United States EPA Science Advisory EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-007
Environmental Board (1400A) March 2002
Protection Agency Washington, DC www. epa.gov/sab
&EPA FY 2003 PRESIDENTIAL
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY BUDGET
REQUEST FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY;
AN SAB REVIEW
A REVIEW BY THE RESEARCH
STRATEGIES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (RSAC) OF THE
US EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY
BOARD (SAB)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 29, 2002
EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-007
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Review of the FY2003 Presidential Science and Technology Budget
Request for the Environmental Protection Agency: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Review
Dear Governor Whitman:
On February 20 and 21, 2002 the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of
the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) met to review the Science and Technology
component of the FY2003 Presidential Budget Request for the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). As in past years, this report was developed by the entire RSAC 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. RSAC's report was approved
by SAB's Executive Committee during a public meeting on March 6, 2002.
As part of the review process, the RSAC 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, RSAC notes that:
a) both EPA and ORD have specific Strategic Plans that continue to increasingly guide
their research activities
b) EPA has made much progress identifying major programmatic needs
c) improvement in coordination between ORD and the Program Offices continues
d) there has been satisfactory progress in accounting for the impact of research efforts
and,
e) initial progress has been made to define short-term and intermediate outcomes of the
EPA ORD research activities
RSAC strongly recommends the EPA and ORD "stay the course" and continue to make progress
with these efforts.
Further, while detailed responses to the charge questions are found in the body of the
report, the major findings and recommendations are:
a) RSAC was pleased to see a preliminary strategy for recruiting both junior and
established productive investigators to the Agency, although the committee
continues to have concerns that much of ORD's talent in certain areas may be
diminished by retirement. The recruitment and retention of post-docs at the
Agency has been quite successful and already borne fruit; young bright talent
from this pool of trainees has remained in the Agency.
RSAC recommends that EPA continue this post-doctoral program or a similar
one. In addition, RSAC recommends that ORD continue to explore, and
ultimately implement, a career path and recruitment program modeled after the
comparable NIH program.
b) The Committee is deeply concerned with the transfer of funds that support the STAR
Fellowship program to another Agency. This action is unlikely to result in
support of research that is responsive to Agency needs in environmental science
and policy, is inconsistent with ORD's Strategic Plan and undermines the goals
stated in the Plan including Goal 2 which has the specific objective to "recruit,
retain, and develop a highly qualified and diverse workforce". RSAC urges the
Agency and Congress to find approaches to continue funding of the STAR
Fellowship Program at EPA.
-------
c) RSAC recognizes that there is more science being conducted at EPA than is identified
in the S&T and the ORD budgets. Therefore, RSAC again recommends that EPA
continue with its Science Inventory efforts which catalogue science projects and
products, so as to capture and identify the extent of science being done at EPA.
RSAC recommends that this process continue to be expanded to include
development of an overall science planning process for the Agency that uses the
Science Inventory as reference.
d) RSAC recommends that EPA identify specific non-regulatory driven issues of high
importance to protecting human health, the environment, and ecosystems and in
the next budget (FY 2004) request adequate S&T funds to address approaches to
mitigate such risks. In addition, RSAC urges Congress to seriously consider such
budget requests and to provide needed budget, personnel and (if needed)
legislation to allow EPA to address such risks.
e) RSAC strongly recommends that if Congress adds specific projects or programs for
EPA, Congress also appropriate the funds needed for the successful completion of
the projects or programs it adds on to the S&T program budget as was done in the
current fiscal year appropriations. This Congressional action will minimize
impacts on the already scarce S&T budget for EPA.
f) RSAC encourages EPA to maintain and increase the investment in research needed to
meet the needs of the Agency. This is particularly important in emerging
scientific areas such as genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics. RSAC
continues to recommend that the Agency be vigilant in defining and maintaining
the core research needed to achieve a balanced S&T research program.
Further, RSAC suggests that the Agency take steps to evaluate whether the mix of risk
mitigation and risk characterization research is adequate to achieve the Agency's strategic goals.
It was not clear from the materials provided to the committee that there is adequate research
funding to ensure technological developments to mitigate existing risks and forestall the
introduction of new ones. Further coordination of research planning efforts may be required to
ensure the mix of risk characterization and mitigation research is appropriate.
As noted in our report to you last year, RSAC has launched on ongoing process to
evaluate the total S&T budget and funding needs in the context of its evaluation of the Agency's
multiyear plans and science inventory. We are also considering the science available in the
larger scientific community outside of EPA, and how the Agency identifies, accesses and uses
this information. We discussed this with Deputy Administrator Fisher who expressed an interest
that RSAC pursue three other key questions to provide an ongoing focus for the Committee's
activities:
a) How does EPA capture and use scientific knowledge generated by other organizations
(federal agencies, state agencies, industry, universities, private organizations) in
its multi-year planning efforts for the EPA research and development program?
-------
b) To what extent is there adequate peer review of the science available for policy and
regulatory decisions at EPA, particularly peer review of the planning for the R&D
program and of the products from the R&D program?
c) What is the assessment of the committee (RSAC) of the quality of the science being
done at EPA, particularly that supported by the S&T budget?
Some comments related to these questions are provided in Section 2.7. It is our intent to
further address these and other relevant issues in subsequent meetings. We will keep you
informed of our efforts.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide advice on the Science and
Technology component of the FY2003 Presidential Budget for EPA. The Research Strategies
Advisory Committee would be pleased to expand on any of the findings described in our report,
and we look forward to your response.
In closing, it is well recognized that in recent years the Agency has been assigned ever
more responsibilities. This has also been accompanied by calls to increase the extent to which
Agency action is based on "sound science". The only way in which it will be possible to meet
the expanded responsibilities, while improving the quality of the science used, is for the S&T
budget to be maintained an increased over time. The Committee urges the Agency to clearly
explain this need to the OMB and to Congress.
Sincerely,
/Signed/ /Signed/
Dr. William H. Glaze, Chair Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Chair
EPA Science Advisory Board Research Strategies Advisory Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA 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, 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 Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) met February 20 and 21, 2002 to review the Science and Technology portion of the FY
2002 Presidential Budget Request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . The
committee notes that both EPA and ORD have specific Strategic Plans that continue to
increasingly guide their research activities. It also notes that EPA has made much progress
identifying major programmatic needs, and that improvement in coordination between ORD and
the Program Offices continues. RSAC observes that there has been satisfactory progress in
accounting for the impact of research efforts, and that initial progress has been made to define
short-term and intermediate outcomes of the EPA ORD research activities.
RSAC is encouraged by the success of the ORD post doctoral program, but is deeply
concerned with the transfer of funds that support the STAR Fellowship program to another
Agency. RSAC urges the Agency and Congress to find approaches to continue funding of the
STAR Fellowship Program at EPA. The other RSAC recommendations are that:
a) EPA continue with its Science Inventory efforts which catalogue science projects and
products, so as to capture and identify the extent of science being done at EPA.
b) EPA identify specific non-regulatory driven issues of high importance to protecting
human health, the environment, and ecosystems and in the next budget (FY 2004)
request adequate S&T funds to address approaches to mitigate such risks.
c) if Congress adds specific projects or programs for EPA, Congress should also
appropriate the funds needed for the successful completion of the projects or
programs it adds on to the S&T program budget as was done in the current fiscal
year appropriations.
RSAC encourages EPA to maintain and increase the investment in research needed to meet the
needs of the Agency. This is particularly important in emerging scientific areas such as
genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics. RSAC continues to recommend that the Agency be
vigilant in defining and maintaining the core research needed to achieve a balanced S&T
research program. Further, the Committee urges the Agency to clearly explain to OMB and
Congress that the only way it will be possible to meet its expanded responsibilities while
improving the quality of the science used, is for the S&T budget to be maintained and increased
over time.
