UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
August 1, 1S84
QFF*ee OF
THE AQMINISTRATQB
Honorable William D. jRuekelshaus
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
tear Mr, Ruckelshaus:
The Science .Advisory Board has completed its review of the Office of
Research and Development's CORD) university-based Research Centers Program.
The Board's review was carried cut by its Subecmmittee on Strategic and
long-lean Research Planning. The Subcommittee examined a number of issues
related to the centers program including the role of the centers in OBD's
research program; the quality of wrk performed by the centers; the EPA
budget process and support for centers ? ORD management of the centers arri
the adequacy of ORD leadership; and identification of options for evaluating
ard/or reviewing centers.
In general, the Subcommittee concluded that most of the centers it
reviewed can be judged successful if criteria such as research design and
quality, and relevance to EPA's needs are utilized. However, the Subcommittee
identified a number of shortcomings limiting the ability of these centers
to be highly productive research institutions. Chief among those factors
were overmanagement of the centers by EPA, resources insufficient to consti-
tute a critical roass of support, and the poor quality of EPA leadership for
the centers program. The Subccnwittee has made a number of reeotroendations
for resolving these and other problems, a«3 we would appreciate your response
to these ideas, tn addition, it is our understanding that ORD staff ar«
presently developing criteria for decisions on the renewal of centers as
well as changes in the management of the program, we would appreciate
receiving a briefing on these initiatives.
-------
Thank you for the opportunity to present our evaluation of this program.
we believe that if it is sufficiently funded and appropriately managed it
has the potential to be a truly significant and productive component of
ORD's research program to address many of EPA's most important information
needs. The recommendations by the Board for improving the productivity of
the centers should he regarded as suggestive rather than prescriptive. The
SAB is interested in being informed on EPA's plans to resolve these shortcomings.
Sincerely,
Norton Nelson, Chairman
Executive Committee
John Neuhold, Chairman
Subcommittee on Strategic
and Long Term Research Planning
CC: Mr. Mvin L. Aim
Dr. Bernard Goldstein
Or, Herbert Wiser
Dr. Terrv P. Yosie
-------
REPORT OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON S7R4TIGIC AND LONG-TERM
RESEARCH PLANNING
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH CENTERS PROGRAM
OF THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Washington, D.C. 20460
JULY 1984
-------
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Congressionally established Science Advisory
Board, a public group providing advice on scientific issues* The Board is
structured to provide a balanced, independent, expert assessment of scientific
issues it reviews, 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.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................... 1
II. INTRODUCTION ....... ... 3
A, History of the Centers Program ................. 4
B. Subcommittee Review Procedures ,.»..,,,..,....,. 5
C. Outline of this Report « ...» 6
111. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE CENTERS PROGRAM
A, Criteria for Establishing Centers and Definition
of Centers' Mission „.»...,,..,,,.....*,,. 6
B. Comparison of Centers Program Accomplishments with
Original Goals and Criteria .,,,,...,,,,,,,,.. 7
C. Research Quality Review Criteria ................ 9
1. Design and Focus of the Research Programs at Four Centers. . 9
2. Research Quality and Control . ...... 10
3. Quality Assurance .............. . 11
4. EPA-Center Communications ................. 12
5. Intra^ and Inter—University Linkages ............ 13
6. Non-Center Considerations .,,.,..,,,, 14
D. EPA Management of the Centers Program .............. 15
1. EPA Guidance for the Centers 15
2. Reporting Requirements and Programmatic and Scientific
Reviews of the Centers 16
3. The EPA Budget Process for Centers 16
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18
A. Issues from the Charge to the Subcommittee . 18
1. New Center Themes ...,.,..,»,.,..,,.... 18
2. Scientific Review of the Centers 20
3. Centers Program and ORD's Mission ..... 20
4. Quality of Work 21
5. Renewal of Centers ...... ,......,, 21
6. Communicating Research Results ............... 22
B. EPA Management of Centers .................... 23
C. The Budget Process for the Centers Program 24
D. EPA Leadership for the Centers ......... ,,..,,,, 25
E. Role of the Centers ....,,,.,,..........<.. 26
11
-------
V. APPENDICES
A. Charge to the Subcommittee for Strategic and Long-Term
Research Planning , A-l
B. Roster of the Subcommittee *.....,,.......,... B-l
C. QRD Research Centers C-l
D. Site-Visit Reports ..... ..... D-l
-------
Key to Acronyms
AA - Assistant Administrator
AECTRC - Advanced Environmental Control Technology Research
Center
CASAC - Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
HERL - Health Effects Research Laboratory
IERL - Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
MERL - Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
NCGWR - National Center for Ground Water Research
NIEHS - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIH - National Institutes of Health
OER - Office of Exploratory Research
ORD - Office of Research and Development
ESKERL - Robert S, Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
SAB - Science Advisory Board
SAC - Scientific Advisory Committee
SRC "• Scientific Review
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This ts the final report of the EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
review of the Office of lesearch and Development's (OiU3) university-based
research centers program. The Board's review was carried out "by the
Subcommittee on Strategic and Long-Term Research Planning which was foriaad
to provide advice on A series of long-term research and development issues
confronting EPA.
The Subcommittee has focused on, six major issues in its review of
the research centers program, these include: 1) the role of the centers
in OiD's research program; 2) the quality of work performed by the existing
centersj 3) the EPA budget process and financial support for centers;
4) EPA management of the centers program; 5) the adequacy of EPA leadership
for the centers program; and 6) options for evaluating and/or renewing
centers*
The Subcommittee finds that neither the criteria for evaluating the
centers performance nor the mission of the centers program has been clearlv
established by OSD, This has led to a great deal of confusion within OED
and between OSJ3 and individual centers regarding the appropriate role of
centers in OKD's research program* Although most centers visited by the
Subcommittee can be judged successful if one uses criteria of research
design, quality and relevance to EPA's needs, it is equally clear that the
centers program can not he termed successful. The centers program exists
in a vacuum insofar as BPA's research planning process is concerned and
thus, it has had no discernable impact upon how SPA identifies its research
needs*
There are a number of ways of resolving these problems and achieving
a clarity of purpose for the centers program. These include; 1) 01D should
prepare guidance which clearly_ establishes the mission of the program and
defines criteria by which the goals and performance of the centers can be
measured; and 2) Olfl should define EPA's high priority health and environ-
mental research needs for the next five to ten years and Identify which of
these needs can be addressed aost effectively by centers*
The quality of work performed by most of the four centers visited "hj
the Subcommittee is generally high. Factors such as the design and focus
of the research program} research quality and quality assurance are given
high priority by the center directors, and their staffs who have also evolved
constructive relationships with their respective Scientific Advisory
Committees. In general, the number of linkages between the centers and
their affiliated universities continues to grow, thus drawing a wider
spectrum of disciplines and talents under the centers' umbrella.
A major limiting factor to the achievement of high levels of research
productivity by the centers is the lack of adequate budgetary support. The
dimensions of this problem are two-fold. First, the process by which
centers receive their annual budget is counter productive to center research
-------
performanee* After extensive preparation and review of their research
plans by several layers of EPA management, Che centers' budgetary alloca-
tions are made without a clearly defined rationale and at a level of
funding considerably below the target allocations given to ths centers to
guide their research planning for the following fiscal year. A second set
of problems stem from insufficient levels of support. The current budget
of §420,QQQ per center per year is simply not adequate to constitute a
critical mass of resources to achieve high levels of research productivity.
The Subcommittee recotnmends that a number of steps be taken to resolve
problems related to budgetary process and support. These include: 1) alloca-
tions of resources should be received by the centers at the start of the
annual project period; 2) ORD should identify ways to streamline the multiple
layers of review in the centers' budget cycle, including further delegations
of authority to the level of ORD where the responsibility lies for managing
the centers program; 3) ORD should distinguish between those portions of a
center's budget that constitute core support and those that comprise funds
for research; 4) centers should be free to supplement core support resources
by any means that does not constitute a conflict of interest or run contrary
to the mission of the centers program; and 5) the support needed by most
centers to maintain a high level of research productivity ranges from a
minimum of $800,000—$1,000,000 per year to a maximum of $2,000,000 per
year (including core support and research funds).
The centers program is both overreviewed and overmanaged by EPA. The
combination of policy board reviews, Scientific Advisory Committee reviews
and periodic administrative reviews by OED headquarters — In addition to
budgetary reviews --' are excessive given the amount of resources allocated
to the program. Administrative costs consume a minimum of 20-25% of the
centers' budget which is an excessively large fraction of resources at the
current level of funding.
The Subcommittee recommends that the following measures be impleiaentecl
to resolve these problems of overmanagement: 1) both the policy board and
Scientific Advisory Committee should meet only once per year, ideally at
the same time; and 2) QRD should clarify a number of institutional relation-
ships associated with the centers program, including: a) the relationship
between the project officer and the policy board chair—^where possible, the
two positions should be held by the same individual, preferably a senior
laboratory official; b) the stability of the policy board and the knowledge
of Its members. Board members should be appointed for fixed terms, staggered
so as to facilitate the continuity of knowledgeable members while gradaully
introducing new participants; and c) the role of ORD headquarters and the
Assistant Administrator In annual sign-off support for the centers. GRD
headquarters review need only occur when a center is up for a renewal
decision* There is no need for the Assistant Administrator to annually
approve a center's funding.
One of the most troubling of all the issues addressed by the Subcommittee
in Its review of the centers program was the quality of leadership in ORD's
Office of Exploratory Research (OER). Throughout the program's existence
-------
there has been no effective senior spokesperson or advocate for the centers
within EPA, particularly at headquarters* As a result, the centers ate
treated as orphans whose existence is tolerated, but they are not adequately
supported or effectively utilised. The Subcommittee believes that the
Assistant Administrator must__become the advocate for the program, for this
is the ^individual who has the scope of authority and span of control to
successfully utilize the_ scientific,, talents in residence at the centers.
It Is not clear how knowledgeable or concerned the current OER leadership
Is about the many problems that beset the centers program. The Subcommittee
recommends that_future directors.of PER possess scientific competence and
professional experience in managing a long-term research prograa, have the
support and respect of the scientific community,, and senior policy_o£ficials
at EF^.» ^e atl3-e -to,,,.P.r.gyi-d
-------
Subcommittee on Strategic and Long-Tera Research Planning. The Subcommittee
was formed by the SAB's Executive Committee on December 9, 1983 co identify
specific areas in which the SAB could advise ORD and the Agency on a number
of long-term research and development issues related to the Agency's mission
to reduce human health and environmental risk from anthropogenic activities*
The review of the centers program is the second of what is expected to be
a series of Subcommittee reports.
The SAB review of the centers program was requested in December 1983 by
Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, Assistant Administrator for lesearch and Development.
