United States      Office of tha Administrator EP A-SAB-EC-89-014
Environmental Protection Science Advisory Board  March
Agency        Washington, DC 20460
       Report of The Research
       And Development
       Budget Review
       Subcommittee
        Review of The Fiscal
        1990 President's
        Budget For Research
        and Development

-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      WASHiNGTON, O,C. 20460

                          MAR  161989


Honorable William K.  Reilly
                                                        OFFICE OF
AQIttiniStraI^Or                                       THE ADMINISTRATOR
U. S, Environmental Protection
  Agency
401 M Street, S.  W.
Washington, D. G.   20460

Dear Mr, Reilly:

     The Science Advisory Board's (SAB)  Research and Development
Budget Subcommittee has completed its  fourth annual review of the
President's proposed  budget  for  the  Office of  Research and
Development  and  is pleased  to transmit copies  to you  and the
Congressional committees  that authorize  and appropriate funds for
this office,

     The   Fiscal  Year   1990   President's  Budget   for   the
Environmental Protection  Agency's research program provides total
funding  of $421.5 million,  and 1,873  workyears,   increases  of
$33.6 million  and 21 workyears  respectively.   The SAB Research
and Development Subcommittee found encouraging evidence that the
Agency   recognized  the   need   for  longer   term   research  on
fundamental environmental processes, affecting the entire planet,
and the  need to begin addressing the maintenance of the research
program  infrastructure.    Increases  in  the  Exploratory  Grants
program for investigator-initiated studies  will increase the
Agency's links to the  broader scientific community.   They will
also  augment  the research program's  capabilities  by  making
available  otherwise unobtainable  skills and  knowledge.   The
staffing increase, coming after many years of  decline,  will allow
Office  of  Research  and  Development  (ORD) officials to begin
dealing with an increasingly serious skill-mix problem.

     Other  issues  and realities, however, cloud  some  aspects of
the picture.   The increase of  $33.6 million,  laudable as it is,
falls far short of the  amount needed.  The detailed review of the
budget  which follows  identifies  many programs and issues,  some
quite  critical,  which  suffer  for  lack of  support; this  is
particularly true  in many  of the media-specific  programs.  High
impact,  critical  topics  such as air  toxics,  sludge management,
and wetlands decline in support,  or at best,  receive only modest
increases.    The resources  allocated to  maintain  and improve the
research program  infrastructure  do indeed constitute recognition
of a serious problem, but  they are  far  too  small to achieve the
needed rate of replenishing the existing inventory  of obsolescent
equipment.

-------
     When the "buying power"  of this budget proposal is analyzed,
the severity of. the problem is more evident.   Stated in terms of
1982 dollars, the 1990 budget, even with Superfund resources (not
included  in  the 1980  data) provides some  $50  million  1 egs
capability then  did the  1980  budget.   Considering  that  major
legislative  changes  have  substantially  increased  the  Agency's
responsibilities and needs over that period,  and  that  many
emerging environmental problems unknown or only dimly perceived
in 1980 must be addressed,  the decline  is even more dramatic than
the numbers themselves indicate.   Until this  issue is  addressed,
the SAB Subcommittee harbors  serious reservations as to the over-
all adequacy of this budget.

     The Subcommittee  and the SAB  Executive  Committee  believe
that the enclosed report adds to the range of points of view that
the Administration  and Congress  should consider in reaching
budgetary   decisions.     Scientists  and  engineers  have  a
responsibility to present  their thoughts and  evaluations  of the
needs for research in the  area of  environmental  science,  and we
appreciate the opportunity to do so*
                               Sincerely,
                              Raymond C. Loehr, Chairman
                              Executive Committee
                              science Advisory Board
                                 in Ne6hold, Chairman
                              ''Research  and  Development
                                 Subcommittee
                               Science Advisory Board
Budget
cc:  John A.  Moore
     Erich Bretthauer
     Donald Barnes

-------
                  U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                                NOTICE
     This report has been written as a part  of the activities of
the Science Advisory Board,  a public advisory group providing
extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the  Environmental  Protection Agency.   The
Board is structured to provide balanced,  expert assessment of
scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency.  This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and,
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 pro-
ducts constitute a recommendation for use.

