United States EPA Science Advisory EPA-SAB-EC-03-006
Environmental Board (1400A) April 2003
Protection Agency Washington, DC www. epa.gov/sab
&EPA REVIEW OF THE FY2004
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY BUDGET
REQUEST FOR THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY:
AN EPA SCIENCE
ADVISORY BOARD
REVIEW
A REVIEW BY THE U.S. EPA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
(SAB) SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
PANEL
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON B.C. 20460
April 30, 2003
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
EPA-SAB-EC-03-006
Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Review of the FY2004 Science and Technology Budget Request for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: An EPA Science Advisory Board
Review
Dear Governor Whitman:
This letter transmits the advice of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) on the FY
2004 EPA Science and Technology budget request. This report was developed by the SAB
Executive Committee's (EC) Science and Technology Review Panel (STRP), a panel established
largely from the SAB's Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC), plus additional SAB
members who were added to provide additional expertise and to balance the panel. As in past
years, this review was conducted in a rapid response fashion so the report would be available for
the House Science Committee's Congressional hearing on EPA's Science and Technology
budget. The STRP met, by public telephone conference and in face-to-face meetings, to review
the Science and Technology component of the Agency's FY2004 Presidential Budget Request
on three occasions during January, February, and March, 2003. The Panel's report was approved
by SAB's Executive Committee during a public meeting on April 10, 2003.
As part of the review process, the SAB responded to five charge questions:
a) Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in the EPA and ORD Strategic
Plans?
b) Does the budget request reflect coordination between ORD and the Program Offices,
including identification of the science needed to support major upcoming rules and decisions?
-------
c) Does the President's Budget request provide adequate balance and attention to the core
and problem driven research needed to provide satisfactory knowledge for current and future
decisions EPA will be required to make?
d) Is the EPA research and development program addressing the important issues needed
to meet EPA's strategic objectives and protect human health and the environment in the US and
globally? What important issues are not receiving adequate attention at the requested level of
resources provided for the R&D program and the S&T budget?
e) How can EPA better use measures of performance that focus on environmental
outcomes to identify the impact of its research and development program and the funds that
Congress provides for that Program?
Overall, on the basis of its review, the SAB notes that:
a) The continuing downward trend in science and technology funding for EPA, in real
dollar terms, continues to cause the SAB to have concerns about the ability of EPA to meet its
strategic goals and objectives for science. Such flat to declining budgets erode the ability of
EPA to conduct important research across its programs. The development of high quality
science-based regulations is not possible without an adequate research base.
b) The overall distribution of the Agency's limited science and technology resources by
Agency Goal appears to be appropriate.
c) Given the history of Congress!onally added projects in the EPA science and
technology budget, the SAB strongly recommends that the Congress add funding to the Agency
appropriation to support such projects when they are added to the Agency's budget.
d) The SAB is pleased that the STAR Fellowships program is restored in the FY 2003
Enacted Budget and recommends that the FY 2004 Fellowships be restored to the fully funded
level of the 2003 Enacted budget; further, the SAB suggests that the Agency consider further
increasing all the STAR program components in the future.
e) The Board congratulates the Agency on the significant effort that it has demonstrated
in collaboration among the EPA Research and Program Offices during the development of its
science and technology program budget. Further, the Agency also demonstrated that its efforts,
to collaborate in the planning and conduct of research, extend to other Agencies and institutions
that conduct research of importance to human health and environmental protection. The
Multi-Year Planning Process (MYP) implemented by EPA is a significant and important part of
its approach to ensuring intra- and inter-agency planning of science. These MYPs will be
important items for the SAB to consider as it prepares for future evaluations of the Agency's
science and technology budgets.
-------
f) The Science Inventory can be a significantly important tool for EPA to track the
science necessary for achieving its mission. If the Inventory is made publicly available, it will
significantly contribute to the transparency and accountability of the peer review process.
g) The review panel observed that the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and
the Program Offices do not identify how their science and technology programs are distributed
into "core" and "problem-driven" categories to the same degree. Agency Multi-Year Plans
demonstrate that ORD clearly recognizes and considers this factor in the development of EPA
research programs. Further, ORD refers to this distribution in materials that explain its program.
Because EPA ORD's core research often moves rapidly into the applied arena (where it can be
used in supporting Agency decision-making), dividing the total science and technology program
into "core vs. problem-driven" categories is difficult and it is not as easily done as it is in other
scientific areas (e.g., medicine). However, simple indices based on the aggregate resources that
support ORD's part of Agency Goal 8 (largely "core"), versus Agency Goals 1 through 7
(largely "problem-driven"), show a reasonably even split between "core" and "problem-driven"
research. The Panel recommends that the Agency more clearly identify both ORD and Program
Office science and technology efforts that it categorizes as "core" research. The Panel
recommends that one or more program offices, possibly with SAB or other external reviewer
participation, undertake a review of the process that starts at the beginning of the science
development effort, and follows the evolution of the science investments to meet specific
strategic goals in the context of core and problem-driven research.
h) The Panel believes that it is important for EPA to extend its definition of "core"
research to incorporate the concept of research areas in which EPA must exercise leadership.
Without such leadership, it is unlikely that others will see the need to conduct sufficient research
efforts in these areas to provide the information that EPA needs to support its decision making.
"Core" research can also be thought of as those areas in which EPA has identified its role in
relation to others who conduct research into other, and related, aspects of complex scientific and
technological issues.
i) The Panel believes that the EPA ORD research program addresses, categorically, most
of the important issues needed to meet EPA's strategic objectives. Even though the transparency
of EPA's science and technology program budget materials continues to improve, there is still
much that is needed to provide insight to the Panel on program details that will allow it to
consider the depth of EPA programs in specific research areas and to identify important efforts
that are not being pursued. The Panel believes that the new five-goal strategic plan structure that
EPA is now developing will help to clarify the extent of the science and technology investment,
and its nature, that exists to support EPA's mission.
j) The Panel noted some promising trends in the science and technology program. New
areas are being explored (e.g., computational toxicology, Clear Skies) and a few traditional areas
that have eroded over time are being reinvigorated (e.g., IRIS). There is also evidence of
movement of efforts from core research areas to the more applied areas.
-------
k) The Panel believes that some areas of science are not being adequately addressed.
These include certain issues where EPA is only one of a group of agencies that have
responsibilities for an issue (e.g., asthma, childhood cancer), anticipatory research on health and
environmental problems (e.g., use of suspect source waters), and research to address issues that
have no clear legislative mandate (e.g., indoor air). For the first category, EPA should identify
the important environmental role it seeks to play in the area and then work to build a research
presence around this component. For the second type, the agency should develop a research
presence on forward-looking complex exposures that are potentially associated with
environmental and health risks. For the third type, "orphan risks," EPA should also develop a
research presence because of their significant effects on overall human health.
1) The Panel notes that there are also some important areas that the Agency has not been
able to attend to in a significant manner (e.g., decision-making research, impaired drinking water
sources).
m) Several activities undertaken by the Agency can help in clarifying the importance of
science in their programs and also would facilitate the review of the EPA science and technology
budget. The Panel commends EPA ORD for developing its Program Design/Evaluation Logic
Model; a model that provides a framework for linking science and technology programs to
EPA's goals and strategic objectives and that also shows the link with performance
measurement. Multi-Year Plans are also an important link in understanding EPA science
programs and how they relate to goals, objectives and the achievement of outcomes.
n) The Agency should explicitly consider the multi-utility of its existing and its new
science programs. An important example of leveraging is demonstrated by considering how
these existing, traditional programs (e.g., evaluating waterborne disease) can link to and
synergize with emerging programs (e.g., Homeland Security).
o) The Agency should continue to conduct research that will allow it to better understand
the linkage between various human health and environmental interactions with environmental
agents and identify ways in which these linkages can be used in performance measurement.
p) The Agency should identify how its collaborative efforts with other Federal and
private partners contribute to achieving important environmental outcomes.
The SAB, as it has in the past, again notes that it is difficult to definitively advise the
agency on the adequacy and focus of its science and technology budget within the context of a
quick turn-around review that is informed by traditional budget documents and supplemented by
a series of additional explanatory Agency analyses that are developed late in the review process.
This approach does not present a clear and complete picture of the content of EPA's science and
technology program in support of the Agency mission. Therefore, in its budget review the Board
inevitably finds itself in a position of providing other than full answers in response to the charge
of the Agency.
-------
During last year's science and technology budget review, the Board noted its intention to
engage in more intensive and extensive evaluations of EPA's science and technology efforts so
that it can provide advice to you, and to the Congress, that is more to the point of how EPA
ensures the effective and efficient development of the science and technology information
necessary to support the achievement of EPA's mission and how adequate the budget for a
specific year is in focusing on important efforts, and in providing sufficient resources to ensure
Agency success. Towards that end, we will work with Dr. Oilman, Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development, and the Agency Science Advisor, as well as other EPA program
offices that have science and technology programs, to develop a more effective and efficient
mechanism for evaluating Agency science, and the budget for conducting that science. We will
soon contact Dr. Oilman to initiate a new approach to performing this important SAB function.
We appreciate the opportunity to review, and provide you with advice on, the Science
and Technology component of the FY 2004 President's Budget for EPA. The Board would be
pleased to expand on any of the findings described in this report and we look forward to your
response.
In closing, the SAB recognizes the increasing responsibilities that EPA faces and the
increasingly complex nature of the issues that must be understood to meet these responsibilities.
As we have stated in the past, the understanding and knowledge of these issues cannot be
achieved without increased resources devoted to EPA's science and technology efforts. The
SAB urges the Agency to clearly explain these needs to those in the Administration and the
Congress who can influence resource allocations across government.
Sincerely
/Signed/ /Signed/
Dr. William H. Glaze, Chair Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair
EPA Science Advisory Board Science and Technology Review Panel
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board,
a public advisory committee providing extramural scientific information and advice to the
Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is
structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing
the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the
contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
Distribution and Availability: This EPA Science Advisory Board report is provided to the EPA
Administrator, senior Agency management, appropriate program staff, interested members of the
public, and is posted on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/sab). Information on its availability is
also provided in the SAB's monthly newsletter (Happenings at the Science Advisory Board).
Additional copies and further information are available from the SAB Staff [US EPA Science
Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001;
202-564-4533].
-------
ABSTRACT
The Science and Technology Review Panel (STRP) of the US EPA Science Advisory
Board (SAB) met on February 24 and 25, 2003, and again on March 21, 2003, to review the
Science and Technology portion of the FY 2004 President's Budget Request for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Panel noted that EPA and ORD continue to be guided in
planning their science and technology activities by Strategic Plans, Research Strategies and
Multi-Year Plans and that the Agency continues to make progress in its use of internal and
external collaboration in planning and implementing EPA's science and technology programs.