Dr. Goldstein specifically solicited the SAB's input to assist GW> in its own
evaluation of centers prior to determining whether and under what conditions to
renew existing center agreements. The specific charge to the Subcommittee was
"1> examining what environmental areas and theiaes will be of highest priority
for the centers program; 2) assisting ORD in conducting a scientific review of
the centers, associated with ORD's scientific and management review of the
program; 3) reviewing the effectiveness of the centers program as a means of
carrying out ORD's mission; 4} advising on the quality of the work performed by
the centers; 5) adi/ising ORD on the issue of options for renewal of centers;
and 6) examining how research results generated by both the Research Centers
Program and the Peer Review/Investigator Initiated Grants Program can be more
effectively communicated to ORD's laboratories and to EPA's program offices*"
The complete Subcommittee charge is included as Appendix A*
To carry out the review of the centers program, the Subcommittee
recruited a number of scientists and engineers representing a diverse set
of scientific disciplines and institutional affiliations* The review panel
embodied expertise and experience on both bench research and research
management levels. The roster of the Subcommittee is presented as Appendix 3.
A. History of the_ Centers__Program
The concept of a research centers program within EPA originated in
the 1970's as the outgrowth of a concern over the direction of the Agency's
research program. Reports prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment
in 1976, the National Research Council in 1977, and The President's Office
of Science and Technology Policy in 1979 called to the attention of
Congress and EPA policymakers the need to "balance the Agency's shorter-term
needs for technical assistance for regulation development with a commitment
to support research directed to longer-term research projects and programs
that would improve the scientific basis of regulatory decision making* In
particular, these groups believed that EPA had the responsibility to identify
research gaps and foster advances in the state of scientific knowledge to
ultimately serve EPA's regulatory information needs. In Fiscal Year (FT) '78
the Congress required EPA to assess laboratories needed to support long
term research. On April 5, 1978 the Agency submitted to the Congress a
report that examined a number of alternative approaches for conducting
Ions-term environmental research. A key recommendation of the report was
^See also the Preliminary Report of the S_ei_enee^Advisory Board Stud)
Group on Strategic and_Long-Term Research Planning, December 7, 1983.
-------
that "EPA should draw upon and utilize existing institutional resources as
one method of filling research gaps. Approximately five to ten centers of
expertise should be supported primarily at existing institutions with
specialized expertise.»»» Approximately, $500,000 to $1 million will be
required annually to support each ceater»"
The Agency followed up this report "by appointing a task force to
identify themes of interest. A newly formed Office of Exploratory Research
(OEI) prepared concept papers for each thetae. These became the basis for a
wide solicitation of letters of Intent from interested universities. After
reviewing the letters of intent, EPA Invited selected universities to submit
formal proposals for the competitive awarding of a cooperative agreement for
each center theme.
Beginning in FY*79 EPA authorized cooperative agreements with eight
university "based centers* The centers and their respective starting dates
are listed in Appendix C. A funding history of the centers program is
presented in Table I.
Table I; Funding History of ORD Research Centers Program
Fiscal,Year A^lQt-A^PJ^jfJ-.-t0. Program
(millions of S)
1980 ^ 2.8
1981 4.9
•1982 6,3
1983 3.4
1984 3.4*
1985 3,4**
* Current estimate of actual dollars to be expended
** Administration's request to the Congress for FY'85
B. Subcommittee Review Procedures
The Subcommittee held three public meetings on February 3» March 14-15,
and May 17-18, 1984. In addition, the Subcommittee subdivided into four
groups to conduct site visits during the month of April. The sites visited
included the Epidemiology Research Center, the Advanced Environmental
Control Technology Research Center, the National Center for Ground Water
Research, and the Ecosystems Research Center,
-------
The Subcommittee analyzed previous reports on the program by SPA
and the centers. Extensive briefings were provided to the Subcommittee by
EPA staff (including representatives of QRD headquarters and laboratories),
representatives of the policy boards, and center directors and their staffs.
From these briefings the Subcommittee learned about EPA's management of
the program, ongoing and anticipated research activities carried out by
the centers, and specific problems and opportunities associated with the
program as a whole, as well as those related to specific centers. This
information served as the basis of the Subcommittee's findings and
recommendations.
Both Agency and center staff were extremely helpful In providing the
information needed to respond to the Issues listed in the charge. The
Subcommittee appreciates this cooperation and wishes to acknowledge the
contribution of all of the individuals associated with the centers program.
C. OutIine_of_^thi_s__Report
The body of this report consists of two major sections. Section III
presents an analysis Of the major strengths and weaknesses of the centers
program, encompassing such factors as the scientific quality and relevance
to EPA of research carried out by the centers and EPA's management of the
program. The Subcommittee's findings and recommendations are presented in
Section IV,
III. STRENGTHS .AND WEAKNESSES ..OF_THE CENTERS PROGRAM
A. Crl_te_r_ia for Establishing Centers and Definition of Centers' Mission
The Subcommittee's review of Agency documents and interviews with
Agency and centers* personnel reveal a wide disparity of opinion about both
the criteria for the establishnent of centers and the mission that the
centers were to perform. For example, ORD staff informed the Subcommittee
of five criteria that were originally used! to review applications and select
centers. These included: 1) the scientific quality and creativity embodied
within a university's proposal to receive a center; 2) the university's
ability to develop innovative solutions; 3) qualifications of the researchers;
4} university facilities; and 5) experience of the university personnel.
These criteria contrast with those provided In the OER concept paper
for developing center themes entitled "General Guidance for Centers"*
Examples of criteria Identified in this document include; 1) "centers and
their programs shall have a multimedia and multldlsciplinary orientation...";
and 2) "center programs oust be responsive to the long-cerm needs as perceived
by all EPA laboratories whose activities are related to the center objectives.'1
A similar diversity of viewpoints characterized the definition of the
centers' mission. The solicitation announcement for the original centers
emphasized chat they would augment EPA's ongoing long-term research program.
-------
However, discussion at an early policy board meeting of one newly formed
center indicated that approximately 10-201 of the center's funds were to
be earmarked for studying problees of immediate interest to the Agency.
In short,_ both the criteria for_e8tablis_hing_the centers and the
mission of the centers program have not been clearly articulated by EM.
B. Comparison of Centers ...Program Accomplishments With Original.Goals
and Criteria
A, major rationale for the establishment of the university-based
centers program was to carry out research designed to meet EPA's
longer-term information needs as identified by the Congress, the National
Research Council, the Office of Technology Assessment, and EPA internal
task forces and advisory committees. • When eight centers were established
between 1979 and 1981, both the selected universities and many senior ORD
officials had high expectations regarding the program's potential. EPA
officials, in particular, saw the program as a means to establish more
formal linkages to the scientific community, with the hope that such ties
would lead to advances both in scientific knowledge and in the credibility
of the Agency's research program.
A major difficulty in assessing the accomplishnents of the centers
program lies, as noted in the previous section, in the absence of clearly
defined criteria against which to judge performance. In theory, the QER
solicitation statement for each theme describes the original goals of each
center. However, as centers were established, it became clear that there
was no unified policy to evaluate the centers1 operations. Even solicitation
statements were not consistently used as policy statements* Without adequate
st*d consistent guidance from QRD headquarters, policies were developed on
an ad hoc basis'for individual centers, in response to specific questions
raised by a particular center. Individual cooperative agreements, therefore,
may contain policy specifications peculiar to one university.
An additional difficulty in weighing the centers' performance is the
erratic budgetary history of the program. As seen in Table I, the budget
increased steadily from FY'SO through FY'82, but beginning In FY*83 a sharp
decline in resources ensued. This up and down trend of resource availability
Is disruptive to any research program, but it is particularly disruptive to
the planning cycle of research projects of several years' duration*
Given this ambiguity in both OED policy and funding, what have the
various centers accomplished in their three to five years of existence,
compared to what was expected by OER or the leadership of 0S.D?
It is apparent that some centers have accomplished essentially what
EPA had_in mind, and in some cases even more than EPA should have expected_
or deserved given the_v_icissitudes of the EPA budget, changing leadership
in OER an_d_CQnEradict_o_ry_ progratrnnatic guidance. The Epidemiology Research
-------
Center, however, had no clearly defined mission for the first three years
of Its existence and Its performance during this period reflects this lack
of definition.
The extent to which the centers program is judged "successful" depends
in large part upon, the criteria used in measuring Its impact on research-
related functions of EPA. The original concept of EPA-funded centers, as
opposed to university-based centers supported by the National Institutes of
Health (HIM) and other Federal agencies, was that EPA and the university
scientists would jointly plan and manage research that could not easily be
conducted in EPA's own laboratories. EPA's research would be enriched,
extendedj and strengthened by long-term and exploratory research in the
university—the kind of research that Is difficult to nurture in an EPA
laboratory because of regulatory pressures to acquire short-terra data in
support of specific programmatic activities. These principles are embodied
in the concept of cooperative agreement funding and in the role of the
policy boards*
If one examines the centers program from the viewpoint of: 1) criteria
for joint research planning; 2) feedback of research findings into the
regulatory process; 3) general enrichment of EPA's research efforts; and
4) exchange of scientists between centers and EPA laboratories, there is
little evidence of success. The centers _hay_e__ almost no disce_rnible impact
on EPA's research jjlanning process .,_and_the_ planning process^ (in contrast
to the budgeju p_roeess) has very lit^tle__liBpact_ oti the centers* The centers
ey;ist_ja$_i/ J.B._a__va.cuua and have had no discernible _impact upon how EPA
identifies its research needs* Thus, & major purpose jof the centers
program has not materialized to a significant extent.
The value of the centers program and its impact on EPA should also be
judged by other criteria* Ideally these criteria would include the quality
and quantity of the long-term or exploratory research, the relevance of this
research to EPA's long-range needs, and the timely availability of the research
information to "EPA's laboratories and program offices. Related criteria would
be whether the centers program has attracted nature scientists in. various
departments of a university to engage in EPA mission-'related research in which
they would not otherwise be engaged, and whether the centers are attracting
younger faculty members, graduate studentss and post doctoral fellows into the
environmental sciences.
The Subcommittee did not attempt to develop a quantitative assessment
of the centers in terms of these criteria* Nevertheless, the site visits
and the meetings with center directors and policy board chairmen yielded
abundant examples of fundamental research closely relevant to EPA's problems,
fruitful interactions between centers and EPA laboratories, recruitment of
both younger and mature scientists, development of new academic courses,
and other activities which demonstrate that an EPA-university connection
has mutual benefits* These examples will be cited throughout the text of
this report.
-------
In the Subcommittee's view, the, principal factors leading to success
for this program.are htgh quality o_f_center leadership, comparable quality
and consistency of policy board and ORD leadership, degree of university
suppert_and quality of university personnel, and adequate EPA resources.
Where one or more of these are lacking the center has been less successful
and even disappointing. What Is critically needed at the present tine to
promote the success of _ the eenters_ program as & whole is a continuity and a
Duality of leadership in QRD headquarters that: understands what a centers
.program should proyide_tQ_ EPA,, what factors lead to success or failure, and
what management and budgetary resources are necessary for a successful
program. In summary, the centers program cannot be proclaimed a success
story. However, the reasons for this,result rests primarily_with the
inadequacy of ORD leadership and support father _than with the universities.
