U.S. Environmental Washington,D.C.
0 PDA
%Jp tl /^ Protection Agency EPA-SAS-91-OOS
Report of the Research And
Development Budget Review
Subcommittee
Review of the Fiscal Year 1992
President's Budget for
Research and Development
A SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REPORT March. 1951
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460
EPA-SAS-EC-91-005
March 8, 1991
Honorarable James H, Scheuer
Chairman
Subcommittee on the Environment
Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C, 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) review of EPA's research and
development budget began as a critique of the annual Office of Research and
Development (ORD) Research Outlook. After performing this review for several years,
the Board became frustrated that the elements of this document did not have priorities
attached to them as is explicit when activities are associated with budgeted dollar
amounts. Since the initiation of the annual review of the budget six years ago, the
SA8 has been able to examine not only the disciplinary areas addressed by ORD, but
also the extent to which those areas are emphasized within the overall plan.
The annual budget review has been designed around the following charge:
G How does the proposal compare to the previous year in both
absolute and constant dollars, and; how are resources
distributed across the variuos media and disciplinary areas?
Q What programmatic changes have been effected in the base
program? Are new proposals relevant to Agency needs? Is there a
critical funding mass for those initiatives and associated base efforts?
Are infrastrucure needs adequately addressed? Are the proposals
consistent with the Core strategy and the Future Risk documents?
In order to obtain a detailed overview of the ORO program, the review focuses
on: 1) areas of scientific uncertainty and 2) priorities assigned in pursuing both
fundamental and applied research. The final, complementary factors taken into
consideration ar§ the staffing, equipment and facilities necessary to successfully
undertake proposed research studies.
-------
The Subcommittee uses materials that ORD's Research Committees have
prepared for the budgeting process and also meets with the relevant ORD senior staff
m an open interchange to gain further understanding of the proposals. Finally, the
implications of the budget request are put into perspective by analyzing them with
respect to previous reviews conducted by the board.
The Science Advisory Board applauds QRD's continuing efforts to implement
certain recommendations in the "Future Risk" and "Reducing Risk" reports (SAB-EC-
88-040 and SAB-EC-9Q-Q21). However, continuing budgetary disruptions consistently
hinder its management's ability to stabilize its core program and expand high priority
areas which are sorely underfunded. In light of these circumstances, the Board
strongly recommends significant increases for ORD over the next 5 years. Several
specific activities which should receive immediate attention include:
D inadequate base for replacement/upgrade of scientific equipment
"j insufficient funding to cover salary and expense costs
13 lack of training resources for scientific staff
3 insufficient funding for competitive grants and centers
The following report contains the views and conclusions of the Budget Review
Subcommittee of the SAB, However, due to the late release of the President's Budget
and and the need to provide review conclusions to the House Subcommittee on the
Environment (Commmittee on Science, Space, and Technology) prior to their
hearings, full Committee review was not possible. Consequently, the
recommendations and conclusions herein are subject to some modification in the near
future.
m
We are pleased to have had the opportunity to conduct this review and look
forward to your response to the priority needs identified here and to your view of the
prospects of improvements in the future.
Dr. John Neuhold, Chairman
R&D Budget Review Subcommittee
Science Advisory Board
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the Science Advisory
Board, a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice
to the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related
to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the
Agency and, henc§, its contents do not necessarily represent the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies within the Executive
Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute a recommendation for use. This report has not been reviewed and
approved by the full Board and therefore is subject to some revision
-------
ABSTRACT
ORD has responded admirably to a myriad of environmental concerns facing
our nation, and even the world. Still, it will continue to be incapable of providing an
adequate response to environmental issues without a significant infusion of resources.
Base programs {both core and non-core and including professional development)
must be shored up to prevent further erosion of the In-house capabilities. Extramural
resources (including those for competitive grants, centers, and professional
fellowships) must be increased in order to foster innovative and timely research by
other leading researchers in the environmental research fields. Finally, serious
attention must be paid to the aging equipment and facilities (infrastructure) of the
organization through increases each year which are earmarked for these areas-
Key words: core, extramural, infrastructure, budget, research
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Research and Development Budget Subcommittee
Chairman
Dr. John M, Neuhold, Chairman
1254 island Drive
Logan, Utah 84321
Members
Dr. Benjamin Ewing
University of liiinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Dr. Morton Lippmann
Institute of Environmental Medicine
New York University
Laboratory
Tuxedo, New York
Dr. Raymond Loehr
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
Executive Secretary
Mr. Randall Bond
U.S. E.P.A.
