I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f , WASHINGTON, D C 20460
March 6, 1987 SftB-EC-87-024
Honorable Lee M. Thomas
TM(: *OM,N,STB*TOB
U. S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S. W. " -
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas;
. The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Research and Development
Budget Subcommittee has completed its second annual review of the
President's" proposed budget for the Office of Research and Develop-
ment and is pleased to transmit copies to you and Congressional
committees that authorize and appropriate funds for this office.
*
The -President's proposed research budget for Fiscal Year (PY-) ' '
1988 for the Office of Research and Development (QRD) is $353,5 million
and 1,844 workyears, an increase of $8.3 million and a reduction of 22
work years frcm the current fiscal year. The proposed budget provides
a relatively stable basis 'for research planning,- while allowing for
modest overall growth.
The scope. of the Subeotmit tee's review addresses three major
issues: 1) trends in the research budget; 2) continuing core needs
of Ep&'s research program* and 3) comments on specific research
programs in eight major areas — air, radiation, water quality, drinking
water* pesticides/toxic substances, hazardous wastes/Superfund, energy/
acid rain and interdisciplinary research.
;'',.'' >
The proposed .-budget should facilitate ORD's capability to provide
technical support for* ongoing regulatory programs and allow for some
modest additional -initiatives for issues that are of rising priority.
In general I- the Subcommittee believes that those program earmarked for
funding increases can effectively utilize these resources. There are
some components of -the research program that are currently underfunded
but, given the current budgetary climate, the Subcommittee recommends
additional funding only if Congress appropriates new resources.
-------
The Subcommittee and the SAB Executive Ccntnittee believe that
the enclosed report adds to the range of viewpoints that the
Administration arid the Congress should consider in reaching budgetary
decisions, and that scientists and engineers have A responsibility
to present their thoughts and evaluations of the scientific needs
of one of the nation's most important institutions,1
We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed research
budget and request that the Agency respond to the advice and recom-
mendations provided in this report.
Sincerely,
John Neuhold, Chairman
Research and Development Budget Subconraittee
Science Advisory Board
t. . .. .
Norton Nelson, Chairman
Executive Cotmittee
Science Advisory Board
cc: A. James Barnes
Vaun Newill
Terry F. Yosie
-------
SAB-EC-87-Q24
REVIEW OP THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT'S
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988
Research and Development Budget Subcommittee
Science Adyisoty Board
U. 3. Environmental Protect Ion-, Agency-
March, 1987
-------
U. S, ENVITOMENTAL PROTECTION
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of
the Science advisory Board, a public advisory group providing
extramural scientific information and "advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of
scientific natters 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 ccnmercial products
constitute endorsement of recommendat'ion for use.
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
ROSTER
Dr. John N. Neuhold, Chairwan
Department of Wildlife Sciences
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Dr. Terry F. Yosie
Director, Science Advisory Board
U* S. Environmental Protection Agency
Roan 1145;. S^est Tower
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dr. Clayton Callis
2 Holiday Lane
St. Louis, Missouri 63131
Dr. Richard A, Grieseraer
Director, Biology Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Dr. Raymond Loehr
8,614 ECJ Hall
Civil'Engineering Department
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712
Dr* Francis C. McMichael
The Blenko Professor of
Environmental Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Carnegie-Mellon University
Porter Hall 123A
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
-------
Table Of Contents
I. Executive Surtmary 1
II* Introduction and Scope of the Review 3
III. Trends in the Research Budget 6
1. Resource Levels 6
2. Intramural and Sxtramural Resources 7
IV. Sense Continuing Core Needs of EPA's Research Program 8
1 . Personnel 9
2, Capability to Define Emerging Problems 12
IV, Cotroents on Specific Research Programs 14
1. Air 14
A. Indoor Air ••. . '.< 14
B. Ambient Air Quality Research 15
C. Forest Effects of Ozone . 17
D. Global Climate and Stratospheric Modification 17
2. Radiation 17
3. natter Quality 18
A. feter Quality Based Approach 18
B, Great Lakes 20
C. Sludge 20
4. Drinking Water 20
5. Pesticides/Toxic Substances 21
A. Biotechnology 21
B, Ecological Risk Assessment 22
C. Structure Activity Relationships 23
6, Hazartous Wastes/Superfund 23
A. Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation
(SITE) 24
8. Alternative Hazardous Waste Technologies
Program 25
C. Municipal Waste Combustion 26
7. Energy /Ac id Rain 28
8. Interdisciplinary Research 28
v. References 30
Appendix I: Summary of the FY 88 Research
Budget Proposal by Program Category
-------
I, Executive Summary
• The President's proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 1988 for the Office
of Research and Development (ORD) is $353.5 million and 1,844 workyears, an
increase of $8.3 million and a reduction of 22 workyears from the current
fiscal yeart The proposed budget provides a relatively stable basis for research
planning/ while allowing for modest overall growth.
This is the second consecutive annual review by the Science Mvisory
Board o£ the President's research budget reeconendations. To conduct this
review, the Board created a Research and Development Budget Subeeftmittee. The
scope of the Subcommittee's review addresses three major issues. These
include: 1) trends in the research budget; 2} continuing core needs of SPA's
research program; and 3) comments on specific research programs in eight
major areas—air, radiation, water quality, drinking water, pesticides/toxic
substances, hazardous wastes/Superfund» energy/acid rain and interdisciplinary
research.
The proposed budget supports QRD's capability to provide technical
support for ongoing regulatory programs and will enable it to develop initiatives
for some selected issues that are of rising priority. In general, the Subcom-
mittee believes that those programs earmarked for funding increases can
effectively utilize these resources. There are some components of the research
program that are currently underfunded but, given the current budgetary
climate, the Subccnmittee recomrends additional funding only if Congress
authorizes and appropriates new resources.
