after-the-fact clean-up
actions are required. For example,
EPA should broaden its
data-gathering efforts. Monitoring
programs are valuable for their ability
to paint a picture of present
conditions; if continued, they can
help describe what has happened to
the quality of an ecosystem over
time. But they also are invaluable
tools for helping anticipate the
future; they can be used to predict
the environmental consequences of
continued patterns of pollutant
loadings.
EPA needs to begin monitoring a
far broader range of environmental
characteristics and contaminants than
it has in the past. Although we
understand a lot about the handful of
chemicals that already are known to
cause environmental problems, we
know relatively little about the
thousands of chemicals used in
modern society, and that possibly
could cause adverse ejects on human
health and ecosystems over the long
term. Thus EPA should expand its
use of monitoring activities that can
foretell health and ecological risks.
Past analysis of the muscles and
adipose tissue have provided
invaluable information on a wide
range of contaminants actually
accumulating in living creatures.
Those kinds of studies should be
increased in the future.
EPA should take two specific steps
to improve its anticipatory capacities.
First, EPA should undertake research
on techniques that can be used to
help anticipate environmental
problems, and it should make a more
concerted effort to be aware ot and
interact with the research efforts of
other Federal agencies concerned
with the identification and
anticipation of environmental
problems. Such research would
involve a retrospective examination
of how problems have been
identified in the past, and it should
utilize emerging techniques for
forecasting future environmental
conditions.
Second, a staff office should be
created within EPA for the purpose
of evaluating environmental trends
and assessing other predictors of
potential environmental problems
betore they become acute. The
primary mission of this office would
be to identify potential and emerging
ecological and human health
problems. The office would analyze
potential problems, drawing upon
technical expertise within and
outside the Agency. The office would
also prepare an annual report to the
EPA Administrator that describes
potentially significant trends in
health and environmental data and
outlines possible Agency responses.
The conclusions and
recommendations of that report then
would be considered in EPA's
strategic planning for research and
development.
-------
EPA should provide Federal leadership for a national
program of ecological research by establishing and
funding an Environmental Research Institute.
Ecological systems such as forests,
rangelands, and fresh and
saltwater wetlands are enormously
valuable from both an environmental
and economic perspective. Yet we
understand relatively little about how
those complex, interrelated systems
are being affected over time by
pollutant loadings. Most past
ecological research has investigated
the effects of particular pollutants on
particular species -for example, the
development of single species
ecotoxicological test methods to
support regulations under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. The larger
questions related to total pollutant
loadings, multimedia effects, and
cumulative, long-term effects on
interwoven biological communities
O
remain unanswered,
A number of Federal organi/ations
besides EPA—for example, the
Department of Interior, the
Department of Agriculture, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences,
and the National Science
Foundation—carry out research on
ecological systems, the ways in
which they are affected by
environmental pollution, and the
potential human health consequences
of those ecological alterations, as do
private organisations, universities,
and state governments. With the
exception of the investigation of
human health effects, however, there
has been little national focus or
leadership for those efforts.
Furthermore, ecological research in
this country is neither coordinated
nor comprehensive enough to
provide an ongoing assessment ot
the health of various ecosystems.
Because KI'A has the primary
Federal responsibility for protecting
ecosystems, EPA should provide the
Federal leadership for an enlarged,
coordinated program of national
ecological research. To provide the
visibility, stability, and intellectual
focus for that research, EPA should
establish and fund a new
Environmental Research Institute.
The Institute should be operated by a
contractor, much like the Department
of Energy's national laboratories, and
it should have several specific
functions:
* It should conduct a core ecological
research program.
* It should define the ecological
endpoints that need to be monitored
to provide an overall picture of
ecological health, determine which of
those endpoints are not being
currently monitored, and support
monitoring activities to fill data gaps.
• All relevant ecological data,
whether generated inside or outside
the Institute, should be collected by
an Office of Data Systems within the
Institute. Those data should be used
to define trends in ecological quality,
and those trends should be described
in an annual report to the nation on
the overall quality of the
environment.
• It should provide a national focal
point for ecological research useful
not only to EPA, but to other
interested parties as well. Thus it
should be prepared to conduct
research funded by, or in cooperation
with, other Federal agencies, state
governments, universities, and the
private sector.
• It should participate with the two
EPA Centers of Excellence—at
Cornell University and the University
of Rhode Island—that are dedicated
to ecological research.
Because of the excellent resources
already functioning in the Public
Health Service, especially the
National Institutes of Health, the
Environmental Research Institute
would not engage in health effects
research. Nor would it supersede
ongoing ecological research efforts.