Science Advisory Board
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Staff Secretary
Ms, Carolyn Osborne
U.S. E.P.A.
Science Advisory Board
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, D.C, 20460
Director
Dr. Donald Barnes
U.S. E.P.A.
Science Advisory Board
401 M. St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 Lanza
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2,0 INTRODUCTION ........... . ...... . ............................. ... ............................................. 2
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAB REVIEW,,, . ...... ....... ..... 2
2,2 BASIS FOR REVIEW .................................... , ....................... .,. ....... ....... 2
3,0 BUDGET OVERVIEW,.,,.,...... ......................... ......... ............................. ... .......... 3
3.1 FUNDING....,.....,. .................... ....... ....... .. ................... ... ....................... 3
3.2 CHANGES IN RESEARCH DIRECTION .................. . ....... . ............ .... 4
3,3 INFRASTRUCTURE... .................... ............ ........... ....... ......... ..... ............ 4
3,4 STAFFING,,.,,., ........ , .................... . ....... ....... ............................................. 5
3,5 RESEARCH PLANNING [[[ 6
4,0 MEDIA PROGRAMS .......... . ............................... ... ............................. ...... ........... 6
4.1 AIR [[[ ... ........................ .................. 7
4,2 RADIATION ....... ..... ......................... .. .......................... ,.., ...... .. ....... 7
4,3 ENERGY ................... . ..................... .,.. ........................ ....... ................... 3
4.4 WATER QUALITY,,,,,,,, ....................... .... ........................... ... ........ ..... ...... 8
4.5 DRINKING WATER .......................... ........... ......................... ......... ........... 9
4.8 HAZARDOUS WASTE,. .................... ....... ...................... ..... ...... , ....... . ..... 9
4,7 PESTICIDES ..... .......... ........................ ....... .......................... , .................. 10
4.8 TOXIC SUBSTANCES ........................... ...... ...... .. ......... .... ....... , ............. 1 Q
4.9 MULTIMEDIA....... ........................... ....... ..... ..... ............. . ..... . ................... 11
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) applauds The Office of Research and
Development's (ORD's) continuing efforts to implement certain recommendations in
the "Future Risk" and "Reducing Risk" reports (SAB-EC-88-040 and SAB-EC-90-021).
However, continuing budgetary disruptions consistently hinder its management's
ability to stabilize its core program and expand high priority areas which are sorely
underfunded. Compounding these problems Is an inadequate base for
replacement/upgrade of scientific equipment, insufficient funding to cover salary and
expense costs and lack of training resources for scientific staff. In light of these
circumstances, the Board strongly recommends significant increases for ORD over the
next 5 years. Specific findings and recommendations include:
1) The 1992 budget numbers are somewhat deceptive. Although the total
request reflects an increase in nominal dollars, It provides considerably less buying
power than was available in FY 1i81. In addition, the R&D total is somewhat skewed
by a shift of equipment dollars from the S&E appropriation from 1990 to 1991 (which
was not fully funded in the final FY 1991 appropriation). Consequently, the ORD
request does not reflect the full increases noted with respect to the 1990 program,
2) As mentioned earlier, ORD has responded admirably to certain
recommendations in "Future Risk" and "Reducing Risk". However, several areas have
been inadequately addressed. These issues include epidemiologic research,
training for environmental scientists, research on valuing natural resources and
economic analysis.
3) ORD is striving to improve its infrastructure by earmarking specific lump
sums for capital equipment and operating expenses. However, the increases to the
S&E and R&D appropriations fall very short of providing adequate funding for ORD
laboratories to become state-of-the-art.
4) ORD should implement a professional development program for its
scientists and funding should be provided to establish a fellowship program for
training environmental scientists,
Specific recommendations for various media include the following:
1) The effects of chronic ozone exposure should receive higher
priority (Air),
2) Exposure research should be more carefully planned and
coordinated in order to maximize the use of resources and avoid overlap
(Cross-cutting).
3) Research on exposure to and effects of radon and
electromagnetic radiation should be expanded (Radiation).
4) Decreases in the wastewater treatment technology area should be
restored (Water Quality).
-------
5) Research efforts on disinfectant by-products should not be reduced
(Drinking Water).
6) Efforts in ecological risk assessment and field validation in pesticides
and toxics should be dramatically increased (Pesticides and Toxics).