In last year's report, the Subcommittee pointed out that, over a number
of years, a serious underfunding of the in-house program had occurred and
recommended a reversal of this trend. A modest increase in these resources
is available during the current fiscal year, and a further small increase (of
$2 million for a total of S104 million) is proposed Eor FY '88. The Subcommittee
-------
- 2 -
reiterates its recommendation of last year that even greater support of the
in-house program is needed.
Providing adequate support for the in-house research program, combined
with resolving several salient needs of QRD personnel, can greatly contribute
to the productivity of the Office of Research and Development. A strong in-
house capability can also enable ORD to'more effectively manage its extramural
budget. ;
EPA's ability to achieve its goal of building risk-based decision making
will rest largely on its ability to maintain and enhance the technical skills
of its personnel through training and other Corns of professional development.
In order to achieve this objective, the Subcommittee recommends that EPA
undertake two initiatives: .';;
f
o Develop a strategy to better define SPAls Key scientific staffing
needs. Such a strategy should address the magnitude of the current skills-
mix problem, training and other needs of existing staff, identification of
new scientific skills needed and their relationship to new hiring decisions,
analyses of resources needed for key risk assessment activities and their
relationship to workload models, and recommendation of specific steps that
build competence In risk assessment.
O Analyze the budgetary implications of such a strategy with the goal
of making specific recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget and
the Congress to provide adequate levels of support.
At present, there aro a number of issues of growing public concern
which, through thoughtful and prompt EPA response, can be effectively managed.
Examples include stratospheric ozone modification and climate change, bio-
technology, and assessing risks to ecosystems. What is needed is for EPA to
develop a better system of "eyes and ears" that can alert it to issues beyond
today's inurediate regulatory and statutory priorities.
-------
- 3 -
The Subcommittee recommends two mechanisms to aid in developing an
improved .capability to define emerging issues, the first is to revive a
previous IPA initiative entitled the Environmenta 1 Outlook. Ihe purpose of
this document was to provide information on environmental trends and future
problems, with a particular emphasis on the relationship between socio-economic
changes and their influence on the environment.
A second mechanism available to EPA is the investigator-initiated
exploratory grants program. This program should be reoriented to permit more
input from laboratory and program office directors and to improve their
ability to utilize the results of investigator-initiated research. A central
theme of the grants program should be to develop data and methodologies for
risk assessment or risk reduction. IfJthis occurs, a greater constituency
for the program will evolve within EPA and should not lessen the ability of
extramural scientists to continue their practice of submitting investigator-
initiated research proposals, nor compromise their ability to perform innovative
research.
* I * Introduction and__Scpj^e_ of^he Review
To provide the scientific data needed to identify and assess public health
and environmental problems, and to support the promulgation and enforcement
of regulations and standards under its authorizing statutes, the Environmental
Protection Agency maintains a number of research programs. Congress has long
recognized the need for improved scientific data and the important linkage
between the Agency's research and regulatory activities, and has recently
augmented the research program by authorizing that research be conducted under
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
Managing a research program in a regulatory Agency is an extremely
difficult task. The very nature of the regulatory process—with its short
deadlines, and oftentimes rapidly changing priorities—confronts EPA's research
-------
programs with a set of challenges that most research organizations, such as
the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, do not
encounter in either frequency or degree* At the same tine, research carried
out by EPA needs to achieve the same standards of quality expected of other
research organizations by the scientific cownjnity. These and other challenges
to EPA's research have existed since the Agency's inception and will persist.
The Science Advisory Board, since its creation, has observed and actively
reviewed the scientific quality and direction of EPA's,research programs.
Beginning last fiscal year, the Board initiated two steps that are consistent
with its independent research review role. These steps included: agreeing
with ORD's recomendation to evaluate at least six individual research programs
per fiscal year; and reviewing the President's proposed research budget for
the coming fiscal year. The Board has'."continued this activity to the present
time. , , , .
a
The Science Advisory Board's ongoing reviews o£ research programs and
budgets address several interrelated issues. These include:
o Evaluation of EPA's research needs and current research carried out
or sponsored by the Agency. Particular enphasis is placed on the future
direction of research needs and efforts.
o The integration of research data and methodologies across programs.
o The skills of EPA scientific personnel.
The Board's review of the proposed research budget for PY '88 was carried
out by its Research and Development Budget Subcommittee, The Subcommittee
met in executive session on January 6-7, 1987 in Washington, D. C, to receive
detailed background briefings from the staff of both the Office of Research
and Development and the Office of the Comptroller, and to begin preliminary
-------
- 5 _
drafting of. its report. On January 15, the Subcommittee's Chairman, Dr. John
Neunold, briefed the Executive Conmittee of its preliminary findings. The
Executive Qcranittee approved the report on March 4, 1986,
The Subcommittee's review addresses three major Issues. These include;
1) trends in the research budget? 2) continuing core needs of EPA's research
program; and 3) comments on specific research programs in eight major areas—air,
radiation, water quality, drinking water, pesticides/toxic substances, hazardous
wastes/Superfundf energy/acid rain and interdisciplinary research.
The Subcomittee also reflected on Administration and Congressional
responses to its budgetary report of last year and found two encouraging
developments. One is the gradual stability of the research program that has
evolved over the past several years, in both dollars and staff, in the face
of continuing pressure for budgetary reductions across the Federal government."
The second is the slowly growing amount of resources rttade available to EPA's
in-house research program. While the Subecnmittee continues to believe that
the in-*house program is underfunded, senior'EPA managers recognize the
importance of the issue.
Because of time and other limitations, the Subccnmittee did not attempt
to conduct a budgetary .-review of every research program. Instead, it ccomented
upon programs that either account for a large fraction of the budget, address
significant scientific issues in support of EPA regulatory programs or receive
insufficient priority given the magnitude of the scientific or public policy
issues that are at stake. A sujtrraary of the program categories in the research
budget Eor FY '88 is presented in Appendix I.