The Panel noted their continuing concerns with the downward trend in science and
technology funding for EPA, in real dollar terms. The Panel suggested that the agency increase
funding to its science and technology activities and recommended that Congress add funds to
EPA's appropriation when it adds projects to that program. The Panel believed that the overall
distribution of Agency science and technology resources by Goal was appropriate. The Panel
was pleased that the STAR Fellowships program was restored in the FY 2003 Enacted Budget
and recommends that the FY 2004 Fellowships be restored to the fully funded level of the 2003
Enacted budget. Further, the Panel suggested that the Agency consider further increasing all the
STAR program components in the future.
The Panel observed a lack of consistency between the way ORD and the Program Offices
report on which parts of their science and technology efforts are parts of "core" research and
which are parts of "problem-driven" research. The Panel recommended that the Agency more
clearly identify both ORD and Program Office science and technology efforts that it categorizes
as "core" research. Further, the Panel noted the importance of thinking of EPA's "core"
research in terms of that research in which EPA must exercise leadership in order for there to be
sufficient science information to support Agency decision-making.
The Panel noted that the EPA ORD research program addresses most of the important
issues needed to meet EPA's strategic objectives. However, they noted concerns with the
continued lack of transparency in EPA's budget materials that explain the science and
technology programs. The Panel noted that the new five-goal strategic plan structure that EPA is
developing will help clarify the extent of the science and technology investment, and its nature,
that exists to support EPA's pursuit of its mission.
The Panel considered the Multi-Year Planning process and the further development of
the Science Inventory to be efforts that will contribute to the transparency of EPA's science and
technology efforts. Other helpful activities include the development of EPA ORD's Program
Design/Evaluation Logic Model that provides an intellectual framework for linking EPA science
and technology programs to EPA's goals, strategic objectives, and performance measurement.
The Panel noted some specific areas that show promising trends in the Agency's
11
-------
programs, some areas where the adequacy of efforts is not certain, and some important areas that
the Agency has not been able to attend to in a significant manner.
The Panel recognized the increasing responsibilities that EPA faces and the increasingly
complex nature of the issues that must be understood to meet these responsibilities. The Panel
noted that the understanding and knowledge of these issues cannot be achieved without
increased resources devoted to EPA's science and technology efforts. The Panel urged the
Agency to clearly explain these needs to those in the Administration and the Congress who can
influence resource allocations across government.
in
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
Executive Committee
Science and Technology Review Panel
CHAIR
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Professor Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD
Also Member: Executive Committee
SAB MEMBERS
Dr. William Adams, Principal Environmental Scientist, Health Safety Environment, Rio Tinto
HSE, Muray, UT
Dr. Richard Bull, Consulting Toxicologist, MoBull Consulting, Kennewick, WA
Dr. Robin Cantor, Principal and Managing Director, LECG, LLC, Washington, DC
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Rosemary Bradford Hewlett Professor and Chair, Picker Engineering
Program, Smith College, Northampton, MA
Also Member: Executive Committee
Chair: Environmental Engineering Committee
Dr. Philip Hopke, Bayard D. Clarkson Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Also Member: Executive Committee
Chair: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Dr. Hilary Inyang, Duke Energy Distinguished Professor and Director, Global Institute for
Energy and Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte,
NC
Also Member: Environmental Engineering Committee
Dr. George Lambert, Associate Professor and Center Director, Center for Child and
Reproductive Environmental Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
Institute, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School/University of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ.
Also Member: Environmental Health Committee
Dr. Maria Morandi, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science & Occupational Health,
School of Public Health, University of Texas-Houston, Houston, TX
IV
-------
Dr. James E. Watson, Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Lauren Zeise, Chief, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section, California
Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, CA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Mr. Thomas O. Miller, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC.
Ms. Zisa Lubarov-Walton, Management Assistant, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC
* Members of this SAB Panel consist of:
a. SAB Members: Experts appointed by the Administrator to serve on one of the SAB
Standing Committees.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Charge to the Science Advisory Board 1
1.3 Format of this Report 2
2 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE 3
2.1 Strategic Priorities and the Budget Request 3
2.2 Coordination Between ORD and the Program Offices and the Use of Science
To Support Rules 8
2.3 Balance Between Core and Problem Driven Research 13
2.4 Strategic Issues 16
2.5 Performance Measures 21
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A - ACRONYMS A-l
APPENDIX B - BIOSKETCHES B-l
VI
-------
REVIEW OF THE FY 2004 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET REQUEST
FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: AN EPA SCIENCE
ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was asked by the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) (USEPA OCFO, 2002) to review the FY 2004 President's Budget Request for
EPA'S science and technology program. This review was announced in the Federal Register on
December 31, 2002 (USEPA SAB, 2002). The review was conducted by the Science and
Technology Review Panel (STRP, the Panel), a panel which is predominantly comprised of
members of the EPA SAB Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC). The panel was
further supplemented by other EPA Administrator-appointed members of the SAB to add to the
disciplinary coverage and balance of the group conducting the review.
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is viewed as the lead science office at
EPA; however, a significant portion of the science conducted by EPA is not performed by ORD.
Much of the science activities, managed and/or conducted by ORD, are appropriately
categorized as research. In the Panel's view, science is a broader term that also includes the use
of research results in analyses that support the development of environmental policies and
regulations and each of the Program Offices and Regions conduct scientific activities that range
from risk assessments to laboratory analyses. They are, therefore, participants in EPA's science
and technology program. To ensure that the science conducted at EPA is well planned,
organized, and coordinated, EPA has requested (since the FY 1999 budget proposal) that the
SAB review the entire EPA Science and Technology budget. Prior to that time, the Research
Strategies Advisory Committee had conducted an annual review of the Office of Research and
Development's R&D budget request. This annual review helps the Agency with its science
planning and in its evaluation of the effectiveness of the science budget under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
1.2 Charge to the Science Advisory Board
The charge to the Science Advisory Board asked the following:
Charge Question 1: Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in the EPA and
ORD Strategic Plans?
Charge question 2: Does the budget request reflect coordination between ORD and the
Program Offices, including identification of the science needed to support major
upcoming rules and decisions?
-------
Charge question 3: Does the President's Budget request provide adequate balance and
attention to the core and problem driven research needed to provide satisfactory
knowledge for current and future decisions EPA will be required to make?
Charge Question 4: Is the EPA research and development program addressing the
important issues needed to meet EPA's strategic objectives and protect human health and
the environment in the US and globally? What important issues are not receiving
adequate attention at the requested level of resources provided for the R & D program
and the S&T budget?
Question 5: How can EPA better use measures of performance that focus on
environmental outcomes to identify the impact of its research and development program
and the funds that Congress provides for that program?
1.3 Format of this Report
Following this Introduction, the report provides specific responses to the questions
contained in the Agency's Charge to the Panel (Chapter 2).
-------
2. RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE
In this chapter, the SAB Science and Technology Review Panel (STRP) provides its
responses to the five charge questions that were asked by the Agency. The questions focused on
whether the budget request: a) addressed Agency priorities; b) reflected the coordination of
science activities and research across EPA and outside EPA; c) demonstrated an appropriate
balance between core and problem-driven research; and d) focused on important environmental
issues, or whether any such issues were missed. The charge also asked whether EPA could
improve its research and development performance measures.
The Board's review of the EPA Science and Technology Budget request is always
difficult. Among the issues that are faced in conducting the review is the short time available
from the Panel member's receipt of the budget information until the time when they must report
to the Administrator. This interval usually extends from the first week of February, when the
budget and supporting materials are delivered to the Congress and released to the public
(including the SAB), until mid- to late-April. Therefore, all the supplementary materials needed
by the SAB to conduct its review must be prepared, delivered, evaluated, and deliberated upon
quickly. The SAB's advice must then be developed in the form of a final SAB Executive
Committee-approved report. Usually, this means that some of the materials necessary for
informing the SAB members about the program details that are covered by the budget request
may not always be available on time.
The Science Advisory Board will evaluate its review practices for the EPA science and
technology budget components and propose ways in which this evaluation can be accomplished
and more targeted advice can be provided to the Administrator and the Congress. Development
of a new review approach is even more appropriate given the Agency's current actions to
develop a revised Strategic Plan having a five-goal structure and the increasing emphasis, by
those persons who are responsible for the budget processes, on demonstrating how science and
technology budget components respond to national priorities and meet certain research and
development evaluation criteria. Once the SAB's evaluation is complete, we will notify the
Agency prior to next year's budget review of the types of information that will be needed by the
SAB to support its review; and the best formats and approaches for presenting that information.
2.1. Strategic Priorities and the Budget Request
Charge Question 1: Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in the EPA
and ORD Strategic Plans?
Yes, the budget request generally reflects the goals and priorities identified in the EPA
and ORD strategic plans. As in past years, it is difficult to address this charge question in detail
with the information presented to the Panel. In addition, the question as phrased may miss the
main point, and that is, can the EPA Science and Technology program, even if well-targeted to
Agency priorities, achieve success as funded. A twenty-four year history of the EPA Office of
-------
Research and Development's funding (USEPA, 2003) shows that ORD's total budget has ranged
from $306 million (FY 1985) to $627 million (FY 2003 requested) in actual dollars. In constant
1987 dollars the range has been from a high of $462 million (FY 1980 actual) to $371 million
(FY 2004 budget request). This funding level reflects a range of from nearly 7 percent to nearly
9 percent of EPA's total budget during that period (see Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1) (USEPA,
2003, 2003a). As in the past, the Panel remains concerned about the Agency's ability to meet its
strategic goals and objectives within the limitations of a level to declining science budget (in
constant dollar terms). This is important, because the development of high quality science-based
regulations is not possible without an adequate research base.
Table 1. Distribution of the EPA Science and Technology Appropriation Request by
Office1
Office
Office of Research and Development3
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Water
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Office of Administration and
Resource Management
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Office of Environmental Information
TOTAL
S&T Dollars in
FY 2004 Request
$561 million
$111 million
$ 27 million
$13 million
$ 10 million
$ 5 million
$ 4 million
$73 1 million
Percent of FY 2004
S&T Dollars2
76%
15%
4%
2%
2%
1%
1%
-
1 Total resources for EPA from FY 2002-2004 across all appropriations: 2002 Enacted, $8.08
billion; 2003 Requested, $7.62 billion; 2004 Requested, $7.60 billion.
Percentages are approximate and do not add to 100.
3The Office of Research and Development also receives resources from appropriations in addition
to S&T. From FY 2002-2004 this provided additional funds as follows: 2002, $38.4 million;
2003, $112.7 million; 2004, $46.2 million.