7) Funding for academic research centers should be increased in order to
provide funding for 9 centers as should funding for extramural grants
(Multimedia).
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Development of the SAB Budget Review
Science Advisory Board (SAB) review of EPA's research and development
budget began as a critique of the annual ORD Rejfg_a.rch_puttggk. After performing this
review for several years, the Board became frustrated that the elements of this
document did not have priorities attached to them as is explicit when activities are
associated with budgeted dollar amounts. Since the initiation of the annual ORD
budget review, the SA8 has been able to examine not only the disciplinary areas
addressed by ORD, but also the extent to which those areas are emphasized.
In order to obtain a detailed overview of the ORD program, this review focuses
on; -1) areas Of scientific uncertainty and 2) priorities assigned in pursuing both
fundamental and applied research. The final, complementary factors taken into
consideration are the staffing, equipment and facilities necessary to successfully
undertake proposed research studies.
The committee uses materials that ORD's research committees have prepared
for the budgeting process and also meets with the relevant ORD senior staff in an open
interchange to gain further understanding of the proposals. Finally, the implications of
the budget request are put into perspective by analyzing them with respect to previous
reviews conducted by the Board.
The following report contains the views and conclusions of the Budget Review
Subcommittee of the SAB. However, due to the late release of the President's Budget
and and the need to provide review conclusions to the House Subcommittee on the
Environment (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology) prior to its hearings,
full SAB review was not possible. Consequently, the recommendations and
conclusions herein are subject to some modification in the near future.
2.2 Basis fof Review
In the past four years, the SAB has produced two reports ["Future Risk; A
Research Strategy for the 1990s" (SAB-EC-88-04Q, September 1988) and "Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection" (SAB-EC-90-021,
September 1990)] that highlighted perceptions of critical needs which must be
-------
addressed in order to gain control over our environmental future. These reports have
each provided ten recommendations used by the Budget Review Subcommittee as
part of its interpretation of the proposed QRD budget. In this process, the
Subcommittee compared the 1992 budget proposal to the 1991 operating year
program in an effort to determine ORD's progress in implementing its overall research
plan.
The recommendations in "Future Risk" and "Reducing Risk" address research
needs in pollution prevention, long-term and exploratory efforts, risk reduction (for both
humans and ecosystems), and technical training for environmental scientists. The
Board feels that, given the emphasis afforded to these areas in both reports, the
budget proposal should reflect strong support for each.
3.0 BUDGET OVERVIEW
3,1 Funding
In "Future Risk," the SAB recommended that the research budget for 1988 be
doubted to about $700 million by 1993 (assuming no increase in the consumer price
index). This translates into an average increase of $70 million per year over a 5 year
period to effectively addressed new tasks stemming from the increasing complexity qf
environmental issues. Since the release of the "Future Risk" report, ORD has fallen
short of its goal. Although the current (1992) budget proposes an increase of $57.8
million, its impact is somewhat deceiving. Due to mandatory reductions of $24 million
in the FY 1991 budget, an actual increase of $34 million is requested after restoration
of pfior year cuts. Disregarding this budgetary anomaly, the Research and Develop-
Figure 1
300-
C
O
250
= 200
e 150
O
Q
* II INI II II II II II II II I
I II II II II II II II II II II II I
rnent request reflects a 13%
increase (from 254.9 million to
313 million); Salaries and
Expenses increase from $103
million to $109 milllon(6%);
Superfund declines from $73.6
million to $68,6 million (6.7%);
and LUST remains static at
$0,8 million.
OS OJ
Oi O)
£*3 *£ i^j cfij fv SD c3i O ^ CW
QO ^p ^0 ^O O5 CO S? O) O} 0^
(JJO^OiOl
-------
economy, EPA and the Congress would be ill-advised to ailow such disparities to
continue.
in Research
3.2 Changes
Direction
The Subcommittee is
pleased with the efforts ORD
has made to implement certain
recommendations in the Future
Risk" and "Reducing Risk"
reports. ORD has, to varying
extents, addressed the issues
of pollution prevention, risk
reduction, ecosystem effects,
eco ogicai monitoring and
exposure. However, it has
inadequately addressed the
issues of epidemiologic
research, training of
environmental scientists, research
analyses. Clearly, the
1990
TOTAL
1991 1992
DOLLARS
in valuing natural resources and economic
ability to address all of these recommendations adequately is
hampered by the availability of funds, even with the increases in the media programs
mentioned below. (Figure 2).
