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
------- |