-------
- 6 -
III, Trends in the Research Budget
1. Resource Levels
To be productive, any research program must experience continuity
in research direction and management and have access to a stable level of
resources. This need for stability stems Craft a number of intersecting
factors including: the lead tine required to acquire awj.-maintain skilled
technical personnel and equipment; planning and executing the research design;
data analysis and interpretation; and preparation and publication of technical
reports, including peer review,
EPA's FY '88 research budget proposal of $353.5 million, an increase
'.«" '•
of $8,3 million over the current PY '$7'estimate, provides a stable basis of
funding, while allowing, for modest overall growth*- This represents a welcome
trend that has fceen evolving since PY '84. It should support ORD's capability
to provide technical support Cor ongoing regulatory programs and will enable
it to allow for some modest additional initiatives for issues that are of
rising priority., In general, the Subcommittee believes that those programs
earmarked for funding increases can efficiently absorb these resources.
There are some components of the research program that are currently underfunded
but, given the current budgetary climate, the Subcommittee reccratiends additional
funding only if Congress authorises and appropriates new resources.
Personnel work years, or FTEs (Full Time Equivalents), experience a
reduction of 21,6 from the FY '87 level of 1,865.8. Table'I presents ORD
budgetary and FTE data between PY '80 and the fY '8ft proposal.
-------
TABLE I
OFFICE OP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES
FY '80 THROUGH FY '87
$ in Millions* FTE
FY '80 Actuals $ 336.47 " 2,344.3
FY '81 Actuals 299,04 . :/' 2,167.7
FY '82 Actuals 244.69 " 1,982.0
PY '83 Actuals 215.12 1,853.2
FY '84 Actuals 234.84 1,782.9
FY '85 Actuals 286.95 1,804,6
FY '86 Actuals 320,02 V 1,821.6
FY '87 Estimate , . 345,20 • .. , 1,865.8 ' -
FY '88 Proposal 353.51 1,844.2
* (Includes Salaries and Expenses and Extramural Research and Development)
2. Intramiral and Extramural Resources
ORD funds are appropriated into two general categories, salaries
and expenses (S&E) and research and development (R&D). S&S funds support
staff salaries and the major in-house research programs conducted by ORD
laboratories and field stations. R&D funds are generally applied toward
research conducted by extramural scientists and engineers and are directed at
developing scientific methodologies and data in various program areas, in
addition to EPA sponsored scientific workshops and peer reviews.
In last year's report, the Subcommittee pointed out that, over a number
of years, a serious underfunding of the in-house program had occurred and
recommended a reversal of this trend. A modest increase in these resources
is available during the current fiscal year, and a further small increase (of
-------
- 8 -
$2 million for a total of $104 million) is proposed for PY '8ft. The Subecranittee
reiterates its recomnendation of last year that even greater support of the
in-house program is needed.
IV. Some Continuing Core Needs of EPA* s_ Research Program
The public health and environmental issues that confront EPA and its
research programs continue to grow in both number and complexity. In addition,
many of the scientific issues with which it contends are also relatively new
to the scientific canmunity's research agenda. Examples of these issues
include investigating the risks of health effects other than cancer, assessing
the public health hazards associated with exposures to chemical mixtures at
hazardous waste sites, and examining the potential environmental effects of
genetically engineered organisms.
* . * '
One of 'the central challenges of managing EPA's 'research and development
program is the need to keep pace with and respond expeditiously to the sometimes
rapidly changing regulatory, agenda. To successfully meet this challenge, ORD
must articulate a core research agenda that conceptually defines, integrates
and implements EPA's key information needs* while introducing new scientific
approaches. It must also maintain a core of scientific talent with sufficient
flexibility and breadth.to exibit knowledge of both existing and emerging
scientific problems, and with sufficient depth to synthesize and interpret
scientific data in a manner that will withstand independent scrutiny by the
scientific community and regulated parties. It also needs expertise to meet
the increasing requests for technical support from EPA regional offices and the
states.
The ability to maintain a core agenda supported by appropriate and
skilled scientific staff is directly affected by the-level of budgets^ support
-------
provided for the program, but it is an issue that also transcends the budget to
encompass or reflect such issues as; the development of effective working
relationships with extramural scientists, the private sector and the Congress;
the freedom to publish research results and enter into productive working
relationships with colleagues outside the immediate research program; avenues
for skill enhancement; and career opportunities. This report focuses only on
sane areas the Subcommittee believes are- more directly affected by the
availability of budgetary support. Iftese include: maintaining skilled personnel
and instituting an improved capability to identify emerging environmental
problems*
1, Personnel
Providing adequate support for the in-house research program,
combined with resolving several salient;nee'ds of ORD personnel, can greatly
contribute to the productivity of the Office of Research and Development*
•f , * •
What are -sbme of ORD's major personnel needs? One need stems frcra
the age structure of QRD staff. Coring a PY '86 study of the functions
influencing the use of S&E resources, some characteristics were identified
that are displayed in Table II.
TABLE II1
Some Characteristics of EPA Personnel in ORD and Non-OlD Programs
ORD Personnel Non-ORD Personnel
58% over age 40 361 over age 40
46% with 16+ years of work 24% with 16+ years of work
experience in the experience in the
Federal government Federal government
35% in Grade 13-15 274 in Grades 13-15
OBD's older work forcn requires it to continually upgrade the skills of
its staff, but the lack of support for changing or upgrading the skills mix
of its personnel can limit research creativity and productivity.
-------
- 10 -
In addition, the declining support for scientific equipment contrains ORD's
perfonnanee* Figure 1^ illustrates the trend in equipment purchases.