C. Research__Quality Review Criteria
The research quality review criteria identified in the Subcommittee
charge and utilized to evaluate the quality of work performed by individual
centers were jointly developed by ORD and SAB staff and were accepted by
the Subcommittee in its charge (See Appendix A). These criteria formed
the basis for soliciting information and formulating opinions on the work
performed at the Epidemiology Research Center, the National Center for
Ground Water Research (NCGWR), the Ecosystems Research Center, and the
Advanced Environmental Control Technology Research Center (AECTRC),
1- Pesign_and Focus of the Research Programs at Four Centers
The program at the ICGWR focuses On the fate of organic chemicals in
the subsurface environment Including both saturated and unsaturated Ground
Water conditions. It Is a multi-university, multi-department, multi-
discipline program. The researchers have training and experience in civil
and chenlcal engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics and biology. In
developing its program, the Center has aimed at the long term. Some of
its best work is fundamental and clearly identifies new and important
phenomena about partitioning and transport of chemical species in ground
water. This program has shown the ability to cross departmental and
institutional barriers to bring a multidiseipllnary group together. Its
talents are broader and stronger for ground water research than the current
EPA funds can support.
At the Ecosystems Research Center the program is multifaeeted,
involving both review and synthesis and modelling efforts. An example of
a review and synthesis effort is the development of a multi-authored
treatise on ecotoxicology, an. emerging field of toxicology- This is of
particular value In the area of Setting water quality criteria under the
Clean Water Act. Modelling efforts have long been used to simulate complex
physical and biological systems. The center has employed this tool to
pinpoint subsystems in the aquatic ecosystems surrounding drilling platforms
for early warning monitoring.
-------
The research program at the AECTIC focuses on air and water pollution
control. Each of the research projects is aimed at gaining a fundamental
understanding of mechanisms to improve control processes* The researchers
are primarily faculty members from the college of engineering who hold
appointments in the civil or chemical engineering departments* Several of
the investigators have advanced degrees In physics, chemistry, or biology
as well as engineering. Near-terra research addressses topics In biological
degradation of pollutants on activated carbon, regeneration of spent acti-
vated carbon, ozone and hydrogen peroxide oxidation of dissolved hydrocar-
bons, and surface properties and charge on aerosol collection efficiencies.
Longer-term research is examining fundamentals of super critial fluid
extraction. In addition to EPA support, many of the researchers have other
government agency and/or industry research support, and thus the EPA, gains
by having a highly trained staff, not fully supported by Che Agency, working
on projects that are of interest to EPA.
There has been extensive occupational epidemiologic research and some
environmental epidemiologie research by faculty members associated with the
Epidemiology Research Center, but most of the research has not been
identified with or funded by the center. Only in the past nine months has
the center identified environmental research areas in which it plans to
develop research programs. These Include development of methods for
epidemiologic study of populations Impacted by hazardous waste dump sites;
improvement of methods for surveillance of reproductive effects; volatili-
zation of chemicals from potable water as a source of indoor pollution; and
improvement of risk assessment methodology based on epidemiologic studies.
These are appropriate topics for long-term study, given the competencies
and interests of core and resource faculty in this center. The new director
and associated faculty members in epidemiology and biostatistics have
well-earned reputations for high quality research in occupational epidetaio-
logy,
2. Research Quality and_CQntrol
A simple means to judge research quality and control is to measure
peer acceptance of research output. Each of the reviewed centers uses its
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) a little differently to ensure the quality
of its research projects and publications. For example, at the NCGWR there
is competition for research funds through a process of submitting internal
proposals from each of the three universities that are part of the center,
Quality control is maintained by both a pre-proposal and post-project
review. Preproposals are solicited and reviewed by the three center co^
directors as well as by scientists and engineers from the Robert S. Ksrr
Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL), Ada, Oklahoma, for relevance
and to avoid duplication of efforts. Full proposals are prepared, reviewed,
and ranked by the SAC, The co-directors use this ranking to determine
which projects are to be supported. The policy board reviews these projects
and the yearly work plans.
10
-------
ACET5.C uses Its Scientific Advisory Committee to review and approve
Individual research proposals and to conduct periodic reviews of completed
research projects. The SAC, In conjunction with the policy "board, addresses
the relevance of the research program Co EPA with the purpose of initiating
new research themes as well as deciding if certain project areas should be
phased out. The research staff of this center "has excellent credentials,
and their reputations lend to .the scientific credibility of Che center's
activities. For example, one assistant professor was recently recognized
with a Presidential Toung Investigator Award, and the center director is a
member of the National Academy of Engineering*
The Ecosystems Research Center uses a Scientific Review Committee (SRC)
to evaluate the work of both the staff and the Scientific Advisory Committee
(SAC)* This independent panel of ecologists is nominated by the center
director and approved by the policy board chairman. The SAC provides
guidance as programs are initiated, whereas the SIC provides aid-course and
end product evaluation.
In contrast, the SAC of Che Environmental Epidemiology Center has been
underutilized until this year* However, the SAC now has a regular meeting
schedule* Its principal function is to review research proposals and parti™
clpate in quality evaluation.
3. Quality^Assurance
When the centers program was first Initiated, the competitive process
between universities was used by EPA to identify high quality institutions
and staff committed to its announced goals for the centers.
The principal products of the centers are written reports, or papers
that are prepared for publication in peer reviewed journals. Acceptance and
publication of these papers is taken as explicit recognition that the work
is acceptable to the scientific community.
In the particular case of the Epidemiology Research Center, conventional
laboratory practices for quality control are of limited application since
laboratory or experimental science plays a small role in this center's
activities. The data of epideaiologie studies, such as death certificates,
have well known problems of accuracy, completeness, bias, and other sources
of variability. However, as statisticians and epidemiologists, the key
faculty are familiar with these problems and the measures to reduce their
Impact.
At the three centers where laboratory or experimental science play a
more significant role (NCGWR, AECTR.C, and the Ecosystems Research Center),
quality assurance is adequately addressed throughout the data collection
and interpretation phases*
11
-------
4, EPA-jCenter Communicat ions
Interactions between EPA and the centers have taken several forms*
The Subcommittee has not attempted to characterise or offer opinions on all
means of communication; father, it has identified several areas that it
believes are representative of EPA staff's attitudes and management approaches
toward the centers.
EPA staff from ORD headquarters and laboratories and the program offices
serve on the policy boards that provide oversight and articulate policy and
programmatic guidance and goals for each center* In general, the Subcommittee
found that the policy boards it examined have, over time, appropriately
evolved into oversight units that have attempted to facilitate center
operations. For example, the director of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory in Ada, Oklahama, who chairs the policy board for the
National Center for Ground Water Research, has made diligent attempts to
obtain funds for this center.
Both Office of Exploratory Research and policy board guidance should be
consistent. Even generally supportive policy boards, however, sometimes raise
obstacles when their relationship with OER or the Assistant Administrator's
office is unclear. The policy board for the Advanced Environmental Control
Technology Research Center (AECTRC), for instance, at one point stated its
desire to approve the terms by which an industrial group would fund a center
project even though no conflict of interest was apparent. This was unaccept-
able co the industrial representatives who subsequently declined to co^sponsor
the project.
Perhaps the worst example of EPA^center comiaunlcation breakdown existed
at the Epidemiology Research Center which has not sought non-KPA external
funding in part because of difficulties in gaining policy board approval*
The policy board chair for this center has experienced a deplorably high
turnover rate; in the five years of its operation, there have been five
different chairs. This lack of stability has contributed to the difficulties
experienced by the center in obtaining consistent EPA guidance. In addition,
a number of the center's activities involved EPA's requests for reviews of
criteria documents, grant applications and research protocols. The Subj
committee concludes that these technical assistance activities have been
excessive, and many are inconsistent with the stated purpose of a center*
The most fruitful center~policy board communication patterns observed
by the Subcommittee occurred when policy board representatives were EPA
laboratory employees. This is true for at least two reasons. First,
ORD laboratory personnel are more likely to possess the technical expertise
necessary to understand and review center activities. Second, laboratory
representatives, in contrast to ORD headquarters or program office staff,
can more readily regard their center counterparts as scientific colleague.?.
Such colleague-to-colleague interactions are, in selective instances.
12
-------
beginning to bear fruit. For example, cooperative research ventures have
evolved between the Ecosystems Research Center and both the Gulf Breeze and
Corvallis laboratories. Similar endeavors are transpiring between AECTRC
and the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (MERL) In Cincinnati,
The Deputy Director of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati is also the project officer and policy board chairman for the
AECTSC and the other two technology centers. This arrangement has promoted
direct exchanges of information between the laboratory and the centers and
within the centers.
Such examples represent an Improvement In laboratory-center relations
since the time when the centers were first established. At that time,
research funds were withdrawn from the laboratories to support the centers'
operations. This "tapping" of the laboratories by the Assistant Administra-
tor produced an understandably negative reaction by laboratory directors
and staff* In subsequent years the laboratories have, until the very modest
budgetary upswing in the current fiscal year, witnessed a considerable
erosion.in both people and dollars for intramural and extramural projects.
Given this context, it Is remarkable that laboratories and centers are
Increasing their scientific exchanges on mutually beneficial projects.
One should not become too sanguine about these observations, however,
because as already noted, they do not apply to all EPA laboratories and
centers. In addition, they may not last in cases where they currently
apply* The development of_ a useful dialogue...and joint project planning
between^laboratories and centers are primarily the result of the willingness
of IgtQgledgeable people in both institutions who recognize the advantages of
cooperation, rather than the existence of any fomal mechanism_ that promotes
their interaction. Given the fact that the circumstances_eneouraglng such
exchanges can change, through, forjexample, the departure of key^personnel.
thlg is an extremely f ragile_and ad hoc .format for plan.nlng_research and Ig
no substitute for a more strtictured_ approach,
5. Intra and Inter-University Linkages
Examples of Intra and Inter-university contacts are presented below for
each center. During the early existence of the Epidemiology Research Center,
efforts were made to establish the center as a university-vide activity
within the University of Pittsburgh and to build bridges to neighboring
Carnegie-Mellon University. One mechanism for this effort was an executive
committee which included representatives from a. lumber of faculty departments
at both universities to solicit grant proposals. However, none of these
proposals was approved by the policy board, and the collaborative effort
was eventually abandoned. At the present time the center Is located
within the School of Public Health, providing a focus for many activities
of the Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, with some Involvement
of other departments. The center Is collaborating with Brookhaven National
13
-------
Laboratory in developing risk assessment methods for the synfuels industry*
Current attitudes at the center would promote broader inter~university and
inter-laboratory collaborations, if funding were increased and if EPA had
an epidemiologic studies program intramurally.
The NCGWE, a consortium of three universities located in two states^
has addressed the probleo of linkages from the very beginning of its
existence* In addition to the consortium, the center has supported research
projects with co-principal investigators at different institutions. For
example, there is a laboratory and field project conducted at a superfund
site in Texas that is directed by one investigator from Rice University
and one from the University of Texas at Austin.