3.3 -Infrastructure
Though S&E funding increased by 6.6% (to total $108.9 million ), it was not
adequate to cover capital personnel compensation and benefits for the additional
FTEs requested. Congressional authorization to utilize R & D funds for equipment
allowed ORD to implement a
scientific equipment
modernization program (Figure
3) and the Subcommittee is
pleased that its
recommendations have
contributed to this progress.
Still, we feel concerned and
disappointed at the rate of
progress in this area and
encourage additional funding .
The $3.8 million
increase requested for
replacement of obso ete
equipment raises total
resources in this area from $9.3
million to $13.0 million. The schedule recommended by the Budget Review
Subcommittee in the 1990-91 review was $26 million per year over a five year period
1990
R&D
1991
DOLLARS
1992
-------
assuming constant dollars. At this year's rate of expenditure (based on a 7 year
turnover of equipment), the time necessary to achieve the goal of state-of-the-art
equipment readiness would be tripled to approximately 15 years (assuming no
change in the Consumer Price Index).
3.4 Staffing
The Office of Research
and Development continues its
parallel advancement system
for its scientists and
administrators. Vacant Senior
Executive Service (SES)
positions and Senior Scientist
positions continue to be filled,
undoubtedly increasing QRD's
scientific productivity. The
Science Advisory Board
encourages the Office of
Research and Development to
continue its progress in these
efforts.
Figure 4
2500-
2000'
LU
I-
U.
1500-
1QGQ<
500-
II II
II II
o
S3
CD
O)
oo
rt
«Q
at 01
CO CO
CO
03
<3J
O
OS
OS
O5
OS
OS
ORD STAFFING HISTORY
An increase of 43 full time equivalents (FTEs) from 1891.1 to 1934.1 (Figure 4)
is requested in the 1992 ORD budget. This continues a stow upward trend which
started in 1984 , Unfortunately, the S & E budget falls $5,2 million short in funding this
increase. The Board is extremely concerned that this is becoming a trend which could
force the Agency to lapse vitally needed FTEs due to insufficient S&E coverage Figure
5).
As indicated in our
review of the 1991 budget
request, the workforce study
conducted by ORD cited an
ageing work force, the resuit of
previous hiring freezes and
reductions in force during the
period 1980 to 1984 as
contributing to difficulties in
maintaining in-house
capabilities. Unfortunately,
there is little evidence that
much has changed during the
past year. The crticai need to
fill positions with young,
dynamic scientists is
exacerbated by an inadequate
1990 19§1 1992
S&E DOLLARS
source of graduating environmental scientists and engineers.
-------
In 1992, ORO has budgeted $1 million for the support of minority fellows as well
as $0.4 million for training in math and sciences. While this addresses the problem
with minorities, it falls far short of training environmental scientists at institutions with
strong environmental research programs. As last year, we strongly urge EPA and
Congress to develop a program.of support which wiJLencouracie students to enter
graduatejjnyirpnmental science and engineering,, programs.
With regard to the existing workforce, we note once again with concern that EPA
spends only $240 per year per scientist for professional development. This remains
far short of the $1000 to $2000 that private industry spends to maintain their
workforces' scientific excellence. Since scientists must meet with their peers {in
workshops or formal classroom sessions) to remain at the cutting edge of their
science, we once again recommend thaLEPA implement q professional development
program.
3,5 Research Planning
The Office of Research and Development has evolved a viable research
planning system based on media-based research committees. Each committee,
consisting of representatives from ORD and the relevant program offices within EPA,
has the responsibility for recognizing the scientific questions involved with the variety
of environmental issues facing the Agency and placing those questions in some order-
of priority contingent upon the funds available. Priorities among the research
committees are, presumably, set by the Research Strategies Committee which
includes the Deputy Assistant Administrators for all the program offices within the
Agency. Final decisions on priority are made by the Assistant Administrator for R & D.
When cuts are mandated from either the Congress or the Executive Branch, the
same Committees responsible for program planning are employed to distribute the
cuts in such a way that minimizes program impairment in the judgement of those
distributing the cuts. For example, the 1991 Appropriation subjected ORO to a
mandated cut of some $24 million which was distributed over some 38 funded
programs. In implementing this cut, only one small $300 thousand program was totally
eliminated. However, with the deficit growing and other cuts to the annual
appropriations likely, research planning becomes more and more difficult.