One of EPA's primary goals over the next decade is to improve its
institutional capability to conduct risk assessments at both headquarters
and regional offices to support environmental decision making. This priority
presents major challenges to enhancing the professional, skills and development
of existing personnel and will influence the type of personnel hired in future
years.
Risk assessment "capacity building" will rake the SPA's decision making
process more "knowledge intensive" not only for the regulatory offices but
also for the Office of Research and Development, ORD's traditional role of
*
conducting research and preparing,risk assessments will continue.!, but at •' "
least two additional roles are emerging. They include:
o Developing risk assessment methodologies for specific health (including
non-cancer) and ecological effects.
o Providing guidance and technical assistance to regulatory and regional
offices and the states to ensure that newly developed scientific methods are
consistently used.
An example of these emerging ORD roles can be seen in its water quality
based approach research program. For a number of years research scientists,
principally at the Duluth Research Laboratory, have developed methodologies
for establishing water quality criteria. Over time, these methodologies have
become increasingly accepted by the scientific community, while worK continues
on broadening the use of the methodologies, efforts are also underway to transfe;
existing techniques to regional permit writers and state and local officials.
ORD staff play a prominent role in transfering these techniques and conducting
training sessions.
-------
FIGURE 1
*
AIJjOCATION OF SMARIES AND EXPB4SE RESOURCES
PCSB--$62 8
LAB SUPPORT—$4.8
SCI EQUIP—$6 7
PCSB—$72 6
ALL OTHER SSE—$29, 7
LAB SUPPORT—$5.6
SCI EQUIP—$3,8 .
ALL OTHER SSE--$22 6
i960
TOTAL $104.0
1985
TOTAL $104 6
SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT DOLLARS DECLINE BY 43%
TOTAL SSE DOLLARS INCREASE BY ,6%
-------
- 12 -
EPA's ability to achieve its goal of building risk-based decision making
depends upon its ability to maintain and enhance the technical skills of its
personnel through training and other forms of professional development. This
is particularly true of the research program where* as previously noted, a
workforce older than that found in other EPA offices needs opportunities for
matching today's skills with tomorrow's problems. -j..
In order to improve the technical capabilities of .its personnel, the
Subcommittee recommends that EPA undertake two initiatives:
o Develop a strategy to better define EPA's key scientific staffing
needs. Such a strategy should address the magnitude of the current skills mix
problem? training and other needs of existing staff; identify which new
« *
scientific skills are needed-and their relationship to new hiring decisions;
develop realistic cost estimates for key risk assessment activities and their
relationship to workload models,- and reconroend specific steps that build risk
assessment capacity.
o Analyze the budgetary implications of such a strategy with the goal
of making specific recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget and
the Congress to provide adequate levels of support*
2, Capability to Define Emerging Problems
EPA frequently addresses public health or environmental issues at
the point when they have evolved into problems of serious national or regional
concern. Several recent examples document this argunent including radon,
alternatives to landfilling hazardous wastes and municipal waste combustion.
-------
- 13 -
At present, there are a number of issues that are evolving into areas
of greater public concern which/ through thoughtful arid prcnpt EPA response,
can be effectively managed. Examples include stratospheric ozone modification
and climate change, biotechnology, and assessing risks to ecosystems. What
is needed is for EPA to develop a better system of "eyes and ears" that can
alert it to issues beyond today's immediate regulatory"and statutory priorities.
The Subcommittee recaroends two Mechanisms that can aid EPA in developing
an improved capability to define emerging issues. The first is to revive a
previous EPA initiative entitled the Enyirorpental_0utlpok.3 the purpose of
this document was to provide information op environmental trends and future
,
-------
- 14 -
the regulatory offices. The second reason is that the relationship of the
program to EPA's mission has never been very clear,
For the exploratory grants program to succeed a different rationale is
required. The Subcoiroittee believes the program can assist EPA in developing
a capability to define emerging problems. For it to succeed, the program
needs to be more closely aligned with EPA's research mission of developing
\
data and methodologies for risk assessment and risk reduction. This will
require EPA staff (including laboratory and program office directors) to have
a greater voice in articulating the broad problem areas of Agency need. If
this occurs, a greater consituency for the program will evolve and should not
lessen the ability of extramural scientists to continue their practice of
submitting investigator-initiated research proposals, nor conprcmise their
ability to perform innovative research, • * ^ '
o
IV, Comments on Specific Research Programs
The proposed research budget for FY 88, in general, pursues a direction
charted in FY 87 or earlier. Many of: the larger changes in funding actually
occurred in FY '87. This is especially true in programs devoted to hazardous
waste and Superfund research.
In its comments on specific research programs* the Subcommittee evaluates
the rationale contained in budgetary support documents that justify funding
increases or decreases, and compares this rationale to the conclusions reached
by the SAB in the past year in its review of these programs. In addition,
the expertise of Subcommittee memters has been applied in developing
these conments,
The Subcommittee evaluated the follcwing programs;
1. Air
A. Indoor Air
-------
- 15 -
Approximately $2.5 million is proposed for indoor air research to
focus chiefly on source characterization and health effects. This represents
a 5300,000 decrease above FY '87 levels.
The Subccftinittee believes that the additional resources for this
program are warranted. Its confidence is reinforced by a series of policy
and management changes made in this program during the past several months.
On November 5, 1986 the SAB Indoor Air Quality Research-Beview Panel submitted
its review of ORD's plan for determining future needs on indoor air,^ The
Panel's major recommendations included? 1) developing and adopting a clear
policy statement that indoor air quality is an important and essential
component of the responsibility of the,.Agency; 25 assigning responsibility
for the indoor air quality research prdgraro to an individual of appropriate
scientific stature with -specific experience i'n this area? 3) the proposed
limited field survey should not be carried out as presented since the resources
that it would demand are not commensurate with the scientific information and
insights that would be obtained?, and 4} preparing a relative risk assessment
for the more important pollutants (including asbestos, biological contaminants,
criteria air pollutants, and toxic chemicals) in order to develop a framework
for decision making,
*
In his response of January 22, 1987 to the Panel Chaiman, the Administrator
concurred with these recommendations and indicated the steps that were underway
to implement them. As a result, the Subcommittee concludes that EPA is
increasingly capable o£ managing the expanded resources to investigate scientif-
ically and programmatic-ally relevant issues.