-------
Table 2. Total Funding by Goal and S&T Resources by Goal and By EPA Program Office
(Dollars in millions)
GOAL/OFFICE
(Total Dollars FY 2004 Request and
2004 S&T Funds as a % of Total)
1: Clean Air ($617.4; 8.1%)
Air S&T
-ORD
-OAR
2: Clean and Safe Water
($2952.5; 38.7%)
Water S&T
-ORD
-OW
3: Safe Food ($119.0; 1.6%)
Food S&T
-ORD
-OPPTS
4: Preventing Pollution &
Reducing Risk ($346.3; 4.5%)
PPRS S&T
-ORD
-OAR
-OPPTS
5: Better Waste Management
($1846.6; 24.2%)
BWMS&T
-ORD
-OAR
6: Reduce Global Risks ($263.8;
3.5%)
RGR S&T
-ORD
-OAR
7: Quality Envir. Information
($228.3; 3.0%)
QEI S&T
-ORD
-OEI
8: Sound Science ($357.1; 4.7%)
SSS&T
-ORD
9: Deterrents and Compliance
($430.6; 5.6%)
DC S&T
-OE
10: Effective Management ($468.8;
6.1%)
EM S&T
-OARM
GRAND TOTAL ($7,262.5)
FY 2002
Pending
Enacted
170.3
98.1
72.2
193.2
102.3
90.9
14.9
11.4
3.5
24.7
22.1
1.7
0.9
21.9
15.4
5.5
48.6
21.4
27.2
10.6
5.4
5.2
269.7
269.7
10.9
10.9
23.6
23.6
788.4
FY 2003
President's
Request
174.7
93.3
81.4
113.3
93.6
19.7
14.4
10.8
3.6
27.8
25.1
1.7
1.0
15.5
9.5
6.0
38.8
21.7
17.1
9.4
5.4
4.0
254.6
254.6
11.3
11.3
10.2
10.2
670.0*
FY 2004
President's
Request
177.0
94.0
83.0
135.0
107.2
27.7
16.2
12.0
4.2
27.9
25.6
1.2
1.0
20.3
10.8
9.5
38.8
21.5
17.3
15.4
11.2
4.1
278.2
278.2
12.6
12.6
10.2
10.2
731.5
Delta FY
2004 vs
FY2003
2.3
0.7
1.6
21.7
13.6
8.0
1.8
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.5
(0.5)
0.0
4.8
1.3
3.5
0.0
(0.2)
0.2
6.0
5.8
0.1
23.6
23.6
1.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
61.5
Percent
of total
S&T
24.2%
18.5%
2.2%
3.8%
2.8%
5.3%
2.1%
38.0%
1.7%
1.4%
Percent
of S&T
Delta
3.7%
35.3%
2.9%
0.2%
7.8%
0.0%
9.8%
38.4%
2.1%
0.0%
*Base which ignores the Unallocated Agency Pension Fund increment.
-------
h^OQO M^fiCU MkOffiA h^OSDN hAOO4 MOe&C MtOOO SCOP KOO-^ SCOSJ NGOW KPSU
Figure 1. ORD Funding History from 1980 through FY 2004 President's Budget Request (after USEPA ORD, 2003)
-------
The eroded science and technology funding is even more significant because of the
increased complexity of current, and anticipated future, environmental and human health
problems. For instance, many pressing environmental problems facing humans and ecosystems
are not separate air or water media-specific problems, nor are they single chemical specific
situations. Rather, they are system-wide issues related to impacts and effects from mixtures of
contaminants and other environmental stressors at various levels. The effort needed to
understand these issues is now greater. In addition, the Panel notes that there is a non-trivial
investment of resources at EPA on infrastructure components that are critically important in
ensuring that the Agency's science and technology efforts are coordinated inside and outside the
Agency. This necessary investment further limits the availability of funds that can be applied
directly to research on today's complex environmental problems.
EPA's science and technology efforts (S&T Appropriation) are conducted predominantly
within an in-house EPA laboratory system that is managed by the Office of Research and
Development. A smaller proportion of the science and technology effort is conducted by
Program Offices other than ORD (see Table 2). A portion of the ORD science and technology
program is conducted by outside organizations under ORD's extramural resources. The Panel
believes that this three-component structure is important. ORD's management efforts have
significantly increased the communication and coordination among these three components in
recent years. Multi-Year Plans are an important part of this increased level of interaction.
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program is an EPA ORD grant program that
funds high quality research proposals in response to a series of annual Agency solicitations.
Proposals come from leading, independent environmental academic researchers and analysts
around the United States. This program provides a mechanism by which the Agency can take
advantage of concepts, capabilities, and facilities that exist in the scientific community outside
of EPA. It can also ensure that there is a way in which the Agency can invest in innovative
research that can supplement the efforts of EPA's internal programs. The results of this critical
research program often move rapidly into use in direct support of EPA's environmental mission,
both by Agency Headquarters and Regional Office components, and by the States. The
importance of this peer-reviewed, competitive research grant program cannot be over
emphasized, and the Panel is pleased to see that STAR funding is continued in the FY 2004
budget request. The Panel encourages EPA to consider increasing STAR funding in future
years.
Another component of the STAR program annually awards Fellowships to university
graduate students. In its report on the EPA FY 2003 Science and Technology budget (EPA SAB
2002a), the SAB expressed concern about the elimination of Fellowships funding. As the Board
noted then, the STAR Fellowships have produced numerous valuable contributions to EPA
science and the Fellowships are an important component of ORD's plans for developing,
recruiting, and retaining a highly qualified and diverse workforce. The Panel is pleased that the
FY 2003 Enacted Budget includes the restoration of the STAR Fellowships program at a level of
$9.75 million, and it strongly urges the continuation of this program in FY 2004 at its FY 2003
enacted level.
-------
As in past years, the Panel strongly recommends that if Congress chooses to add specific
projects or programs to EPA's science and technology program, Congress should also
appropriate the funds needed for the successful completion of those projects and programs. Such
actions by Congress will minimize the impacts on the scarce science and technology resources
available for the study of increasingly complex environmental issues.
2.2 Coordination Between OKD and the Program Offices and use of Science to Support
Rules
Charge Question 2: Does the budget request reflect coordination between ORD and
the Program Offices, including identification of the science needed to support major
upcoming rules and decisions?
Yes. The Panel was impressed with the continued progress made by EPA to heighten the
level of interaction between ORD and the EPA Program Offices. The links between ORD and
the Program Offices appear solid. These links advance the development of the scientific
information needed to support regulatory programs and we encourage the Agency to ensure the
continuation of this communication and coordination.
ORD research activities reflect the needs of the EPA Program Offices. The Agency has
established a number of mechanisms that promote research in support of these needs. These
mechanisms include the: a) development and implementation of Agency and ORD Strategic
Plans - supplemented by the Multi-Year Planning (MYP) process; b) development of an ORD
Program Design/Evaluation Logic Model; c) development and maintenance of the Science
Inventory; d) proposal-development and review process under the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) extramural grants program; e) the use of agency wide science committees (e.g., Science
Policy Council, Risk Assessment Forum); and f) external peer review and advice seeking
processes which engage the National Academy of Sciences, the EPA Science Advisory Board,
the ORD Board of Scientific Counselors, and ad hoc expert panels to provide input on the
relevance of research strategies relative to agency decision-making. Figure 2, depicts EPA
ORD's inclusive planning process that encourages such collaboration. This process reflects their
Program Design/Evaluation Logic Model (see Figure 3).
Organization of interdisciplinary and interagency programs under National Program
Directors continues to lead to structured and actively managed research programs in key areas
(e.g., particulate matter, drinking water, global change, endocrine disrupting chemicals,
genetically modified organisms, and ecosystem protection). Interaction between the National
Program Directors and the Laboratory or Center Directors ensures that research programs
receive attention at the highest level of management in ORD.
The ORD planning process to produce and update Multi-Year Plans is an effective means
of communicating program needs to ORD and for ensuring that research strategies reflect critical
program needs for scientific research and information. The Panel notes that not all of the 16
Multi-Year Plans have been peer reviewed and recommends that the peer review of the plans be
-------
completed. The MYPs are key to ensuring that focused research is conducted in support of the
Agency's strategic goals and that the research is coordinated across the Agency.
In past years, the SAB noted that the process by which research is planned is visible, but
that it was difficult to obtain a clear view of how ORD's research plans were implemented within
the laboratories. The Board previously expressed the hope that the Multi-Year Plans, when
available, would show how the direction, of specific plans, shifts in response to research results,
and how adjustments are made in the problem-driven portion of the research program in
response to shifting Agency priorities. The development of Multi-Year Plans is a major step
forward in linking research projects to the strategic goals of the Agency. MYPs also provide a
mechanism for integrating research in support of basic science to the needs of program offices
and to understanding how research in the laboratories relates to the EPA strategic goals. As a
result, the process of demonstrating how research projects flow from Agency goals and are
implemented at EPA laboratories is now more transparent (see Figure 4 for an example) and the
Panel compliments the Agency on its progress in this area.
The Panel encourages ORD to continue to improve the mechanisms for establishing
liaison with other federal agencies that work in the environmental arena. Evidence exists to
demonstrate existing coordination of research between the EPA and other agencies. One
example includes EPA's participation in the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources'
(CENR) Air Quality Subcommittee which coordinates interagency research on particulate matter
and on other chemicals represented by CENR subcommittees (or integrations of such
subcommittees). The National Academy of Science's reviews of particulate matter research, and
its role in promoting the integration of EPA research with that of the National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences, the Health Effects Institute and others, is a good model for
oversight of research and interagency coordination. While costly, it has promoted the
development of critical scientific information in support of an important regulatory initiative.
The committee is aware of several other collaborations between EPA and other agencies - for
example, review of ozone research through the North American Research Strategy for
Tropospheric Ozone, participation in the National Toxicology Program, the Biosolids Program
Inter-Agency Committee, coordination with the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and
Drug Administration on issues related to genetically modified organisms, and the National
Children's Study. There are additional collaborations with the Centers for Disease Control, the
National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Science Foundation.
However, the extent of these interactions is not clear to the Panel. Many federal agencies are
conducting research on issues relevant to EPA's mission and these activities could obviously
benefit from and synergize with EPA's programs. Documentation of information on, and
organization of, these interactions would help to ensure that they occur at levels that are most
beneficial to EPA.
-------
ORD's Inclusive Planning Process
Customer/User Needs
(OMB Criteria: Relevance)
• EPA Program Offices
and Regions/States
• Federal research partners
• Private Sector
.
Outside Peer Advice
(OMB Criteria: Quality
and Relevance)
• Science Advisory
Board
•Board of Scientific
Counselors
• National Research Council
• NAPA
• Scientific Peer Reviews
Multi-Year Plans
(utilizing the Program
Design/Evaluation
Logic Model)
EPA Strategic Plan
(OMB Criteria: Relevance
and Performance)
Government Performance
and Results Act Goals
• Clean Air
• Clean Water
• Safe Food
• Safe Communities
• Better Waste Management
• Global Risks
• Right to Know
• Sound Science
ORD Strategic Planning
(OMB Criteria: Relevance)
• ORD Strategic Plans
• Peer Reviewed Research
Strategies and Plans
Figure 2. ORD's Inclusive Planning Process (after USEPA, 2003a, page 3)
10
-------
Program Design/Evaluation Logic Model
Program Design Proceeds from Right to Left
Resources
Necessary
people,
facilities,
equipment,
funding, and
partnerships
to operate the
program
•Resources
•Workforce
•Expertise
•Stakeholder Input
•Plans and
Strategies
Outreach
Communication, tech transfer, training, and
feedback are essential to enable clients to apply
outputs and achieve outcomes.