Rather, it is meant to supplement
and build on current ecological
research in a systematic, coordinated,
and collaborative way. The overall
goal of the Institute should be to
define a comprehensive ecological
research program and then
implement those parts of it that are
not already being carried out either
inside or outside the Federal
government. In fact, because the
Institute would provide centralized
leadership for the nation's ecological
research efforts, other Federal
agencies, state governments, or the
private sector may be interested in
funding specific kinds of ecological
research of particular interest to
them. Although EPA should provide
the initial administrative impetus and
funding, and be prepared to continue
its support over the long term, the
Environmental Research Institute
should act and be perceived as a
national institution of national
benefit.
-------
6
EPA should expand its efforts to understand how and to
what extent humans are exposed to pollutants in the real world.
Generally accepted toxicological
test methods have been
developed for determining the
adverse health effects of different
substances, In assessing risk,
however, it is also necessary to know
the concentrations and durations to
which people are exposed during
their daily lives. In fact, there is
usually greater uncertainty about the
level, duration, and pattern of
human exposure than there is about
the health effects of a given level of
exposure. Although considerable
progress has been made in
developing effective methods of
measuring human exposure, much
more needs to be done.
Exposure assessment in the past
has consisted simply of determining
the concentration of a chemical in the
immediate vicinity of an individual
and then making various
assumptions about the levels inhaled
or ingested. In reality, however, the
important toxicological question is:
How much of the chemical actually
impinges on the internal target
organ? Physical and biological
processes can affect the concentration
of the pollutant that is absorbed and
retained by a particular organ.
Alternatively, some processes
actually can convert a chemical into a
more toxic substance in the body.
Recent progress has been made in
verifying and quantifying exposure
by examining biological tissue for the
presence of the chemical of concern
or the presence of biochemicals of
concern—i.e., investigating tell-tale
"biomarkers." EPA should act
aggressively to improve techniques
for assessing individual exposures,
validate exposure models, and
improve the use of biomarkers as
indicators of exposure.
The Science Advisory Board
enthusiastically supports the Total
Exposure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM) approach to determining
human exposure. This method
involves the use of personal monitors
that measure an individual's total
exposure to different substances
during the course of daily activities,
The TEAM approach first
demonstrated the importance—in
some cases, the overriding
importance—of indoor air pollution.
This direct way of measuring
exposure needs to be utilized more
extensively. It not only can measure
the exposure of selected individuals
(e.g., those expected to be most
highly exposed), but it also can be
used to define the distribution of
exposures throughout a large
population. Improved techniques are
needed to extend the use of this
important tool to a wider range of
chemicals.
Currently, EPA often measures the
concentration of a chemical at some
emitting source (e.g., a smokestack),
and then uses mathematical
modelling to estimate the
concentration to which different
individuals are exposed. Using these
computer-driven models, the Agency
has been able to estimate exposure
levels that would occur under a wide
variety of assumed conditions, thus
generating data that would have
been very difficult, if not impossible,
to measure directly.
However, the Agency needs to
undertake a critical review of the
many different available models in
order to determine their site-specific
applicability and estimate their
accuracy and precision. Although
model validation is complex and
expensive, EPA has an obligation to
lead efforts in this area. EPA should
develop a priority ranking of models
to be evaluated, and establish a
schedule for validating the most
important ones.
The use of biomarkers is an
interdisciplinary effort that links
physical, environmental, and
biomedical scientists in an effort to
anticipate and reduce human risk.
EPA should expand its efforts in this
area. In particular, the Agency needs
to explore the increased use of
biomarkers as quantitative
biochemical indicators of
environmental exposure and
biological effects. EPA also should
make every effort to draw on
the expertise and research results
found in other Federal
agencies—such as the National
Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, the National Cancer
Institute, and the National Center fur
Toxicological Research—that already
have well-established programs in
this rapidly emerging research area.
Finally, EPA's Centers of
Excellence program has proven to be
an effective way of involving the
academic community in targeted
environmental research, thus
generating new scientific knowledge
useful to EPA and the nation as a
whole. That program should be
expanded through the support of a
new university-based Center of
Excellence dedicated to exposure
assessment.
14
-------
7
EPA should initiate a strong program of
epidemiological research.
From a regulatory perspective,
good epidemiological data are
invaluable. Because those data are
generated through the study of targe
numbers of real people living in the
real world, the conclusions drawn
from them are widely accepted and
acted upon. For instance, current
efforts to limit smoking in public
places are being driven by a
widespread belief that passive
smoking is harmful to health, a
conclusion based to a large extent on
epidemiological data.