Keywords: GPRA, budget, research, strategic planning
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
CHAIR
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Hussein M. Alharthy Centennial Chair and Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
Also Member: Executive Committee
SAB MEMBERS
Dr. William Adams, Director, Environmental Affairs, Environmental Department, Kennecott Utah
Copper Corporation, Magna, UT
Dr. Steven Bartell, Principal, Cadmus Group, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN
Also Member: Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Dr. Richard Bull, Consulting Toxicologist, MoBull Consulting, Kennewick, WA
Dr. Robin Cantor, Principal and Managing Director, LECG, LLC, Washington, DC
Dr. Philip Hopke, Bayard D. Clarkson Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering,
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Also Member: Executive Committee
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. Alan Maki, Environmental Advisor, Exxon Mobil, Anchorage, AK
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Professor Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD
Dr. Maria Morandi, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science, University of Texas, Houston, TX
Dr. Mark Utell, Professor of Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Pulmonary Unit, University of
Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
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
Dr. John "Jack" R. Fowle III, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC
Ms. Betty Fortune, Office Assistant, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Schedule 1
1.2 Charge to the Committee 2
1.3 Format of this Report 3
2. RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE 4
2.1 Alignment Between Budget Priorities and Strategic Plans 4
2.2 Coordination Between ORD and the Program Offices 6
2.3 Balance Between and Attention to Core and Problem-Driven Research 8
2.4 Focus of Research on Strategic Objectives and Unmet Needs 10
2.5 Focus on Environmental Outcomes 14
2.6 Other Comments 14
2.7 Continuing Issues 15
APPENDIX A - ACRONYMS A-l
APPENDIX B - BUDGET OBSERVATIONS B-l
APPENDIX C - BIOSKETCHES C-l
IV
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Schedule
RSAC is composed of senior members of the SAB, including past chairs, and it includes
members from most of the other standing committees of the Board. The Committee has
reviewed the Office of Research and Development's (ORD) budget request annually for more
than a decade. This is the fourth year that all of the Science and Technology (S&T) components
in Agency Program Offices were reviewed, and it is the fourth year that a GPRA goal-based
budget was presented. The purpose of this review is to provide the Agency and Congress with
advice and insight on the adequacy of the FY 2003 President's budget request to implement a
science program of high quality that is responsive to EPA's needs. The Committee was provided
with background documents supplied by the Agency, supplemented by briefings from Agency
senior managers and presentations from staff of the House Science Committee, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Chemical Society during the
meeting.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) review of the proposed Science and Technology
budget for the Environmental Protection Agency is an annual event. The timing associated with
the public availability of the budget materials often makes scheduling of a formal review
difficult. Reviews completed by RSAC also require formal public review and approval by the
SAB's Executive Committee. This year, the budget materials were released in early February,
with various review materials made available to the Committee between February 4 and
February 14. The Committee met on February 20 and 21, 2002, with formal review and
approval of its report by the Executive Committee on March 6 , 2002.
Generally, the Chair or another Member of the RSAC provides expert testimony to the
House Committee on Science during its annual budget hearings, which are normally scheduled
shortly after the release of the proposed budget. This year's budget hearing will be held in April
with Dr. Raymond Loehr, RSAC Chair, testifying on behalf of the committee and the Board.
This year RSAC reviewed the S&T and the ORD Fiscal Year 2003 budget categories.
EPA's Science and Technology Program is designed to produce the necessary scientific
knowledge and tools to support decisions on preventing, abating or regulating environmental
pollution and to advance the base of understanding in the environmental sciences.
The Agency's science and technology efforts are conducted through contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements with universities, industries, other private commercial firms, nonprofit
organizations, State and local governments, and Federal agencies, as well as through work
performed at EPA's 12 laboratories and various field stations and field offices. The S&T account
funds activities such as developing and improving sampling and analytical methods and
instruments for measuring pollutants; determining the effects of pollutants on animals, plants,
materials, and the general environment; researching the processes that lead to pollution;
evaluating technologies for preventing and controlling pollution; and developing guidelines and
research tools to improve risk assessments. This account also provides for S&T operating
expenses such as personnel salary and benefits, laboratory supplies and materials, operation and
1
-------
maintenance of lab facilities, equipment, Automatic Data Processing (ADP) support, human
resource development, and printing. Beginning in FY 1996, this account also funds Hazardous
Substance research formerly appropriated in the Superfund account.
RSAC recognizes that there is more science being conducted at EPA than is identified in
the S&T and the ORD budgets. Therefore, RSAC again recommends that EPA continue with its
Science Inventory efforts which catalogue science projects and products, so as to capture and
identify the extent of science being done at EPA. RSAC recommends that this process continue
to be expanded to include development of an overall science planning process for the Agency
that uses the Science Inventory as reference.
Overall, on the basis of its review, RSAC notes that:
a) both EPA and ORD have specific Strategic Plans that continue to increasingly guide
their research activities
b) there has been much progress on identifying the major programmatic needs
c) improvement in coordination between ORD and the Program Offices continues
d) there has been satisfactory progress in accounting for the impact of research efforts,
and
e) initial progress has been made to define short-term and intermediate outcomes of the
EPA ORD research activities
RSAC strongly recommends the EPA and ORD "stay the course" and continue to make progress
with these efforts.
1.2 Charge to the Committee
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?
Responses to these questions, and to other issues the Committee wishes to address, are
provided to both the Agency and the Congress.
1.3 Format of this Report
Following this Introduction, the report provides specific responses to the questions in the
Charge to the Committee (Chapter 2).
-------
2. RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE
2.1 Alignment Between Budget Priorities and Strategic Plans
Charge Question: Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in the EPA and
ORD Strategic Plans?
The answer to this question is yes. The budget request generally reflects the priorities
identified in the EPA and ORD strategic plans. However, it is difficult to address this charge
question in detail with the information presented to RSAC. A more complete answer to the
question would be facilitated by constructing a matrix listing the research priorities extracted
from each of the ORD Strategic Plan goals and mapping them against the corresponding enacted
FY 2002 and requested FY 2003 S&T funding for each research priority. Organization of
materials in this manner for future budget reviews would help RSAC answer this charge question
more thoroughly.
The Presidential Science and Technology (S&T) budget request for EPA was similar to
the levels requested in the last three years. The S&T budget request increased by $46 million
from last year's enacted budget primarily due to additional funds for the Homeland Security
Program. RSAC found the funding request priorities to be consistent with the environmental
goals established in the Agency Strategic Plan. However, RSAC remains concerned about
ORD's ability to fully meet these environmental goals in future years within the limitations of a
level budget that may force the Agency to not be able to fund projects and programs that are
critically needed to meet GPRA goals and strategic objectives.
In terms of financial resources, the S&T component of the total Agency budget (i.e., for
ORD plus the Program Offices) is approximately 10%. This percentage has remained
approximately the same for more than a decade. RSAC notes that the current and future
environmental and health problems have become increasingly complex. For instance, many of
the pressing environmental problems are not separate air or water media-specific problems,
rather they are integrated multi-media problems. As another example, the environmental
problems facing humans and ecosystems are not chemical-specific. Rather they are system issues
related to low environmental concentrations of mixtures of contaminants and other stressors.
The budget request for the Office of Research and Development alone for F Y 2003
increased by $92 million from the FY 2002 President's budget and by $35 million from the FY
2002 enacted budget. As is the case for the overall EPA S&T budget, this increase is largely the
result of funding for activities related to Homeland Security. RSAC is pleased to see this
increase as it reflects the Committee's recommendation last year that ORD's budget be increased
by 1% per year.
RSAC has the following comments on specific issues that need to be addressed by
existing or new programs in order to make further progress towards the achievement of the
Agency's and ORD's strategic goals.
-------
a) Risk Characterization and Risk Mitigation - Several of the Agency's strategic goals
involve both risk characterization and risk mitigation. In the early stages of the
federal environmental program development in the United States, much greater
emphasis was placed on characterization over mitigation because it could be
plausibly argued that environmental and related human health problems had to be
understood before they could be solved. New environmental problems arise
continuously as a feature of increasing population, industrialization and
globalization. Consequently, there will always be a need to characterize risk.
However, the Agency should ensure that programs developed to satisfy strategic
goals reflect the appropriate balance between risk characterization and risk
mitigation.
b) Extent of the Scope of Global Environmental Programs - RSAC applauds the
Agency's efforts on global climate change and associated technical activities.
However, the Committee notes that Agency program plans do not cover some
elements that naturally fit within its mandate to protect human health and the
environment. It is recommended that the Agency use its mandate and its
interactions with other agencies to act on such global environmental issues as
environmental sustainability indexing, valuation of natural resources, industrial
ecology, environmental aspects of natural disasters, and long-range transport of
air-borne pollutants.