A
Activities
The specific
actions and
tasks needed
to produce
the
program
outputs.
•Plan
•Acquire
's
•Coordinate
•Conduct
Research
-Programs
-Projects
-Tasks
T t
-*
Outputs
Peer-reviewed
products,
goods, and
services
provided to the
program's
customers.
•Tools
•Technologies
•Databases
•Methods
•Models
•Assessments
•Reports
•Publications
(APMs) (
t
k.
1
^
r
^
Customers
Reached
Users of the
program 's
outputs .
•EPAProgra
•EPA Regions
agencies
•Other Federal
•Universities
•Industry
•Municipalities &
Communities
1
L
-*
Performance Measurement
4=P f • C J-
and results to customers, partners, and the public
1
T
Short-term
Outcomes
Changes in
customer
knowledge,
attitudes, skills,
and aspirations
followed by
changes in
customer actions.
•Reduced Uncerta nty
•Increased Knowledge
•Changed attitudes
• mproved skills
•1
echnologies ins
ailed
and used
regulators make more
effective decisions
•C
exposure through changed
behaviors
Externalities
\PGs) (LTGs)
t
^
Environmental Indicators
Intermediate
Outcomes
Environmental
changes, such
as reduced
emissions or
reduced
exposure to
contaminants,
resulting from
custom er
Reduced
emissions
Reduced loadings
Reduced
contaminant uptake
Reduced health
effects
(Strategic
Obiectives)
Long-term
Outcomes
Desired
program
impacts such as
improved
environmental
health or
restored
ecosystems.
•Improved human
health
environmental
quality
•Improved
(Strategic Go
t
L
These are factors outside a program's control that may influence (help or hinder) its effectiveness.
Program Eva uation Proceeds from Left to Right ^
Ells)
6
Figure 3. US EPA ORD Program Design/Evaluation Logic Model (after USEPA, 2003a, page 6)
11
-------
EPA Goals
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
ORD Strategic
Plan
Links
-5 objectives in
support of
Plan
-GPRA Goals
NHEERL
Duluth
Research Goals
Related to:
-Goal 2
-Goal 4
-Goal 5
-Goal 6
NHEERL
8.1 Linking Problem-Driven
and Core Research
-Prediction & extrapolation techniques
-Toxicology & population biology research
-Relative risk & non-chemical/chemical risks
NHEERL
Research
Goal 8:
;.l Freshwater
Ecosystem
Evaluation
.3 Screening
Chemicals
for Toxic
Effects
NHEERL
Goal 8. land 8.3
Wildlife Research Strategy
Research Framework
4 Steps
-Stressor ID-Spat/Temporal
-Species level evaluation
-Population evaluation
-Landscape evaluation
5 Research Objectives
-Problem-driven Vs. Core
-WQC Non-bioaccumulative
contaminants
-Bioaccumulative contam-
inants and sediment
assessment
-Ranking / prioritizing
chemicals
Figure 4. Depiction of tracking goals and research from Agency Strategic Plan/goals to ORD specific research
projects using an example of research at the Duluth Laboratory.
12
-------
The Panel encourages the Agency to interact with the National Cancer Institute on issues
of mutual interest, for example, on the issues of fetal, infant, and childhood exposure and the
later development of cancer in children and adults. This should help the Agency to leverage its
research dollars and enhance its program on children's environmental health. Furthermore,
ORD should continue to consider how to enhance its interactions with the States, the private
sector, and public interest groups. Some groups have substantial research programs and
expertise that would significantly complement EPA's efforts.
Agency rules should be supported by sound scientific reasoning and adequate scientific
data, although, every research program does not necessarily need to be linked to a specific rule.
Having a way to track these relationships is important. Even though the Panel did not receive
information on Agency tracking mechanisms that ensure the existence of efforts to develop the
science needed to support major rules and decisions, it did in the past, review the EPA Peer
Review Manual and system. At that time, the SAB was introduced to the Science Inventory, a
catalog of science activities and scientific/technical work products underway at the US EPA. At
that time, the inventory was to track major research projects and identify whether the research
effort was linked to a specific Goal and specific rule making. The Panel encourages the Agency
to further develop this system so that it can ensure that the science needed to support each rule is
peer reviewed as required by Agency guidelines. The Panel is pleased to learn that the Science
Inventory is being updated and hopes that the updates will permit a clearer picture of how
science activities link to specific Agency actions. The Panel looks forward to learning more
about this issue and learning more about the updated inventory. Further, the Panel encourages
the Agency to complete this project and make the inventory available to the public. Doing this
would also complement the Agency's renewed focus on data quality and the development of
scientific support for decision-making.
2.3 Balance Between Core and Problem-Driven Research
Charge question 3: Does the President's Budget request provide adequate balance
and attention to the core and problem driven research needed to provide
satisfactory knowledge for current and future decisions EPA will be required to
make?
Again this year, the Panel was not able to clearly answer this question in the time
available and with the information provided. ORD provided the Committee with documentation
suggesting that their research efforts under Goal 8 of the Agency's Strategic Plan are mostly
"core research." This documentation also indicated that ORD's efforts under Goals 1 through 7
of the Agency Strategic Plan are more appropriately categorized as "problem-driven research."
Following this distribution, and using $606.9 million as the base ORD FY2004 request, ORD
allocates approximately 46% and 49% of the budget, respectively, to their "core" and
"problem-driven" research areas. This year about 5% of the budget request is devoted to
Homeland Security. As in past years, this allocation is reasonably consistent with the balance
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and with ORD's Strategic Plan.
13
-------
The Panel's review of the budget request materials did find ample evidence that the
Agency recognizes the need to balance core and problem-driven research. For example, to
supplement its review materials for the FY 2004 science and technology budget review, the
Panel had available information on a number of ORD Research Strategies and plans (most were
available from the ORD website). In addition, the SAB reviewed two Multi-Year Plans in the
past - water quality and pollution prevention (EPA SAB, 2002b). In part, these reports
reinforced the impression that the Agency is paying attention to the necessary interplay between
"core" and "problem-driven" research. That being said, it is frequently difficult to draw a bright
line in categorizing research projects into one category or the other based upon the Agency's
program presentations or from the text of Multi-Year Plans and Research Strategy documents.
For example, it is not possible to identify core and problem-driven research efforts in the Asthma
Research Strategy. Because many of the MYPs have not been reviewed by the Panel, we cannot
address the balance question in other areas. The Panel is somewhat concerned, however, that
some of the observed balance seems artificial and contrived. For example, a great deal of new
research for Clear Skies is included under Goal 8 (because it is a part of a multi-media mercury
program) when it appears more suitable for Goal 1. The Panel was not convinced that this
classification accurately reflects the nature of the science being conducted.
The Panel recognizes that it is difficult to imagine good "problem-driven" research that
does not contribute in some way to the development of basic scientific principles in
environmental science and technology. Conversely, it is difficult to imagine the pursuit of
"problem-driven" research without the construction of concepts and development of capabilities
that come frm a "core" research program. The Panel recommends that the Agency define the
terms "core" and "problem-driven" research as they relate to the EPA science and technology
programs. Further, the Agency should more clearly identify their "core" research programs and
maintain the depth and diversity of expertise needed to achieve an effective science and
technology program. It is especially important to develop the discipline in the program offices
and ORD, to show the allocation of their S&T and non-S&T budgets meaningfully into the broad
categories of "core" and "problem-driven" research for SAB budget reviews.
Through the framework of its Strategic Goals, the Agency is making progress in
describing the decisions it needs to make, and the science needed, to inform Agency decisions.
However, insufficient information was provided to allow the Panel to evaluate whether the FY
2004 budget request is adequate to support the research needed to satisfactorily inform the
current and future decisions EPA will be required to make. With the exception of ORD, none of
the program offices described their initiatives or investments in the context of "core" and
"problem-driven" research, and all of the "Research" dollars listed in a supplementary resource
table provided to the Panel by EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (USEPA, 2003b)
reflects only ORD activities. The document provided no information on "core" versus
"problem-driven" research outside of ORD. This might suggest, to a reader of the 2004 Budget
Summary (USEPA, 2003 c; USEPA2003d) that science and research are not important to these
non-ORD programs. The Panel had hoped to find, based on past SAB recommendations, that all
program offices would tie their key programs and total science and technology budgets not only
to the Strategic Goals (information which is currently provided to the Panel), but also to the
"core" and "problem-driven" research categories.
14
-------
Moreover, information included in the Congressional Justification document (USEPA
2003e), that was reviewed by the Committee, did not provide additional details on "core" and
"problem-driven" research. The Panel notes that each program made convincing presentations
that they routinely invest in "problem-driven," and in many cases, "core" research areas. The
key issue here is how to categorize the dollars and programs better so that the investments are
clear in a review of the program budgets.
The classification of non-ORD program budgets and how they are reported may in fact
be due to the science demands that the program offices face. Their overall strategic incentives
do not lend themselves to do research that does not relate directly to supporting rules and their
implementation, and thus, it could be a problem for those programs to label any of their dollars
as "core" research. The Panel finds, however, that the inconsistency between the reported
program data and the information necessary to answer this charge question suggests a
fundamental need to rethink the definition, division and measurement of "core" and
"problem-driven" research.
The Panel believes that better information about how resources are allocated between
these two categories would be a first, and necessary, step in facilitating the review of the EPA
science and technology budget. It would not, however, be the final step. A finding that, overall,
program offices are striking a balance of some specific percentages, such as the 50%/50% NRC
guideline, would not in itself indicate that this is the right balance. The Panel believes that the
key programs and program offices in general need to consider what balances are appropriate to
yield research useful for EPA's decision-making. A focused, deliberative process is necessary to
meet this requirement. As a result, the Panel recommends that one or more program offices,
possibly with SAB or other external participation, undertake an evaluation of their processes,
starting at the beginning of the science development effort, and following the evolution of the
science investments to meet specific strategic goals, in the context of "core" versus
"problem-driven" research. This evaluation might be implemented at the program office or
perhaps at the level of some candidate key programs. The intent of the evaluation would be to
help direct the Agency to an appropriate, meaningful, and useful, classification framework that is
related both to budget planning and consistency with EPA's mission and its role in science
funding more generally. The Panel believes that this evaluation is particularly important now
because of the pending change to an Agency Strategic Plan having five strategic goals, all of
which explicitly discuss "sound science." This review could be carried out in association with
the planning for revising the SAB budget review process.