The Board understands the unique position held by legislators. All
representatives have responsibilities to their constituents and often those
constituencies' regional needs prompt the ear-marking of funds for special projects
which might be vita! to particular areas. However, in 1991, an $18 million block of
funds was diverted to tightly pinpointed studies with only $5.8 million additional
funding. Given the severe consequences of such actions, we strongly recommend that
when funds are earmarked for special programs that additional monies be
appropriated to accommodate them.
4.0 MEDIA PROGRAMS
We are generally pleased with the approach ORD has taken in supporting
projects in the various program areas, and the recommendations of the of the Science
-------
Advisory Board, Emphases have been rationally placed and disinvestments and
reallocations have been appropriately applied. However, as with any complex
program with limited funding, we have identified some areas in which the resource
dispositions can and should be challenged. Each medium is addressed below.
Figure 6
crt
c
G
120
lOO-
J5
"o
Q
20
4,1 Ak
The Air program
receives a 39% increase in the
proposed budget for a total of
$112.4 million.(Figure 6). The
monies are primarily distributed
to meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, global climate
change, indoor air,
electromagnetic radiation and
air health. With respect to
specific pollutants, the
Subcommittee agrees that
ozone effects research is a
high priority. However, ORD
needs to reorient its efforts to
stress the effects of chronic expopsure to a greater extent (this recommendation has*
been made in the "Reducing Risk" report and is reiterated here). It is also agreed that
air toxics work is an important research area, but of the 189 air toxics mandated in the
CAA, only a relatively small number have sufficient information with which to establish
criteria documents, A relatively large number of those toxics pose a relatively small
risk compared to pollutants such as ozone,. Consequently, ORD should reexamine
the priorities for funding within the air program,
Exposure research is a cross-
cutting issue which is relevant
nt only to the air program and
humans but to all other media
and ecosystems. Cross~eutting
efforts such as these should be
carefully planned and
coordinated to preclude
overlap and maximize the utility
of resources.
4.2 Radiation
The radiation program
request totals $4 million,
(Figure 7) reflecting level
funding with the 1991 budget.
The research component focuses on determining exposure to and effects of radon
and electromagnetic radiation (EMR). EMR exposure is widely occurring in the U.S.
1990
1991
RADIATION
-------
and could, potentially, put our population at risk. Consequently, foe SAB's Radiattgn
Advisory Committee (RAG) recommends increased funding for this and
research.
4,3 Energy
Energy research funding
remains static for 1992 (Figure
8) at a level of$13.7 million. It
addresses two major areas of
research: acid precipitation
[which is coordinated through
an interagency task force of the
National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP)]
and the development and
testing of the limestone
injection multistage burner
(LIMB) in cooperation with the
Department of Energy,
Figure 9
Figure 8
1990 1991 1992
ENERGY
4.4 Water Quality
en
jo
"o
Q
Water quality research
Support increases from $27.7 to
$28,6 million (4%) in FY 1992
(Figure 9) with the funds going
primarily to Great Lakes
research, wetlands, wellhead
protection and Midwest
Agriculture Subsurface
Transport Research (MASTER)
, The Great Lakes research is
of long-standing national and
international importance. This
program is an excellent
example of cooperation among
EPA program offices, regions,
the states and foreign governments. It is an important component of the Environmental
Monitoring Analysis Program (EMAP) and as such provides a strong retrospective data
set upon which monitoring protocols can be developed. The lakes also provide an
excellent outdoor laboratory for sediment toxicity work. The zebra mussel work
conducted in this program is a congressional add-on that has become a high priority
issue for the Great Lakes. As mentioned earlier, this program also contains an
increase for MASTER, a program in which EPA cooperates closely with USDA and the
USGS in researching the fate of agricultural chemicals in ground water as welt as
methods for their control and prevention.
1990 1991 1992
WATER QUALITY
While the new activities are viewed favorably by the SAB, the concurrent
-------
decrease in the waste water treatment technology area is of great concern. The waste
water treatment technology research program was cut by nearly one half in 1991 due
to the reductions in the 1991 appropriation. This $2 million was not been restored in
1992, resulting in the loss of critical research on toxics treatabiiity. The pollution
prevention strategy, strongly endorsed by the administrator, is targeting selected
toxicants that industry must remove by 50% within a specified time frame. Many of
these toxicants find their way into waste water streams. Unlike conventional
pollutants, the full impact of these toxic materials can only be determined by
sophisticated bioassay procedures. Also, unlike the conventional pollutants which
have been studied for some time, little is yet known about the effectiveness of common
waste treatment processes in removing these toxicants. Without such work, the overall
pollution prevention strategy will be, weakened. And, although industry will seek to
prevent the discharge of such toxicants, funds must be made available to ensure their
identification.