EPA also has based some of its
most important health regulations on
epidemiological data. National
standards that limit the concentration
of air pollutants, for example, are set
at levels to protect against the health
effects seen in epidemioiogical
studies. The Harvard-based Six Cities
Study, sponsored by the National
Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, was extremely valuable to
EPA during its recent reviews of its
particulate and sulfur dioxide air
quality standards.
However, to support its regulatory
activities, EPA makes much greater
use of occupational studies and
laboratory studies of animals.
Although such studies can provide
useful information, the relevance of
those results is sometimes
questioned. For example, because
concentrations of chemicals found in
occupational settings are usually
much higher than those found in the
general environment, adverse health
effects found in workers may or may
not necessarily translate into health
risks for the general population- —
which also includes children and the
elderly—exposed to lower
concentrations. Laboratory studies of
test animals are sometimes
questioned because of differences
between the metabolic and regulatory
processes of test animals and
humans, in addition to the generally
large difference in dose levels.
Furthermore, the population of test
animals used in laboratories are far
more homogenous than human
populations.
Although occupational and animal
studies will continue to play an
important role in environmental
research, EPA needs to increase its
use of non-occupational
epidemiological studies, which
optimally allow the assessment of
potential adverse human health
effects at exposure levels of concern
to the general public. In spite of their
limitations, such studies—in
combination with well-conducted
experimental research—can form the
basis for a "weight-of-eviclence" that
may generate consensus within the
scientific community regarding a
given environmental health risk.
EPA could improve the cost-
effectiveness of its epidemiological
research, and broaden the usefulness
of the results, by combining its
efforts with those of other
government agencies. For instance,
EPA could add to existing data bases
(for example, the National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey),
and cooperate with existing studies
of the workplace (for example, the
Dioxin Registry Study)/ particularly
when such studies are able to relate
close to adverse effect. Within EPA,
epidemiological research should be
coupled directly with an improved
capability to monitor and assess
exposures—for example, through the
wider use of personal monitors and
biomarkers.
Furthermore, EPA should expand
its cooperative epidemiological
research with other countries where
existing pollution levels are several
times higher than in the United
States. In addition to obtaining
valuable scientific data tor the United
States, such an effort could foster
environmental protection efforts
globally, and enhance U.S.
relationships with other nations.
-------
8
EPA should expand its efforts to assist all those parts of
society that must act to prevent/reduce environmental risk.
If our future efforts to protect
human health and environmental
quality are to be successful, more
and more elements of our society
must take steps to prevent/reduce
risk. State and local governments,
large and small businesses, and
individual families must act to reduce
the wastes and contaminants that are
generated every day as we go about
our normal lives. State and local
governments have to rethink their
zoning laws if we hope to protect our
fragile estuarine areas; manufacturers
have to redesign their production
processes if we hope to control
hazardous wastes; families have to
separate their garbage if community
recycling programs are to succeed.
The prevention/reduction of
environmental risk in the future is
going to require not only Federal
regulations and end-of-pipe controls,
but also changes in lifestyle and
behavior throughout our society.
EPA needs to do a better job
conducting research that will be
useful to all the different elements of
our society involved in preventing/
reducing risk. Then it must find
better ways of transferring the results
of that research to the end-users,
especially the end-users who are
likely to achieve the greatest risk
reduction. To control chemical
wastes, for example, technology
transfer efforts should be targeted
initially to industries that use
chemicals but have little expertise in
the chemistry of waste management,
Small- and medium-sized hazardous
waste generators could benefit
substantially from EPA's technology
transfer efforts, because thev often
are not aware of source reduction
and recycling options. State and local
governments are an especially
important target for the transfer of
technical information and training
tools, because they are responsible in
large part for the implementation and
enforcement of existing Federal
environmental legislation, and they
are likely to play a major role in our
national response to future
environmental problems.
In short, EPA must make a greater
effort to generate information about
the full range of risk prevention/
reduction techniques and then
transfer that information to all the
different people who will need to use
it in the future. EPA also must
ensure that those end-users,
especially state governments, are
involved in the planning of EPA
activities that are intended to serve
them.
In addition, EPA should support
the development and implementation
of education programs that teach
targeted groups about different kinds
of environmental risks and the steps
that they can take to prevent/reduce
them. Such support should include
educational materials, handbooks,
audiovisuals, seminars, and training
courses. EPA's current information
and training related to asbestos
removal is a good example of the
content and value of that kind of
support, and it should be replicated
in areas such as lead paint removal
and integrated pest management.