In addition to issues about directing, classifying and tracking "core" and
"problem-driven" research, the Panel continues to be concerned that EPA does not always
appear to have "core" research programs in some areas where strong arguments could be made
for EPA to develop "core" capabilities that anticipate the development of new science areas, or
where it should continue "core" research as part of EPA's leadership role for specific Federal
agency science activities.
During the FY 2004 budget review, the Panel identified the Agency's stated need to
enhance its capabilities in computational toxicology as an example of an area where "core"
15
-------
research should be pursued in order to enhance EPA "core" capabilities. The Panel endorses the
new attention placed on this area. As described, the computational toxicology area would
include new tools in molecular biology and bioinformatic approaches to toxicology as well as
the older forms of computational toxicology, such as structure-activity relationships. These new
approaches will become fundamental for identifying individuals in the population that could be
more susceptible to environmental stressors. These new tools should provide the opportunity to
expand the Agency's research on susceptible populations well beyond the traditional, simple
categorization schemes (i.e. children's health, women's health) on which the Agency now
depends. Because of the transforming influence that these advances can have on the Agency's
regulatory programs, the Panel recommends that, the Agency's evaluation of the balance within
their "core" research programs should include some consideration of developing EPA in-house
capabilities to understand and effectively guide the activities linked to these new tools.
The Panel also considered examples of areas where EPA is the recognized leader in a
science area and therefore must maintain their critical leadership role in "core" science. One
such area is the sampling and analysis of air and water. This provides both the fundamental
understanding of environmental systems that are necessary prerequisites for developing effective
and efficient regulations, and determining compliance with established standards. As a leader in
this area, EPA's "core" research can prevent deterioration in important EPA methods and help to
maintain a vital and active science community.
Another leadership example is in the complex environmental problems that are
associated with drinking water research. These problems may require innovative activities to
develop appropriate controls. For example, chlorination of drinking water is a very complex
issue. However, disinfection by-product research appears to retain a focus on the
trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. There continue to be questions about the true identity of
disinfection byproducts that might cause the health effects that have been observed in certain
drinking water epidemiologic studies. Further exploratory work is required to resolve this issue.
Core research investments can help foster more aggressive and innovative analytical efforts to
identify contaminants that are the probable causes for the cancer and putative reproductive
effects that have been reported.
2.4. Strategic Issues
Charge Question 4. Is the EPA research and development program addressing the
important issues needed to meet EPA's strategic objectives and protect human
health and the environment in the US and globally? What important issues are not
receiving adequate attention at the requested level of resources provided for the
R&D program and the S&T budget?
The Panel is of the general opinion that the EPA ORD research program addresses,
categorically, most of the important issues needed to meet the Agency's strategic objectives as
outlined in the Agency's Strategic Plan. The Panel was gratified to see that research and
development efforts have gained visibility in goals 1,2 & 4. Panel members appreciate EPA's
efforts to organize the research budget within the structure of EPA's strategic goals and believe
16
-------
that such an organization of information improves program transparency, facilitates the analysis
of the science and technology efforts across offices, and highlights the coordination among the
offices. Even though the transparency of EPA's budget materials that explain Agency science
and technology programs continues to improve, much more is needed to sufficiently improve
program clarity so that the Panel can consider the depth of EPA programs within each strategic
objective, and can identify important efforts that are not being pursued.
A briefing by Agency representatives on its new five-goal EPA strategic plan architecture
(USEPA, 2002a), suggests that this new plan might offer some intrinsic advantages to those
trying to understand the link between EPA's science and its strategic objectives, over the current
Strategic Plan having ten-goals. Members of the Panel encourage EPA staff to continue their
efforts to describe how investments in science and technology integrate with each of the Agency
goals that are a part of its Strategic Plan. The new five-goal structure appears to have the
potential for a clearer delineation of the major science and technology priorities in each EPA
program and to explicitly provide a link between these priorities and Agency goals and budget
allocations. In the current review, the written materials and the presentations did not provide
such explicit links for a sizable portion of the S&T budget. These links are important for
evaluating whether the investments are addressing important issues at appropriate dollar and
staffing levels.
As noted in its response to Charge Question 1 above, the Panel remains very concerned
with the flat to declining resource base for the Agency's research programs (see Figure 1). The
Panel believes that the science and technology investment (S&T account) does not reflect the
importance of research to the achievement of EPA's goals. Because of this, the SAB suggested,
during its review of the FY 2003 budget request, that the research budget be increased within the
Agency by 1% of the total Agency budget per year until adequate resources are invested in EPA
science and technology. The Panel hastens to note, however, that this does not mean that
transfer of funds from Agency regulatory programs will solve this problem. These programs
already complement research activities through their own activities that are conducted under
other appropriations (e.g. EPM). The panel is hopeful that the new goal structure being
developed by the Agency will make it possible to more directly judge the science needs of the
agency and the adequacy of science and technology budgets to address the needs in a timely
fashion.
The Panel observed some promising trends in the actual S&T budget account. There are
some new investments in research in the FY 2004 President's budget for science and technology
funding. While the Agency provided few specifics for some of these programs, there was a clear
signal that ORD intends to make a substantial investment in computational toxicology
[apparently about $9M and 17 full time equivalents (FTE) that includes nearly $4M in new
resources as well as realigning some ongoing, but related activities within ORD]. ORD is
proposing to couple computational methods with advances in genomics to enhance the Agency's
ability to develop new ways of identifying problem chemicals and to deal with complex
environmental problems. An initiative in this area was suggested during SAB budget reviews in
prior fiscal years. The Panel is supportive of this initiative and believes that it will be invaluable
to the Agency program offices as they begin to address more complex environmental problems
17
-------
in the future. The consolidation of resources already available within ORD appeared to come
from programs that would also benefit from the initiative (e.g. the Endocrine Disrupting
Chemicals research program).
The Panel was also pleased to see that the Agency has allocated additional resources
($5.2 M & 19FTE) to modernizing and updating the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
This system is used as extensively outside the Agency as it is within EPA because it provides
consensus interpretations on the available science about specific pollutants. Unfortunately, IRIS
has fallen behind the times because the past resource base was not sufficient to maintain it. The
Panel sees this as a very critical function within the Office of Research and Development.
Another activity of importance is the Clear Skies Initiative (a $6.5M commitment),
which the Panel endorses. The identification of the portion of this activity that is to fall under
the purview of ORD appears odd since it constitutes an admitted concern for the air program but
focuses on a single contaminant, mercury. The research appears to be directed entirely to control
and measurement technologies and modeling activities that seem very pragmatic and goal
oriented. In the briefings to the Panel, Agency representatives indicated that this placement
reflects that this initiative is seen as part of a broader multimedia effort by ORD on mercury in
the environment.
It was encouraging to note a modest trend in the transition of some research from the
"core" research program (e.g., Goal 8) to the more "problem-driven" research housed under
Agency media-specific goals. For example, the transfer of $323 K and 3.1 FTE for ecosystem
protection to research efforts under Goal 2 and $183 K and 1.8 FTE to research on
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products, provides some evidence of such a change and
indicates that the research has progressed to the point that it can be used to support
mission-specific decision making by the program offices.
Despite these positive signs, it is the Panel's opinion that the Agency needs to think more
strategically about its research program. Concerns identified by the Panel fall into the following
three groups and are elaborated upon in examples provided below in the text.
a) Cases where there is a significant level of research going on in other Federal agencies,
but where there is a need to identify and mitigate environmental contributors to the disease.
b) Research that should be directed at anticipating health or environmental problems that
will arise in the future.
c) Research that is needed to more thoroughly address important identified sources of
environmental exposure for which there is no clear legislative mandate for regulation (orphan
risks).
The Office of Air and Radiation presentation to the Panel indicated that asthma was a
science priority. Research to address this priority was not explicitly identified as a key program.
Apparently, this research is funded under "indoor environments." Panel members found that it
18
-------
was not possible to judge whether the level of funding in this area is adequate or not. It is
obvious that EPA cannot undertake a major scientific program that would encompass all possible
areas of research on asthma. Moreover, many other agencies are already involved in extensive
research endeavors on this disease, and these Agencies have substantially greater resources than
EPA. The Panel recommends that EPA identify the areas in which it can play a unique role, for
example, a focus on identification and measurement of the important environmental variables
that might contribute to this disease. The budget and research aims discussion should then
identify the methods and steps EPA will take to bring their scientific work to the table in
cooperation and partnership with other agencies' efforts to control this disease. One area where
the Agency may be able to make a unique contribution is in the improved characterization of the
contribution of ambient particulate matter (PM) to indoor air pollution, an activity that seems to
have been sacrificed in realigning some of the science and technology resources mentioned
earlier.
Another example of the first concern is the obvious need for the Agency to identify
populations that are susceptible, or sensitive, to environmental exposures. The Agency
appropriately identified children as a population that is especially susceptible to certain
environmental agents. The Agency should recognize that very large programs in childhood
diseases are housed in other Federal agencies, and EPA should consider those areas of
environmental importance that are not being addressed by those programs, and develop a
structured program to address the issues. Based upon information provided, the Panel suspects
that the resources allocated to this area are insufficient, but no specific strategy was provided
that would now allow a better evaluation leading to specific recommendations.
It is more difficult to provide specific examples of the second concern, that is,
anticipating risks in the future. This work is either delayed, or simply not anticipated, because of
existing program emphasis on current regulatory problems. A simple example might be the
pressure that increasing population density exerts on the demand for water. As the supply
becomes increasingly scarce, demand will drive populations to use water supplies from suspect
sources. The Agency must begin to develop programs that identify forward-looking methods for
evaluating the complex exposures and the potential health risks that may arise from this
situation. An important issue will be to identify what constitutes an acceptable water supply and
what mitigation strategies will be necessary to make impaired waters suitable for consumption.
The Panel noted that when a legislative mandate is absent, there are "orphan" risks (even
known risks) that seem not to be sufficiently addressed in the budget process. One such area
involves hazardous constituents in indoor air. These risks are judged by scientists working in
this arena to be greater than those posed by many emissions from point, area, and mobile
sources. Yet research to reduce residual uncertainties and risks from indoor air pollutants, or to
devise intervention strategies in this area, receive relatively little attention in the research budget.
While EPA has no statutory authority to regulate indoor air quality, research in this area is
necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing exposures and the health risks resulting from
exposure to airborne contaminants.
19
-------
The Panel believes that the issues falling into the three categories discussed above should
be a significant component of the "core" research activity of the Agency. The Office of
Research and Development should be taking a leadership role in these areas.