-------
             United states Environmental Protection Agency
                   Science Advisory Board Research and
                      Development Budget Subcommittee
Chairman

Dr. John M. Neuhold, chairman
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-5200

Members

Mr. Richard Conway
Union Carbide Corporation
South Charleston Technical Center
3200 Kanawha Turnpike (Bldg, 770)
South Charleston, West Virginia 25303

Dr. Morton Lippmann
Institute of Environmental Medicine
New York University  '
Lanza Laboratory
Long Meadow Road
Tuxedo, New York 10i87

Dr. Raymond Loehr
Department of Civil Engineering
8.614 EOT Hall
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712

Dr. Rolf Hartung
Professor of Environmental Toxicology
3125 Fernwood Avenue
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108-1955

Executive Secretary

Mr* Samuel Rondberg
tF. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board (A101F)
401 M street s. W.
Washington, D. C, 20460

                                ii

-------
                         Table of contents


1 . 0 Executive Summary  .....  ...............    l

2 . Q Introduction   ......................    2

3 . 0 Budget Overview  .....,,  ..............    3

4.0 Generic Issues in  Managing EPAls_5es0_ajC-gh_PrQqram ....    4
     4.1 Research Budget Trend_s ...............    4
     4.2 Infrastructure  .....  *..**....,..,.    5
     4.3 Personnel SKill_Mix  ................    6
     4 . 4 Centers and Investigator Initiated Grants  .....    7
     4..,._,5_S_feate of the  Environment ........ ,.,,..    7

S.....O. Gl_obal and Transboundary Issues ... ..........    7
     5.1 Global climate  Changes .  . ........ .....    7

6.0 Media.. ..Specif ic Issues ..... ...... ,*..,..    9
     6.1 Air  .........  ...............    9
     6 ,_2_ Water Qual ity  .......  ..... .......   10
     6 > 3 Interdiscipl inarv  ...... . ..... ..**..   10
              s and  Pesticides  .  . »  *  . .........  .   11
     6 . 5 Hazardous Waste   .*.**.....,.......   11
     6.6 Super fund   ........  ..... ......  .  .   12

7_._0__ Cone Iu5 ions  .......................   13

8.0 Literature ..... Cited   ....,..,,,.... ......   14

-------
                        1.0 Executive Summary
     The Fiscal Year 1990 President's Budget for the Environmental
Protection Agency*s  research program  provides total  funding of
$421,5 million, and 1,873 workyears, increases of $33.6 million ana
21 workyears respectively. In its review of the budget, the Science
Advisory  Board's  (SAB)  Research and  Development Budget  Review
Subcommittee found encouraging evidence that the Agency recognizes
the need  for  longer  term research on  fundamental  environmental
processes, affecting the entire  planet,  and  the need  to begin
addressing the maintenance of the research program infrastructure.
Increases  in the Exploratory   Grants program for  investigator-
initiated studies will increase the Agency's links to the broader
scientific community. They will also augment the research program's
capabilities by making available otherwise unobtainable skills and
knowledge.  The  staffing  increase,  coming  after many  years  of
decline,  will  allow  Office of Research  and Development (QRD)
officials to begin dealing with an increasingly serious skill-mix
problem.

     other issues and realities, however, cloud some aspects of the
picture. The  increase of  $33.6  million, laudable  as  it is, falls
far short of the amount needed.  The detailed review of the budget
which  follows  identifies many  programs  and   issues,   some quite
critical, which suffer for  lack of  support?  this  is particularly
true in many of the media-specific programs. High impact, critical
topics such as air toxics, sludge management, and wetlands decline
in  support,   or at   best,  receive only  modest  increases.  The
resources allocated to maintain and improve  the  research program
infrastructure  do  indeed constitute  recognition of  a serious
problem, but they are  far too small to achieve the needed rate of
replenishing the existing inventory of obsolescent equipment.