The Ecosystems Research Center has been very successful in marshalling
a variety of talent to the center. Various units on campus, including the
Department of Ecology and Systematics, the Department of Natural Resources,
and the Boyce-Thompson Research Institute are active participants in the
center's projects, the center's interaction with the Boyce-Thompson Institute
has resulted in significant findings concerning acid deposition effects
on the secondary infection of plants. Extra-university linkages facilitated
by the center include working relationships with Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute and Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as with EPA laboratories
at Narragansett, Gulf Breeze, and Corvallis.
The center director of the AECTRC serves on the SAC of the Industrial
Waste Elimination Research Center, thus providing center-to-center interaction*
Researchers supported by the AECTRC are affiliated with the colleges of science
and engineering at the university; center researchers also have additional
research support from other government agencies or from industry.
6. Non-Center Cong_i_d_e_r_ati_on3_
There are a number of factors which influence the conduct of center
business but which are not under the control of the center. A good example
is the Epidemiology Research Center, which lias had significant problems in
its relationship with EPA. One set o£ problems related to the composition
of the policy board, in particular the frequently changing chairmanship
prior to the appointment, one year ago, of the director of the Health
Effects Research Laboratory (HERL) at Research Triangle Park, N.C. The
unstable leadership of the policy board led to changes in direction
and uncertainty about the goals of the center. The second major problem
resulted from EPA's termination of its intramural epidemiologic ptograeu
Except for individual epidemiologists at HERL, there was no epidemlologle
research program or epidemiology "presence" within EPA to which the center
could relate. The dissolution of epidemiology research within EPA was not
accompanied by any contractual mechanism which might have given the center
responsibility for carrying out the epidemiology mission of the Health
Effects Research Laboratory, with linkages to research planning and work
plan development In the Agency,
14
-------
There have also been a number of positive results, attributable to the
centers, within the broader scientific community outside of EPA. For
example, the ASCTtC has been involved in other educational activities such
as a trilateral agreement to train Japanese environmental engineers under
the Engineer Exchange Provisions of the U.S.-Japan Bilateral Agreement on
the Environment, The attendance and participation at the two International
Research Symposia on Ground Water reflect the prominent role that the NCGWE
has assumed as a mechanism for transfer of research results to the multi-
disciplinary Ground Water community*
D. SPA Management of the Centers Program
The centers program Is managed by the Office of Exploratory Research
(Q1R), which Is a staff office within the Office of Research and Development
at EPA headquarters and whose director reports to the Assistant Administrator
for QRD. OIR manages other research' programs including the Peer leview-
Investigator Initiated Competitive Grants Program and the Visiting Scientist
Program, and serves as the lead ORB liaison with the National Academy of
Sciences. Both the grants and centers programs have headquarters staff
assigned to manage day-to-day operations, although during the current
fiscal year each program lacked a permanent director for a number of months.
The Subcommittee's review of the management of the centers program
has focused on several issues. These include: 1} the nature of EPA guidance
to and interactions with the centers; 2) reporting requireaents and the
number of programmatic and scientific reviews of center operations; and
3) the budget process.
1. EPA guidance for the centers
Bespits the progress noted in some areas, major problems in EFA-center
interactions persist. These, In fact, overshadow the positive .features of
the dialogue between the centers and most EPA laboratories and policy boards.
Many of these problems can be traced to EPA/ORD headquarters and more
specifically to the Office of Exploratory Research. More than one policy
board chairman stated that he did not know what current GRD/OER policy was
towards the centers' acceptance of non-EPA funds because prior guidance on
this issue had shifted 180 degrees. Also, the previous Acting Assistant
Administrator had opposed the use of extramural laboratory funds for specific
center projects, although the Incumbent Assistant Adminstrator has reversed
this decision.
QER direction to the policy boards and to the centers Is also Inconsistent
or nonexistent. This is reflected in the obscure guidance on preparation of an
annual center report, the absence of a mechanism to integrate center research
activities into ORD's planning process, the lack of a formally articulated
conceptual framework on how center projects are to be judged relevant to
EFA's mission and how they should support regulatory programs» confusion
over whether the centers are EPA centers and only to be supported with
Agency funds or whether they are university centers for which EPA provides
15
-------
core support, and lack of clearly defined criteria for replacement of
center directors or the renewal of centers* The absence of PER leadership
to develop creative proposals to try to resolve these problems is discon-
certing and represents_an abrogation of responsibility. Discussion between
PER personnel and_the Subcommittee also^indicated that it is not clear how
knowledgeable or concerned^ the current PER leadership is about these problems
and their effect on the program-
2. Reporting Requirements and Programmatic and Scientific
Reviews of the Centers
Individual centers are subject to at least three kinds of review. These
include: 1) programmatic review of center goals, operations and expenditures
by the policy board; 2) peer review of project proposals and on-going
research activities by a Scientific Advisory Committee; and 3) periodic
administrative review by ORD headquarters, including OER. For each kind of
review, center staff must prepare written position papers and/or proposals,
with an accompanying rationale to present to the reviewers. Several center
directors estimated that about 20-25% of their FY'84 budget of approximately
$420,000 was expended on such reviews and administrative costs, while one
director judged that more than 50% of his budget was absorbed by-such
activities. These expenditures included such items as travel and salaries
and expenses.
The frequency of policy board meetings has varied from center to center
and from year to year. At the AECTRC, for example, the policy board averages
two to three meetings per year, while at the Epidemiology Research Center it
has convened approximately five meetings since 1979. Both center and most
EPA personnel were in general agreement that the policy board could meet
once per year and retain an appropriate level of oversight. The peer
review provided by the Scientific Advisory Committee was also regarded by
most observers as adequate if carried out once per year, although the
current practice is to meet somewhat more often. In addition to these
sets of meetings are periodic administrative gatherings called by the OER
director and staff to review such issues as the budgetary outlook and
changing EPA peer review procedures. In addition, it is sometimes necessary
for center directors or staff to make site visits to ORD laboratories. The
total number of such meetings and reviews more readily explain why many
center directors spend approximately 50% of their EPA funded time to manage
administrative issues associated with the center. It also leads the Sub-
committee to conclude that, for the amount of dollars allocated to the
program, the centers are over reviewed and over managed.
3, The EPA Budget Proces_s for Centers
The process of preparing, defending and allocating the budget for the
centers can be summarized in one word—byzantine. A brief description of
how this process works will help to illustrate the ORD management attitudes
and approaches toward this program.
16
-------
The budget cycle for a typical^ center begins approximately six nonths
(during April or May) before the allocation of funds for the next fiscal
year. At that time OER provides each center with a target allocation so
that the center can identify which research it plans to. carry out within
the dollar ceiling* The center director and staff prepare position papers
for review by the policy board on what research projects should "be carried
over or phased out during the next fiscal year as well as identifying new
research initiatives that can be funded under the target allocation. If
new projects are approved by the policy board, center staff proceed to
prepare formal research proposals for review by the Scientific Advisory
Committee*
Assuming clearance through both the policy board and the SAC, the center
"package" is submitted to the project, officer* The project officer Is very
Important to the center because he/she is the legal and institutional
representative of record for the EPA and Is responsible for monitoring the
performance of the center and upholding EPAfs obligations under the terms of
the cooperative agreement. The policy board, de jure, deals with the center
through the project officer but, de facto, the relationship is less clear
because In some cases the policy board chair and the project officer are
the same person, while in other instances at EPA, the latter works for the
policy board chair in a supportive role.
Following his/her review of the center's budget package, the project
officer prepares a decision memorandum which includes the comments of ORB
headquarters' reviewers, attempts to reconcile differing views, and certifies
that the proposed funds are sufficient to carry out the proposed tasks. The
decision memorandum Is forwarded to the director of OER. At this juncture of
the process It is approximately mid-August, or nearly six weeks before the
start of the new fiscal year. The 015, task at this point Is to actually
locate money to fund the center. OKD's budget -process does not specifically
designate funds for a specific center, but rather provides a general account
called the decision unit for "interdisciplinary research" which also Includes
the peer review grants program and a number of smaller, miscellaneous Items.
From this general funds Category OER patches together a budget for the
center which is then forwarded to the Assistant Administrator for concurrence.
Assuming concurrence, the package is submitted for reviews and concurrence
by the Grants Administration Division within the Office of Administration.
This latter office is organizationally separate from ORD and is, In fact,
headed by another Assistant Administrator.
2SInce each center Is subject to a slightly different budget cycle this
description does not conform exactly to the time frame of an individual
center's funding year. The Subcommittee believes, however, that it has
Identified the key elements of the centers' budget process, if that pro-
cess was synchronized with EPA's fiscal year planning cycle.
17
-------
By the end of this review cycle several changes are likely to have
occurred to the original package approved by the policy board and the
Scientific Advisory Committee. If recent experience is a useful guide, the
center would not receive its funding until long after the fiscal year had
actually begun. Also, the actual level of funding is considerably lower
than the original target allocation. In its fourth year of funding, for
example, the Ecosystems Research Center received a target allocation of
$680,000; its actual funding level was $420,000, Similarly, the National
Center for Ground Water Research was directed to plan its fifth year program
within a budget ceiling of $650,000; it received $420,000. In FY'84 all
centers received the same funding—$420,000.
IV. FINDINGS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Issues from the Charge to the_ Subcoaiaitt£e
1. New Center Themes
The Subcommittee was asked by the Assistant Adnlnistrator for Research
and Development to identify new environmental areas or themes that, in
future years, will be of highest priority for the centers program. Before
presenting specific proposals on this issue t he $ubcoiaciittee _strong ly
reconraends _that_ ORD and the Agency resolve the _ma|or problems that pLague
the existing centers_j5ragram_'bgfQ^e.,gvg^ CQnsMe.rJ-_njj .fcfee establishrne..nit.. °A
new centers.^ At the present time it would be ,,f OQlish_to_eons_idgr new
c_e_nte_rs bejfojre^ the_current budgetary, leadership and management problems
Qf_the_current progran are corrected.
There are several minimum requirements that should be satisfied by ORD
before it considers new center rhymes- These include:
a. Significant nevr funding is available
b« OER should define EPA's high priority research needs for
abating health and environmental risk during the next five
to ten years. OER should identify which of these needs can
be addressed most effectively by university-based centers.
Finally, OER should develop nominations for new center themes.
For each of these three activities OER should consult with
the SAB Subcommittee on Strategic and Long-Term Research
Planning.
c» The solicitation process for new centers should be competitive.
Members of the Subcommittee have identified several environmental areas
which they believe warrant consideration for center sponsorship by EPA. In
addition, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the Science
Advisory Board, in a December 1983 report to the Administrator on Research
Needs for Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards, recommended high
priority themes for new centers. ORD should consider the recommendations
of both of these panels if the other minimum requirements are satisfied.