In developing programs to satisfy its strategic goals on international
environmental programs, the Agency should ensure that it does not focus
exclusively on regions in which the United States has terrestrial boundaries with
other countries. Pollutants can come into the United States from very distant
regions. For example, it is now becoming clear that significant quantities of air
pollutants are being transported over the Pacific Ocean from the rapidly
developing nations of eastern Asia such that these pollutants contribute to a rise in
the "background" concentrations of criteria and other pollutants in non-attainment
areas. Coordination with the appropriate countries to help identify the sources
would allow EPA and the public to better understand source/receptor
relationships that affect the U.S. population.
c) Effective Workforce Development and Maintenance Strategy - RSAC has previously
noted that nearly 50% of the ORD workforce is over the age of 50. To remain
vital, the Agency must continue to assemble the next generation of Agency
scientists and engineers. As one approach, in 1999, ORD began a multi-year
effort to enhance the EPA workforce through its post-doctoral program. This
program has been successful and has allowed EPA to:
i) bring fresh perspectives and new skills to the EPA research program,
ii) improve workforce diversity,
iii) assist with succession planning, and
-------
iv) contribute new ideas and concepts to important areas such as
particulate matter research, ecological risk assessment and human
exposure modeling.
RSAC recommends that EPA continue this post-doctoral program or a similar
one. In addition, RSAC recommends that ORD continue to explore, and
ultimately implement, a career path and recruitment program modeled after the
comparable NIH program. This would allow ORD to recruit experienced
researchers in areas targeted for development following a model where the
researcher is given a 5-6 year appointment to develop a credible research
program. As in academia, these scientists would not be provided permanent
status (i.e. tenure) until the end of this period. It is RSAC's opinion that this
approach would be a strong asset to the core research program of ORD. It would
enhance the reputation of ORD in the scientific community and ultimately
increase the credibility of the Agency's regulatory programs. It also provides an
avenue for the recruitment of established scientists by offering market-based
compensation packages.
In contrast to the above positive actions, RSAC is deeply concerned with the
transfer of funds that support the STAR Fellowships program to another Agency.
To have a continuing strong research and development program at ORD, it is
imperative that there be an influx of younger competent researchers. The STAR
Fellowships program, initiated in FY 1995, was seen as an efficient mechanism to
substantially improve the quality of science and scientific staff within the Agency.
At that time, it was recognized that existing NIH, NSF and other fellowship
programs were not producing quality environmental scientists with solid
ecological backgrounds. The track record is clear; the STAR Fellowships have
produced numerous valuable contributions to Agency science. Because they have
been administered by EPA they have supported a wide array of work that broadly
responds to Agency needs in environmental science and policy. A fellowship
program administered by another organization, such as NSF, will be influenced
by a very different organizational culture, and will thus be much less likely to
support work that is as supportive of, and responsive to, Agency needs. Further,
the elimination of STAR Fellowships is inconsistent with ORD's Strategic Plan
and undermines the goals stated in the strategic plan including Goal 2 - to be a
high-performing organization - which has the specific objective to "recruit,
retain, and develop a highly qualified and diverse workforce". RSAC urges the
Agency and Congress to find approaches to continue funding of the STAR
Fellowship Program at EPA.
2.2 Coordination Between ORD and the Program Offices
Charge question: 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. RSAC commends ORD on the development and implementation of its planning
structure for research. The links with the Program Offices are solid and allow for better use of
science in the regulatory arenas of the Program Offices. The Committee was impressed with the
continued progress made by EPA to heighten the level of interaction between ORD and Program
Offices. It appeared that ORD has structured its research activities based on its Strategic Plan
but with consideration of the needs of the Program Offices within EPA.
Presentations from program staff and their discussions with the Committee supported
RSAC's perception that there have been tremendous strides in communication between ORD and
Program Offices. Representatives from the Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances; the Office of Air and Radiation; the Office of Water; and the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response all emphasized the collaborative environment that has been
established by ORD. In future evaluations of the S&T account, it would be helpful for RSAC to
know the research needs of the Program Offices that could not be met by ORD.
The Committee was also impressed by the comments in the presentations that the
research outputs from ORD were being used for regulatory support by the Program Offices. The
PM Research program was particularly impressive. It has produced many important results that
begin to address the substantial uncertainties that the NRC identified as crucial research
priorities following the promulgation of the PM 2.5 standard.
RSAC considers the ORD-OIG (Office of Inspector General) Pilot Program described
during the presentations to be an excellent initial framework for monitoring research program
progress and for measuring the impact of this research. When fully developed and applied to
specific research programs, this model will provide a useful depiction of ORD's research with
the Program Office needs by specifically identifying long-, intermediate-, and short-term
outcomes, customers, resources, activities and outputs.
Additionally, ORD should explore better mechanisms for establishing liaisons with other
federal agencies working in the environmental arena. Many of these agencies are conducting
research in relevant areas that could obviously benefit from and synergize with EPA's programs.
There is potentially much to gain from increasing liaisons with FDA, USFWS, USAGE, BLM,
NMFS, NIEHS, DOE, DOD, NIOSH, etc. The committee is aware that many collaborations
between EPA and these and other agencies are underway but the nature and extent of these
collaborations is not clear to RSAC. This would be a productive future topic for EPA discussion
with the committee.
ORD should also consider enhanced liaisons with the private sector. Many industries and
contract consulting firms have significant research expertise that would significantly
complement EPA's efforts. A specific example is the area of Brownfields restoration. Industry
has developed significant new and innovative approaches that could assist EPA efforts in this
area.
Another suggestion is that a quality management plan could help the Agency better
integrate the research program elements with its GPRA Goals During the past few years, the
7
-------
Agency has developed specific GPRA goals that set forth specific levels of environmental
improvement to be achieved and indices of their measurement as a means of evaluating the
success of its programs. It is recognized that GPRA goals cannot be met in most cases, in a
single year of program implementation, and that some of the projects that are focused on
research to understand environmental processes may not fit into the GPRA scheme. The Agency
has developed a quality system that was reviewed by the Environmental Engineering Committee
of the Science Advisory Board. It may be beneficial to apply that system to the budget
development process in the future because it provides a mechanism for establishing project goals
within program strategic plans, and for evaluating project outcomes within the context of stated
strategic goals.
2.3 Balance Between and Attention to Core and Problem-Driven Research
Charge question: 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?
The committee was not able to answer this question affirmatively in the time available
and with the information provided. ORD feels that the research efforts identified as associated
with Goal 8 of the Agency's Strategic Plan are mostly the core research projects. ORD also feels
that its efforts associated with Goals 1-7 of the Agency Strategic Plan are more appropriately
categorized as problem-driven research. With these definitions, the FY2003 ORD request
allocates approximately 38% and 49% of the budget, respectively, to core (Goal 8) and problem-
driven research areas (Goals 1 through 7) and this year 12% of the budget request is devoted to
Homeland Security. This allocation is probably consistent with the balance recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and with ORD's strategic plan. However, RSAC is
concerned about the ORD's ability to maintain a balanced core and problem- driven S&T
program because of the increasing pressures from Program Offices for more attention to
problem-driven research.
RSAC's review of the President's budget found ample evidence that the need to balance
core and problem-driven research is recognized by the Agency. During calendar year 2001,
RSAC had the opportunity to review the content of two Multi-Year plans (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} for important research programs and received
briefings on several Research Program plans. These activities reinforced the impression that the
Agency is paying increasing attention to the necessary interplay between the two types of
research activities. That being said, it is frequently difficult to draw a bright line in categorizing
research projects into one category or the other. 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 out of a core research program. Therefore, RSAC strongly recommends that the
Agency be vigilant in defining and maintaining core research needed to achieve a balanced S&T
research program.
-------
Overall, RSAC is pleased with the Agency's continued attention to the planning of both
its core and problem-driven research programs. However, the Committee offers the following
observations.
Despite the lack of distinct boundaries between problem-driven and core research, RSAC
believes that the overviews in the "Summary of the 2003 Budget" could have provided a clearer
distinction between the two types of effort. In some instances, as identified above, the problem-
driven research appears to be of a more fundamental character than research areas described
under Goal 8. In other descriptions it is difficult to distinguish between the research identified in
the program goals and that under the Sound Science goal. Examples where the distinctions are
not clear include descriptions of ecosystem research under Goal 2 and Goal 8. As written, these
sections seem to suggest that developing the baseline information characterizing aquatic
ecosystems would be developed under Goal 8, whereas the measures and indicators of ecological
trends are under Goal 2. This could lead some readers to the conclusion that the Agency has
confused core and problem-oriented research. However, the presentations by the Agency of the
Water Quality Multi-Year plan made it clear that developing the baselines in different regions
are indeed the fundamental step that must be taken for the program office to understand trends.