     When the  "buying  power" of this budget proposal is analyzed,
the severity  of the  problem is more evident.  Stated  in terms of
1982 dollars, the 1990 budget, even with Superfund resources (not
included  in  the  1980  data)   provides  some  $50  million  less
capability  then  did  the  1980  budget.   Considering  that major
legislative  changes  have  substantially  increased  the  Agency's
responsibilities ancl needs over that period, and that many emerging
environmental problems unknown or only dimly perceived in 1980 must
be addressed,  the  decline is even more dramatic  than the numbers
themselves  indicate.  Until  this  issue  is   addressed,  the  SAB
Subcommittee  harbors  serious  reservations  as to  the  over-all
adequacy of this budget.

-------
                          2.0 Introduction
     Review of EPA's research and development budget fay the Science
Advisory  Board's  Subcommittee  on  the  Office  of Research  and
Development (ORD) Budget was initiated four years ago when the
Board became frustrated with its  annual  reviews of the "Research
Outlook" five year plan. The frustrations stemmed from the lack of
information on the implementation of the plan, i. e., the budget.
With a budget attached to a plan, the Board can assess the proposed
actions   based  on  scientific  feasibility,   priorities,   and
capabilities.

     The Science Advisory Board in its research strategies study,
"Future Risk"  (SAB, 1988)  remarked that EPA's budget for its
Office of Research and Development had declined dramatically from
$398 million in  1980 to its 1988  level of $314 million (in terms
of constant  1982 dollars).  This decline was  happening  despite
emerging environmental issues for which we had little fundamental
knowledge and a consequent inability to implement feasible control
or avoidance measures,   paramount among these issues are the ozone
depletion and  global warming problems, but  we also face enhanced
concerns for indoor air pollution, groundwater pollution, hazardous
and municipal waste disposal and many other challenging questions
which continue to plague us.

     The Science Advisory Board has also recognized that the
future of effective environmental conservation, control and
regulation lies with our ability to anticipate  environmental
problems before they happen or become critical.  The ability to
anticipate environmental problems requires a  level of knowledge
about our ecological/biological systems that  we have, as yet, not
achieved.  And the only way that we will achieve it  is to implement
and carry through  research  programs that are at once fundamental
in nature,  long  term in scope, yet  also  applicable  to the known
problems  facing  EPA.  The  staff and scientists  of the  Agency
recognize these  research  issues as  well.   They expressed similar
thoughts  in  their "Environmental Progress  and Challenges:  EPA's
Update"  (OPP1, USEPA, 1988).

   This particular report  is one of a series of activities in which
the  Science  Advisory  Board  attempts  to  improve the  quality,
direction and  support  of  research at EPA.   The primary activity
taking place during the past fiscal  year  was that of the Research
strategies Committee(EPA-SAB, 1988).  The effort was divided into
five  strategy areas  including  l)  sources,  transport and  fate
research, 2) exposure assessment research/  3) ecological effects
research,  4)  health  effects   research   and S)   risk  reduction
research. The effort outlined EPA research strategies for the 1990s
and suggested means for implementing and updating them*

-------
    This report specifically resulted  from a meeting on February
15 and 16, 1989 at EPA headquarters but builds upon complementary
SAB  efforts  over  the  past  years*  The  Subcommittee  received
background briefings on the QRD and EPA-wide budget submissions for
1990.  The Subcommittee  prepared  an outline  of the initial draft
of their  report  and completed its  report  by mail  and telephone.
Following  approval  by  the Executive  Committee  of  the  Science
Advisory Board, the  report was  transmitted simultaneously to the
EPA Administrator and the Congress.  As stated earlier, this is the
fourth  annual report o*f  the  Research and Development  Budget
Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board.   In previous years, the
Subcommittee  has  sought  to  identify continuing  core  needs  for
maintaining productive  and high  quality  research at EPA,  while
highlighting specific needs for individual research programs.  This
year's report  continues  that  effort and adds another dimension,
that of relating  the proposed budget to the recommendations of the
SAB's Research Strategies report.