B. Ambient Air Quality Research
Funding for research to develop and review primary and secondary
-------
- 16 -
National ambient Mr Quality Standards (NAAQS) is proposed at $20.5 million,
a reduction of $1.1 million from PY '87. Approximately S2.5 million frem this
account provides support to the Health Effects Institute (total EPA funding
for the Institute is proposed at S3 million)»
At least four research objectives could benefit frcm higher levels
of funding in F¥ '88 compared to previous years* These;include:
1) Enhancing the capability for alternative measuring techniques for
ambient exposures. This area is one of growing importance because of increased
evidence of the shortcomings of fixed station monitoring. There is a need to
undertake source characterization of pollutants and understand human activity
* . r 5.
patterns for exposure assessment. Both issues are essential components in risk
f
assessment. • - . -
2) Expanding the support 'for epidemiologies! studies. The .Harvard Six
Cities Study is providing timely and relevant scientific information to EPA in
revising the NA£QS for particulate matter. This effort supports the general
argument that an expanded epideraiological program can yield cost-effective
research results to help resolve policy relevant issues in a time frame
compatible with EPA's rulemaking schedule.
3} Improving the capability to extrapolate research results from animals
to humans. The field of extrapolation modeling is one that promises to yield
a number of scientific insights to link animal studies to human health risk
assessment. EPA's extrapolation modeling research efforts, if expanded, can
help resolve many of the current scientific uncertainties associated with the
use of animal test data.
4) Increasing research on acidic aerosols. The budget proposal does not
address this issue, yet it is likely to emerge as one of the more significant
public health questions over the next several years, especially in relation
to assessing the health risks of acidic deposition.
-------
- 17 -
C. Forest Effects of Ozone
This issue, at a funding level of $1 million, appears as an initiative
in a proposed research budget for the first time arid represents a welcome
development. In 1985, the SAB evaluated the needs 'for a research program
devoted to forest effects.5 EPA plans to initiate research in FY '88 to
assess the risk from ozone on major coniferous and deciduous tree species,
particularly those of commercial value..
D* Global Climate and Stratospheric Modification
These two interrelated issues have rapidly risen on BPA's list of
research and regulatory priorities* Inf FY '87 the Congress provided SI million
for research related to global warming* apjd the Administration proposes
32,1 roillion for FY '38; stratospheric" ozone was funded at approximately $900,000
*
in FY '87 and the recommended level for PY" '88 remains approximately the sarae.
The Subcornmittee supports this generally upward trend in research funding.
It notes that the SAB's Stratospheric Ozone Subcommittee, in its currently
ongoing review of EPA's risk assessment document of stratospheric ozone
modification, has tentatively concluded that environmental risks to aquatic
life and vegetation may be as important as human health risks such as melanoma,
non-melanoma, cataracts and potential effects to the immune system. ^
2. Radiation
Support for radiation research is scheduled to decline frcm $2.5
million in FY '87 to 51.2 million in PY '88, with the major reduction occurring
in radon mitigation research. Funding will continue for off-site testing at
the Department of Energy's Nevada Text Site,
The SAB'S Radiation Advisory Committee completed a scientific review
of EPA's radon mitigation program on January 12, 1987.7 j\ major conclusion of
-------
-la-
this review was that "the largest potential reduction of public health risk
for public funds expended would be achieved by demonstrating a number of
low-cost mitigation techniques that have a high probability of success in the
majority of residences with radon levels in excess of the recommended guideline.
within the constraints of accommodating the matrix requirements for potential
mitigation techniques, high-exposure residences should have priority over
lower exposure situations....increased attention [should] be given to
pre-and post-mitigation measurements....[there is a] lack of emphasis on
mitigation for new construction!...and more efforts [are receninended] to
include new construction in the text matrix."
At the proposed PY '88 funding levels the Subcommittee concludes that
the radon mitigation program, cannot achieve, its previously stated*objectives
of developing and publishing acceptable mitigation techniques that will apply
to the variety of problems facing American henteowners.
3. Water Quality
The F¥ '88 budget proposes $24.7 million for water quality research,
an increase of 5269,000 above the P¥ '87 appropriation. The water quality
program has three major components, including the:
A. Water Quality Based Approach
The methods for developing water quality criteria have undergone
a steady evolution and extensive review by scientists. These rethods and the
resulting criteria have attained wide acceptance by the scientific and regula«
eotmmities. EPA and the Congress deserve great credit for providing the
scientific leadership and funding over -a number of years to achieve the current
state-of-the-art.
-------
_ 19 -
The SAB's Water Quality Based Approach Research Review Subcommittee
evaluated this program in a report dated December 11, 1986,^ This Subeccnfdttee
endorsed the scientific quality of the current program. Among its major
recommendations for the future direction of the program were the following;
o From a scientific perspective,,spills* and resulting exceedenees
greatly above criteria concentrations, represent the greatest retraining
weakness in the current intensity-duration-frequency regulatory framework.
o The ecoregion methods of defining regional patterns in water chemistry
and aquatic biota can be a valuable tool to help states define attainable
goals in water quality and aquatic ccratunity improvement, EPA should continue
to inform states of the ecoregion concept,and assess ways in which the concept
can be used in stats regulatory programs*
* a " "
•Q Pollution feom nonpoint sources is a significant road block-to attaining
the national goal of fishable-swirtmable waters in nany parts of the country,
EPA research laboratories should expand their efforts to define and characterize
nonpoint source pollution leading to the wore effective implementation of
control measures.
o A critical need exists for a pro-active technology transfer program to
assist state agencies and industry in implementing the water quality based
approach for toxics control,
o The Agency needs to coordinate this research program with efforts to
develop sediment criteria for toxic chemicals.
