SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
73–329PS
2001
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
THE FY 2002 BUDGET REQUEST
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 17, 2001
Serial No. 107–19
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL HONDA, California
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
NICK SMITH, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARK UDALL, Colorado
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JOHN MIMIKAKIS Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
BEN WU Professional Staff Member
ERIC WEBSTER Professional Staff Member
CAMERON WILSON Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
MARY DERR Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 17, 2001
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Opening Statement by Representative James Barcia, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Henry Longest II, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Randy Seeker, Senior Vice President, General Electric Energy and Environmental Research Corporation; Member, EPA Science Advisory Board
Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt, Director, Kansas Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and the Environment; Vice President, Environmental Council of the States
Discussion
Appendix 1: Opening Statements
Written Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement by Representative James Barcia, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement by Representative Constance Morella, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Appendix 2: Written Testimony, Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Henry Longest II, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
Written Testimony
Biography
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Randy Seeker, Senior Vice President, General Electric Energy and Environmental Research Corporation; Member, EPA Science Advisory Board
Written Testimony
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt, Director, Kansas Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and the Environment; Vice President, Environmental Council of the States
Written Testimony
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Appendix 3: Additional Material for the Record
FY 2002 Presidential Science and Technology Budget Request for the Environmental Protection Agency; An SAB Review
EPA Office of Research and Development Strategic Plan
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: THE FY 2002 BUDGET REQUEST
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2001
House of Representatives,
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Chairman EHLERS. Call the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards to order. I will explain that we are going to have votes on the floor—a vote on the floor in just a few minutes. So the plan is that I will read my opening statement, the Ranking Member, Barcia, will read his statement, and then we will recess for the vote, and then begin the hearing after that. We will return as soon as we can.
Committee on Science
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Hearing on
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Science and Technology at the Environmental Protection Agency: The FY 2002 Budget Request
Thursday, May 17, 2001
Witness List
Mr. Henry Longest II
Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt
Director, Kansas Division of Environment,
Kansas Department of Health and the Environment;
Vice President,
Environmental Council of the States
Dr. Randy Seeker
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senior Vice President,
General Electric Energy and Environmental
Research Corporation;
Member, EPA Science Advisory Board
Section 210 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 applies the rights and protections covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to the United States Congress. Accordingly, the Committee on Science strives to accommodate/meet the needs of those requiring special assistance. If you need special accommodation, please contact the Committee on Science in advance of the scheduled event (three days requested) at (202) 225–6371 or FAX (202) 225–0891.
Should you need Committee materials in alternative formats, please contact the Committee as noted above.
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Science and Technology at the Environmental
Protection Agency: The FY 2002 Budget Request
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2001
10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
I. Purpose
The Hearing will focus on the Administration's budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Committee intends to examine whether the budget for ORD, the research arm of the EPA, is adequate to meet the Agency's goal of basing its efforts to protect human health and the environment on sound science.
II. Witnesses
Mr. Henry Longest is acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at EPA. He will present the Administration's FY02 budget request for EPA.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. W. Randall Seeker is a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board's Research Strategies Advisory Committee. He will discuss the findings in the Board's annual review of EPA's budget request.
Ron Hammerschmidt, Vice President, Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), and Director of the Kansas Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and the Environment. He will discuss the importance of science at EPA from a state perspective.
III. Background
The Office of Research and Development is the science and technology arm of the agency, responsible for conducting research in order to form the scientific basis on which to base regulations and rules required under statute to protect human health and the environment.
In 1995, ORD underwent restructuring and is now organized into two offices, two national centers, and three national laboratories focusing on risk identification, assessment, and management. The National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory (focusing on risk identification) has divisions in Research Triangle Park, NC; Gulf Breeze, FL; Duluth, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Naragansett, RI. The National Exposure Research Laboratory (risk assessment) has divisions located in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina; Cincinnati, Ohio; Athens, Georgia; and Las Vegas Nevada. The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is located in Cincinnati, OH; Ada, OK; and Research Triangle Park, NC.
The President's FY 2002 budget request for the Office of Research and Development at EPA is $535 million, or 6.8 percent less than the current fiscal year's level of $574.1 million. The ORD, however, maintains that its budget is actually $3 million above the current fiscal year's level, once Congressionally mandated earmarks are subtracted out. A number of earmarks are likely to be repeated this year, raising the question as to where the offsets are likely to come from if EPA's bottom line remains the same.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In response to requirements for greater accountability under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the EPA has attempted to integrate the its strategic planning and budgeting functions. As a result, the Agency's budget is organized not by organizational structure but by the strategic goals and objectives laid out in its 6-year strategic plan. Funding goes toward programs that help the agency reach these goals. ORD conducts research relating to almost all of the agency's 10 strategic goals, but most of its funding falls within Goal 8, ''Sound Science.''