With essentially flat funding levels for science, allocating resources to one area
frequently means that research on other issues will be reduced or eliminated. It is important to
assess whether these transfers will seriously impair the research in a priority area. Examples
include:
a) Portions of the pharmaceutical and personal products program resources under Goal 8
(total of $71 OK) appear to have been transferred to Goal 7 to support assessments within the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS program) and to the biosolids program in Goal 2. It is
not clear whether these two activities will address the major issues related to the appearance of
these types of compounds in municipal wastewater. Thus, the Panel questions whether the
Agency has sufficient resources focused on the potential contamination of drinking water by
these contaminants which appear to be ubiquitous in municipal wastewaters and runoff water
from consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFO) operations.
b) The shift in resources ($1.8M enhancement) from several activities of the Agency to
research on determining and reducing health risks from the production and application of treated
wastewater sludge for land application as fertilizer appears to be sound. The Panel is concerned,
however, that some areas of focus of the previous programs are going to be lost. For example,
the issues related to CAFO operations are not restricted to the problems of disposing of animal
waste, but raise issues of microbial and endocrine disrupter contamination of the surface water
that drains these sites.
c) The Agency has redirected research in the water programs to address its new
responsibilities for water security under the Homeland Security program. This effort has
primarily impacted Contaminant Candidate List research on lower priority pathogens (fungi and
protozoa). In addition, the shift in water program resources to the objective of obtaining
longitudinal and dietary consumption information in support of the food quality protection
activity and to support enhancement of the IRIS system appears to have led to the elimination of
research to examine attenuation of viruses in watersheds, which is an important area of research.
In addition, research on the mitigation of N-nitroso-N-dimethyamine (NDMA) in water
distribution systems appears to be eliminated. The Agency should not abandon research into
analytic methods for nitrosamine chemical by-products of chlorination and chloramination.
This research is needed to evaluate the extent of this potential problem. Nitrosamine
contamination of drinking water is one plausible explanation for the bladder cancer risk
attributed to chlorinated water.
In addition to these particular efforts, the Panel notes that there are several recognized
environmental problems that simply do not seem to receive significant attention in the science
and technology budget request. Specific research or investment areas in this category include:
20
-------
a) Decision making research. Decision-making research does not appear targeted to the
internal EPA decision-making process related to specific investments in the science programs of
the Agency. ORD should consider that research in this area may improve decisions on resource
allocations within its research programs.
b) Susceptible/sensitive populations. The Agency identifies susceptible populations, and
in particular children, as a major population that needs increased study. The Panel simply
questions whether the resources allocated to the concerns of susceptible and sensitive
populations is sufficient given its obvious importance to the regulatory programs of the agency.
c) Sediment assessment of contaminants and improving water quality criteria
methodology through development of bioavailability models and assessment of dietary exposure.
d) Drinking water from impaired sources is becoming an increasingly complex problem.
Drinking water standards are developed with the explicit assumption of an acceptable source.
For this reason drinking water standards have not been regarded as sufficiently protective when
drinking water is drawn from sources heavily impacted by intensive agricultural practices or
municipal wastewater. In part, this is because important contaminants in these sources often do
not conform to expectations. Such contaminants can range from novel precursors of disinfection
by-products to hormonally active compounds and pharmaceuticals.
2.5. Performance Measures
Charge Question 5: How can EPA better use measures of performance that focus
on environmental outcomes to identify the impact of its research and development
program and the funds that Congress provides for that program?
The Panel is pleased that the Agency has started to make progress in developing a
framework for linking the impact of its research program to specific gains in public health and
environmental quality. The SAB addressed the question of environmental outcomes as part of
its review of two Multi-Year Plans. The Agency has responded commendably to past SAB
recommendations on the need to clearly define the characteristics of performance measures that
can be used to monitor the impact of its actions on human health and the environment. EPA's
beginning efforts to develop research to allow it to evaluate the public health outcomes from risk
management actions provides evidence that the Agency will be addressing this issue strategically
over the next five to ten years.
The implementation of Multi-Year Plans (MYP) for Agency research is a significant
improvement over past practices. MYP implementation provides the opportunity for a more
strategic use of research in characterizing the nation's critical environmental and human health
risks and the development of cost-effective risk management options. The utility of any strategic
research program must be defined in terms of its final objectives. In EPA's case, the final
objective is the improvement of environmental and/or human health indices by implementing
21
-------
regulatory efforts that are supported by Agency science programs, and the effective prevention
of environmental degradation or the introduction of new potentially hazardous agents that could
injure human health and/or the environment.
The Panel recognizes the difficulty inherent in evaluating Agency research programs in
terms of measures of their contribution to the ultimate goal of improving the environment and
human health. In some cases, Agency programs are designed to contribute to improving human
health and environmental conditions that are already in a degraded state (e.g., hazardous waste
and Superfund cleanups). In other cases programs are designed to prevent risks (e.g., pesticide
use registration reviews and toxic substances pre-manufacturing review). In both cases, such
evaluations could even produce misleading results because such outcomes are influenced by
factors external to USEPA research and regulatory programs, or the outcome of interest may
have a very long latency period. In such cases, useable outcomes may need to be defined in
terms of achieving a series of intermediate goals that are increasingly proximal to the final
objective (e.g., achieving and demonstrating a reduction in exposure to a chemical through risk
management decisions as opposed to demonstrating a reduction in the incidence of a disease that
might be linked to the exposure).
The Panel commends the Agency for its recent and continuing efforts to develop the
Program Design/Evaluation Logic Model that is relevant to evaluating the outcomes from
Agency science and technology efforts (see Figure 3 above). Some of the performance goals and
measures incorporated into the model could be used as intermediate outcome measures to
demonstrate the impact of EPA's research efforts. However, and as the SAB has stated in past
reviews, to ensure accountability, the Agency needs to clearly define the characteristics of such
measures and also to incorporate development of suitable outcomes as part of the research
planning effort. Additionally, the Panel suggests that the Agency use its "Program
Design/Evaluation Logic" model to review specific risk characterization and risk management
issues that the research program was designed to address, and to determine the extent to which
the research program has enhanced the ability within and outside the Agency to address its
global (higher-scale, ultimate) goals.
In some cases, regulations, policies and technical guidance have been developed on the
basis of assumptions or incomplete information. The Agency's research program can be used
post-implementation, to evaluate or revise previous actions on environmental issues. An
example of this process is the Agency's new regulation on parti culate matter (PM) that is based
on epidemiological studies that have demonstrated associations between ambient PM10 levels
that were within the older standard and increases in daily cardiovascular and respiratory
mortality. The Agency engaged in an intensive research program on PM. The risk management
decision to change the standard to PM2.5 was based on the reasonable assumption that particles
smaller than PM10 are more likely to result in adverse health outcomes. It is possible to design a
research program that collects ambient PM2.5 concentration data in a manner that is amenable
for use in similarly designed epidemiological studies in order to evaluate the impact from the
earlier risk management decision. EPA could use these proximate goals (e.g., yearly reductions
in ambient PM2.5 concentrations) as performance measures while enough data are being
collected to revisit the epidemiological basis for the original risk management decision.
22
-------
The use of environmental and human health indicators to evaluate research programs or
risk management actions presents significant scientific challenges. Primary among these
challenges is the establishment of the causal links between the products of the programs and
measurable indices of environmental and human health conditions. Some impacts may not be
discernable within the time frame of reference. The Agency needs to devote resources to
research in this area with the intention of developing appropriate evaluation criteria for research
on the outcomes of risk management decision-making. The Panel commends the Agency, for its
recent initiative to develop a State of the Environment Report. The Panel recommends that
appropriate research be performed to support this new initiative. Beyond the research program,
the Agency's efforts to demonstrate the utility of its programs toward satisfaction of Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals will benefit from this type of research. Similar
recommendations were made as part of the SAB's review of 1996 Risk Management Planning
for Wet Weather Flows (EPA SAB, 1999).
In the budget documents, the performance measures that are listed represent mostly
products, not clearly correlated with achieving the outcomes that are expressed as targeted
percentage improvements in the quality of environmental media and human health. Some of
these performance measures are questionable (e.g., a 2% reduction of air toxics from stationary
and mobile sources over the 1993 baseline is well within the error of emission estimates). As in
past years, it is not clear how this year's budget request builds upon previous years' research
output and represents a march towards achieving the targeted improvements. It is also not
apparent that resources have been allocated for research on outcomes.
While the Agency is interacting increasingly with other agencies, it is not clear how
research from external sources is incorporated into the Agency's science planning process.
More specifically, it is not apparent that pertinent research and data from other agencies are
considered as sources of outcome measures that could be used to monitor the impact from EPA's
regulatory decision making. The issue of using suitable research from other Agencies is also
important because reviews of external programs and engagement of others who work on issues
that may be related to Agency projects present opportunities to leverage resources and develop
the synergies that are needed to effect positive change. The Panel recommends that the use of
inter-agency research be clearly communicated, including how external information is factored
into the Agency's research planning effort, and how relevant results from this research are being
considered as potentially useful outcome measures.
In its budget activity, the Agency should recognize and identify the potential impacts of
specific projects that have multiple utility across EPA and other government programs. For
example, a significant proportion of EPA's more traditional research portfolio has direct
application to new issues such as Homeland Security. A specific example is the Agency's
research program on water-borne infectious diseases that has a direct application to the recently
initiated Water Security Program.
Another example of a multi-utility Agency research program is EPA's research program
on the health effects of particulate matter (PM). Two of the key issues traditionally targeted by
23
-------
that program are determining the fraction of outdoor particles that can penetrate indoors and
affect exposure, as well as the structural and ventilation characteristics that can affect such
penetration in buildings. It is obvious that the same questions are directly relevant to the issue of
protection of the public from exposure to biological agents in airborne particulates that are of
interest in Homeland Security. Thus, collaboration between EPA and the new Department of
Homeland Security could help accelerate research directed at investigating if and which outdoor
particles penetrate indoors and contribute to exposure in environments where the general
population spends over 90% of their time. An additional utility of such collaboration is that it
could provide information on what sizes and the extent to which biological agents in particle
form could penetrate indoors. New programs can benefit from synergies that can derive from
input from related research agendas. The panel recommends that the Agency consider the
cross-cutting impacts of projects in its continuing efforts to develop a system for measuring
outcomes from its research programs and projects.
24
-------
REFERENCES
EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA SAB). 1999. Review of 1996 Risk Management Plan for
Wet Weather Flows and the 1997 Urban Infrastructure Research Plan. EPA-SAB-EEC-
99-019. Washington, DC. September 30, 1999.
EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA SAB). 2002. Federal Register Notice announcing the
Science and Technology Review Panel and Review. 67 FR 79912-79914. December 31,
2002.
EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA SAB) 2002a. FY 2003 Presidential Science and Technology
Budget Request for the Environmental Protection Agency; An SAB Reviw. EPA-SAB-
RSAC-02-007. March, 2002.
EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA SAB). 2002b. Review of the U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development's Water Quality and Pollution Prevention Multiyear Plans: An SAB
Report EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-003). Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Project Sheet on the SAB Review of
EPA's FY 2004 Science and Technology Budget.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. Draft 2003 Strategic Architecture.