It is also clear that 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 RSAC to evaluate whether the President's budget request is adequate to
support the research needed to satisfactorily inform the current and future decisions EPA will be
required to make. An example of this issue is the following. The problem-driven research
efforts identified in the Clean Air, Clean and Safe Water, and Safe Foods program goals were
not identified in the highlights or in the annual performance goals. This was in sharp contrast to
the relatively straight forward performance goals state under Goal 8 (Sound Science). This
could suggest to the reader of the 2003 Budget Summary that science and research are either not
important to these programs or that ORD has not committed to performance measures.
However, the Committee was satisfied from the presentations that neither of these were the case,
but has concerns about the impression this leaves as to how science is valued within the Agency.
In addition, EPA does not have an apparent core research program in some areas where a
strong argument could be made that it should develop core capabilities. For instance, the FY
2003 proposed budget also contains two modest proposals to enhance the Agency's capabilities
in Biotechnology Research and Computational Toxicology. The RSAC endorses the new
attention placed on these areas. However, it appeared that sizeable portions of these small
programs were to be extramural. 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
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 simple categorization
schemes (i.e. children's health, women's health) on which the Agency now depends. There is
-------
much interest in such approaches within the regulated community and such approaches could
necessarily become an important part of the Program Office activities within a 5-10 year time
frame. Because of the transformational influence that these advances can have for the Agency's
regulatory programs, the RSAC is of the opinion that most of these resources should be devoted
to the development of in-house capabilities. While RSAC is supportive of identifying areas of
research for the extramural programs, we are concerned that this area will be critical to the
Agency's mission in the relatively near term.
2.4 Focus of Research on Strategic Objectives and Unmet Needs
Charge Question: 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?
In general RSAC is of the opinion that the EPA ORD research program addresses most of
the important issues needed to meet EPA's strategic objectives. RSAC members commend EPA
for its attention to organizing the S&T information within the structure of the ten EPA goals.
This organization of information facilitates the analysis of the S&T efforts across offices and
also highlights the coordination among the offices. The RSAC agreed that budget and program
details were more easily understood in this structure than occurred with formats used in previous
years.
RSAC members encourage program staff to continue these efforts to articulate how
investments in S&T contribute to the EPA strategic plan. Along these lines, the RSAC
recommends that in future presentations and descriptions of the budget request, EPA staff focus
on a clearer delineation of the major S&T priorities in each office and explicitly link these
priorities to goals and budget levels. In a number of cases, neither the written materials nor the
presentations made these links explicit. These links are important to assess whether or not the
investments are addressing important issues at appropriate dollar and staffing levels. Appendix A
describes a number of examples where this was problematic.
On the question of issues that may not be receiving adequate attention, RSAC members
identified two types of concerns. The first concern arose from cases where worthy research
priorities were identified by the EPA staff in their presentations, but information about funding
or staffing levels appeared inconsistent with a meaningful commitment to the research. For
example, the presentation of the Office of Air and Radiation indicated that the impact of indoor
air on asthma was a science priority. Research to address this priority was not explicitly stated
as a key program. Apparently, this research is funded under "indoor environments." RSAC
members found that the level of funding in this area, which appears to be flat relative to last year,
may not be sufficient to give the issue the attention it needs. While it is obvious that EPA
certainly cannot undertake a major scientific program that would encompass all possible areas of
research in asthma, and since many other agencies are already involved in extensive research
10
-------
endeavors to curtail this disease, EPA needs to articulate clearly the unique role its research
plays in the important environmental aspects of the 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 to control this disease.
Similarly, ORD's biotechnology and National Environmental Technology Competition did not
appear at this point to have clearly defined objectives or scope. Based upon the information
presented to the committee, these priority investment areas did not seem well developed.
RSAC also noted that when a legislative mandate is absent, "orphan" risks (even when
known) remain unattended in the budgeting process. As we have noted in the past, the estimated
health risks from hazardous constituents in indoor air are widely judged by scientists working in
this arena to be greater than those posed by emissions from point, area, and mobile sources. Yet
research to reduce residual uncertainties and risks from indoor air, or to devise intervention
strategies in this area, is not well-funded in comparison to the more traditional regulated sources
of airborne hazards. 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 to airborne
contaminants and the associated health risks.
These are symptoms of a broader problem that is reflected in other areas. EPA scientific
and technology (S&T) efforts obviously need to focus on issues required by the current
legislation and regulations. It is equally obvious that the EPA S&T efforts, both in ORD and the
specific programs, need to focus on other important environmental issues that are affecting or
could affect human health and the environment. Just as there needs to be a proper balance
between problem-driven and core research in EPA, so too should there be an appropriate mix of
S&T and research programs that address regulatory-driven issues and non-regulatory issues.
RSAC notes that the major focus of the EPA S&T, including ORD, research is on
regulatory-driven research.
Therefore, RSAC recommends that EPA:
a) identify specific non-regulatory driven issues of high importance to protecting human
health, the environment, and ecosystems and
b) in the next budget (FY 2004) request adequate S&T funds to address approaches to
mitigate such risks.
In addition, RSAC urges Congress to seriously consider such budget requests and to
provide needed budget, personnel and (if needed) legislation to allow EPA to address such risks.
The second type of concern regarding adequate attention focused on areas which either
have been removed from the budget or do not seem to considered sufficiently as priority areas.
Specific research or investment areas in this category are:
11
-------
a) Climate change research. RSAC applauds the Agency on its Global Climate Research
program. The committee was concerned, however, that climate change research is
an area that demands more EPA involvement. The committee did not find that
the presentations and materials addressed innovations or new investments in this
area. For example, the committee did not understand why EPA has not been
included in the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) efforts.
b) Pathogens. The summaries of the goals that drive the EPA funding have identified
many important areas in which the Agency should invest science dollars and
expertise. However, it is often difficult to be sure that the emphasis and funding
for these activities are adequate. Some funding must be directed to the area but it
is not clear that the balance is adequate. For example, pathogens and biological
agents are important contaminants of drinking water, recreational waters,
ecological systems and food supplies. Changes in potential pathogens using
different disinfection practices or in the presence of stressors in waterways are
likely areas of research. Only the research agenda under the safe drinking water
goal includes a discussion of the importance of microbes under the Candidate
Contaminant List (CCL). The focus of the discussion was on monitoring,
measures of outcome in humans and treatment technologies. The documents do
not provide a clear picture of how much of the science budget in several area
goals where these contaminants are important is devoted to basic research on
pathogens.
c) Risk Communication. RSAC is supportive of ORD's framework for program
evaluation. Committee members noted, however, that program success was often
dependent on appropriate and effective risk communication. Despite the plans to
apply risk communication, there was no indication in the presentations or written
materials of any investments in the science supporting effective risk
communication outside of the grant process.
d) Decision making research. RSAC also supported the investments to increase the
science to support regulatory decisions. RSAC agrees that adding personnel to
address key issues in the regulatory development process is a worthwhile
investment. These investments, however, appear targeted to the internal EPA
decision making process and do not address any investments in the science of
decision making. ORD should consider that enhancing the links between science
and decision making is also a process capable of being improved by sound
research.
e) Sediments. Sediments are an important component of the EPA's research program.
