July 14, 2005
Vf)
«gt
Mr. E. Timothy Oppelt
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. William Farland
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Science
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Re: BOSC Review of the Mercury Multi-Year Plan
Dear Mr. Oppelt and Dr. Farland:
As a part of its commitment to provide advice to EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) on its research programs and following a request from ORD, the
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) agreed to review the Mercury Multi-Year Plan
(MYP) and the planning process with respect to what changes should be made to ensure
that:
1. The proposed scope of the work is consistent with: (a) ORD's subject area Research
Strategy, (b) the current state-of-the-science, and (c) research by others.
2. The science questions address the most important scientific gaps and uncertainties in
the subject area.
3. The long-term goals (LTGs) are relevant to the science needs of the Agency, and the
MYP situates the annual research products (Annual Performance Goals [APGs],
Annual Performance Measures [APMs]) on a clear path-to accomplishing each of the
LTGs (and APMs contribute to APGs).
4. Research products and emphases over the next 5 to 7 years are sequenced
appropriately to accomplish goals and meet program and regional needs.
5. The MYP is flexible enough to adapt to future science and policy changes.
6. The MYP articulates a strategy that facilitates effective communication and
utilization of research products (with domestic and international parties).
7. There is a clear path for assessing/evaluating the MYP and progress toward its goals.
For the purpose of this review, BOSC formed a subcommittee, chaired by Herb Windom
from Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. Other members included Rui Afonso, Energy
and Environmental Strategies; Cindy Gilmour, Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center; Rogene Henderson, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; James Johnson,
Howard University; George Lambert, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey; Michael Waalkes, National Cancer Institute.
The BOSC Mercury Subcommittee reviewed the most recent Mercury MYP (May 2003)
and heard presentations by and had discussions with a number of ORD staff. Though the
subcommittee was not charged specifically with assessing the quality of
-------
Mercury MYP Letter Report
Page 2 of 8
ORD's mercury research program, it is apparent that ORD has accomplished much with the available
resources and is poised to contribute significantly more to the better understanding of the global mercury
problem, especially with regards to transport and fate.
Based on the results of this review, the subcommittee prepared this Letter Report, which presents the
subcommittee's five overriding recommendations, followed by specific comments and recommendations
that address the specific charge questions listed above.
Overriding Recommendations
1. Because mercury is important to many agencies, the subcommittee members believe that the Mercury
MYP planning process would benefit greatly from an interagency council to institutionalize and
harmonize collaboration across federal agencies and to provide for proactive leveraging of resources.
Such coordination is necessary to assure that all aspects of the mercury problem are being addressed
and is particularly important in assessing the adequacy of ORD's funding for research on its part of
the problem as compared with the parts addressed by other agencies. Regardless, the subcommittee
considers the present level of funding provided to the ORD for research on mercury to be limited
considering the regulatory needs of the Agency to address the effects of mercury on the human
condition and ecosystems.
2. Prioritizing and sequencing of APMs need to be discussed more fully in the Mercury MYP. Some
APMs must be completed before others can be accomplished, but some are probably more flexible
regarding when they are accomplished. Prioritization often is a "moving target." For example, a
program need may require that resources be shifted from research aimed at one APM to another one.
Flexibility is required to accommodate such shifts, but for the purpose of communicating the Mercury
MYP, the criteria for sequencing and for shifting priorities should be stated and reflected in an annual
update of the plan as recommended below (see response to Charge Question 4).
3. The value of the Mercury MYP as a "living" document would be enhanced if it were updated
annually. A rewrite of the text would not be required; rather, the appendices could be used to provide
an indication of progress on the APMs. For example, if an APM was proposed to be completed
during a given year and for some reason it was not, the explanation for why the APM was not
completed could be annotated in a footnote that might relate to the criteria for prioritizing/sequencing
as recommended above.
4. The Mercury MYP is a communication document as well as a planning document. Communication
should be made a major part of the plan if the program is to be successful. This is discussed in more
detail below but the subcommittee recommends strongly that the Mercury MYP articulate a detailed
plan for communications with domestic and international parties. These parties include EPA outside
of ORD, other federal agencies, states, tribes, the general public, industry, extramural research
groups, and governments of other countries. It should recognize that communication is a two-way
process and feedback from partners is crucial to success.