                       3.0 Budget Overview


     The Office of Research and Development is confronted with
the complex issues noted above,  as well as many others,  including
assuring that it has the workforce and skills necessary to manage
research  on  these issues. It  must  also  acquire  and manage  the
resources necessary to adequately  address the issues either in its
own  laboratories  or  extramurally  via  sponsored  or  directed
research.    The   Subcommittee  recognizes  that,   with  limited
resources, priorities must be set,  and that the proposed budget is
the net result of many policy decisions and conscious "trade-offs"
between many research areas in which increased investment would be
both desirable and rewarding.

     The Subcommittee was generally impressed with the way the QSD
leadership addressed the issues, acknowledging and
responding, in many  instances,  to the advice of the Science
 Advisory Board.   The budget proposal  is proactive  and forward
looking.    It acknowledges  the  need  to undertake  long-term,
trend-monitoring research which will allow anticipation of emerging
environmental issues. The Subcommittee was also pleased with the
additional resources proposed in  the President's  budget although
it questions the adequacy of the increase and, in some instances,
the distribution of  the resources.

-------
        4.«j3-_-Gjsneric,,.,Issues in Managing EP-A's Research Program


4.1 Research Budget Trends

     The Research Strategies Committee (SAB, 1988)  recommended that
IPA's Office of Research and Development budget be doubled over the
next five years.  The report argued that the increased  funding  is
necessary to make up  for  the decreases suffered in both  constant
and actual dollars during the past decade* During the same period
Congress enacted major environmental  legislation,  including the
Superfund  (1980),  the RCRA  amendments   (1984),  the  Superfund
amendments (1986), the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (1986),
the Global Climate Protection Act (1987), and the Clean Water Act
amendments   (1987)    that   gave   EPA  broad   new    regulatory
responsibilities  in  areas  in  which  the  knowledge  base was
inadequate for planning and implementing cost effective controls.
The   major      environmental   concerns   noted   earlier—acid
precipitation, global  warming,  stratospheric ossone depletion and
indoor  air pollution—also  -emerged  during this  period.   Both
fundamental  and applied  research are  necessary to  address the
questions posed by such issues.

     A doubling  of the QRD budget over the next five years  would
require an increase of approximately $75 million per year in 1988
dollars.  The increase in the total ORD budget for 1990 is
proposed to be $33.6 million  (Table 1), a laudatory increase in
view of tight budgets, yet still far short of the amount  neces-
sary to meet th*.-f-ive year goal and the Agency's realistic needs.

                              Table 1

               President's 1990 Budget for Research and
                     Development by Appropriation,
                          (Dollars iii Millions)

App-r-Qpjr_iatiO_a          1990 Total Dollars    Change from  1989

Salaries & Expenses         $117.2               4-  $5.9
Research & Development       235.0               +32.5
Superfund                     68.5                   4.8
LUST                           0.8                   0.0

TOTAL                       $421.5               + $33.6

-------
      when- the  1990  budget  is  translated  into  1982  constant
dollars,  the  shortfall  is  even  more  pronounced.  As  Figure  l
displays, the "nominal dollar" budget total of some $421.5 million
equates  to only $346.2  million in  "buying power" equivalent to
1982.
                   Constant Dollar Funding for R & D
                      Total Resources, 1980—1990
         500
         400
         300 -I
         200
         100
            Constant 1i82 Dollars ($M)
 500
                                                       - 400
 300
- 200
- 100
             1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
                              Fiscal Year
 On this basis, the research program is still funded be lot? the 1980
and 1981 levels, despite the increased needs noted above. This fact
must be kept  in mind as one examines the  following discussion of
the budget, couched as it is in terms of changes in nominal dollar
funding. Even with an additional increase of $41.1 million over the
proposed  $33.6 million, the program's  buying power  would barely
approach par with the 1980  budget.