4,5 Drinking Water
The drinking water program receives a 7% increase (for a total of $22.2 million)
in the proposed budget (Figure 10), primarily for gathering health assessment
information, evaluating analytical procedures to monitor drinking water and performing
research on the protection of underground drinking water. Conversely, the SAB
Figure 10
03
c
o
03
i_
"o
a
1990 1ii1 1992
DRINKING WATER
Drinking Water Committee has
expressed concerns about
continuing reductions in
research on disinfectant by-
products at a time when water
treatment facilities are laboring
with mitigation problems
concerning disinfection by-
products and selection of
alternative disinfectants to
reduce undesirable by-
products. The impending
promulgation of the disinfectant
by products rule will, thus, be
weakened by lack of
information regarding these by-
products. The SAB stronalv
recommends that this effort be supported at increased levels.
4.6 Hazardous Waste and LUST
Hazardous waste is increased from $39.2 million to $43.4 million for an
increase of 10% (See Figure 11). Research is directed toward bioremediation as a
tool for hazardous waste disposal, health effects of incineration and municipal solid
waste, oil spill cleanup (transferred from Superfund), and aquifer restoration (with
emphasis on the effectiveness of chemical and biological processes for cleaning up
beaches and shorelines). Considerable effort will also be expended on technology
-------
11
transfer activities. Pollution
prevention activity is also
receiving considerable
attention as is risk assessment
in both human and ecosystem
health areas. The program is
generally well-balanced and
the Subcommittee supports the
directions which it is taking.
The totat for the LUST
program remains constant from
1991 to 1992 at $0.8 million.
4.7 Pesticides
HAZARDOUS WASTE
The Pesticides program
request reflects an increase of $2,3 million to $14.9 million (an increase of 18%) in its
budget (Figure 12), New emphases include research on neurotoxicolgy, reproductive
toxicology, and exposure assessment.
Figure 12 The Pesticides program
and the Toxic Substances.
program are closeiy related in
that much of the research
conducted is similar (in fact,
often conducted by the same
scientists). The Subcommittee
is disappointed to note that
these two programs suffered a
$3.9 million cut in the 1991
budget with $1,6 million
reduction in the biotechnology
area. The 1992 budget
provides for an increase of only
$2.9 million for the two
programs, which results in an
overall reduction in support.
For example, ecological risk assessment in both programs is identified as an area
slated for increase. However, both programs were subjected to reductions in the 1991
Appropriation by an equal amount. Conseouentlv^Jhe Subcommittee strongly
recommends additional funding for these activities.
4.8 Toxic Substances
The Toxic Substances program is increased 5% from $25.5 million to $26,3 million
(See Figure 13), The increase is applied to initiating programs in neurotoxicology and
exposure assessment. The work in this program is closely allied to that in Pesticides,
and the Subcommittee again notes that the increases requested in both the pesticides
and toxic substances programs do not restore the 1991 reductions. Thus, the net
c
o
JB
"o
Q
1990 1991 1992
PESTICIDES
-------
o
effect in this program is an overall reduction, which would result in base program
redirections to fund new starts.
Figure 13
4.9 Multimedia
30-
Multimedia research
increases by $27.9 million
(23%) to $151.1 million {Figure
14), with the increases going to
a variety of activities including
academic research centers,
fellowships and traineeships,
E M A P , scientific
instrumentation, risk reduction,
scientific outreach, arctic
research and the extramural
grants program.
(0
CO
O
P
1990 1991 1992
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Traineeship and
fellowship programs are discussed in the overview section. The Subcommittee
reiterates its support.for the minority fellowship and the math and science education
programs jygd again recommends that the Congress and EPA make an effort to initiate
a graduate level environmental sciences ^nd engineering traineeshio/feHowship
program patterned after the now defunct ..National Defense Education Act fNDEA )
fellowship program.