5. It would be helpful if the Mercury MYP provided an assessment of outcomes related to the various
APGs and APMs since the previous plan. This would help to track progress and to translate just how
the results are being used. More discussion supporting this and the other overarching
recommendations is provided below.
-------
Mercury MYP Letter Report
Page 3 of8
Responses to the Charge Questions •
1. What changes should be made to ensure that the proposed scope of the work is consistent with:
(a) ORD's subject area Research Strategy, (b) the current state-of-the-science, and (c) research
by others?
Comments: The Mercury MYP, as laid out in 2003, is comprehensive and well thought out. It focuses on
the most critical information needs in mercury fate and transport (including risk assessment), and on
reduction of mercury emissions from a variety of sources, most importantly coal-fired utility boilers. The
MYP is based on EPA's Mercury Research Strategy of 2000. The six key scientific questions listed in
that document are listed on page 8 of the MYP. These questions were extensively peer reviewed in 1999,
and remain the key information needs. According to the Mercury Research Strategy the overarching goal
of EPA's mercury research program is "to provide information and data that reduce scientific
uncertainties limiting the Agency's ability to assess and manage mercury and methyl mercury risks."
This is a goal worth keeping and highlighting in the MYP.
The commitment of approximately $5.5 million and 8 full-time equivalents (FTEs) per year does not
allow for a full research plan to be pursued in all six areas of research that were identified in the Mercury
Research Strategy and are critical to meeting the overarching goal of the program. The limited funds
restrict the Mercury Program to examining only one or two of the critical areas of needed research in any
given year. Notable for its absence is any research on the effects of mercury on either human health or on
ecosystems (Science Question #5).
The research that is underway by the Agency is state-of-the-art in the topics that are being addressed.
EPA is aware of the research going on in other federal'and local government agencies, universities, and
the private sector. The limited research program requires that the Agency leverage funding by
collaborating with other entities and stakeholders to acquire needed data sets.
The Agency is working with international governments to gather important data sets to maximize its
research productivity. In addition, EPA realizes that the United States is one of many countries in the
world that is adding to the global load of mercury. If progress in reducing global load of mercury is to be
made, it will require an international effort in research and development and technology transfer. EPA is
actively trying to reach out to the other countries of the world to work with them to address the mercury
issues.
In summary^ mercury has been identified by the EPA as one of the 15 leading environmental chemicals of
most concern. The proposed scope of the work in the MYP is consistent and well thought out. EPA is
maximizing the research productivity in all ways possible; however, the subcommittee considers the
amount of funds provided to the Agency for mercury research to be limited considering the regulatory
needs to address the effects of mercury on the human condition and ecosystems.
Recommendation: None
2. What changes should be made to ensure that the science questions address the most important
scientific gaps and uncertainties in the subject area?
Comments: EPA has significant research needs in order to adequately support pending regulatory
commitments for mercury. The most critical immediate need is research to reduce uncertainty in the
cost/benefit assessment of proposed rules like the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). Significant new research and assessments also will be needed to adequately
monitor the effectiveness of regulations once they are in place.
-------
Mercury MYP Letter Report
Page 4 of8
The Mercury MYP lays out two LTGs, which cover the six scientific questions. The two broad and all
encompassing LTGs and the associated APGs generally address the most important scientific gaps and
uncertainties, and are on-target to meet EPA's needs. A comparison of the MYP with EPA's Mercury
Research Strategy of September 2000, and with a recent summary of EPA's needs in support of the
proposed CAMR (Federal Register 69:230 December 1,2004, Notice of Data Availability), however,
highlight the large gaps between the research listed in the MYP (and the level of recent and ongoing EPA
research) and EPA's research needs.
The current MYP, dated May 2003, is out of date in a number of ways. Most importantly, the APGs and
APMs in the MYP are 2 years out of date, making it difficult for a reader to assess what research EPA has
already accomplished and what research remains to be accomplished. The current MYP does not fully
reflect the current mercury research efforts within EPA or outside of the Agency. The MYP should be
updated annually, documenting progress, outcomes, and any necessary revisions. This is discussed in
more detail in the following sections.
Recommendation: The current MYP was written in 2003 and does not reflect the updated current
progress or the most recent plans for future LTGs and APMs. The MYP should be updated annually,
documenting progress, outcomes, and any necessary revisions.
3. What changes should be made to ensure that the long-term goals are relevant to the science
needs of the Agency, and the MYP situates the annual research products (APGs, APMs) on a
clear path to accomplishing each of the LTGs (and APMs contribute to APGs)?