4.2 Infrastructure

     This Subcommittee recommended  in last year's budget review
(Research and  Development Budget Review Subcommittee,  SAB,  1988)
that the need  to rebuild the infrastructure of ORD's laboratories
was critical.   Laboratory eguipment is ageing  and,  if functional,
is outdated and not capable of  attaining the levels of resolution
and  precision  necessary  to  accommodate  the   analytical  and
computational  demands  of  doing  "state  of the science"  quality
environmental  research. The Agency  estimates that $so  million
(replacement value) worth of equipment is seven years or older and,

-------
now or soon, will require replacement.  Yet it was able to address
this  need only  by redirecting  from  the various  media-specific
research programs an additional $4 million to supplement a base of
$2 million for equipment replacement—approaching but not reaching
par with the  attrition  rate.  New monies  should be made available
to accelerate bringing  the  infrastructure up  to the state-of-the
science condition.

4.3 Personnel Skill Mix

     The Agency conducts its research in two major ways, in-house
and extramurally.   To do this it must have  the appropriate staff
capabilities to  conduct  the research  itself and/or to select and
monitor  external researchers.   With  restrictions on  personnel
ceilings over the past twelve years,  the numbers of Agency research
poiaivtists have decreased. Losses to attrition through retirement
or recruitment by academia and industry could be not replaced with
younger talent.   The result has been  an ageing scientific staff
with relatively fixed capabilities.  The composition of this staff
thus  results  from random, rather then planned,  processes. Faced
with  issues  requiring  scientific capabilities  which  it  does not
have, the Agency is placed at a disadvantage to respond adequately
to the questions posed by these issues.

     The subcommittee was,  therefore,  pleased  to see an increase
of 21 positions in the work force proposed by the Budget, although
it is only a small first step to  address the problem. ORD has also
undertaken an in-depth assessment of its existing skill mix so that
it  might  better  be able  to  cope  with  future  environmental
"surprises" and to adjust to revised of objectives and changes in
goals.  The Agency  has  also taken the initiative in establishing
new  academic research  centers  to  augment its capabilities  to
address classes of questions for which its staff lacks the needed
expertise.

     The Subcommittee feels that the Agency could be more aggres-
sive in pursuing its visiting scientist program which it has
moved from its Office of Exploratory Research and left to
the  discretion of  the  several  field  research  laboratories  for
funding.  Lacking also  is any effort  in  establishing a long term
training program in cooperation with academia to enhance the skills
of EPA scientists or to provide a continuing source  of new graduate
level scientific talent.

-------
4.4 Centers arid Investigator Initiated Grants

     Investigator initiated grants are increased by $10 million in
the proposed budget, a welcome development.  The Agency is in
need of all the expertise it can get in view of the ever increas-
ing complexity  of  environmental issues.  The  grants  program not
only benefits  from the fundamental  work which is undertaken by
academic  and  other  scientists outside  the Agency  but,  in  the
process, develops an interested nnrt concerned scientific clientele.
It  also  provides  a  source of  trained  replacements for those
scientists lost to the Agency through  attrition/ as well as a
source of new personnel.

     That  the   existing  Centers  program is  proposed for level
funding  is regrettable particularly in  view  of our consistent
recommendation  that  productive centers be  funded at  a realistic
level of  some  $1 million  (rather than the current  $0.5 million
level)   to provide  a stable  "critical mass11  of support.  These
research  centers have demonstrated over the past few years that
they add  considerably to the skill mix and research  productivity
of the Agency.   Their continued support (and even expansion) should
be encouraged.
             _the _
     Once again the Subcommittee encourages the Agency to con-
tinue with its assessment of the state of the environment and
commends it for having produced its "Environmental Progress11
report (OPFE, 1988) .  With the information produced by the status
and trends activity proposed for initiation during FY 1990 the
Agency will be  in  more  powerful  position to assess progress made
and identify the challenges to be met.  A biennial (or longer
period) is suggested as a suitable period for the production of
such a report.

                   5.Q Global and Transboundarv Issues

5 . 1 Global, Climate Changes

     Atmospheric warming as  a  result of increased carbon dioxide
and methane  emissions  is  an example of  a force  that  will have
serious consequences  on natural and  agricultural  production and
thus  on the  long term welfare  of  Earth  and  its  inhabitants.
similarly,   stratospheric   ozone   depletion  will   allow  more
ultraviolet  radiation  to  reach the  Earth's  surface,  affecting
productivity  and  causing  an  increase  in  carcinogenesis.  Acid
precipitation resulting from  sulfur  dioxide and  nitrogen oxide
emissions will  also affect  productivity  and human health.   All
these  emissions know no  boundaries.   What we  and  others emit

-------
affects us. all.