These recommendations are as follows:
18
-------
Extrapolation of quantitative experimental animal response data for
the prediction of human responses. Sponsorship of further research
in this area through a center would contribute significantly to an
understanding of the mechanisms of the responses to pollutant insults
to both^laboratory animal and hunan systems. Results of such work
are directly related to developing the scientific basis for standard
setting under most of the statutes that !PA is charged with implementing
and enforcing,
Research, relating air pollution exposures to doses received by target
sites within human populations. Developing an enhanced capability to
assess pollution exposures is a critical element of risk assessment.
Important components of a center organized to evaluate the exposure-
dose-risk assessment links Include: a) establishing relationships
between concentrations at air monitoring sites to human exposures;
and b) assessing biological responses to multiple pollutant exposures.
While directly applicable to supporting EPA's regulatory responsibilities
under the Clean Air Act, the research results of such a center can
enhance EPA's exposure assessment for land and water pathways analysis
and can provide scientific support for assessing the human health
risks from air and water pollutants, hazardous chemicals and radiation.
Evaluation of unused areas for waste disposal, EPA is currently
surveying the disposal of toxic wastes in some relatively uninhabited
or unused environments. For example. It Is assessing the envlroiraental
and human health impacts associated with the incineration of hazardous
wastes at sea. In addition, it is charged with establishing criteria
for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes* Waste sites for
the latter, many of which are located in areas of low population
density, are currently under review by the Department of Energy*
Creation of a center(s) for desert .ecology and/or microbial ecology,
or expansion of the research program of an existing center, will
directly support EPA's responsibilities under various statutes and
will lead to a greater understanding of pollutant behavior and fate
in media where the Agency's current depth of knowledge is limited*
Application of biotechnology principles and techniques to pollution
control. The evolving science(s) of genetic manipulation creates
numerous opportunities for environmental scientists to better
understand and neutralize highly toxic pollutants. Examples include
the use of microbiological techniques to detoxify hazardous chemicals,
such as some pesticides, in soil systems and the development of
organisms that consume toxic substances without themselves being
rendered coxic. IPA could potentially utilize such state-of-the-art
practices for pollution abatement under most statutes that it
19
-------
implements. In addition, a long~terra, ample commitment of researchers
and dollars to support a biotechnology center will hopefully increase
the Agency's knowledge of this important scientific innovation*
» Research related to monitoring of ambient levels of contaminants In
water, soil, and air. Accurate measurement of low levels of
contaminants In the environment Is an essential facet of any clean—up
effort, be It Nation-wide or at a specific location. Problem sites
need to be identified and progress in their remediation monitored.
Creation of a university center in this broad monitoring area would
generate new basic approaches for sampling and analysis and would
complement the more applied work of EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratories,
2. Sclentific Review of the Centers
During Its review of the centers program the Subcommittee reached a
consensus that the concept of a centers program is worthwhile, that such a
program has the potential to achieve high levels of research productivity
if it is adequately supported by EPA, and that, in general, EPA should
have a centers program. The research generated at most of the centers has
generally been of high quality. The Scientific Advisory Committee review
process of the current centers Is appropriately focused and is carrying
out Its intended functions. The program has proved to be a vehicle for
mobilizing talent from diverse academic sources, both intramural to the
institution housing the center and frequently extramurally. In addition,
the program has been partially successful in attracting funds from outside
of EPA, thus magnifying the EPA investment. In short, despite EPA's
underfunding of the centers, most of them have proven to be a worthwhile
research investment.
3. Centers Prograni_a_nd__OR_D_^_s: Mission
Although the centers program is a part of ORD, it has not been clearly
articulated how the program carries out the mission of the ORD or of EPA.
As a result, there is confusion and reluctance on the part of ORD to encourage
funding such items as graduate student research, even though such research is
usually integral to a centers program. The ORD must communicate clearly
to the centers what their role should be in research, education, and service.
Recommendations:
a ORD should create mechanisms to more closely integrate center activities
whose those of its research laboratories and to encourage the labora-
tories to use centers in the same disciplinary area for research, but
not for technical services such as proposal reviews. To the extent
possible, each center should have a laboratory "constituency" with
which to plan and/or carryout research.
20
-------
* Long-terns and short-tern research goals and objectives need to be
clarified.
* ORB should prepare guidance which clearly states the missions and
goals of the centers.
» Exploratory studies should be supported.
• Centers should be encouraged to exchange staff scientists with
other centers and with EPA laboratories.
4. Duality of Work
The work performed by the centers is usually of high quality (see
Appendix D). However, the uncertainty of funding levels undermines center
stability and hinders fundamental long term research.
5. _Rene_waI_ of Centers
The low level of support for the centers has resulted in their not
being centers. In drawing this conclusion, the Subcommittee has examined
center sponsorship at other Federal agencies, such as the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Science Foundation
(NSF). Either the amount of support for the _centers program should be
increased to realistic levels, or EPA should acknowledge that it cannot
_f_und such a program and should terminate_it^. The Subcommittee has recognized
several options;
a. If funding remains at the current level of $ 3.4 million
ORD should consider:
• reducing the number of centers froci eight to a number which
will provide more adequate funding - probably four or five
centers, or
* distributing funds on an unequal basis to the eight centers,
or
* terminating the program entirely.
b. If funding increases to a level such that each existing and/or
new center would receive a mininum support of $800,000 to $1,000,000
per center, OHD should:
* increase funding to the eight centers but not necessarily on
an equal basis, or
• add more centers
21
-------
Funding of centers should be based on a three year cooperative
agreement, followed by a second three year cooperative agreement. Competi-
tive renewal should occur in the fifth year. If the center Is competitively
renewed, it would receive two additional three year cooperative agreements.
If it failed to be renewed, it should receive 50% funding for an additional
year (year 7) as a transition to a total phasedown.
A potential disadvantage of this fifth year competitive renewal is that
it does not provide for long term tenure of funding that centers such as
those funded by NIEHS have come to expect* Consequently, ORD may also wish
to consider the renewal process followed by NIEHS or other Federal agencies
a$ an alternative to the competitive renewal process described above.
6. Cmauctlng Research Results
Technical exchange between the Agency and centers is mutually
beneficial and should be encouraged. On the issue of technical transfer of
information, the Subcommittee finds three areas of particular concern.
These include;
a. information exchange;
b. technical transfer involving personnel exchanges; and
e- specific response to Agency initiatives, which are related
only in principle to the research mission of the center.
Re_c Qmme nda_t i_o ns_ :
* OER should develop standard guidelines for an annual report of
center activities. This report should be a substantive summary of
aJQ center activities (both EPA and non-EPA funded), OER should
act to coordinate the dispersal of the reports to other centers,
EPA laboratories, program offices, and other appropriate Agency
personnel, OER should assume an active role in summarizing its
supported research to the entire Agency.
» No more than 10% of core funding should be devoted to information
exchange or technical transfer (items 6a and 6b). This should be
a "rule-of-thurab" directive, and final decisions should be made by
the center director.
e There exists a continuing need for EPA to make an internal organi-
zational link between research and program Initiatives. Something
akin to the Office of Integrated Technical Analysis proposed by
the National Acadeay of Sciences in 1977 remains a useful suggestion,
The operation of the ORD research committees has, to date, failed
to meet this need for Integration of research,
22
-------
B. EPA Management of Center_s_
In the Subcommittee's view, what is critically needed at the present
time to promote the success of the centers program as a whole Is a. quality
of leadership in ORD that understands what a centers program should provide
to IPA, what factors lead to success or failure, and what management and
budgetary resources are necessary for a successful program.
1, The centers are currently subject to reviews by the policy
board for programmatic and budgetary oversight, by the Scientific
Advisory Committee for peer review of the research program, and periodic
reviews by ORD headquarters. There are currently an excessive number
of such review meetings in relation to the amount of resources allocated
to the centers. The net result is that administrative costs of running
the program are too high relative to available dollars. The program
is being over reviewed and over managed.
Recoroaendation; Both the Policy Board and the Scientific Advisory
Committee should convene only once per year, ideally at the same time.
2. A number of institutional relationships relating to SPA's
management of the centers program need to be clarified. These include
the relationship between the project officer and the policy board; Che
stability of the policy board and the knowledge of Its members; and
the role of ORD headquarters and the Assistant Administrator in annual
sign-off of support for the centers.
Re comme ndations!
* At the current level of funding the need for separate reviews by
both a project officer and the policy board is not apparent,
Where possible, the project officer and policy board chair should
be the same individual, preferably a senior laboratory official
who understands the technical basis of a center's program and is
knowledgeable about ORD policy issues.
* Members of the policy board should be appointed for fixed terms,
staggered to promote the continuity of knowledgeable membership
while gradually encouraging new participants.
* At almost any level of funding, a review of a center by ORB head-
quarters need only occur when a center is up for a renewal decision,
when there is a a change in leadership, or when a special problem
arises. After the initial awarding of a center agreement to a
university, ORD should delegate the sign-off authority for the
center's annual support to the project officer* There is no need
for the Assistant Administrator to annually approve the funding.
One objective of this proposed delegation of sign-off authority is
to ensure that budgetary authority resides at the same level of
ORD where the responsibility for managing the program exists.
23
-------
3. There is a need for OER to develop more explicit procedures
concerning the replacement of the center director.
Recommendation: In the event a center director leaves the institution
of is unable to carry out his/her duties» an acting director should be
appointed on an interim basis by written mutual agreement with OER. A
permanent director should be selected as soon as possible (the acting
director could be an eligible candidate) to ensure continuity in the
direction of the centers research program. The new director is expected
to possess scientific and management capabilities at least equal to
those of the previous director and must be acceptable to EPA staff and
the policy board, with the advice of the Scientific Advisory Committee.
The appointment of the new director should also be confirmed in writing
between the center and OER.
C. The_^Budget_ Process for the Centers Prograia
1. The Subcoiamitteee reached several findings about the budget
process.
a. The intensive preparation of the centers to develop and
continue a research program within a given level of resources
is subverted by the ORD/EPA budget process* What, in fact,
occurs is that after extensive contingency planning by the
centers and review by the policy board and the Scientific
Advisory Committee, budgetary choices are made in the absence
of a clearly defined rationale*
b« One of the central purposes of strategic research planning
in any organization is to inform the budgetary process, i.e.,
to provide an analytical basis for prioritizing alternatives
and selecting those which are affordable. The budgetary
process should not subsume the planning function, for if
this occurs Identification and discussion of many potentially
creative alternatives will not take place. The current ORD
practice of patching together various funding accounts to
fund centers, to allocate monies sustantially below the
original budget ceiling, and then to provide the same amount
of funds to each center after the fiscal year has already
begun is counterproductive to good research management and
is analytically bankrupt*
e* The budget process in.^any__Qrganisation is characterized^ by_
_complexity,_but__c_omplexity nee_d__not_^ob_scure _the lines of
authority and responsibility for ensuring program success.
The^EPA/QRD budget process ^separat^es^^e^authorlty of those
individuals who provide funding for the centers from the
individuals who are responsible for the day~to~day center
operations* This separatlot\_gf ^authority and^ responsibility ,
in practice, results in a situation where everyj)tie is to
blame and, therefore>_flO_one_ls__to_blani6« This is the
definition of bad management.