Comments: The LTGs in the Mercury MYP are relevant to the science needs of the Agency as discussed
in the response to Charge Question #2. The LTGs will be accomplished by completing APGs and the
APGs are to be accomplished by specific, measurable APMs. This is a logical approach to organizing
and assessing the research program. Generally, the APGs capture the key research needs within each
LTG. The APMs, however, that provide the specifics of the research program, do not appear to place
EPA on a clear path to accomplishing the LTGs. Although the APGs generally reflect the research needs
as laid out in the Mercury Research Strategy, the APMs needed to support the APGs often are missing or
incomplete. Further, the mechanisms for choosing the needs and prioritizing and updating the APMs
within the MYP should be strengthened. A specific recommendation is provided below. The APGs and
APMs in the current MYP (date May 2003) are 2 years out of date, making it difficult for a reader to
assess whether ORD is on track to accomplish the LTGs. The subcommittee recommends that the MYP
become a more dynamic document that is updated and distributed more frequently, mainly through
annual updates of the tables in Appendix 2, as discussed below.
More importantly, the subcommittee members think that it is unlikely that the key research goals of the
LTGs would be met given the current and planned level of research effort, as laid out in the APMs. EPA
acknowledges this shortfall on page 17 of the MYP, noting that "shortfalls in resources will prevent ORD
in the near-term from conducting risk management research on non-combustion sources of mercury,
health risk assessment research, and monitoring and modeling research." In a variety of documents,
including preparatory materials for the upcoming Clean Air Mercury Rule, EPA acknowledges significant
unmet research needs, both in support of regulatory actions, and for adequate protection of human and
ecosystem health. For example,'EPA notes in its recent review of available data for CAMR, that there is
a need for improved power-sector modeling tools, recognizing that assumptions used to model Hg fate
and transport "are more uncertain than sulfur dioxide and NOx-related assumptions due to limited
information..." Another example of gaps in the APMs is that EPA's Office of Water is using "Mercury
Maps" (MMAPS) as the best available methodology for predicting changes in fish mercury levels from
changes in deposition. MMAPS assumes a linear response without the data available to support that
-------
Mercury MYP Letter Report
Page 5 of 8
assumption. The second APG under LTG 2 specifically lists a need for an improved model; however,
nowhere in the APMs does EPA propose research into the magnitude and timing of ecosystem responses
to changing mercury load, although both the Mercury Research Strategy and the Notice of Data
Availability specifically list a need for that information. Based on the 2003 MYP, mercury fate and
transport research is scheduled for completion by 2004, despite clear remaining needs.
There is one large gap in the APGs; the Report on Mercury to Congress listed monitoring as a very high
priority. The effectiveness of mercury control regulations cannot adequately be assessed without the
development of long-term monitoring programs in multiple matrices. Although ORD has facilitated the
development of the Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) for wet deposition monitoring, ecosystem
monitoring is not in place nor planned in the MYP. The subcommittee recognizes that ORD is not in the
business of running monitoring programs, but it should explicitly support the development of strategies
and capacity for such programs. EPA's involvement in the developing interagency strategy for long-term
monitoring of mercury in multiple matrices should be encoded in the MYP.
Recommendation: The combination of some of the APGs would aid in the clarity of the MYP to clients
and stakeholders. For example, within LTG 1, APGs # 1, #2, and #4 all address concerns about the
release of mercury from coal-fired utilities with an emphasis on monitoring methods and control
technology performance to determine the most cost-effective approaches to reduce emissions. These three
APGs could be combined to obtain a clearer picture of the extent of the Agency's activities in this area.
Combining these APGs also would allow coordination of the efforts in this area. There are a number of
other cases where APGs could be combined.
4. What changes should be made to ensure that the research products and emphases over the next
5 to 7 years are sequenced appropriately to accomplish goals and meet program and regional
' needs?
Comments: The research emphases appear to generally follow a logical sequence over the next 5 to 7
years and often reflect the need for research in support of important regulatory activities. The sequence of
APGs within LTG 1 (reduce and prevent releases), with an initial emphasis on technologies to reduce
combustion sources of mercury, is logical and driven by regulatory demands. Some events could occur
earlier in the process, such as in LTG 2 (transport, fate, and effects) in which health risk assessment of
mercury in humans occurs late in the process after transport and fate studies in fish. With the current
funding for mercury research at ORD, however, it would not be possible to study the effects of mercury
on human or ecosystem health in addition to the ongoing transport and fate studies. ORD has rightly
chosen to focus on the area of research it is best equipped to do (i.e., the transport and fate of'
environmental mercury).