December 31, 2002. USEPA Website. EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. ORD Pre-Meeting Materials for the
RSAC. Email with attachments. February 21, 2003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003a. Strengthening EPA 's Research and
Development, ORD's FY 2004 President's Budget. Presentation by Dr. William Farland
to the EPA SAB on February 24, 2003. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003b. FY2004 Science and Technology
Appropriation - Summary of the FY 2004 Budget: Highlights. Tables provided to the
US EPA SAB.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003c. Summary of the 2004 Budget. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
EPA-205-S-03-001, February 2003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003d. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency FY 2004 President's Budget. Presentation graphics prepared for the SAB
R-l
-------
Science and Technology Review Panel's February 24-25, 2003 Public Meeting. Office
of the Chief Financial Officer.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003e. Fiscal Year 2004. Justification of
Appropriations Estimates for the Committees on Appropriations. EPA-205-R-03-001,
February 2003 (same as II. A.5 above in weblinks)
R-2
-------
APPENDIX A - ACRONYMS
CAFO
CCL
CENR
BMP
EPA
FTE
FY
GPRA
IRIS
K
M
MYP
NAS
NDMA
NHEERL
OAR
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OPPTS
ORD
OSWER
OW
PM
RSAC
SAB
STAR
STRP
S&T
WQC
Consolidated Animal Feeding Operations
Contaminant Candidate List
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
Environmental Management Program
US Environmental Protection Agency
Full-Time Equivalents
Fiscal Year
Government Performance and Results Act
Integrated Risk Information System
Thousands
Millions
Multi-Year Plans
National Academy of Sciences
N-nitroso-N-dimethylamine
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Administration and Resource Management
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Environmental Information
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Research and Development
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Water
Particulate Matter
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Science Advisory Board
Science to Achieve Results
Science and Technology Review Panel
Science and Technology
Water Quality Criteria
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B - BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
1. Introductory Note
The persons below have been selected from among the US Environmental Protection
Agency's Science Advisory Board membership to be participants on the panel that will review
the EPA's FY 2004 Science and Technology Budget. The charge questions that the panel will
respond to are posted on this website as well. The panel membership was drawn largely from
the EPA SAB's Research Strategies Advisory Committee, a committee primarily established to
review the EPA Science and Technology Budget. Additional Panel members were drawn from
the SAB membership to fill in missing expertise and to add additional perspectives to the Panel.
As noted in 67 FR 79912 (December 31, 2002) this list was posted to solicit public comments on
the members. Comments were taken until January 21, 2003.
2. Panelists
CHAIR
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Dr. Matanoski is a Professor of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of
Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore, MD. For a time after medical school she pursued a
career in pediatrics and general preventive medicine. After earning a Doctor of Public Health
Degree, she was appointed to the faculty of Johns Hopkins University and has been a professor
since 1976. In addition to teaching and research, Dr. Matanoski has had appointments in a
number of teaching and training programs in the U.S. and abroad and is a frequent advisor to
legislative and policy-making groups. She is a member of several scientific advisory bodies both
for governmental agencies and for industry. She is a past Chair of the EPA Science Advisory
Board, as well as a past Chair of the SAB Radiation Advisory Committee. She now serves as
Chair of the Committee. During her tenure on the EPA SAB, Dr. Matanoski was involved in the
writing of several documents produced by the SAB to provide advice to EPA including the
"Beyond the Horizon: Using Foresight to Protect the Environmental Future" document and the
Integrated Risk Project report "Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-making," and was
Chair of the latter Committee. She is the author or co-author of over 80 publications.
Dr. Matanoski's work has focused on the epidemiology of cancer, including bladder,
lung, skin and uterine cancers, and leukemia. Her research studies have examined the risks
associated with occupational and environmental exposures to such agents as radiation,
electromagnetic fields, and chemical substances as styrene, butadiene, arsenic and environmental
tobacco smoke. Recent research has emphasized reproductive effects and congenital
malformations from environmental exposures. Her early work involved infectious diseases and
illnesses in infants and children. Dr. Matanoski received a BA degree in chemistry at Radcliffe
College and a MD at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She also earned a Doctor of Public
Health Degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.
B-l
-------
MEMBERS
Dr. William Adams
Dr. Adams is currently Principal Environmental Scientist for Rio Tinto. He was
previously Director of Environmental Science for six years at Kennecott Utah Copper, Salt Lake
City, Utah. Dr. Adams responsibilities include managing product stewardship programs,
environmental research, ecological risk assessments and interface with regulators on
science-based issues. Recent research interests include developing ecotoxicology risk
assessment methods for metals, site-specific methodologies for water quality criteria for metals,
and development of an alternative strategy for metals to replace the existing PBT (persistent,
toxicity and bioaccumulation) approach. Dr. Adams has published several papers on methods
for assessing sediments and was instrumental in developing the science supporting equilibrium
partitioning theory (EqP) for non-polar organic substances. He has also published several papers
in the area of water quality assessments and has a total of 65 papers in these areas as well as
several books and/or book chapters. Dr. Adams served on the EPA SAB Ecological Processes
and Effects Committee for 8 years and on several other SAB subcommittees. Additionally, he
has served on the National Marine Board committees reviewing sediment assessment
approaches. Dr. Adams also serves on the EPA Superfund National Advisory Committee for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). Additionally, he has served on numerous
technical peer review committees and technical workshop committees. Outside of RSAC, there
have been no other S-T reviews performed by Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams received his B.S. in
Biological Sciences (cum laude) in 1969 from the Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste
Marie, MI. He received his M.S. in Wildlife Toxicology in 1971 from the Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, MI and his Ph.D. in Aquatic Toxicology in 1976 from the Michigan
State University in East Lansing, MI. He receives no grant and/or contract support.
Dr. Richard Bull
Dr. Bull is presently employed one-half time as a Professor of Environmental Sciences at
Washington State University (Tri-Cities Campus) and also works as a consultant in toxicology
through a sole proprietorship company (MoBull Consulting). Dr. Bull has specialized in the
toxicology of and risk assessment for chemicals commonly found in drinking water. He was
employed by the Environmental Protection Agency in the period 1971-1984. His last position
was as Director of the Toxicology and Microbiology Division of the Health Effects Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati where he managed the Health Effects Research Programs under the
Safe Drinking Water Act and under the Clean Water Act for the Agency. Personal research
interests were in the effects of lead on brain development and the mutagenic and carcinogenic
effects of disinfection by-products. In 1984 he accepted a position with Washington State
University where he taught pharmacology and toxicology. His research in the toxicology and
carcinogenicity of chemicals that were contaminants or additives to drinking water continued.
The National Institute of Environmental Health, the United States Air Force, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the American Water Works Association, and the
National Water Research Institute supported his research. The research focused largely upon the
haloacetic acid by-products of chlorination and metabolites of trichloroethylene. In 1994, Dr.
B-2
-------
Bull accepted an appointment as Senior Scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(managed by Battelle) where he remained until May of 2000. His research continued to be
supported by the institutions identified above, plus projects that were funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy and the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
SERDP) of the Department of Defense. This support focused largely upon the carcinogenic
activity of trichloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents. He also was instrumental in
bringing projects utilizing cDNA arrays to study the changes in gene expression that occur after
exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds (funded by the Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences of Japan) and a subcontract with Battelle on a support contract for the National Center
for Environmental Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These projects
have expired. His activities at Washington State University are supported by a grant from the
Department of Energy's Low Dose and Low Dose Rate Radiation Effects Program. Through
MoBull, a contract with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AWWARF) is in the final stages of negotiation and should begin in Jan, 2003). Dr. Bull's
consulting involves a series of small consulting agreements. Agreements include contracts
through engineering firms, universities or directly with utilities (e.g. Clayton County, GA,
Tampa, West Basin Municipal Water District, National University of Singapore, the Federal
District of Mexico, Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment
and the Victorian Consortium for Public Health [Monash University], Generate des Eaux, Paris,
and East Bay Municipal Water District in Oakland). Much of this work deals with identifying
chemical hazards that might be associated with the potable reuse of wastewater. In addition, he
recently wrote an informational paper for the National Rural Water Association on the concept
of thresholds. He has also served as a consultant to attorneys related to litigation surrounding
drinking water contamination. However, this work does not involve the giving of expert
testimony. Dr. Bull has also been involved in a variety of scientific reviews associated with
specific environmental contaminants. In recent years, he chaired the NRC review of Copper in
Drinking Water, the EPA SAB Drinking Water Committee's review of the Proposed Drinking
Water Standard for arsenic and served on the Arsenic Rule Benefits subcommittee for the U.S.
EPA's Science Advisory Board. At the behest of the National Center of Environmental
Assessment of EPA, Dr, Bull published a review of potential modes of action through which
trichloroethylene might produce liver cancer. He also serves on the Science Advisory Panel for
the Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study in Orange County California and has
worked with Orange County in seeking Federal Support for their research activities directed at
determining processes that are effective in allowing indirect potable reuse of wastewater. He
currently is the chair of the NRC Subcommittee on Assessing Toxicological Risks to Deployed
Military Personnel. In more distant past he has participated in a variety of additional reviews
that have been conducted by the National Research Council, the Science Advisory Board, the
Science Advisory Panel of EPA, the World Health Organization, and the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) that are a matter of public record.
Dr. Robin Cantor
Dr. Robin Cantor is a Principal and Managing Director of LEGG, LLC, a private
consulting firm providing economic and financial analysis to a broad range of public and private
enterprises. Dr. Cantor also has a faculty appointment in the Part-time Program in Engineering
B-3
-------
of the Johns Hopkins University. Since October 2001, she has been a member of the Research
Strategies Advisory Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board.
Dr. Cantor's areas of expertise include environmental and energy economics, statistics,
risk management, public policy and societal decision making. She has conducted research in
many issues related to environmental economics including analysis of Canadian and US nuclear
policies, recycling and waste management economics, environmental externalities associated
with different fuel cycles and energy technologies, private sector responses to global warming,
electric power plant cost estimation and planning, auction behaviors and demand side
management programs, possibilities for cost-sharing arrangements between local jurisdictions
and other government agencies to clean up hazardous waste sites, social and individual
valuations of non-marketed goods, and consumer and industrial product prices in the context of
anti-trust and other complex litigation. Dr. Cantor has submitted analysis, testimony and
affidavits in federal and state proceedings and Congressional hearings. Her publications include
refereed journal articles, book chapters, expert reports, reports for federal sponsors, and a
co-authored book on economic exchange under alternative institutional and resource conditions.
Dr. Cantor is Past President of the Society for Risk Analysis. From 1991 to 1996, she
was Program Director for Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences, a research program of the
National Science Foundation. While at NSF, she was also a Coordinator for the NSF Human
Dimensions of Global Change, the NSF Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment, and the
NSF/EPA Decision Making and Valuation for Environmental Policy. From 1982 until 1991, Dr.
Cantor was a senior researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Cantor has a B.S. in
mathematics from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in economics from Duke
University.