     It is, therefore,  gratifying  to see ORD aggressively attacjc
the  issue with  a  significant  increase for  both  the  Air and
interdisciplinary programs (Table 2).  Particularly important is


                            Table 2.

              President's 1990 Budget for Research and
                        , Development by Media
                         (Dollars in Millions)

   Medium                1990 Dollars        Chancre from  '89

Air                           84,2               +15.1
Water Quality                 26.3               +2.1
Drinking Water                23.3               +1.7
Hazardous Waste               42.3               -3.1
Pesticides                    14.3               +0.8
Radiation                      4.2               +0.7
Interdisciplinary             77.7               +37.3
Toxic Substances              28.0                  0.0
Energy/Acid Deposition        38.2               - 16.7
Superfund/LOST                69.3               -  4.8
Management & Support          13.7               +0.5

TOTAL                        421.S               +33.6

the role the Agency proposes as a part of an interagency  effort
to approach the global warming issue (FCCSET, Com, on Earth
Sciences, 1989). Also important is the emphasis the Agency is
placing on research  in  the area  of long term ecological  monitor-
ing and trend assessment.  All too frequently the research
efforts of the Agency have concentrated on.issues directly
related to specific  and immediate  regulatory problems.   Research
in this "fire  fighting" mode  was characterized as too little and
too late. Although there will always be a need for some  research
in immediate response to regulatory needs,  this type of  research
will not prepare the Agency for its role to safe-guard the
environment in the face of the increasingly complex problems that
it will hav® to face in the future.

     Complex issues, such as global climate change, stratospheric
ozone depletion, acid deposition, as well as potential effects of
combustion products, point out the need for a solid research
foundation prior to the development of strategies for the control
of adverse impacts.  Regulatory initiatives based upon inade«juate
information may not be very effective and are lilcely to be
increasingly wasteful of scarce resources.

     Therefore, the Subcommittee welcomes the research initiative

-------
on Environmental status and Trends in the Interdisciplinary medium.
It is  anticipated that  the  monitoring of  parameters describing
environmental status  will be  directly related  to  environmental
processes and that research will be undertaken to understand these
processes while  analyzing the environmental  trends  so  that the
totality of the research will lead to the ability to predict.

     Nothing in the budget documentation indicated much of a role
for remote sensing and geographic information system  (GIS)
studies, work already underway in ORD.  The Agency does have a
history of early work with GIS which has the capability for
scoping site specific information to regional and international
scales and would seem to have direct relevance to the issue of
environmental status and trends.   That activity should be review-
ed and,  perhaps,  given greater prominence, perhaps with greater
extramural effort, in the research plans of the Agency.

     It is also important to recognize that the Agency is phasing
out its program  in acid  precipitation and  shifting some of those
resources  into  the  Interdisciplinary  global  climate area,  as
evidenced by Table 2.  Careful management will be required to apply
staff  experience gained  through  acid precipitation  research to
global  issues,  while maintaining needed  efforts   in  the former
program  area.  Particular  attention should be  given  to efforts
examining atmospheric  quality interactions  and effects  such as
forest damage that may be related to air pollution.
                        6.0 MediaSpecific Issues
6.1 Air

     We support the added emphasis placed on regional ozone
modeling (ROM) and on acid aerosols but question again, as we did
last year (SAB Research and Development Budget Subcommittee, 1988),
the prudence  of cutting air  toxics  studies  in  the budget.  State
governments in particular are very much concerned with setting air
quality standards for toxicants which are not common air pollutants
but are hampered by the lack of criteria with which to set the
standards for many of these toxicants.