The Committee has identified two areas that appear to have insufficient resources
or are not a clear focus of the Agency programs. These areas deal with sediment
assessment of contaminants and improving water quality criteria through
development of bioavailability models and assessment of dietary exposure. In
12
-------
brief, the Agency has developed sediment assessment guidelines for some metals
(sulfide binding to AVS) and for non-polar organic substances (equilibrium
partitioning), but has not addressed other classes of substances, low sulfide and
low carbon environments, or high energy systems where equilibrium conditions
do not exist. Nor has the Agency developed an overall integrated (chemical and
biological) approach for assessing contaminated sediments. While the Agency
has indicated that a Sediment Plan has been developed, it is not clear that it covers
all the issues described above and the committee questions whether $0.7M is an
adequate level of funding. For example, the Agency has recognized for some
time that there is a need to incorporate dietary exposure into its water quality
criteria approach (for substances with high binding affinity). This is a major gap
in the existing approach and there does not appear to be a program focused on this
topic. An area of increasing interest is the potential for contaminated suspended
solids to be an important pathway for dietary uptake by bivalves and mollusks.
g) Clean and Safe water. The extent to which funding is provided for the following three
important research areas is not clear to the Committee
1) nutrient impacts and means to establishing mitigation and water quality criteria
(RSAC acknowledges on-going research at the Agency, for instance at
EPA's Mid-Continent Ecology Division in Duluth, Minnesota but the
extent of the work was not made clear to the Committee)
2) risk of infectious diseases resulting from both microbial and viral exposure, not
just for humans, but for aquatic life as well
3) impacts of suspended solids upon aquatic life both from the view point of
physical damage, but also due to chemical contaminants carried with
suspended solids.
h) Drinking Water from Impaired Sources. 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 (NRC, 1998, "Issues in Potable Reuse: The viability of
augmenting drinking water supplies with reclaimed water". National Academy
Press, Washington, DC. pp. 17-20 and 31-43). In part, this is because important
contaminants in these sources often do not conform to expectations and can range
from novel precursors of disinfection by-products to hormonally active
compounds and pharmaceuticals. As source water shortages will impact the
water supplies of the nation, it is becoming increasingly important to identify
what is an acceptable water supply and what mitigation strategies are necessary to
make impaired waters suitable for drinking water.
13
-------
2.5 Focus on Environmental Outcomes
Charge Question: 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?
It is a challenge to answer this question other than in a very general way. The ability to
quantify and effectively communicate the impact of EPA's research has been difficult because of
the lack of clearly defined outcomes that could be used to monitor progress towards the
attainment of program goals, as well as to measure the impact of research activities at EPA.
During the presentations , ORD described a logical framework for developing outcome
measures. The approach is consistent with earlier discussions during previous RSAC reviews,
and the Committee would like to contribute to and assist EPA through consultation or other
suitable venues as it proceeds to further develop outcome measures within the proposed
framework.
In order for RSAC to provide advice as to how to improve the existing measures of
performance, the Agency needs to present the supporting technical materials that lead to the
derivation of specific Annual Performance Goals. For example, listed outcomes include "reduce
energy consumption by 95 billion kilowatt hours, restrict domestic consumption of class II
HCFCs below 9,960 OOP-weighted metric tonnes, complete 22,500 LUST cleanups", etc. It is
not clear that these goals have any technical basis nor are they specifically related to any Agency
research and development program. Lacking clear justification for selected Annual Performance
Goals, the identified performance measures might be trivial or entirely infeasible in relation to
funds provided by Congress.
A second step towards better use of measures of performance lies in determining which
outcomes or what percentage of specific outcomes are influenced by activities outside the
Agency and its R&D programs. In other words, if desired outcomes are measured, how is it
determined that Agency activities were the primary causal mechanism? Finally, for outcomes
that derive solely from Agency activities, relationships must be established between the
magnitude of funding and the degree of performance as evidenced by environmental outcomes.
Such relationships, while likely uncertain, may indicate funding thresholds necessary for any
measurable performance, as well as funding amounts that result in diminishing returns on R&D
investments.
It could be possible and useful to include economic and social dimensions in this
framework to assist in the decision making processes. RSAC is interesting in hearing about
relevant economic and social science research at a future EPA presentation.
2.6 Other Comments
Recent years have seen the Agency assigned ever more responsibilities. This has also
been accompanied by calls to increase the extent to which Agency action is based on "sound
science". The only way in which it will be possible to meet the expanded responsibilities, while
continuing to assure the quality of the science used, is for the S&T budget to be maintained and
14
-------
increased over time. The Committee urges the Agency to clearly explain this need to the OMB
and to Congress.
Further, RSAC encourages EPA to maintain and increase the investment in research
needed to meet the needs of the Agency. This is particularly important in emerging scientific
areas such as genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics. RSAC continues to recommend that the
Agency be vigilant in defining and maintaining the core research needed to achieve a balanced
S&T research program.
The ORD S&T budget request for FY 2003 did not include funds for Congressionally
directed add-on (so-called earmarked) projects. RSAC commends Congress for providing
additional funding to support these directed activities in the FY 2002 budget and strongly
recommends that Congress continue to appropriate the additional funds needed for the successful
completion of the projects or programs it adds on to the S&T program budget. This
Congressional action will minimize impacts on the already scarce S&T budget for EPA.
To identify its core and problem-driven research priorities and projects, ORD has
undertaken a careful research planning process in coordination with the Agency's Program
Offices. RSAC believes that both the S&T budget, including the ORD budget, is the result of a
sound and appropriate prioritization of Agency needs and distribution of resource levels at the
allocated resource levels. If additional programs or projects are added to ORD by Congress
without the appropriate additional funds, it is not likely that ORD will be able to accomplish its
identified goals and objectives.
2.7 Continuing Issues
In addition to the five specific charge questions, RSAC was asked to address additional
questions in this review and in subsequent RSAC meetings The following provide comments
from RSAC related to these additional questions. This was not specifically discussed with the
Agency during the budget review. The responses result from the RSAC members experiences
with EPA and from the RSAC review of the FY 2003 S&T budget request for EPA.
a) How does EPA capture and use scientific knowledge generated by other organizations
in its multi-year planning efforts for the EPA research and development
program?
Based on several internal documents and associated presentations made by Agency
personnel to various committees of the SAB, the Agency has developed elaborate mechanisms
nested in many of its program offices for planning and implementing research programs. For
example, external peer review, particularly when incorporated early in the development of a
program, constitutes a venue for incorporating knowledge developed elsewhere. Usually, the
criteria for selecting specific topics are those that relate directly to regulatory expediencies,
congressional /judicial mandates, specific elements of Agency strategic plans, and resource
constraints. Although it is recognized that great benefits can be derived from more extensive use
of knowledge (approaches, methodologies and data) generated by other organizations, it is not
evident that a systematic approach has been developed to achieve this. Joint funding of research
15
-------
projects with other agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the US Geological
Surveys should be encouraged but such programs do not go far enough, with respect to analysis
and use of data from external research-performing organizations. While peer review by external
scientists is a necessary process for evaluation of Agency approaches to problem characterization
and mitigation, it is not a substitute for the creation of a mechanism for continuous adaptation of
state-of-the-art information from external entities, into agency research programs. This is
necessary because most of the issues that the Agency is tackling are too large to be effectively
treated within the constraints of the Agency's intellectual and material resources.
One issue that may arise with respect to use of external scientific information is bias.
Some may argue that information supplied by industries or environmental organizations is too
skewed to serve public interest. There is also some concern in the scientific community that the
universe of publications on a issue may be biased towards research that shows or implies
positive associations between stressors and outcomes, reflecting a resistance among journals and
their reviewers to publish negative findings. A transparent process of evaluation can minimize
the ravages of such biases if they are present. Some of the tools and mechanisms that the agency
can use to use to capture and use scientific knowledge generated by other organizations are
briefly outlined below:
i) Sponsorship of state-of-the-science reviews of issues associated with its
program plans within each of the strategic goals to better refine and focus
its efforts on uncovered issues.
ii) Development of regular forums with other federal agencies, industrial research
institutes and science/policy focused environmental groups to solicit for
data for input into its internal research planning and implementation
programs.
b) To what extent is there adequate peer review of the science available for policy and
regulatory decisions at EPA, particularly peer review of the planning for the R
and D program and of the products from the R and D program?
The Agency has many mechanisms for peer review. A recent presentation made by
Agency officials to the Executive Committee of the SAB indicates that there are at least twenty
external advisory organizations to the Agency, of which the SAB is one. The Agency also
produces hundreds of documents that describe methodologies, regulatory approaches, data, etc,
each year. These products, some of which support policy and regulatory decisions, have various
levels of scientific content.
RSAC is aware that the Agency has developed peer review rules, approaches and
procedures in its Science Policy Council Handbook of Peer Review (EPA100-B-98-001), which
was reviewed by RSAC in September 1999 ("An SAB Report: Review of the Peer Review
Program of the Environmental Protection Agency", EPA-SAB-RSAC-00-002), and the
application of this guidance to specific products in June 2001 ("Implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Peer Review Program: An SAB Evaluation of Three
16
-------
Reviews", EPA-SAB-RSAC-01-009) . Appropriately, with respect to decision-making by the
Agency, the policy "requires peer review of the basis for the decision (i.e., underlying major
scientific and/or technical work products), not the decision itself." Thus it should always be
recognized that adequate scientific peer review can lead to, but not guarantee a solely
scientifically-based decision because decision makers do not necessarily base their decisions
only on scientific facts. However, the basis for decision making, including all scientific and non-
scientific considerations, should be clearly delineated by the decision maker.