With the current MYP 2 years out of date, and a lack of information on progress on recent APMs in the
document, it is difficult to assess whether current sequencing and prioritization in the MYP will meet
EPA's needs. The subcommittee noted that target dates listed for completion of APMs in the MYP draft
(Appendix 2) often have not been met, generally due to lack of funding. Under LTG 2, for example,
models for the response of ecosystems to changes in mercury deposition, Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) models beyond two pilot studies, predictive models for spatial distribution of mercury
exposures, and habitat suitability models remain incomplete despite target dates for APMs in 2004 or
before. Further, the MYP does not provide cost estimates for the research required to meet EPA's
regulatory needs, making it difficult to judge whether the research proposed for 2005 and beyond in the
MYP will fill key scientific gaps in a timely manner.
Figure 3 of the Mercury Research Strategy prioritizes research needs by assigning funding percentages to
each area of need, but this is not reflected clearly in the MYP. The mechanisms for choosing and
-------
Mercury MYP Letter Report
Page 6 of 8
sequencing APMs and APGs could be strengthened in a number of ways, as noted in the
recommendations below. Recommended mechanisms for linking outcomes to sequencing and
prioritization also are discussed in the response to Charge Question #7 (assessment and evaluation).
Recommendation; The subcommittee recommends that the rationale for choosing APGs and APMs (and
prioritizing them) be laid out in more detail in the MYP, and the APGs and APMs be at least roughly
ranked. This requires clear summaries of the state-of-the-science, additional information on the status and
outcomes of recent APMs, and a prioritized list of needs within each LTG and APG. This
recommendation feeds into the need to make the MYP more of a "living" planning and communication
document that is flexible in response to changing needs and funding levels. Further, the MYP should
show the reader how APMs and their priorities have changed through time, without the reader having to
access prior versions of the MYP to assess such changes. This might be accomplished by updating the
Appendix 2 tables, noting which APMs have been dropped or added each year, and how their rankings
have changed.
5. What changes should be made to ensure that the MYP is flexible enough to adapt to future
science and policy changes?
Comments: It is clearly stated that the MYP is considered a "living" document that is intended to be
updated to reflect the current state-of-the-science, resource availability, and emerging Agency priorities.
As a general policy, this should provide the latitude to react to changes arising in both the areas of science
and policy, including changes in funding. Indeed, the MYP has undergone multiple revisions, and
additional reviews are planned, including external peer review. It is unreasonable to expect that all
potential changes would be anticipated in the plan, particularly those based in scientific research. There
is extensive discussion of the impact of the availability of additional resources on short- and long-term
research in Section 3.0 (page 17) and Sections 5.0-5.3 (pages 19-20). These efforts, however, are given
as a group under the assumption of a 20% increase and the plan should prioritize these future research
directions in case this increase is not fully realized. There is much less discussion devoted to funding
shortfalls (Section 3.0, page 17).
Recommendation: The process for prioritizing research should be discussed so the reader can assess the
impact of budgetary and other constraints on the MYP.
6. What changes should be made to ensure that the MYP articulates a strategy that facilitates
effective communication and utilization of research products (with domestic and international
parties)?
Comments: In the introduction section of the Mercury MYP it is stated that the purpose of this document
is to aid ORD in planning and communication. It also includes a concise discussion of how the planning
and the research outcomes are communicated within and outside the Agency. The introduction provides a
clear discussion of how the MYP links to the Mercury Research Strategy and its six scientific questions
and their relation to the two LTGs for ORD's mercury research. How the research described in the MYP
addresses various commitments of EPA offices related to the Agency's priorities and regulatory programs
is discussed throughout the document. It also anticipates future programs/commitments related to
pending legislation and implies ongoing attention to these developments. The MYP also takes into
account what is being done by other agencies/states. • Examples are provided of bilateral/multilateral
programs with which ORD is linked to indicate that there is ongoing international communication of
planning and research products.