Figure 14
tfj
w
CO
13
Q
160
ta
c
o
The Academic Research
Centers program was initiated
8 years ago with 8 centers in
scientific areas in which the
Agency lacked sufficient
expertise to conduct its own
research. These centers were
very successful and productive
and provided considerable
guidance which was relevant to
the Agency's needs. However,
over the years, funding for the
centers was not increased to
keep pace with rising costs, but
actually diminished in the face
of considerable cost of living
increases. Previously, the SAB
had recommended that funding for each of the centers be increased from
approximately $400 K to $2 million each so that they might operate more effectively.
This year the centers program will terminate the support of the 8 existing ctnters, and
will select 4 centers to be funded at about $1 million each. The Subcommittee urges
that centers be funded at this level and that this program suffer
20
1990 1991 1992
MULTIMEDIA
-------
no further cuts. We also urge the expansion of the Centers program to allow funding of
9 Centers at a minimum of $2 million each.
The Subcommittee was pleased with the new flexibility of utilizing R&D funds
for equipment shortages and modernization as welt as for laboratory operating
expenses. This spending authority can do much to make QRD laboratories premier
facilities as well as foster better extramural programs.
Participation in the federal high performance computing program (HPC) is also
commended. With the geographic information systems aspect of EMAP. Great Lakes
and Arctic programs, as weltas global climate change re search, we can expect a great
demand for thejComputino capabilities available with HPC. The Subcommittee urges
the ConQressJQ_sironQlv support this activitv-
The multimedia program is the focal point for the core research program in
ORD, It serves to coordinate risk assessment, reduction and uncertainty work. An
increase is requested in FY 1992 for core research in the exposure area. With proper
coordination, this entity could serve as a useful research management device for
exposure research throughout the Agency, Finally, the EMAP program is in the
process of implementation and is proposed for a $6.9 million increase.
The Subcommittee is distressed that the prior commitment to increase the
extramural grants program by $10 million dollars per year until it reached a level of
$50 miliion is not being implemented- This program has generated a high output of
top quality research in areas vitai to EPA, and provides a means of attracting highly
skilled researchers to the environmental science and engineering area as well as
creating research training opportunities for a new generation of scientists and
engineers. Consequently, the Subcommittee strongly urges additional fundino for the
grants program in FY 1992 and beyond.
With the above
exceptions, the committee is
pleased with the directions and
progress in the multimedia
program, its weli designed
components are important to
the continued vitality of EPA's
overall R&D efforts, and are
strongly supported by the
Board.
4.1O Syperfund
The Superfund research
program request ($68,6 million)
reflects decreases of $5.0
million in FY 1992. The
reduction (Figure 15) reflects 3 project terminations which were deemed appropriate
1990 1991 1992
SUPERFUND
-------
for funding from other sources. The decrease also reflects a minor one-time reduction
to the engineering site/situation assessment area, which will be of minimal impact.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EPA's Research and Development progam houses formidable scientific
capabilities many of which are unparalleled elsewhere. However, given the
growing complexity of environmental concerns, the rate of inflation, and the
nonexisttnee of adequate pools of scientific talent, the future of the program is
uncertain. Our citizens are extremely concerned about the quality of the environment
and demand a strong response to preserve its health. However, without an adequate
knowledge base upon which to act, the Agency will be unable to respond.
To a great extent, ORD has responded admirably to a myriad of environmental
concerns facing our nation, and even the world. Still, it will continue to be incapable of
providing an adequate response to environmental issues without a significant infusion
of resources. Base programs (both core and non-core) must be shored up to prevent
further erosion of the in-house capabilities. Extramural resources (including those for
competitive grants and centers) must be increased in order to foster innovative and
timely research by other leading researchers in the environmental research fields,
Finally, serious attention must be paid to the aging equipment and facilities of the
organization through increases each year which are earmarked for these areas,
The concerns cited above provide a broad summary of our concerns about the
R&D program. In addition to the essential support necessary in these general
categories, we also1 wish to reiterate several recommendations mentioned earlier
concerning specific items in the 1992 request:
1} Studies which stress the effects of chronic exposures to ozone should
receive higher priority.
2) Exposure research should be more carefully planned and
coordinated in order to maximize the use of resources and avoid overlap.
3) Research on exposure to and effects of radon and
electromagnetic radiation should be expanded,
4) Decreases in the wastewater treatment technology area should be
restored,
5) Research efforts on disinfectant by-products should not be reduced.
6) Efforts in ecological risk assessment and field validation in pesticides
and toxics should be dramatically increased,
7) Funding for academic research centers should be increased to provide
funding for 9 centers at $2.0 million each.
13
-------
------- |