     We were  lead to believe that a research plan for indoor air
pollutants has been prepared and will be submitted to the
Congress shortly.  The funding level proposed for F¥ 1990, however,
is only some $.100 thousand higher than the 1989 level (the net of
a reduction in extramural funds, and an increase for in-house work)
and does not appear to indicate sufficient activity in this area.
Work on radon also receives a s&all increase.

-------
6.2 Water Quality

     The sediments in our lakes, rivers and estuaries are a vital
part of the functioning  aquatic ecosystem.  The complexity of the
role of sediments  is gradually becoming known, but  our state of
knowledge lags considerably  behind the need to set  criteria for
limiting sediment contamination. It is in the sediments that much
of the biological reduction (breakdown of complex organic materials
to  elemental  nutrients)  activity  occurs  and  upon  which  other
elements  of  the  ecosystem are  dependent.    When toxicants  are
emitted into  the aquatic  system,  some find  their way  into  the
sediments  where  they kill  or debilitate  invertebrate  fauna,
microflora and bacteria disrupting ecosystem processes.
Sediments also serve as a toxicant reservoir from which toxicants
are emitted to the aquatic medium where they can once again
expose organisms.  Criteria  for sediments are  at  long last being
studied but even with the increase proposed in this budget (+$300K)
the effort appears to be too little to measure up to the complexity
of the problem or to  permit criteria to be enacted in a reasonable
time frame.

     The increase in the budget for constructed wetlands research
(for treatment purposes)  is  to be  commended.  However,  much work
still needs to be done .with naturally occurring wetlands since they
are the recipient  of much  surface runoff  and consequent toxicant
loading.  These wetlands are also the primary nurseries for many
of our commercial  and  sports fish (costal marshes)  and waterfowl
(inland marshes),  The complexities involved in understanding the
impact of wetland pollution on these populations needs our urgent
attentioni and merits increased resources.

     Sludge management is becoming an increasingly important
problem for our water treatment systems*  The Environmental
Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board strongly
recommended that research attention in this area needs to be
encouraged (Environmental  Engineering Committee,  1987),  but the
budget  provides  no  increase.  The  ban  on  ocean  dumping,  and
increasing problems  with  land  disposal will  further complicate
dealing  with  this  problem  for  state  and   local  governments.
increased attention  to this  problem  is needed before it reaches
crisis statue,


6.3 Interdisciplinary


     Though the Interdisciplinary Program does support an academic-
based epidemiological research  center, the Agency has insufficient
in-house  epidemiological  expertise  to  effectively  direct  an
epidemiological initiative. The Health Effects Research Laboratory
in North  Carolina should be afforded the  funds to mount  such a

                                10

-------
program as  was recommended by the  Research strategies committee
(RSG,  1988).  All of  the established  academically-based Centers
continue to foe seriously underfunded, as noted earlier.


6.4 TOXJCSL and Pesticides

     The increased funding for biotech research is commended,
but, in view of the magnitude of the potential hazard involved with
bioengineered organisms and the rapid development of the technol-
ogy, the effort could be afforded more support.

     The ecological risk assessment effort is an important ac-
tivity which could utilize the information to be generated by the
status and trends effort proposed in the interdisciplinary
program.  The ecological risk assessment project has been his-
torically underfunded.  It is paradoxical  that, with  the growing
emphasis on  risk  assessment  and  analysis in the ecological area,
the ecological risk assessment research program, a potential source
of models and analytical methodology, is still being underfunded.
An  infusion  of funds  could produce results  that,  in  turn,  would
make EPA decision-making less tenuous.

6.5..HmgLardQua Waste

     In regard to pollution prevention  (waste minimization)  the
SAB acknowledges  a major increase from the  $350,000  level  in FY
lisa to $2.4 million in FY 1989, but is concerned over the proposed
level funding for FY 1990.  As noted in the SAB Research strategies
Report  "Future Risk"  (RSAC,  1988),  pollution prevention  is the
1inch-pin  of  risk  reduction.    We  understand  largely  process
oriented research will be  addressed in  FY 1990  due  to limited
funding.  This is an  area that may be complementary  to industry
efforts and  does  not  break any new  ground,  lesearcii  planned for
later  years  is   in  so-called  non-technological   areas such  as
incentives for environmentally accepted products,  in anticipating
emerging  environmental   issues  due  to  technology and societal
changes and in using pollution prevention to mitigate them. If this
work could  be started in FY 1990 with additional  funds, greater
strides or break-throughs might result,

     The SAB notes the welcome  increase  of  $200 thousand  for
chemical accident prevention (and a  related $300 thousand increase
in  the  toxics medium).  More work needs to be undertaken  on low
probability/high consequence events of this nature.
                                11

-------
6.6 Suserfund .