EPA also should work
cooperatively with private industry
and universities to incorporate
environmental studies and training
into academic curricula. Students
studying business, chemistry, public
policy, economics, medicine, and
mechanical, electrical, and petroleum
engineering should all be exposed to
the concept of environmental risk
and the techniques of environmental
risk reduction. As with so many
other problems, widespread public
education is one of the best ways to
reduce environmental risk, and EPA
must play a major role in
environmental education.
Finally, EPA should cany out
research—including non-traditional
research—that will be useful to the
universe of end-users. EPA should
dedicate R&D funds not only to
collect environmental data and
develop control techniques useful to
a broad spectrum of people, but also
to study more effective wavs of
communicating information. For
example, EPA should try to find
better ways of defining risk itself,
and better ways of educating the
public about the nature of risk and
the steps they can take to
prevent/reduce it. Moreover, many
effective actions that reduce
environmental risk do not employ
traditional control technologies, e.g.,
restricted activities in wetlands,
integrated pest management
practices, and right-to-know
activities. EPA must have a strong
research program to support those
kinds of actions at the state and local
levels.
16
-------
9
EPA needs to increase the numbers and sharpen the
skills of the scientists and engineers who conduct
environmental research.
The single most important element
of our national environmental
R&D effort are the environmental
scientists and engineers themselves.
Whether those scientists and
engineers work inside or outside
EPA, their numbers, education,
skills, and professional experiences
must be enhanced if we are to attain
our national risk prevention/
reduction goals. Thus EPA must
do more to increase the amount
and improve the quality of
the scientific and engineering talent
dedicated to environmental research.
To that end, EPA must strengthen
the links between EPA and the
external scientific community. Those
linkages are valuable for a number of
reasons. Environmental research is
not an activity unique to EPA; it is
being conducted in public and
private sector laboratories and
universities across the country and
internationally. EPA's research
should take place in that larger
context, so that it supports and
builds on the environmental research
carried out elsewhere.
Furthermore, each of the elements
of our national environmental
research effort will be improved by
the cross-fertilization of scientific
ideas inside and outside the Agency.
The more the scientific community at
large understands about EPA's
scientific goals and projects, and the
more that EPA's scientists know
about research outside the Agency,
the greater the benefit to our national
effort as n whole.
EPA could improve this intellectual
cross-fertilization by encouraging an
increased exchange of scientists and
engineers between EPA and the
external scientific community, both
nationally and internationally
Existing mechanisms like the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act and
the Visiting Scientists and Engineers
Program coulcl be used to bring
outside talent into the Agency for
relatively short, rotational terms. The
proposed Environmental Research
Institute also could be a source of
technical personnel willing to work
in EPA laboratories. Similarly, EPA
scientists and engineers should be
encouraged to broaden their
experience through sabbaticals at
universities or outside laboratories,
and there should be opportunity for
EPA personnel to work at the
Environmental Research Institute.
EPA scientists and engineers also
should be encouraged and allowed
time to contribute more extensively
to peer-reviewed periodicals.
EPA also must devote more
resources to the development of new
scientists and engineers who will
expand the pool of technical
professionals available to study
environmental problems. Without the
steady infusion of young talent into
university, state, Federal, and private
sector laboratories, the country could
face a personnel shortage that would
cripple our future environmental
protection efforts.
Thus EPA should expand its
support for its investigator-initiated
external grants program. L'p to ten
percent of an expanded EPA R&D
budget should be spent on grants to
the nation's colleges and universities.
Not only do those grants lead to
high-quality research, but they also
provide training opportunities for
young scientists and engineers
working on their undergraduate and
post-graduate degrees. Those
students in time will become the
backbone of our national
environmental research effort,
because they will be capable of
providing the broad scientific and
engineering expertise needed in the
future at the Federal, state, and local
levels. Furthermore, EPA should
initiate a program that provides
training grants to colleges and
universities interested in helping to
develop young scientists and
engineers.
17
-------
1O
EPA's R&D budget should be doubled over the next five years.
Over the last ten years, LPA's
budget for research and
development lias declined
dramatically. FPA's IT 1<-)8U budget
provided $398 million (in constant
M82 dollars) for K&l >. By IT l%3,
that figure had declined by almost
hall, and since then it has risen to
about $.317 million. In other words,
during the past decade KPA's K&D
resources have shrunk by about 20
percent in real terms, (Sec Figure 4.)
In that same period, FPA's need to
better understand environmental risk
has grown substantially. Congress
has enacted major environmental
laws—e.g., Superfund (lc>80), RCRA
amendments (1984), Superfund
amendments (1986), bate Drinking
Water Act amendments (ll»86), and
Clean Water Act amendments
(ll)87j—that give F.PA broad new
regulatory responsibilities in areas
clouded with scientific uncertainty.