Dr. Domenico Grasso
Domenico Grasso is the Rosemary Bradford Hewlett Professor and Founding Chair of
the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College and holds adjunct faculty appointments at the
Universities of Connecticut and Massachusetts and Yale University. He is an environmental
engineer who studies the ultimate fate of contaminants in the environment and develops new
techniques to destroy or otherwise reduce the risks associated with these contaminants to human
health or natural resources, he focuses on molecular scale processes that underlie nature and
behavior of contaminants in environmental systems.
Dr. Grasso holds a B.Sc. from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, an M.S. from Purdue
University and a Ph.D. from The University of Michigan. He is a registered Professional
Engineer in the states of Connecticut and Texas, and was Professor and Head of Department in
Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of Connecticut prior to joining Smith. He
has been a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, a NATO Fellow, and an Invited Technical Expert to
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization in Vienna Austria. He is currently a
member of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board,
Past-President of the Association of Environmental Engineering & Science Professors, and
Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Engineering Science. He has authored more than 100
B-4
-------
technical papers & reports, including four chapters and two books. Federal, state and industrial
organizations have supported his research work. (1/2003). Currently, he holds a research grant
from the US Department of Agriculture.
Dr. Philip Hopke
Dr. Hopke, is the Bayard D. Clarkson Distinguished Professor at Clarkson University.
Professor Hopke is an Associate Editor of Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems. In
October 1997, he was appointed by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) as a member of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CAS AC) of EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB). Dr. Hopke is presently Chair of the CAS AC, and he also chairs
the CASAC Subcommittee on Particle Monitoring. In addition, he serves on both the SAB's
Executive Committee and the Research Strategies Advisory Committee. Professor Hopke is a
member of the National Research Council's Congressionally-mandated Committee on Research
Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter and the Committee on Air Quality Management in the
United States. He has previously served on five other NRC committees.
Professor Hopke received his B.S. in Chemistry from Trinity College (Hartford) and his
M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in chemistry from Princeton University. After a post-doctoral
appointment at M.I.T., he spent four years as an assistant professor at the State University
College at Fredonia, NY. Dr. Hopke then joined the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, and subsequently came to Clarkson in 1989 as the Robert A. Plane
Professor with a principal appointment in the Department of Chemistry. He has served as Dean
of the Graduate School, Chair of the Department of Chemistry, and Head of the Division of
Chemical and Physical Sciences before moving to the Department of Chemical Engineering in
2000.
Dr. Hilary Inyang
Dr. Hilary I. Inyang is the Duke Energy Distinguished Professor of Environmental
Engineering and Science, Professor of Earth Science and Director of the Global Institute for
Energy and Environmental Systems at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. Prior to his
current position, he was University Professor, Dupont Young Professor and Director of the
Center for Environmental Engineering, Science and Technology (CEEST) at the University of
Massachusetts, Lowell. From 1997 to 2001, Dr. Inyang served as the chair of the Environmental
Engineering Committee of USEPA's Science Advisory Board. He is a member of the National
Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (Effluent Guidelines Committee)
and has served on more than sixty international, national and state science/engineering panels
and committees. He is currently the elected president of the newly-formed International Society
of Environmental Geotechnology and has co-chaired several international conferences in the US,
Brazil, China, Canada and Japan since 1995. Dr. Inyang is a former AAAS/USEPA
Environmental Science and Engineering Fellow, National Research Council Young Investigator
(1997) and Eisenhower Fellow of the World Affairs Council (1992/93).
B-5
-------
Dr. Inyang's research and allied professional activities have focused on waste
containment systems, contaminant teachability, soil/contaminant physico-chemical interactions,
natural disaster mitigation techniques, rock fragmentation techniques for energy installations and
underground space, and energy / environmental policy. He has authored/co-authored several
research articles, book chapters, federal design manuals and the textbook Geoenvironmental
Engineering: principles and applications, published by Marcel Dekker. He is an associate editor
/ editorial board member of eight refereed international journals and contributing editor of three
books, including the United Nations Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (Environmental
Monitoring Section). Dr. Inyang holds a Ph.D. in geotechnical engineering and materials, with a
minor in mineral resources, from Iowa State University.
Dr. George Lambert
Dr. Lambert is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Associate Director of the Clinical
Research Center at the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. He holds a MD degree
from the University of Illinois and has had post graduate training in: Clinical Research in
Neonatology, has been an Intern and Resident at the Harriett Lane Home, Johns Hopkins
Hospital, Baltimore, Md, He was also a Pharmacology Fellow at Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Lambert is certified by the American Board of Pediatrics, 1979 & 1980;
Neonatal/Perinatal Medicine, 1980 and as an Instructor, Neonatal Resuscitation, 1989
Dr. Lambert is a member of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
Institute (EOHSI), UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and an Adjunct Associate
Professor of Pharmacy in the College of Pharmacy of Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey. He is also a member of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, and Director of the Center
for Child and Reproductive Environmental Health, Director, NIH / USEPA Center for Childhood
Neurotoxicology and Exposure Assessment, and the Director, Pediatric Clinical Research
Center, UMDNJ- Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
Dr. Lambert has served as a consulting expert to a number of professional and
governmental organizations including: the Neuropharmacology Division of FDA, the U.S.
Congress, TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, Department of Energy, Oakridge National
Laboratory, Division of Chemical Assessment, Office of Orphan Products Development, FDA;
NICHD's National Neonatal Collaborative Project. He is a Member, Committee on Drugs,
American Academy of Pediatrics, (National Committee), a Member - Human Health Effects
Committee of the Joint (U.S. and Canadian) Commission on the Great Lakes, a consultant to the
World Health Organization, Environmental Toxicology in Children. He has served on a number
of US EPA Science Advisory Board panels including the Dioxin Reassessment Panel. Dr.
Lambert is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Dr. Lambert's grants include: Since 1998: New York Health Department NIEHS Award;
NIEHS/US EPA Superfund Center, Co-Investigator - Mohawk Project; NIEHS Center of
Excellence (M. Gallo, PI); NIEHS training Grant in Toxicology (K Reuhl, PI); US EPA - Effect
of in utero exposure to PCB's on Sexual Maturation' NJ DHHS / CDC - Hypospadism and
Xenoestrogen exposure in humans; NIEHS- Pharmacogenetics of environmental chemical
B-6
-------
related toxicities (JY Hung, PI); Cancer Commission of New Jersey - Effects of Herbal products
on sex hormone synthesis and metabolism; NJ Department of Environmental Protection -
Effects of Eating Newark crabs on human health; NIEHS / USEPA Children Center for
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention- Center for Childhood Neurotoxicology and
Exposure Assessment; NCI Program Project: Tea Cancer Chemoprevention (PI CS Yang);
NIEHS - The Effects of World Trade Center on human health (PI M. Gallo -Dr Lambert's
Project: The effects of WTC on Reproductive Outcome.)
Dr. Maria Morandi
Dr. Morandi is an Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences and Occupational
Health at the School of Public Health of the University of Texas - Houston Health Science
Center. She served as member of the Integrated Human Exposure Assessment Committee
(formerly the Indoor Air and Total Human Exposure Assessment Committee) of the EPA
Science Advisory Board during 1992 and 1998, and has served as a member of the Research
Strategies Advisory Committee since 1998. Dr. Morandi has also served as member or chair of
several EPA program review panels, the Agency for Toxic Substances Board of Scientific
Councilors, and the National Institute of Occupational Health Study Section. .
Dr. Morandi's areas of research interest include development of sampling and analytical
methods for indoor, outdoor and personal monitoring of air pollutants in community and work
environments, exposure assessment, exposure modeling, and health effects from exposure to
airborne contaminants and related cellular and molecular mechanisms of action. Dr. Morandi
received a BS degree in Chemistry form the City College of New York in 1978. She received
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Environmental Health from the Norton Nelson Institute of
Environmental Medicine of New York University Medical Center in 1982 and 1985. She is also
certified in the practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene.
Dr. James Watson, Jr.
Dr. James E. Watson, Jr. is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His principal
research interests relate to environmental radioactivity and radioactive waste management. He
has conducted numerous studies of radon, both indoors and in water. He received the
University's Underwood and McGavran Awards for excellence in teaching and the Greenberg
Alumni Endowment Award for excellence in teaching, research, and service.
He is a past president of the Health Physics Society, the national radiation safety society,
and a past chairman of the Radiological Health Section of the American Public Health
Association. He has served as a National Lecturer for Sigma Xi, on National Academy of
Sciences committees studying radioactive waste management, on the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee for Energy-Related Epidemiologic Research, as
chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency's Radiation Advisory Committee, and as
chairman of the North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission. Dr. Watson receives no
research funding. He received his undergraduate education in nuclear engineering at North
B-7
-------
Carolina State University. He holds a M.S. degree in Physics from North Carolina State
University and a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences and Engineering from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dr. Lauren Zeise
Dr. Lauren Zeise is Chief of Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment within the
California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment. She came to state service in 1988 and has served in that position since 1991. In
that position she oversees a variety of the state's cancer, reproductive and ecological risk
assessment activities. Her group evaluates and provides advice on cancer, reproductive and
ecological risks posed by environmental contaminants, and develops policy guidance for
conducting such assessments. The group also conducts scientific evaluations mandated by
Proposition 65 and evaluates the risks from use of drugs, cosmetics, gasoline and other products.
It is also developing the state's guidance on evaluating risks stemming from the exposure of the
young to carcinogens. She Chaired California's Comparative Risk Project Human Health
Committee, and oversaw the external review of the State's risk assessment practices, policies and
guidelines. She has authored over 200 reports on environmental health risks for the State of
California. Dr. Zeise has been involved in the evaluation and review of a variety of risk
assessment issues.
Dr. Zeise has served on various committees of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB),
National Institute of Medicine, National Research Council (NRC), National Toxicology
Program's Board of Scientific Counselors, the NRC Board of Environmental Science and
Technology, and the former Office of Technology Assessment. She served on the EPA Board of
Scientific Counselor's subcommittee reviewing PM research. Currently she serves on the SAB
Research Strategies Advisory Committee, NRC Committee on Air Quality Management in the
United States, NRC Committee on Toxicology, NRC Committee on EPA Star Grants Program,
IOM Committee on Assessment of Wartime Exposure to Herbicides in Vietnam, the IOM Board
on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, and EPA FQPA Science Review Board. She is a
member and fellow of the Society of Risk Analysis and is on the editorial board for that society's
journal. The National Cancer Institute Smoking and Tobacco Smoke Monograph Health Effects
of Environmental Tobacco Smoke was conceived and developed under her editorial direction.
She is co-author of the recently released International Agency for Research on Cancer
monograph Quantitative Estimation and Prediction of Cancer Risk. Her research has focused on
cancer risk assessment methodology and applications. All research funding is from her
employer. She received her doctorate from Harvard University in 1984.
------- |