The MYP states that a strategy for effective communication is an important component of the multi-year
planning process. The document also indicates how research products are anticipated to contribute to the
\
-------
Mercury MYP Letter Report
Page 7 of 8
overall strategy and to Agency priorities, but the MYP does not provide much detail about the process
that will enhance the likelihood that the research products will be utilized. Although the APMs give an
indication of the products, it would be useful to articulate how these products will be marketed. With
regard to this as well as the overall planning effort, the MYP should better explain how states and other
parties are brought into the process. Different states/regions have different perspectives on mercury
issues and it is important for their representatives and constituents to know that their views are taken into
account in the Mercury MYP.
Recommendation: The Agency is strongly encouraged to develop a detailed plan for communication
with domestic and international parties. These parties include other federal agencies, states, tribes, the
general public, industry, extramural research groups, and governments of other countries. The plan
should address how states and these other parties are brought into the planning process. The MYP also
should include a detailed plan on how the research products will be marketed and how important research
results and technology can be transferred to the other parties. In addition, the communication plan should
include methods to determine the outcomes of EPA's research outputs (i.e., how they were used by the
other parties). Expected outcomes might include answers to such questions as: Did the new information
generated by ORD result in new stronger or less stringent regulations? Did the industry apply the new
EPA technology? Did the new technology decrease emissions or make the current emission control
technology more affordable? The outcomes should be tracked for all activities described in the MYP.
The communications should include current EPA and the other parties' research/data needs and current
research plans for soon-to-be conducted research. This may allow all the parties (including EPA) to reach
out to each other to develop cooperative research plans to fulfill research gaps and leverage their research
funds to maximize research productivity. The communications between EPA and other parties, including
grant awardees, need to be more dynamic and flow in both directions. For a detailed discussion of the
needs and methods for communications to all stakeholders the Agency should refer to the Communicating
Research Results report prepared by the BOSC Ad Hoc Communication Subcommittee (May, 2004).
7. What changes should be made to ensure that there is a clear path for assessing/evaluating the
MYP and progress toward its goals?
Comments: The figures presented in Appendix 1 of the MYP provide a schematic of the sequence of
research, as described in the APGs, toward the two LTGs and die APMs describe the products to meet the
APGs. It is not clear if there is a sequence in the APMs (i.e., one must be accomplished before the next
can be) or whether the sequence is determined programmatically. The MYP should indicate when an
APM has been achieved and if it is not achieved by that date, the adjusted timetable for completion
should be indicated.
On page 8 of the MYP, the six scientific questions posed in the Mercury Research Strategy are
highlighted. Although the APGs and their associated APMs are linked directly to the two LTGs, it would
be useful for the reader to understand which of the six scientific questions is addressed by each APM. The
reader should be able to track the progress of each of the APMs in subsequent revisions of the MYP.
The results of each APM, the products of the research, how the products of the research were utilized by
the Agency or other parties, and the outcomes of the use of the products should be tracked in an annual
updated document of the MYP. This annual update would only track each APM; the entire MYP would
only be updated every 5 years or as indicated. This could be accomplished easily by annual revisions of
the APM tables with the additional columns of product of research (e.g., development of improved
emission technology; specific improvements in models for mercury exposure), applications (e.g., inserted
into 100 plants in the United States and adopted by Chinese government and industry), and outcomes
(e.g., reduced the emissions from the smoke stacks by 50%). This tracking and linking of APMs to
outcomes will make the MYP a "living" document that has a greater impact on all of the stakeholders.
-------
Mercury MYP Letter Report
Page 8 of 8
Recommendation: The subcommittee strongly recommends that Appendix 2 of the MYP be modified to
link the APMs to the six scientific questions or, alternatively, produce another simple table/diagram that
illustrates these links. It is further recommended that the proposed schedule to accomplish an APM in the
current MYP be compared to the anticipated timetable provided in the previous MYP, and that some
indication of the reason (e.g., funding limitation) for an APM not being accomplished be provided in a
brief footnote. The Agency should develop an annual revision of the MYP document. This annual
document would only track the progress of each APM and their outcomes. The results of each APM, the
products of the research, how the products of the research were used by EPA and/or other parties, and the
outcomes of the use of the products should be monitored, and the results published each year as the
annual update of the MYP.
On behalf of the subcommittee and BOSC Executive Committee, we are pleased to provide the above
advice to the Office of Research and Development. We look forward to receiving your response and are
prepared to provide clarification to any of the issues or recommendations presented above.
Sincerely,
i
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Chair, Board of Scientific Counselors
------- |