With this understanding, it is fair to state that the Agency has developed a systematic
process for scientific peer review of its products. Agency program officers, who are involved in
science and technology-related projects should be continuously aware of the definitions and
protocols that are described in the peer-review guidance. Particularly, the definition of an
independent peer-reviewer is very important. On page 21 of EPA 100-B-98-001, it is stated " An
independent peer reviewer is an expert who was not associated with the generation of the
specific work product either directly by substantial contribution to its development or indirectly,
by significant consultations during the development of the specific product. In conclusion, the
Agency's science and technology peer review process, especially of its products, is reasonably
good. Unfortunately, stakeholders may not always differentiate between the soundness of the
science that went into decision-making, amidst other factors, and the concerns with the decisions
made. Frequently, such decisions have both merits and demerits because of the compromises
necessary to strike a balance among many competing issues and factors.
c) What is the assessment of the committee (RSAC) of the quality of the science being
done at EPA, particularly that supported by the S and T budget?
The Agency's leadership mandate on each of its eight strategic goals implies that it has to
be at the fore-front of efforts to develop and/or adapt techniques, information and measures to
identify, characterize and mitigate new and/or persistent risks to human health and the
environment. Undoubtedly, the Agency has made and documented many high-quality
accomplishments in science and technology. Many cycles of SAB review of models and research
data produced by EPA laboratories, often in collaboration with academic institutions, indicate
that the scientific quality of most of its products is high. Often, related issues are covered by
other Agencies with larger resources on those issues. For example, the Centers for Disease
Control and the National Institutes for Health are likely to treat environmental-related health
issues more extensively and intensively than the EPA but the EPA can not avoid involvement in
complementary research, even in those sectors because it needs core competencies of its own to
effectively implement its programs.
In recent years, the Agency has achieved significant accomplishments in research and
development. As documented in the report: Research Accomplishments-Fiscal Years 1997-1998
(EPA 600-R-99-106), among these accomplishments are development of advanced methods of
environmental monitoring using satellite imagery and ground-based ecological measurements;
evaluation of chemical interference with endocrine systems of animals; creation of computer-
based models of long-range transport of air pollutants; and development of improved methods of
contaminant detection in drinking water. The Agency needs to increase the publication of its
17
-------
research and development work in external peer-reviewed/refereed journals. This is a key factor
in gaining recognition of the integrity and excellence of its science and scientists.
18
-------
APPENDIX A -ACRONYMS
CCL Candidate Contaminant List
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
NAS National Academy of Sciences
OPPTS Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
ORD Office of Research and Development
RSAC Research Strategies Advisory Committee
SAB Science Advisory Board
S&T Science and Technology
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B - BUDGET OBSERVATIONS
The following provides detailed comments and observations of RSAC as a result of its
evaluation.
The major goal that utilizes the majority of research monies in the appropriation is Goal 8
- Sound Science. Of the total Science and Technology budget request listed for the Agency,
$670,008.0'; the total budget for the Goal 8 area is $327,837.6 (48.9% of total S & T budget)
with $254,607.9 or 77.7% of the budget allocation for this goal appropriated to research, science
and technology. Therefore, this area will require the greatest scrutiny. However, other areas
also have S & T line item budgets under the "FY 2003 Animal Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification".
The "Summary" document and the "Justification" budget do not always agree on the
dollar amounts for research or even whether there are appropriations for research. For example,
the "Justification" document has S & T funds listed under every goal but the "Summary"
document has no S & T funds allocated for research under Goals 9, "Deterrent to Pollution" and
10, "Effective Management". In fact, for these 2 goals no information is given on research in the
documentation so it is difficult to determine the appropriateness of the funding amounts. For all
other goals, there is a S & T appropriation in the "Justification" document and some indication
of research or science activities funding in the "Summary" document budget. However, the
monies identified in the "Summary" are always lower than in the "Justification". Thus, there
must be several areas in each goal that are thought to receive S & T funds but they are not
specified.
For each goal other than 9 & 10, the "Summary" document provides some indication of
the areas of research to be undertaken with science funds. In order to evaluate whether the S&T
funds provide coverage for these areas, the review examined the research objectives listed to
evaluate them against needs and itemized funding budget. These are discussed by goal.
Goal 8 - Sound Science
Major research areas in this goal include assessing the baseline condition of ecosystems in order
to assess potential changes.
a) Assessing environmental impacts on susceptible subpopulations, especially children.
b) Combined effects on human health and ecosystems, especially endocrine disrupters.
c) Holistic approach to combined stressors.
d) Research into principles governing sustainable systems.
e) Evaluate costs of technology.
' 'Note: Funds in thousands.
B-l
-------
f) Evaluate effectiveness of technologies.
Part of ecosystem research includes refinement of the EMAP approach to large rivers.
EPA proposes new research into risks of children from exposure in school and daytime
environments. The Agency will develop new research to address temporal variation in
exposures and its effects, relative toxicity of mixtures, development of biological markers of
exposure, effects and susceptibility, and use of mode of action to assess cumulative risk. There
is an emphasis on improving use of science in environmental decision-making. The discussion
includes many references to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and mercury as well as
persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) and VOCs.
To these ends, the budget reflects increases in almost every area of research. The main
support is for ecosystems, EDCs, and Pollution Prevention. The overall budget reflects a
reduction of $8,229.0 from the FY 2002 enacted budget, but there are more work years and these
targeted areas of research have not been decreased. The major differences are no funds
appropriated for the "Common Sense Initiative" and the "Congressional Projects" as well as the
STAR fellowship program. The last area may be the most unfortunate loss since educational
training money is difficult to obtain especially for environmental work. We need to train the
new thinkers for the future.
The funds listed under goal 8 are $327,837.6 which is down $8,229.0 from the previous
years. The areas of research noted in the "Summary" document total $209,607.9. The areas
with very little funding are research to support FQPA perhaps because there are adequate funds
in "Safe Food". There is also no direct mention of Arsenic research which is a main focus of the
"Clean Water" goal. Again funding may be elsewhere. There is no discussion of any research to
support "Clean Air" initiatives.
Goal 1 - Clean Air.
The total funding for this goal is $ 597,977.3 with an increase of $4,615.5 from last year.
The research budget identifies three major areas, air toxics, particulate maters and tropospheric
ozone. The total monies in these areas is $93,303.8 but the "Justification" reads $174,662.0. It
would be helpful to determine where the additional $80,000.0 in funds occurs. All of the target
research areas have had increases in funds.
The research focus areas discussed in the chapter for this goal follow closely the funding
categories in the "Summary of the 2003 Budget". The NAAQS related research will assess
health from the six air pollutants above and in combination with an emphasis on PM and ozone.
The air toxics research focuses on urban environments and human health. The main source for
these contaminants is mobile sources. The Agency mentions frequently an effort to determine
risks from combined or multiple risks. CO, lead, ozone, nitrogen oxides and suffer dioxide are
mentioned under funded areas but research is not mentioned. No Congressionally mandated
projects are listed for funding.
B-2
-------
The areas of funding appear to cover the needed research topics given that the specific air
pollutants listed as CO probably represent funded science as well as other activities as risk
assessment in these areas. There seem to be no areas that have been missed.
Goal 2 - Clean Water.
The total budget for this goal is $3,214,674.2 which is $524,316.1 less than last year. In
the list of "Summary" budget items designating research, the funds are $93,580.5 which is less
than the $113,319.6 in the "Justification" list. The listed research areas include ecosystems
condition, recreational waters and wet weather flows and safe drinking water. The other areas
that may have some research components are specific water bodies as well as fish contamination
consumption and wastewater management. However, it is not possible to know how much is in
each area.
The research areas in this goal include:
a) Filling in gaps on risk information and dose response for DBFs, arsenic, pathogens
and other materials on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
b) Support of protection and enhancement of aquatic ecosystems and their biotic
components
c) Develop biological and landscape indicators of ecosystem condition, sources of
impairment and stressor response/fate and transport models.
d) Develop framework for diagnosing adverse effects of chemicals on surface waters
e) Develop cost-effective technologies to manage solids and sediments
f) Develop and validate effective watershed management strategies and tools for
controlling wet weather flows (WWFs)
g) Arsenic-specific research and cost effective technologies for removal
h) Risk of infectious disease from microbes in recreational waters.