Several new environmental concerns
of national and/or international
proportions—like acid rain, indoor
air pollution, radon, stratospheric
ozone depletion, and global
warming—have emerged over the
past decade. Thus the nation's need
lor better scientific information on
the likely causes and effects of a
wide range of environmental
problems has been growing at the
same time as F.PA's ability to fund
the research that will generate that
information has been shrinking.
I:PA's R&D efforts must be
expanded rapidly, especially in its
core research areas, because of the
long-term health, environmental, and
economic benefits they will bring to
the nation as a whole. While the
value of EPA's applied research often
is apparent, the benefits of basic
research may not manifest
themselves as quickly or as directly.
Yet basic research is equally valuable
to our physical and economic health
in the long run. Basic research is
valuable because it clarifies the
nature of chemical processes that
may contribute to, and biological
processes that may be affected by,
the environmental contamination that
often results from human activity.
Basic research is valuable because it
can help us see the long-term subtle
changes in ecosystems that foretell
serious risks in time for us to use risk
reduction options other than
expensive, after-the-fact, clean-up
nC.URE 4
Funding History (1980-1989)
technologies. Finally, basic research
is valuable—indeed, invaluable—•
because it provides the fundamental
knowledge that is essential for
innovative, economically-productive
applied research within and outside
EPA.
Therefore, the Research Strategies
Committee strongly recommends that
EPA's R&D budget be doubled over
the next five years. An increase of
$375 million may seem extravagant,
especially in light of the current
Federal budget deficit and strong
Constant 1982 Dollars
$ in millions
3000
(Constant 1982 Dollars)
EPA Operating Budget
and Superfund
200Q
EPA Operating Budget
1000
OBD Budget
Fiscal Years
-------
public pressure to balance the
Federal budget. However, the nation
invests approximately $70 billion per
year in pollution control, and that
figure is increasing. We should be
wilting to invest at least one percent
of that amount to achieve the kind of
health, environmental, and economic
benefits that have resulted from past
R&D efforts. Expending a small
fraction of our national pollution
control budget to fund an EPA R&D
program that, among other tilings,
would help determine the most
effective ways to invest our national
pollution control budget does not
seem unreasonable.
An expanded national investment
in EPA research is even more
justifiable in terms of the economic
value of the resources that research is
meant to protect. It is difficult to put
a price on human health or
environmental quality. How much
are we willing to pay—.is either
individuals or as a nation—to
preclude a single incidence of cancer,
or a single birth defect? How much
are we willing to pay to save a single
wetland, or preserve visibility in a
scenic area? Such questions have
been debated within EPA and the
larger scientific communilv for manv
years. And while we have not found
a final answer, the stakes continue to
go up. For example, the health.
environmental, and economic
consequences associated with the
connection between atmospheric
pollution and global warming are
staggering. Environmental research
can clarify the situation by providing
scientific data to guide any actions
we may have to take to protect the
habitability of the planet. Given the
resources at risk, and the investment
we willingly make tc) control risks
that are well-defined, a doubling of
EPA's R&D budget seems a most
appropriate use of national resources.
This report has been derived mainly from live detailed
documents prepared by the Research Strategies
Committee of the Science Advisorv Hoard The live
documents are:
APPENDIX A: Strtttt'xitv /or Soiira'x inin^purt and laic
Research. (SAR-EC-8S~()4()A).
Describes the importance ot understanding kmdamental
environmental processes, improving the accuracy with
which they can be modeled, and identifying
escalating/emerging environmental problems.
APPENDIX B: Strategic-' for Exposure .'KsL'sswn;( R^carch
(SAB-F.C-88-040BI.
Describes a program which incorporates integrated
exposures, indicators ot exposure, measures of
uncertainties, and cooperative activities across the
country.
APPENDIX C: Strategy for Lcolo^ai! £.'//a'[.- l\w.m',i.
(SAR-LC-8S-040C).
Describes the need for approaches to assess risk to
ecological systems, determine environmental status and
trends, and predict future changes.
APPENDIX U: Strnt^u'* tor Health tf/crts Recant: .
(SAR-EC-8S-040D).
Describes the growing role ot environmental factors in
the etiology of human illness and disease, the importance
of long-term basic research in identifying and resolving
health problems, and specific research areas and
technologies that appear to otter particular promise tor
the future.
APPENDIX E: Stmtc^iKhr Risk Reduction /4-vwn/i.
(SAB-EC-SS-H40EL
Describes the overall risk reduction concept and specific
research areas to support it, including administrative
changes, education and technology transfer, and
cooperative efforts with the private sector.
Copies of these documents can be obtained by writing
The Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A-10IF
Washington, DC 204K)
-------
------- |