The projected 198H outputs do not identify these major research needs
and opportunitiesi although EPA staff are currently considering whether to
include them in a statement of FY '89 needs.
-------
- 20 -
B. Great Lakes
Support for Great Lakes research reraains stable. The PY '88 budget
proposes SI.94 million compared to an appropriation of $1,95 million in PY
'87, Hits contrasts with the President's suggested reduction of Great Lakes
research by 62% in his FY '87 proposal over PY "36 levels. The Congress
should ensure that stable research funding continues and seek to appropriate
additional resources given the major contribution of 'trie Great Lakes for
water supply, recreation and other uses.
C. Sludge
Research funding for innovative/alternative wastewater technologies,
sludge management alternatives and toxicity reduction methods is recoonended
at $8.8 million, a reduction of $234,0<30 frcm FY '37, Several of the major
areas of scientific uncertainty .identified by the SAB^ in its recent -review
of sludge management disposal options are listed as planned research program
outputs Cor FY '83. These includes evaluation of the toxicity of chronic
i
exposure to chemicals found in sludge; development of design and performance
information for landfills that receive sludge containing toxic organic substances;
preparation of five environmental indices/hazard profiles for chemicals in
sludge; and development of criteria for risk assessment of pathogens in sludge.
These and other objectives address high priority research needs. They should
ultimately assist the EPA in generating more realistic risk estimates of
various sludge disposal options.
4. Drinking Water
*
The FY "88 budget proposes a reduction in drinking water research by
$72,000 for a total program commitment of S23.9 million. Many scientifically
relevant issues are incorporated in the Agency's projected FY '38 outputs
which reflect additional needs and responsibilities resulting £rom passage
-------
- 21 -
of the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. These issues include:
t
target organ toxicity of drinking water disinfectants and disinfectant lay-
products, and controlling disinfection by-products; analytical method validation
studies for organic contaminants newly regulated under the Act; developing a
methodology to identify viruses and bacteria for exposure assessment; and
evaluating processes for removing volatile organic ccnpounds, pesticides and
radionuclides. -j.
The Subcemmittee is concerned, however, that an unbalance exists between
the Agency's increased regulatory responsibilities and lack of a commensurate
increase in research funds to support these responsibilities. The Subcommittee
also questions whether these and other research priorities will attract a
critical mass of funding and staff to^ieet program cownitments.
S. Pesticides/Toxic Substances •. " *
In general, research in pesticides and toxic substances declines by
$1.4 million from FY '8? for a total of $42,2 million. The Science Advisory
Board has reviewed several pesticide and toxic substances' research areas in
the past one and one-half years. These include:
A. Biotechnology
Planned FY '88 outputs for this program include a report on the
movement and survival and biological control agents in two natural systems?
and health research to provide methods for detecting and monitoring such
agents in mammalian cells as a basis for developing test protocols, the
proposed budgetary support for these and other activities is $7.3 million, an
increase of $350,000,
In its February 1, 1986 report on EPA's biotechnology research
program, the SAS's Study Group on Biotechnology recommended that EPA develop
-------
- 22 -
a program broader and larger than that envisioned by EPA decision makers.^
It identified critical priorities in three areas in which EPA lacked a research
capability* 1) dispersal of genetically engineered organisms? 2) remedial
action in the event of a release of such organisms; and 3) environmental
effects of a release, either beneficial or detrimental,
EPA has made roadest beginnings in initiating research for some of
these critical needs, but the Science Advisory Board continues to believe
that EPA's biotechnology research program, as envisioned for FY '88, does not
effectively address these needs to a sufficient degree.
B. Ecological Risk Assessment ,
Ecological risk assessment is an EPA research program, of very recent
origin. The SAB's Ecological Risk Assessment Research Review Subcommittee
^ *
completed .its evaluation of this program on January 16,-1987, and was-
favorably inpressed with the degree of progress mad.? since its inception in
1985. 1 Its major conclusion was that the program is comprehensive and
scientifically ambitious. It sets forth a research direction for the long-term
(perhaps twenty years). In the short-terra (five years), it is not achievable
as planned, particularly because scene of the key elements (density-dependent
population, community and ecosystem mechanistic models) are based on an
incomplete understanding of the fundamental mechanisms. However, the research
staff have made a promising start in identifying seme of the inajor issues
this progran should address. This, combined with some fine-tuning in the
research plan, can produce both an innovative research program and one that
can deliver shorter-terra research products.
There is an underlying implicit emphasis (*/hich is at tines explicit)
on computer programming, computational algorithm, and decision support
-------
- 23 -
systems. It is inperative that such decision rnajting tools have a sound
scientific foundation. Since resources foe this program are limited, EPA
should concentrate its research efforts on the development and acquisition
of the scientific data Cor these decision support systems*
the proposed FY '88 budget for this program is $2,6 million, a reduction
of approximately $500,000 from the current fiscal year> ''The Subcommittee
believes that this program, if maintained over a number of years, can achieve a
number of useful research results. It should receive increased and not decreased
support,
C. Structure Activity Relationships
Structure Activity Relationships (SAR) is a widely used tool in EPA's
toxic substances regulatory program, particularly the. premanufactttring program •
for new chemicals. Through analyses"of existing chemical structures scientists
draw assumptions about the behavior of new chemicals with similar or different
structures. Many scientific uncertainties persist in the use of SAR which
EPA's research program is designed to address.