Some of these areas of research are not clearly identified in the budget, such as arsenic
research. Others apparently fall under areas such as "Safe Recreational Waters" and "Watershed
Assistance". However, it is unclear whether these areas cover research in the area under the
research aims for Goal 2. Since these research topics are significant, it would be important to be
sure funds are adequate.
The areas of importance such as environmental risks are clearly listed in the document.
However, the budget does not indicate what weight they will be given in terms of funding. For
example biologic materials, both pathogens and others, are some of the most important agents in
terms of both human and ecologic impacts. These agents are being recognized more and more as
B-3
-------
environmental issues, especially with potential changes in disinfection and changing
contamination of waterways. The budget does not provide any information on how much will be
spent on these issues compared to chemical contamination.
The loss in budgeted funds from the FY 2002 enacted budget to the FY 2003 President's
Budget Request reflects in part an omission of Congressional projects. Thus, most of the areas
except "Recreational Waters" have actually increased slightly.
Goal 3 - Safe Food.
The budget for this goal is $109,814.6 which represents an increase of $742.9 from the
amount of 2002. The total science budget as indicated in the "Summary" document is listed as
"Research to Support FQPA" at an amount of $10,821.3 which is lower than the S & T listed in
"Justification" document of $14,3716.
Research under this goal includes:
a) development of pesticide exposure and effects data
b) risk assessment methods and models for children
c) development of control technologies to comply with FQPA
The exposure and effects data include the identification of exposure routes and
development of theoretical models for pesticides and other toxic substances.
The environmental problems associated with safe food and the research aims and funding
do not match well. The Agency has discussed the importance of bioengineered species but the
budget does not reflect research in this area. Mention is made of insuring the safety of this
biotechnology but the method of testing is "peer review". The focus is totally on chemical
pesticides as they are applied. Do other issues such as infected food/feed or changes in chemicals
through processing etc. all fall into someone else's dominion? Are there no "Homeland Security"
issues in "Safe Food" that fall to the EPA to monitor? That budget was cut entirely.
The overall budget for this goal increased but the overall budget for S&T decreased
slightly. The major area phased out was "Safe Pesticide Applications". The question arises
whether there is any research monies in "Science Coordination and Policy" for this issue. There
could be some funds in the "Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program" but this would not be
effects-based research.
Goal 4 - Preventing Pollution
The budget for this goal is $326,651.9 up $6,736.8 from 2002. In the "Justification"
document, the S&T budget is listed as $27,843.6 which represents an increase of about 3 million
from last year. However, when one tries to match this estimate with targeted research as listed in
the "Summary" document, this is very difficult. There is one topic area listed as "Research to
B-4
-------
Support Safe Communities" at $ 25,149.6 which would include most of the funds listed in the
Justification document. As in the goal 3, there is a heading "Endocrine Disrupter Screening
Program"that might have a research component. The major question which arises is why this
activity appears in funding for both Goals 3 and 4 and what is the difference in focus, if any? Is
this simply joint funding of a single effort?
The research areas in this goal include:
a) providing a framework for developing an integrated suite of tools and models to
assess risks to human health and ecological systems from commercial chemicals,
microorganisms, and genetically modified organisms
b) develop mechanistically-based predictive models for human health risk assessment
c) develop methods to evaluate effects with variety of exposures and sensitive
subpopulations
d) participate in Agriculture Health Study
e) starting major research effort focused on biotechnology such as allergenicity, adverse
ecological effects on non-target species or unintended gene transfer, and potential
development of pesticide resistance in target species.
The goal addresses indoor environments, both in general and in children, that did not
appear as a focus in other areas. There are two items in the budget addressing these areas but it is
not clear what the research objectives will be in these areas. The discussion suggests that they
will focus on asthma and target schools and health professionals. Are the suggested programs
being subject to research and evaluation since they seem to target other organizations as health
professionals that may not need education? How do they evaluate the deficits in the various
indoor environments of these children especially since onset often occurs at preschool age? Are
these research within the "Indoor Environment" funds?
Goal 5 Waste Management
The budget for this goal is $1,711,279.8 that is an increase of $190,596.0 in budget from
that of 2002. The "Justification" budget indicates that only $15,480.0 is designated under S&T.
This amount represents a drop of $42,563.8. If research is a major part of the activity related to
this goal, this abrupt decline would suggest that several programs or areas in S&T activities have
been dropped. However, the "Summary" budget indicates several areas that include "research" at
least as part of their line title. These include "Hazardous Substance Research: Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation", "Hazardous Waste Research" and "Research to Support
Contaminated Sites". The total funds in these areas is $44,214with two out of the three receiving
small increases and the last a small decrease. There should also be research going on at the
"Hazardous Substance Research Centers" fund at $ 4,599.2. It is unclear why there is a $9
million differences between the two research budget listings.
B-5
-------
Research efforts described for this goal include:
a) reduce risks for human health and the environment by implementing scientifically
defensible and cost-effective clean-ups of complex sites. The science will include
improved models for measuring exposures and risks related to complex mixtures
and multiple pathways, development of better technologies for clean up and
determining extent of efforts on environment.
b) begin a focus on clean up of buildings in relation to bioterrorism
c) focus on waste identification to identify areas of risk and target the accumulation of
information to support risk-based exemptions for waste and waste streams that do
not pose risk.
d) focus on waste management
e) focus on waste combustion
f) reduce uncertainties in sampling
g) reduce time and cost for site characterization
h) evaluate risks to humans and ecosystems based on multipathway exposure, potential
adsorption of contaminants and treatment residuals.
The research objectives also suggest that some of the $86,310.4 for "Homeland Security"
will be focused on research in addition to those noted above. However, it is hard to resolve the
items with the reported budget justification. The funding areas overlap the research items and the
level of funding is probably about the same as it has been in the past.
Goal 6 - Global Environmental Risk
The budget for this goal is $269,727.2 which is $6,860.8 less than in 2002 with a loss of
13.0 work years.
The "Summary" budget reflects only one designated research category "Climate Change
Research" with a budget request of $21,729.3. However, the "Justification" budget shows a
funding level for S&T of almost twice that much, $38,848.6. In this case, as in the other goals,
there is no obvious category to explain the discrepancy. The only major changes in the budget
are that the Great Lakes National Office is phased out and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
implementation is phased in.
The research for this goal includes:
a) reducing greenhouse gas emissions through science-based solutions to reduce risks
from climate change
B-6
-------
b) determine vulnerability of humans and ecosystems to environmental stressors as
climate and land use changes
c) continue UV monitoring network
d) look specifically at air and water quality from climate change
The research objectives and the monies focused on Climate Change are clearly an
alignment of funds and efforts. However, other topic areas would appear to warrant some
research funding, such as "Global Toxics" or "POPS". Are there research funds in these line
items? The objectives under "Great Lakes" indicates that the National Program Office will work
with states and Tribal and Federal Agencies to implement the Great Lakes Strategy, but that
program is not obvious in the 2003 budget.
Goal 7 - Quality Environmental Information
The budget allowance for this area is $199,124.0 up from the year 2002. The summary
budget indicates no research but the "Justification" budget shows $9,367.5 under S&T. RSAC
had no additional comments on this Goal.
Goal 8 - Sound Science
The comments for this goal are found in the first section of this Appendix.