24
-------
lecotiaendatlons;
* Allocations of resources should be received by the centers prior to
the start of the annual project period. The project officer and
the director of OER should work closely with the center directors
and the EPA Grants Administration Division to assure that funds are
transmitted expedltiously. The director of OER should be accountable
and responsible for ensuring that resource transmission occurs in a
tlaely fashion.
• ORB should Identify ways of strearaling the multiple layer of reviews
in the centers' budget cycle Including the delegation of more
budgetary siga^off authority*
2. "Core" support for centers
Centers require a critical mass of professional staff, support staff,
equipment, facilities and space and research funds to carry out a viable
research program. Within this context, centers receive core support froa
EPA, Core support refers specifically to salary and service support
allocated to individuals associated with a center, not including research
support.
Recommenda tioni
* OER should identify which portions of a center's budget constitute
the core budget and those'elements that comprise funds for research.
However, the Subcommittee does not assume that each center has the
same core support needs. The support needed by nost centers to
maintain a high level of research productivity ranges froa a minimum
of $800,000 - $1,000,000 per year to a maximum of $2,000,000 per
year (including "both core support and research funds)*
B. EPA Leadership for the Centers
1» Throughout the years of the centers' existence there has been
no effective spokesperson or advocate within EPA, especially at QRD
headquarters, to ensure the success of the program. As a result, the
centers continue to be treated as orphans whose existence Is tolerated,
but they are not adequately supported or effectively utilized.
Reconnendatioti' The advocate for the centers program must be the
Assistant Administrator of OSD. Only the AA has the scope of authority
and span of control to initiate actions that lead to more effective
utilization of the centers as a major scientific resource within ORD»
2. The Subcommittee believes that the quality of leadership within
OER has not been effective.
25
-------
Recommendations; The following criteria should be adopted for selecting
future directors of OEE;
• committed to the EPA centers concept and the operation of the
centers;
• committed to support of long-term research needs of the Agency;
* an advocate of optimal financial support for the centers;
• possess scientific competence and professional experience in
managing a long-terra research program;
* have the support and respect of the research community and senior
policy officials at SPA;
* able to provide the intellectual leadership necessary for a centers
program; and
* capable of clear communication, of policy decisions and management
guidance.
E.
One point of consistent confusion encountered by the Subcommittee was
whether the centers are EPA centers and only to be supported with SPA funds
or whether they are university centers whose cote support Is funded by EPA.
For the long haul, the latter approach is more desirable. The EPA support
should be considered as base support used to initiate Important centers at
various locations, The SPA base support should be used as "leverage" to
enhance the success of the center.
Recommendations;
• centers should be reviewed on a regular basis and be phased out/
terminated if performance does not yield sufficiently high quality
research that benefits EPA.
* centers should seek a broad base of support and participate fully in the
academic community without being obligated to only one sponsor.
• so long as both EPA and the centers contribute and benefit from the
cooperative agreement relationshipt there should be no tirae limit
set for the duration of EPA support.
• EPA should have the management flexibility to alter the mix of
centers to reflect its changing Information requirements over the
long~term« As the Agency's role as a sponsor of research In the
Federal government evolves (for example, it is currently a primary
sponsor of ecological research but not a primary sponsor of health
research) so will its need for specific kinds of centers.
26
-------
Appendix A
Charge _.tp_the
Subc_oiamittee___on Strategic and Long-Tern
Research Planning.
In December 1983 Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, Assistant Administrator for
Che Office of Research and Development (OID) formally requested the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) to assist in the review of OED's Research Centers
Program. The Subcommittee on Strategic and Long-Term Research Planning was
formed by the Executive Committee of the SAB to carry out that review.
Specifically, the Subcommittee has been asked to review the following
issues;
1) Examining what environmental areas or themes will
be of the highest priority for the centers program;
2) Assisting OID in conducting a scientific review
of the centers, associated with QRD's scientific
and management review of the programs
3) Reviewing the effectiveness of the centers
program as a neatis of carrying out OfiD's mission;
4) Advising on the quality of the work performed by
the centers}
5) Advising QRE> on the issue of options for renewal
of centers;
6) Examining how research results generated by both the
Research Centers Program and the feer Review Investigator
Initiated Grants Program can be more effectively
communicated to ORD's laboratories and to EPA's
program offices•
Six research quality review criteria have been identified for use in
evaluating the centers program:
" The Research Program - From a scientific point of view,
Is the research program well designed and focused?
Has a specific research objective been identified?
Within the context of the centers thenie assignment»
Is the research objective of major interest to the
scientific community? Will the research be useful
to EPA or to anyone else?
A-1
-------
Research Quality and Control - Are there acceptable peer
review procedures to ensure the quality of research
projects and publications? Is the membership of the center's
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) well qualified and relevant
to the needs of the center? Does the SAC represent a national
scope of interest? How has the SAC been utilized? Does it
retain objectivity? What other measures have been taken to
ensure research quality?
Assurance - What measures are taken to define the
quality of research data generated? Are statistical methods
being used in experimental design and data interpretation*
~ .Non-Center Considerations - Are there any considerations
outside the center director's control that might impact on
this evaluation?
~ Communications - To what extent has there been interaction
between SPA and the centers? Is there communication between
the centers and the EPA laboratories and EFA's program offices?
" Intra-University Linkages - How well do the centers act as
magnets to draw in other researchers within the University
to participate in research projects?
A-2
-------
Appendix B
Subcommittee on Strategic and Long-Tern
Research Planning
Dr* John M. Seuhold (Chairman)
Department of Wildlife Sciences
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Mr. A. Robert Flaak
Executive Secretary
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
401 M Street, S*W.
Washington, D.C* 20460
Dr. Clayton Callis
Director
Environmental Operations
Monsanto Fibers and Intermediates
Company
800 N. Lindburgh Blvd.
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Dr. Keros Cartwright
Illinois State Geological Survey
615 East Peabody Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Mr. Richard A. Coaway
Corporate Development Fellow
Union Carbide Corporation
P.O. Box 8361 (770/342)
South Charleston, West Virginia
25303
Dr* Edward F. Feerand
Assistant Commissioner for Science
and Technology
New fork City Department of "
Environmental Protection
51 Astor Place
New York, New York 10003
Dr* Robert Frank
Department of Environmental and
Health Science
The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene
and Public Health
615 N. Wolfe Street
Baltinore, Maryland 21205
Dr. Leonard Greenfield
1221 Columbus Blvd.
Coral Gables, Florida
33134
Dr»' Joseph Koonce
Department of Biology
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Dr. Michael Lebowitz
Professor of Internal Medicine
University of Arizona
Health Sciences Center
Tucson, Arizona 85724
Dr. Morton Lippmann
Institute of Environmental
Medicine
Lanaa Laboratory
New York University
Long Meadow Road
Tuxedo, New fork 10987
Dr. Raymond Loehr
Professor of Agriculture
Engineering and Professor
of Engineering
207 Riley-Robb Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
B-l
-------
Dr. Francis McMichael
Department of Civil Engineering
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Dr. Daniel Menzel
Professor of Pharmacology and
Experimental Medicine
103 Jones Building
P.O. Box 3813
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina 27710
Dr. JaTnes Porter
President
Energy and Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
1-8 Monsignor O'Brien Highway
P.O. Box 215
East Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141
Dr. Frank Speizer
Channing Laboratory
180 Longwood Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts
02115
Dr. James Whittenberger
Director
Southern Occupational Health Center
19722 MacArthur Blvd.
University of California
Irvine, California 92717
B-2
-------
Appendix C
ORD Research Centers
Theme
Epidemiology Research
Center
Institution
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Starting Date
October 1979
Advanced Environmental
Control Technology
Research Center
University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois
October 1979
National Center for
Ground Water Research
Consortium!
University of Oklahooa,
Norman, Oklahoma
Qklahooa State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma
Rice Universitjj
Houston, Texas
October 1979
Industrial Waste
Elimination Research
Center
Consortium:
Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago
Illinois
University of Notre Dame,
South Bend, Indiana
October 1980
National Intermedia
Transport Research
Center
University of California
at "Los Angeles,
Los Angelesa California
October 1980
Icoystetns Research
Center
Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York
October 1980
Marine Sciences
Research Center
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, Rhode Island
October 1980
Hazardous Waste
Research Center
Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
October 1981
c-i
-------
-------
Appendix D
REVIEW OF THE
EPIDEMIOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER
April 2-3, 1984
INTRODUCTION
The Site Visit Team met at the Graduate School of Public Health, University
of Pittsburgh, on April 2 and 3, 1984, Team members Included; Robert Frank,
Michael Lebowitz, Morton Lippmann, Frank Speizer, James I,. Whittenberger,
Terry F. tosie (SAB Director) and Robert Flaak (Executive Secretary)*
GENERAL COMMENTS
This was one of the first group of centers established by Cooperative
Agreements with EPA, and Is now in its fifth year. It is the only center
prinarily concerned with health effects of environmental pollutants. However,
there are several cogent reasons why this center has not reached the maturity
of purpose and program »hlch one would normally expect la a five-year old
center. These factors were discussed In Subcommittee nestings in February
and March, and were known to the sitt visit team prior to the visit* The
site visit extended our knowledge of the problems, as well as the improvements
made by the university participants in the past eight or nine months. Soae of
the problems are common to all the centers; others are peculiar to this
center. The problems will be listed now and some of them amplified later.
General_Problenis;
Budgetary uncertainty, reductions, misunderstandings.
Lack of policy direction and consistency in Office of Exploratory
Research.
Special problems _o£ Pittsburgh Center;
Chaotic history of policy hoard - frequent changes of chairmanship,
unstable policy guidance.
Absence of any laboratory or program activity in ORD to which the
center could relate (the epidemiology intraaural program was
abolished by SPA in 1981),
CONDUCT OF THS SITE_VISIT
The center director provided a substantial set of documents in advance,
which gave the site team a good background for the visit. By agreement,
Dr. Interline also developed an agenda which would provide the site visit
D-l
-------
team opportunities to hear from and to interrogate key faculty members of the
center. On the second day, the site visit team visited the facilities and
had extensive discussion with the center director (following an executive
session).
Two persons important to the center were not present at the site visit:
Professor Lewis Kuller, Chair of Epidemiology, is away on sabbatical leave,
and Dean Raymond Seltser was out of town. Dean Seltser called the Chair of
Che site visit team to express his strong support of the center; this Is more
than routine support because Dean Seltser Is himself an environmental
epidemiologist.
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Leadership of i the center.
Until September 1983, the director of the Pittsburgh center had been
Professor E.P, Radford, Jr., who has resigned and left the university.
Granting that EPA's contribution to the cooperative agreement was deficient
and sometimes not in the best Interests of the center, it is also apparent
that the quality of leadership at the institution was different under Radford
than it is under the new director, Philip Interline, Since September 1983,
the center has identified four major themes for future research, has organized
the role of the advisory committee and appointed a chairperson for the first
tine, has occupied integrated space, has developed regular staff meetings,
and in oeher ways has created a sense of unity and purpose.