For FY '88, the Administration proposes to increase funding for this
program by $600,000 to'$2,3 million, Among the proposed activities for FY '88
include: analyses of structurally similar compounds; developing a computer
based system to correlate chemical structure with biological activity; and
developing predictive methods.
The Subcommittee believes that these expanded resources can support an
important Agency need. It urges that Congress expand the research program to
enable further evaluation of non-cancer health endpoints.
6. Hazardous Wastes/Superfund
EPA's technical information needs to support its hazardous waste
-------
- 24 -
management programs have greatly increased In the past several years. The
reauthorization of Superfund enables the Agency to develop a research program
that can begin to address these expanded needs* The technical challenges
facing this particular research program are as large, or larger, than those
confronted for any other environmental problem.
EPA and the Congress anticipated the greater needs for scientific
support for hazardous waste research in FY '87, QSD received approximately
S40 million in augmented resources for 'Superfund/LUST for this year, and the
FY '88 proposal recommends a total allocation of nearly $60 million for this
account. Research support for hazardous wastes (excluding Superfund/LUST)
declines by $5,3 million to $45,2 million in FY '88. 32.5 million of this
deletion was withdrawn from a Congressional earmark for the Tufts University
t
Center for Environmental Management. The Subcommittee strongly %and unanimously
• B _ T *
* ' "•
urges that future decisions on research centers result from a competitive
peer review process. The total research dollars available for the combined
hazardous waste/Superfund/LUST programs amount to S105.0 million, an increase
of 15% over the FY '87 level of $90.2 million.
The Science Advisory Board has examined three specific areas within
this program. They include:
A. Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation (SITE)
The goal of the SITE program is to enhance the development,
demonstration and use of new or innovative technologies to provide ultimate
remedies for the prevention or mitigation of releases of hazardous substances
from Superfund sites. The program will function through a demonstration of
selected technologies at specific sites. It is expected that the private
sector will provide resources for the operational costs of technology
demonstrations, while EPA will pay for sampling and analyses costs.
-------
- 25 -
The SAB's Environmental Engineering Committee evaluated the SITE strategy
and Program Plan in a report to the Administrator on June 24, 1986.12 It
concluded that the program had made a clear exposition of its goals and
demonstrated an understanding of the impediments to the development and use
of alternative technologies. Liability and permitting are two major barriers
that need to be resolved before the program can be fully irtpleinented. Approxi-
mately $18.5 million is proposed for SITE program funding in FY '88, an
increase of about S10 million from the current year. The Subcommittee believes
that, contingent upon resolving the liability and permitting problems, the
initial prospect for the success of this program is good.
B. Alternative Hazardous Waste_Technologies Program
The objective of this research program is to develop data to
implement those sections of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments of
1984 that require'the banning of high hazard wastes Cram land disposal. For
fV '88, the proposed budget is S4.6 million, a $100,000 decrease from F¥ '87.
The current program has five major1 opponents: technology
assessment of existing processes Cor the treatment of wastes,* solidification/
stabilization (s/s)t which concentrates on the characterization of wastes and
binders, the performance of s/g- technologies and a Cield verification effort;
emerging technologies^ which emphasizes filling gaps in waste technology
needs and continuing the development of specific technologies; waste minimization,
directed primarily at documenting current industry practices; and disseminating
information about the program.
The SAB Environmental Engineering Committee submitted its review
of this program on September IS, 1986.-^ its major comments for inproving
the program included:
o It is primarily oriented towards RCRA-related research not
-------
- 26 -
all of which is applicable to Superfund (and particularly not to problems
Superfuncl will face as a result of the RCRA land banning decisions). The
Superfund portion of the program should be designed to address these gaps*
o The waste minimization component should be significantly
strengthened, especially to include establishing a formal network between
industry, academia, and government to share successful strategies» practices,
data, and programs. More emphasis should be placed on cthe reduction or
elimination {as a result of process changes or product formulations) of
hazardous wastes.
o OFD should review the choices for evaluating existing technologies/
processes for the treatment of wastes which are to be banned from land disposal
'' , +'
under the 1984 RCBA amendments to be.'$ure that potentially significant processes
have not been overlooked (such as biological treatment: of aqueous-organic .
liquids, steam'Stripping of wastewaters, and treatment of residuals from
solvent recovery).
o The in-house program should be expanded to provide valuable hands-
on experience to the staff, and to aid the staff in selecting technologies
and managing extramural projects.
The Subcommittee concludes that the proposed FY '88 budget will not
meet all the above listed needs.
C. Municipal Waste Combustioi
A number of intersecting events have combined to alter the nation's
awareness, and the public policy framework, regarding municipal waste management,
These include; growing amounts Of municipal waste to be collected and disposed;
shrinking landfill capacity, particularly in large urban areas; limitations
-------
- 27 -
in the current potential for recycling waste and reducing the volume of
wastes generated; difficulties in gaining public acceptance to site new
landfills or other technologies? escalating costs in transportation and
storage of municipal wastes; concerns over the public health and environmental
inpacts of storing municipal wastes in'"landfills, including ground water
contamination? potential for environmental controls on landfills that will
.,_>"
increase their operating costs and legal liability; public health and environ-
mental concerns over alternative waste management-strategies, including
incineration and ocean diarping; and Congressional action through the Hazardous
and Solid Haste Act Amendments of 1984 that favor raore permanent methods of
disposal (i.e. incineration) over the'.-storage of wastes.
IXiring the early 198Q's EPA's combustion research program suffered"
• * -' "• '
drastic funding reductions. As a result, the Agency is currently playing
catch-up to rebuild its research program and to enhance the technical skills
of existing staff. This occurs at a time of significant public controversy
concerning the incineration of municipal wastes, and of hazardous wastes at
sea and on land. One of the major reasons that SPA experiences such great
difficulty in gaining public acceptance for its decisions on incineration
technologies sterns from its inability to provide scientific answers to a host
of questions as to whether waste incineration poses unacceptable risks to
public health and the environment.