B-7
-------
APPENDIX C - BIOSKETCHES
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr. Chair. Research Strategies Advisory Committee . is a
licensed professional engineer in Texas, Ohio and Kansas and is currently the
Hussein M. Alharthy Centennial Chair in the Environmental and Water Resources
Engineering Program at the University of Texas at Austin. He obtained his B.S.
and M.S. degrees from Case Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to his current position, he has been a
professor at the University of Kansas and at Cornell University. On separate
academic leaves, he worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in Washington and for a consulting firm. Dr. Loehr's expertise is in the use of land
as a waste management alternative, the remediation of contaminated sites, soils and
sludges, the treatment and disposal of industrial wastes and the practical
application of research results. He has served as advisor to government agencies,
industry, consulting engineering firms, and law firms on the use of waste
management processes for environmental problems. He has over 300 technical
publications related to municipal, industrial, and hazardous waste management and
fourteen books authored or edited. Dr. Loehr was elected to the U.S. National
Academy of Engineering in 1983. He has been chair and member of committees of
the National Research Council (NRC), Department of Defense, and EPA. He
Chaired the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Executive Committee from 1988
to 1993
Dr. William J. Adams is currently the Director of Environmental Affairs for
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation. His areas of research interest focus on
environmental risk assessment, ecotoxicology, hazard assessment of metals, and
sediment assessment methodologies. He has published 65 papers in these areas
and has authored several books and/or book chapters. Dr. Adams has served on the
EPA Ecological Processes and Effects Science Advisory Board Committee for 8
years and on one or two other SAB subcommittees. Additionally, he has served on
the National Marine Board committees reviewing sediment assessment.
Additionally, he has served on numerous technical peer review committees and
technical workshop committees. He 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.
C-l
-------
Dr. Steven M. Bartell is a Principal of the Cadmus Group, Inc. and an adjunct
faculty member in the Department Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the
University of Tennessee. His professional interests include ecosystem analysis,
ecological modeling, risk assessment, risk-based decision analysis, and sustainable
environmental development. As a Principal in the Cadmus Group, his main
responsibilities include marketing, project management, and personnel
development. However, he also remains actively involved in the technical aspects
of nearly all ongoing projects. Dr. Bartell continues to be actively involved in
research and consulting projects that address various topics (e.g., nutrients, metals,
habitat alteration). The Cadmus Group does a substantial amount of consulting
work for the Agency, primarily in the Office of Water.
Dr. Richard J. Bull is presently employed one-half time as a Professor of
Pharmacology and Toxicology at Washington State University (Tri-Cities Campus)
and also work 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. In 1994, Dr. Bull accepted an appointment as Senior Scientist at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (managed by Battelle) where he remained until
May of 2000. His activities at Washington State University are supported by a
grant from through the Department of Energy's Low Dose and Low Dose Rate
Radiation Effects Program. 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. 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
C-2
-------
activities directed at determining processes that are effective in allowing indirect
potable reuse of wastewater.
Dr. Robin Cantor, is a Principal and Managing Director of LECG, LLC, a private
consulting firm providing economic and financial analysis to a broad range of
public and private enterprises. She also has a faculty appointment in the Part-time
Program in Engineering of the Johns Hopkins University. She is currently the
President for 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, she was a senior researcher at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. 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. 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. He holds a Ph.D. in geotechnical engineering and
materials, with a minor in mineral resources, from Iowa State University. 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. His research and allied
professional activities have focused on waste containment systems, contaminant
leachability, soil / contaminant physico-chemical interactions, natural disaster
mitigation techniques, rock fragmentation techniques for energy installations and
underground space, and energy / environmental policy. His projects have been
sponsored by federal agencies such as US. Department of Defense, U.S.
C-2
-------
Environmental protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Federal Highway Administration and
the United States Agency for International Development. 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). From 1997 to 2001, Dr. Inyang served as the chair of the Environmental
Engineering Committee of EPAs 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. He holds Ph.D. in Geotechnical
Engineering/Materials from Iowa State University; MS and BS in Civil
Engineering from North Dakota State University and B.Sc. (honors) in geology
from the University of Calabar, Nigeria. Dr. Inyang is a former AAAS/EPA
Environmental Science and Engineering Fellow, National Research Council Young
Investigator (1997) and Eisenhower Fellow of the World Affairs Council
(1992/93).
Dr. Alan W. Maki received his BSc. in Fisheries Biology from the University of
Massachusetts, his MSc. in Environmental Toxicology from the University of
North Texas, and holds a Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries Management from
Michigan State University. He is currently Environmental Advisor for
ExxonMobil Production Company and is responsible for providing advice and
consultation concerning the environmental consequences of oil and gas exploration
and production activities. He previously worked at ExxonMobil Biomedical
Sciences in East Millstone, New Jersey and with the ExxonMobil Safety, Health
and Environment Department in Houston, Texas. He served as Senior
Environmental Scientist for Exxon in Alaska from 1985 to 1991 managing
numerous environmental programs in the Prudhoe Bay oil field and along Alaska's
North Slope. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, he was responsible for
managing Exxon's wildlife rescue rehabilitation program and for organizing the
company's scientific assessment of ecological damage and recovery. Dr. Maki has
authored and co-authored over 250 publications and reports and 6 books on
numerous aspects of environmental quality, ecological risk assessment, toxicology
C-4
-------
and aquatic biology. Active in a wide range of professional organizations, Dr.
Maki is currently a member of the Environmental Protection Agency - Science
Advisory Board and has served on numerous advisory panels for EPA Office of
Research and Development. He is former President of the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and has served on National Academy of
Science panels concerned with the assessment and management of ecological risks
and environmental issues in Western Europe.
Dr. Maria T. Morandi received a B.S. in Chemistry from the City College of
New York, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Environmental Health from New York
University-Norton Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine. She is certified in
the practice of Industrial Hygiene by the American Board of Industrial Hygienists
(ABIH). Dr. Morandi is an assistant professor of Environmental Sciences and
Occupational Health at the School of Public Health of the University of Texas-
Health Science Center in Houston, Texas. She has served in a number of SAB and
other committees and review panels for the Environmental Protection Agency; the
Safety and Health Study Section, Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory
Committee and training grant review panels for the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Board of Scientific Counselors of
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and grant
application review panels for the NIH. Dr. Morandi's teaching and research
interests focus on assessment of exposures to airborne contaminants. She has
performed work on laboratory development and evaluation of personal sampling
methods for application in environmental and occupational settings, population-
based field studies of indoor, outdoor and personal exposure to a broad range of
airborne contaminants, population-based studies of the health effects of airborne
pollutants, and in-vitro investigation of murine and human alveolar macrophage
response to ozone and PM exposure. Her current research and teaching grant
funding sources include the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(training grant), the Environmental Protection Agency (STAR grant), the M.L.
Leland National Air Toxics Research Center (contract for an asthma panel study),
and Research Triangle Institute (funded by EPA) for a contract on evaluation of
low-cost passive dosimeters for intensive sampling of airborne volatile organic
compounds.
Dr. Mark J. Utell is Professor of Medicine and Environmental Medicine at the
University of Rochester Medical Center. He serves as the Director of the
Pulmonary/Critical Care and Occupational/Environmental Medicine Divisions
where he spends his time divided between patient care, research, teaching and
C-5
-------
administration. He received his B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, his M.D.
degree from Tufts University School of Medicine, received his residency training
at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Boston, and pulmonary training at the University of
Rochester; he has been a member of the faculty at the University of Rochester
Medical Center since 1977. Dr. Utell has served on a number of SAB committees
and review panels for the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies:
currently, he serves as Chair, Health Effects Institute's Research Committee; and is
a member of the National Research Council's Committee on Airborne Particulate
Matter and the EPA's Search Committee for the Director, Human Studies Division.
He has previously served on the Executive Committee of the EPA's SAB; as Chair,
EPA Environmental Health Committee; member and consultant to CAS AC; and as
a member of the National Institutes Environmental Health Sciences Grant Review
Study Section. As a member of the NRC's Committee on Particulate Matter, he
has previously participated in the development of recommendations for EPA's
research budget on particulate matter and these recommendations have been
published. Dr. Utell's research and teaching interests have focused primarily on
the effects of inhaled particles, fibers and vapors on the respiratory system. Most
recently, his laboratory has focused on clinical responses to ultrafine particles and
mechanisms of response. Dr. Utell has over 100 publications and numerous
presentations at professional meetings around the world.
Dr. James E. Watson, Jr. is a Professor in the Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina. His principal
research interests relate to environmental radioactivity and radioactive waste
management. He has conducted numerous studies on radon, both indoors and in
water. 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 was selected as a National Lecturer for
Sigma Xi, and he has served on National Research Council committees studying
radioactive waste disposal, on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
Advisory Committee for Energy-Related Epidemiologic Research, and as chairman
of the Environmental Protection Agency's Radiation Advisory Committee. He
served as chairman of the North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission and
currently chairs the Commission's Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Management. He received his undergraduate education in nuclear engineering at
North 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.
C-6
-------
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. She 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, 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, 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 coauthor 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. She received her
doctorate from Harvard University in 1984.
C-7
------- |