8' .Thg..m®s> or environmental health _ research^areas of highest^griority.
During the first four years of the center, there was no focus for
long-term research. The EPA solicitation which led to the establishment of
the center had no impact on the activities of the center. A large amount of
technical advice was sought by various components of EPA, including the
laboratories, and this burden of service continues to Che present. The policy
board set a limit of 20% of the budget for technical services, but this limit'
was not adhered Co. At one point, the center was asked to serve as "Project
Officer" for all SPA epidemiology contracts.
At another tine the policy board asked the center to set up five task
forces to determine EPA priorities for long-term research. Task Force members
thought they were planning EPA's research program, not the center's program.
The planning effort that started last fall identified three research themes
to which a fourth was recently added. These are four of the topics on the
agenda—studies relating to hazardous waste sites, monitoring of adverse
reproductive outcomes, studies of certain indoor air pollutants, and methodology
of risk assessments. In general these Involve critical "state-of-the-art"
reviews, coupled with possible specific research plans. The topics identified
are appropriate research themes for an environmental epidemiology center.
D-2
-------
C. Quality of the research program,
In terns of epidemiologic studies attributable to IPA's support of the
center, there is little to evaulate. This is not a reflection on quality of
faculty in the center, because most of those faculty have been doing good or
excellent research with sponsorship by other sources. Many publications are
attributed to the center, but most of these are publications of proceedings of
the annual symposia sponsored by the center. Some of the syiiposia have been
of high quality and responsive eo high priority needs; others have been
unreaarkable»
Dr. Enterline is a widely respected and productive statistician and
epidemiologist, one of the pioneers in occupational epidemiology in this
country. He is thoroughly aware of the needs and is a practitioner of high
standards in quality control, peer review, and uses of statistical methodology.
His associates in research are also of high quality, including some »ho are
not identified with the center (and probably should be).
The Scientific Advisory Committee has been very little used until this
year. The SAC now has a chairman, a regular meeting schedule, and a principal
function to review research proposals and participate in quality evaluation.
D, Interactions with EPA.
EPA's project officers were complieented for their understanding and
their efforts to assist the center, but nothing else in EPA's role was
praiseworthy. In 1980 the center was informed by the Office of Exploratory
Research that $500,000 was available for research projects. The center
prepared and submitted nine research projects for peer review, only to learn
that'the $500,000 was supposed to be the core budget for the second year,
Since eight of the nine projects were already committed, the core had to be
reduced from $346,000 in the first year to $130,000 in the second year. This
was only one example of the "screw-ups" in the core budget.
The center felt obliged to respond to all requests froo EPA, whether
from a regional office, a laboratory scientist, or headquarters. Center staff
thus did feasibility studies (e.g., arsenic in drinking water), planned research
protocols that were never used (tove Canal), organized workshops.reviewed
grant proposals, etc. The center has not attempted to quantify this service
to EPA, but estimates it at 30 to 40% of center effort. ,
The policy board has been the major source of input froa EPA, in spite
of the frequently changing chairmanship, lack of guidance as to what the
center was supposed to accomplish, etc. There was no Input from research
committees when the policy board asked the center to establish the ,ive
planning task forces and no feed-back to the center as to whether the task
force reports had any impact on EPA research planning. As one senior staffer
in headquarters described the role of the policy board, it was a deplorable
state of affairs."
D-3
-------
EPA never communicated clearly to the center what it's role In research,
"education" and "service" should be. The center used EPA funding for
establishing two courses in Environmental Epidemiology in the School of Public
Health, for supporting student research projects, and for the annual symposia
(which were considered "education"). Eventually the policy board put a
budgetary limit of 5% on student projects. They also approved use of 20% of
the budget for "service," but made no effort to monitor this restriction,
CONCLUSIONS
A, The first four years of this cooperative agreement should be largely
ignored in evaluation of this center for renewal. Most of the fault was
EPA's. Reasonably good progress has been made since August 1983 because of
new leadership of the center, stabilisation of the policy board under the
present chairman (Director of the Health Effects Research Laboratory), and
efforts of the project officer.
B. Effective integration of the center into EPA's long range research
and research planning faces fomidable handicaps. Effective linkage with EPA
Is impossible until EPA re-establishes epidemiology as an Important intramural
program.
C. Although scientists in the center are excellent, the center is
using faculty resources who are at the institution, but not identified with
the center. This is particularly true in the areas of environmental exposure
measurement and reproductive biology, two areas which are very important in
the center's program.
B, The center should be more aggressive in seeking non-EPA support for
center-related research and more willing co identify extramural support they
already have, as closely related to center objectives.
E. Technical service activities should be curtailed in favor of greater
emphasis on research. Center funds, such as they are, should be conceived as
core support for faculty and specialized facilities, supplemented by project
support from public and private sources.
F, In fairness to the University of Pittsburgh, another three-year
renewal period should be considered, with competitive renewal by the end of
the seventh year (May 1986),
-------
REVIEW OF THE
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER (AECTRC)
April 16, 1984
INTRODUCTION ,
The site visit was held on Monday, April 16, 1984, at the Engineering
Experiment Station of the College of Engineering. Members of the site visit
team present were: Clayton P. Callls, Francis C. McMichael, James H. Porter,
Terry F, losie (SAB Director), and Robert Flaak (Executive Secretary).
The team was hosted by: Dr. Richard S. Engelbrecht, center director and
Dr. Willlan A. Cawley, Deputy Director, EPA IERL, Cincinnati, center project
officer.
SUMMARY
The site visit team concluded that the Advanced Environmental Control
Technology Research Center (AECTRC) is well managed; the research is appropriate
to the center's mission; the quality of the research Is excellent; the research^
team demonstrates enthusiasm; a cooperative spirit exists between the Individual
researchers and the center; and the productivity of the research effort has
been high. This general status o£ AECTRC has been attained in spite of program
budget cuts and confusing signals received fro* EPA Headquarters because of:
a) the management skills of the center's director;
b) the commitment of the university researchers to
the center and the auxllllary support they lend
to the center through the excellence of their
individual reputations; and
c) the direction provided by the center's EPA project
officer in directing the center through EPA's
taanagement and budget maze.
The review team concludes and recommends that;
a) the research conducted at this center is appropriate
and beneficial to the Agency;
b) the Agency provide consistent guidance and support
of this center at the headquarters level of ORD; and
c) the annual funding commitment to this center
be increased by at least two-fold so that the
center can effectively carry out its mission*
AECTRC RESEARCH PROGRAM
The center's research program and its mission is best described in "Summary
of Research Activities, 1983" the report from the center director, A copy of
the director's report Is available for review in the SAB's offices. The program
focuses on air and water pollution control research. Near-term research
D-5
-------
examines biological degradation of pollutants on activated carbon, activated
carbon regeneration, preeharging aerosols, H202 and ozone oxidation of
dissolved hydrocarbons. Longer range research is examining super critical
fluid extraction. Each of the research projects focuses on gaining a
fundamental understanding of mechanisns so as to improve processes.
The researchers are primarily professors from civil and chemical
engineering and their graduate students. The research projects often involve
interdisciplinary teams. The research staff has excellent credentials and
their reputations lend to the credence of the center's activities. Much of
the work conducted by the researchers is not funded through the EPA and the
center. Thus, the Agency gains by having highly trained staff who are not
fully supported by the Agency working on projects.
The quality and productivity of the AECTRC research program are good.
Forty-two (42) peer reviewed journal articles have been produced by the
program and 12 of these have been generated through the research effort.
The center has excellent facilities and i$ well equipped to conduct research.
Again the Agency gains since much of the facility and equipment is supplied
by the university and not through EPA funding.
The center has attracted funds frora outside of the EPA,, for example:
A project sponsored by the Army Corps of Engineers to examine
biodegradatlon as a means of decontaminating soils.
The center has also been involved in other activities such as
entering an agreement to train Japanese environmental engineers
under the Engineer Exchange Provisions of the U.S. - Japan
Bilateral Agreement on the Environment. Additionally, the center
has sponsored seminars to bring together expertise from around the
country to discuss current research problems.
It is concluded that the center has productively used its EPA funds, and
its research is focused and of high quality.
MANAGEMENT AND_JUDGET ISSUES
The center receives direction from the Agency through two mandatory
groups:
The center's policy board, which establishes
appropriate areas to conduct research and
establishes guidelines for interaction with
the Agency; and
The center's Scientific Advisory Committee,
which reviews and approves individual research
proposals, follows ongoing research and with
the policy board conducts periodic program
reviews.
D-6
-------
The activities of the policy board and Scientific Advisory Committee
are funded by the center's budget. Thus the management of the center and
the support of the mandatory groups become a part of the fixed administrative
costs' of operating a center. This cost amounts to $2QO»OOQ-$25Q»OGO annually.
At a one million dollar funding level this amounts to 20 to 25 percent cost
for administration which is reasonable. At the current $400,000 total
funding level the administrative cost range from 50 to 63 percent of the
total budget which is clearly out of proportion. The center feels that
both committees serve useful functions* Thus, either the center funding
should be increased since the incremental funding would be applied to
direct research support, or the administrative budget be reduced primarily
by reducing the administrative burden of the policy board and Scientific
Advisory Committee*
Currently the center has only $150,000 to apply to research, which
makes it difficult to support ongoing research and impossible to start new
research projects. Most of the center's problems have been associated with
Inadequate budgets relative to the original concepts of the centers, not
receiving clear and timely signals from the Agency as to the level of annual
funding to be received, and not receiving the funds when they were expected.
Thus, the center has had to operate on university budgets while awaiting
EPA funding.
This has made it difficult for the center to develop adequate research
plans and placed significant strains on the relationship between the center
and the EPA. It Is clearly to the benefit of the Agency to relieve these
Strains.
OTHER AGENCY ^ CENTER INTERACTION^
A major function of AECTE.C is to transfer technology and information
it has developed to the Agency. The center has attempted to accomplish
this function through seminars and through having members of the Agency on
its policy board and Scientific Advisory Committee. Additionally, the
center publishes its work In refereed journals. Thug, the extent that this
information is not being disseminated in the Agency tends to reflect on the
lack of interest by Agency personnel in the research efforts, rather than
on the center.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clearly to the benefit of the Agency to have outstanding university
scientists and engineers working on long-range environmental problems. The
AECTRC program effort clearly demonstrates these benefits. To the extent
that centers can be developed which exhibit the qualities of this center, the
program should be championed and supported by high level personnel within the
EPA, certainly including the Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development.
D-7
-------
™.M / Environmental Control Technology Research Center deserves
continued support and its annual funding level should be Increased to a level
" l
committed
fcv 1 S 3nCe aCtUSl reCSipC 3° thaC the Center "n ffiore
affectively plan It. research program. Finally, funding should be received
when due so as not to place a strain on the university's cash flow.
D-8
-------
REVIEW OF THE ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH CENTER
April 23, 1984
INTRODUCTION
The site visit team net with the staff of the Ee«7strat ^search
Center at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York on April 23 1984. The
tel timbers include; Uooard Greenfield, Joseph Koonce, John M. Meuhold
(Chairman) and Robert Flaak (Executive Secretary).