The FY '88 budget proposal for incineration—$2.4 million for both
municipal and hazardous wastes—will not appreciably improve the Agency's
ability to resolve many of the technical questions, or defend its risk manage-
ment choices.
-------
- 28 -
7. Energy/Acid Sain
The overwhelming majority of th* resources in this program will be
earmarked for acidic deposition research. The acidic deposition budget contains
approximately $S5»3 million for FY '88, a modest decrease from S55.4 million
in the current year. Given EPA's other pressing research priorities, the
Subcommittee concurs with the recommendation not to increase support for this
effort. For the same reason it supports the decision Toot to fund cold climate
or synfuels research.
8. Interdisciplinary Research
The interdisciplinary research program includes a diverse set of
activities such as developing guidelines .to promote more consistency in
risk assessment, managing' the Agency-wide quality assurance program, the
* * ''
visiting scientist program and.exploratory centers and grants.
The latter two are the best known cotponents of the interdisciplinary
program. Beginning in FY '85, EPA initiated a series of changes in its
management of the centers and also marginally increased their funding levels
to approximately $540,000 per center. In general, the centers and EPA staff
have also evolved a closer working relationship which is reflected in the
reccmnendation that the FY '38 funding level of $4,5 Million for the program
ti
remains constant from the current year.
The Subcommittee reiterates the reccmnendation contained in the
SAB's 1985 review of the centers program that EPA should fund each center at
a minimum level of $750,000-$!,000,000 to enable them to acquire a critical
mass of core support resources and become more productive than their current
capability. It notes that SARA enables EPA to create additional centers but
that no funds were requested.
-------
the exploratory, grants program continues to suffer ftcm the lack of
a constituency within EPA or the Administration. This is further reflected
in the reduction of support for grants in F¥ '88 to $10,7 million fron the FY
'8? level of $14.0 million* Hie Subconmittee believes that the program
should be modified to more clearly support EPA's mission of developing data
and methodologies for risk assessment and risk reduction, while still perserving
its investigator-initiated character. EPA sould involve its laboratory and
program office staff in identifying specific long-range problem areas that
individual investigators could respond to within the current competitive
framework, subject to review by peer panels. This would expand EPAfs
institutional'stake in the program, assist its becoming more responsive to
ORD and EPA needs, while still preserving the freedom of individual researchers
to submit scientifically creative proposals. . In summary, the Sobccnmittee.
believes that alternatives are needed to the current operation of the grants
problem because the continuation of the status quo will produce increasing
frustration for both EPA and the scientific ceroiunity* At best, the continuation
of current practice will result in maintaining a program that, at present, is
too small to have a major impact in advancing scientific knowledge for EPA
decision makers.
-------
- 30 *
V, References
1. Analyses of S s E Resources in the Office of Research and Development,
Prepared by: Utilization of Salaries and, Expenses Resources (USER)
Group, Office of Research and Development, u. S. Environmental Protection
flgency, July 2, 1986.
2. Ibid.
3. Environmental Outlook 1980, Office of Research and Development, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July, 1980 (EPA-600/8-80-003).
4. Review of the Office ofResearch and Development'sPlans for Determining
Future Research Needs on Indoor Mr Pollution, Report of the Indoor Air
Quality Research Review Panel, Science Advisory Board, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, November 5, 1986,
5. Review of the Forest Effects Research Program of the Office of Research
and^Development, Report of the Forest Effects Review Panel, Science
Advisory Board, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 9, 1985,
6. Reviewof EPA*s Assessment ofthe.Risks of Stratospheric Modification,
Stratospheric Ozone Subcommittee, -'Science Advisbry Boart, CJ. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Draft Report, February 9, 1987.
*
7. Review of the EPA Radon Mitkption Test Matrix, Radiation Advisory
Committee, Science Advisory Board, U. S. SPA, June 12, 1987.
8. Review of EPA's Water QualityBased Approach ResearchProgram, Water Quality
Based Approach Research Review Subcommittee, Science Advisory Board, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 11, 1986.
9. Review o£ Technical Documents Supporting Proposed Revisions to EPA
Regulations for the Disposal/Reuse ofSewage Sludge Under Section 405(d?
of the Clean Water Act, Environmental Engineering Committee, Science
Advisory Board, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 15, 1987*
10. Assessing EPA's Biotechnology Research and InformationNeeds, Report of
the Study Group on Biotechnology, Science Advisory Board, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection .Agency, February 1, 1986.
11. Review of EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment ResearchProgram, Ecological
Risk Assessment Research Review Subcommittee, Science Advisory Board,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 16, 1987.
12. Report on the..Review of the_ Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
_(SITB) Program; Draft Strategy ar^ Program Plan, Environrtiental Engineerirg
Committee, Science Advisory Board, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
June 24, 1986,
13. Review of the Alternative. TecjiTOJ.j3gies_Resgiarch Program, Environmental
Engineering Committee, Science"Advisory Board, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, September 18, 1986.
-------
APPENDIX I
Resources ACT Distributed by Medium as Follows;
1988 Research Budget
Sesearch Program
Air
Water
Drinking Water
Hazardous Waste
Pesticides
Radiation
Interdisciplinary
"toxic Substances'
Energy /Ac id lain
Superfund/LUST
Management/Support
S (M)
65. S
24.7
23.9
45.2
13.2
1.4 •,'•'
22.9
29.0
58.9
59.1
9.B
S353.5
Change from 1987
-j.,+2.4
+0.3
-0.1
-5.3
+0,7
-1.3
-5,0 ' *
-2.1
-0.7
+19.3
+0.1
+8.3
Sources Office of the Ccmptroller, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March, 1987.
------- |