     Superfund research declines  $4.8 million from a  level that
already seems too meager.  Considering the  national investment in
hazardous waste control, not only in this Agency, but also in other
organizations within the federal government and the private sector/
the program's  funding of  $68.5 million is a minuscule research
effort destined to yield a small return on the investment.
                                12

-------
                         7.0 Conclusions
     The Subcommittee finds much to applaud in this budget, along
with  a  few  items which  cause  concern.  On  the positive side/
increased staffing signals a change to  a  long period of decline;
increased support for fundamental  research  on global climate and
long term ecological monitoring,  along with similar commitments in
other key research areas-,  suggests that a careful and thoughtful
decision process underlies this  budget—a decision  process which
for the  first time  in  many  years seems  to take account  of the
special and particular needs of a scientific research program,

     We nust express serious reservations as to the adequacy of the
funding increases, however, particularly  in light of the reduced
purchasing power available to the M & D program when inflation over
the past  decade  is  taken into  account.  As  noted  earlier,  the
requested 1990 total funding,  in terms of actual buying power, is
LESS than the support provided  in either 1980  or 1981, despite the
increased research  responsibilities  placed on the  Agency during
this decade,

     The reduction in buying power has especially adverse effects
on the support available to rebuild the equipment infrastructure,
and evidences  itself in the reductions sustained in the various
media-specific  programs  to  support  the modest  infrastructure
increase. We have noted  particular areas  (e.g.  air  toxics and
sludge management, to name just two)  in the report, and feel that
such trade-offs  between the  long-term  viability  of the research
program, and the "hard"  immediate needs  of the Agency's regulatory
program and state and local governments should not have to be made.

     It is the SAB's hope that, by  presenting  these views directly
to policy makers in the Sxeeutiye Branch and the Congress, it can
highlight some of EPA's  most  important  research directions and
needs, and,  by so doing, persuade policy makers  to allocate the
resources necessary  to fund research  to anticipate and resolve
environmental issues and achieve  our common goal of protecting the
public health and the environment.
                                13

-------
                         8.0 Literature Cited

Committee on Earth  Sciences.  1989.  Our Changing Planet.  Federal
Coordinating Council for science, Engineering and Technology.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technol-
ogy Policy. Washington, D. c. 38 pp.

EEC. 1987.  Risk Assessment method. Environmental Engineering
committee. Science Advisory Board. U. s. I. P. A. SAB-EEC-S7-Q15.
Washington, D. C.

Research Strategies Advisory  Committee (RSAC)  1988.  Future Risks
Research  strategies for the  1990s. United  states Environmental
Protection   Agency   Science  Advisory  Board.   SAB-EC-ss-040.
Washington, D. C. 19 pp.

u. s. £, p. A. 1989. Summary of the 1990 Budget. United states
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C. 73 pp»

OPPE. 1988.  Environmental Progress and Challenges: EPA's Update.
U, s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1PA-230-Q7-88-Q33, Wash-
ington, D, C. 140 pp.

Research and Development Budget subcommittee. 1988. Review of the
President's Proposed Budget for EPA's Office of Research and
Development for Fiscal Year 1989. U. s. 1* p. A. Science Advisory
Board. SAB-EC-88-024. Washington, D. C, 18 pp.

RSAG. 1989.- IRlvitw of ORD's Core Research Areas, Report of the
Research strategies Advisory committee. U, s. E, P. A. Science
Advisory Board. EPA»SAB»RSAC-89-Ql3. Washington, D. C. 16 pp.
                                14

-------