The site visit was conducted in a relaxed atmosphere with the in teat
to keep the discussions at a dialogue level. Presentations were i»*>"
allowing opportunity for the site visitors to ask questions, mke sta
for reaction and to generally get a "feel" for the ecosystem center s
operation, its staff, students, past performance, future plans and ca
The site visit team centered Its discussions with the staff of the
Ecosystems Research Center staff about the central theme ^ the purpose of
the centers program: 1) fundamental ecosystems research; 2) interaction
Sth ift?a" and extra- university peers; 3) interaction with EPA laboratories;
Ed 4) interaction with EPA program offices. After gtining their Action.,
the team mt in executive session to evaluate their individual °f ef^™s
and coiae to a concensus with their assessment of the center. This report
is a summary of this assessment*
ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH CEMT1R ORGANIZATION
The center is now in its fourth year of existence having been established
with the objectives to: 1) identify the fundamental principles and oncepts
-
rob if concern to EPA through a consideration of retrospects
and other case studies.
* i j v« n»- vin assisted "by Dr« Barbara Bedford and
Is led by Dr» a«A* L.evin assiai-eu. "j
on-^pus
rpnt«>r s e » «* . -.
Dr. Mrt Sr»eU with „ on-^pus c«,nple»ent of sclen^.ts £ro» such varied
with the center on the Cornell campus for extended periods adds a
dynamic sense of diversity to the group-
The work plans of the center are reviewed by a Science Advisory Committee
of group of eminent eulogists including: Herbert Borman,
lolling, Fred Mackenzie, Frank Mgler, David Schindlar, John Steele,
and George Wood well.
D-9
-------
The work of both the staff and the Science Advisory Committee Is in turn
evaluated by a Science Review Committee comprised of an independent but
equally eminent group of ecologies Including: Jerry Franklin, Evlll, Corham,
David Reichle, Paul Risser, and Richard Wiegert.
ACTIVITIES__AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS^
During the three years since the initiation of the center, 86 reports and
publications have been produced by its staff. Fifty five of these were as *
direct result of EPA support. The remaining 31 were produced by the staff
during their tenure at ERC even though the work t*as not supported by EPA. In
addition to the publication record the staff has been invited to present
papers and seminars at a variety of meetings and institutions. Some 56 such
presentations have been made(
The quality of the work appears to be high. Most of the papers are
published in peer reviewed journals or are published as books which also
undergo peer review, Several of the reports are issued as reports of the
center which also undergo a peer review before publication. The content of
the reports and papers range from theoretical considerations of environmental
questions to applied resolution of various environmental problems. One of
the major significant efforts of the center is the conduct of workshops
dealing with synthesis or integration sciences. Their effort in ecotoxicology
is * good example of such synthesis work which will likely result in the
definition of an emerging science of immense importance to EPA. Further
details on publications, reports and presentations are available ia the
A r r i /*> o * v *
-------
GENERATION OF EXTRAMDRAL SUPPORT
The center has been very successful in generating support from sources
other than EPA £or activities which ultimately will benefit EPA's mission.
For example, the staff has been successful in obtaining research and training
funds from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for the program in ecotoxicology.
Research support has come from NSF, EPRI, Hatch Act Funds, Mdntire-S tennis,
and the U.S* Forest Service.
DISCUSSION AHP CONCLUSIONS^
The goals and objectives of the center are most relevant to the mission
of EPA. The nature of many of our environmental problems and the intent of
much of our regulatory legislation requires a sound understanding of ecology,
an understanding that cannot be gained from existing textbooks on the subjec-
Theoretical concepts need generation, testing and ultimately application.
The objectives of the center and the center's performance on those objectives
seem to us to be right on the mark*
for
The leadership demonstrated by Levin is unquestionably responsible
the success of the center to date. He has been responsible for P^ting
together a group of scientists committed to applying theoretical knowledge to
EPA's applied problems. He has been successful in forging diverse groups
into producing scientific units. And he has been successful in opening and
maintaining dialogues with prospective EPA user groups. In spite of these
accomplishments in administrative leadership, Levin's real strength lies in
his ability to generate ideas and by so doing to stimulate others into
following his lead.
Much of the everyday administration - the Incessant meetings with people
from EPA, the incessant reviews, the changes in signals from the centers
ptoeram-all serve to detract Levin and his cohorts from the substantative
science that needs to be accomplished and which they are capable of doing.
We find it difficult to imagine any laboratory group that could be more
productive than the staff of this center. Their record of accomplishment in
the three short years of their existence is truly remarkable. Much of what
has been accomplished has been done with less than optimal funding. Worse,
it has been done with an uncertainty of funding that requires too much time
of the leadership and taakes the planning of a significant long-term program a
frustrating experience.
The center staff have spertt a lot of time communicating their capabilities
to various institutions within SPA often with the help of their policy board
which Is comprised of representatives from the laboratories and the program
D-ll
-------
five.
D-12
-------
REVIEW OF THE
NATIONAL CtNTER FOR GROUND WATER RESEARCH
April 24-25, 1984
INTRODUCTION
The National Center for Ground Watar Research was one of the first
three centers established by the Environmental Protection Agency. Tne
center is a consortium of three tiniversities: Rice University* Oklahoma
University, aad Oklahoma State University*
The three present co-directors .have worked together since the initation
of the center. The center also has had the sana* project officer, there have
been only two chairmen of the Policy Board, and the members of the ^iginal
Science Advisory Committee have remitted in place. Thus, the Center has had
constancy of management personnel.
The site visit team, Raymond Loehr, Keros CartwrighC, Richard Conway,
and Francis McMichael accompanied by Robert ?laak of the EPA Science Advisory
Board, reviewed the Center in Houston* Texas oa April 24-25, law. me
team met at Rice University to facilitate travel and minimise the tine
involved. The relevant center activities at all three <»»«« s * at
the EPA Robert S. Kstr Environmental Research Laboratory
Oklahoma were discussed.
The individuals who met with the review team included: (a) the
center co-directors: Dr. C. Herbert Ward, Rice University; Dr. Mo man Durham,
Oklahoma State University; and Dr. Larry Canter, Oklahoma University, (b) the
project officer for the center, Mr. M.R. Scalf, RSKERL (c) the chairman of
the center policy board, Mr. Clint Hall, RSKERL, and
-------
GENERAL
from the sTt^vi^t^ ^^ Dbservatl*ns and conclusions that resulted
There continues to be a need £or a cencer devoted to Ground Water
research that receive, EPA support. This need is p^tlcularly
Important because of pressing RCRA and CERCLA issues related to
uncertainties about mechanisms of transport, contaminant trans-
formations, and approaches for contaminant control.
*«'ctively, EPA should provide greater consistency of
direction and constancy of support. The centers need: (a) /clear
conflation of the intended role of the center, and (b) an increasing
base of support that can be counted on.
cur level of EpA 8up $420,000, is inadequate, A mininun
maintain I °f abT 91'°00'000 P« y*« *hould be'provided to
maintain a strong and relevant Ground Water research center.
• The center should be able to acquire other EPA (non-base) funds to
create a critical ma$s of project activities,
* The center should be free to seek and acquire non-SPA support for
needed research and not rely only on the available EPA support.
• For the dollars that are involved, excessive management,
and review now is required by EPA.
such1sWif LrirKTV£qUlf S Eult"***PU«ary talents and efforts,
such as is available from the current consortium.
The following indicates the que$tions used by the review team to arrive
at an understanding of the center. arrive
of the centsr?
The strengths include:
*-h. **',. 4 *;--<* d*Partmental and institutional barriers to have
the best individuals work on specific problems
— development of strong researchers now focusing on Ground Water
research rather than on other issues
D-14
-------
— development of young faculty to be front-line researchers in the
area of transformation and transport of contaminants in the soil
and ground water
— access to a real field site (CEROA. site) and joint collaboration
of researchers and projects at the site
— interaction with 1SKEEL avoids duplicating on-going studies
— developnent of well trained students (scientists and engineers)
who have worked on projects and continue related efforts in sub-
sequent positions
— broad information and knowledge exchange through conferences and
workshops
— courses related to Ground Water now taught at the three universities
that did not exist before the center was established
The relative weaknesses include;
— current level of funding
— lack of clear direction from EPA
— geographical separation
B. Is it desirable to have a consortium of universities be a center?
' The geographical separation, potentially different interests of
three universities and administrative Inefficiency and overhead can be
probleras In having nore than one university be a center. However, none o^
these items appears to be a real problem for this center. The administration
of the center appears to be done well, the dollars spent for administration
are low, and the co-directors appear to get along well- In this case, a
consortium Is needed since no single university has the broad talent and
expertise that are needed. In addition, a wider base of qualified researchers
Is available.
C. Has the financial support received by the center been used satisfactorily?
The center has attempted to use the available resources broadly and,
in previous years, has acquired supplemental funding to broaden Its research
efforts. The center showed imagination In choosing to work with the state
of Texas on the Conroe hazardous waste site and to use the site as a field
laboratory.
D-1S
-------
The center directors have attempted to leveraee the
support in K appropriate manner. However the current 1™
result, in . deadenlng constralat „„ ^aoL™/ center
D'
n
been 8rMter than that
E.
effortsjLdgntifieJLby the ct
Ort^
use the SAC ranking to deter™ the projects that
»ere ece full
' rs there too close or too l~nse a relationship wjrh KSKHRL?
lnvolveme"t between the center and
J-1 _.
" ^J.^£Ster_the appropriate mechanj^jror^lgag-range ground water_£es
Given the constraints on the EPA research efforts, a center i* an
appropriate n,«chanl.n, to assure long-range research related to Crouad
j.no current center has r~ ~ "
D-16
-------
H.
nature?
In developing Its program, the center has moved In this direction.
So* of the lift wort Is fundlmental and clearly identified new, important
phenomena about partitioning and transport in Ground Water systems. Thxs
and other research supported by the center is of a long-rang e na cure and
requires considerable time and sound intellectual capability to br^ng to
completion. Such fundamental research is purposely and properly balanced
with applied research projects that also are of a long-range nature.
Have the research efforts supported b
scientifically sound?
The written research proposals that were provided and the discussions
with the two principal Investigators indicate that the current projects are
lound and are of high quality, The internal peer review provided by the
sic is Tf great assistance in assuring this for the future. The ^scuss.on
indicated that the research has become better as the center activit.es have
matured.
The center has held conferences in which the center research is
presented and critiqued by knowledgeable individuals. The results are
published in pertinent, peer reviewed journals. %y °^f S, uency of
various teams helps insure that the research Is sound. The frequency of
such review should be reduced with the SAC reviews being the primary project
review mechanism.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the quality of research supported by this center and the
successful development of a cadre of effective interdisciplinary researchers,
the site review team feels that, to achieve its full potential, the current
should continue to be supported by EPA and the level of support should
be Increased
D-17
-------
------- |