Table 1 lists each of EPA's strategic goals. Table 2 shows ORD's budget, by goal, and compares it with funding levels for the past two fiscal years. Table 3 shows EPA's budget, by goal.
TABLE 1: EPA's 10 Strategic Goals
Goal 1: Clean Air
The air in every American community will be safe and healthy to breathe. In particular, children, the elderly, and people with respiratory ailments will be protected from health risks of breathing polluted air. Reducing air pollution will also protect the environment, resulting in many benefits, such as restoring life in damaged ecosystems and reducing health risks to those whose subsistence depends directly on those ecosystems.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe to drink. Effective protection of America's rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters will sustain fish, plants, and wild-life, as well as recreational, subsistence, and economic activities. Watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems will be restored and protected to improve public health, enhance water quality, reduce flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
Goal 3: Safe Food
The foods Americans eat will be free from unsafe pesticide residues. Particular attention will be given to protecting sub-populations that may be more susceptible to adverse effects of pesticides or have higher dietary exposures to pesticide residues. These include children and people whose diets include large amounts of noncommercial foods.
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and Ecosystems
Pollution prevention and risk management strategies aimed at eliminating, reducing, or minimizing emissions and contamination will result in cleaner and safer environments in which all Americans can reside, work, and enjoy life. EPA will safeguard ecosystems and promote the health of natural communities that are integral to the quality of life in this nation.
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
America's wastes will be stored, treated, and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and the natural environment. EPA will work to clean up previously polluted sites, restore them to uses appropriate for surrounding communities, and respond to and prevent waste-related or industrial accidents.
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks
The United States will lead other nations in successful, multilateral efforts to reduce significant risks to human health and ecosystems from climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and other hazards of international concern.
Goal 7: Quality Environmental Information
The public and decision makers at all levels will have access to information about environmental conditions and human health to inform decision making and help assess the general environmental health of communities. The public will also have access to educational services and information services and tools that provide for the reliable and secure exchange of quality environmental information.
Goal 8: Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and Greater Innovation to Address Environmental Problems
EPA will develop and apply the best avail-able science for addressing current and future environmental hazards as well as new approaches toward improving environmental protection.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
EPA will ensure full compliance with laws intended to protect human health and the environment.
Goal 10: Effective Management
EPA will maintain the highest-quality standards for environmental leadership and for effective internal management and fiscal responsibility by managing for results.
(Source: U.S. EPA)
73329a.eps
73329b.eps
IV. Issues and Questions:
Workforce Issues—About 50 percent of EPA's workforce is over the age of 50, and over 21 percent of the Office of Research and Development's workforce is likely to retire in the next 3 to 5 years. What kinds of activities does the Agency conduct to attract and retain younger scientific professionals to sustain its workforce, and how large is the pool of well-qualified environmental scientists from which the agency can draw?
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Balance of Research Portfolio—Research conducted by ORD falls into roughly two categories: core research, which is more general and attempts to understand and anticipate environmental risks; and problem-driven research, which provides scientific and technical support for the Agency's regulatory programs. How does the agency decide what is core research and what is problem driven and how does it determine how much to fund each kind of research?
Multi-media Environmental Problems—The program offices of EPA are organized according to the major environmental statutes, which address air, water and waste media as susceptible to separate environmental problems. Even the EPA's strategic goals are similarly organized. But many environmental problems cross the bounds of traditional scientific disciplines and defy classification according to media. How does EPA research address such ''multi-media'' environmental problems, such as endocrine disruptors, climate change, and mercury contamination?
Mr. EHLERS. For those who are just now joining us, we are beginning the hearing portion of our schedule this morning. So let me welcome you here today as the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee examines the Science and Technology Budget of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I am eager to hear from our witnesses today. And I thank them for their time. As many of you already know, I am an enthusiastic science booster and I believe that science must play an important role in protecting our environment. That is why I introduced the bill we just marked up a few moments ago to elevate and strengthen the role of the Science at the EPA. If that bill were law, and I believe it soon will be, I think science at the Agency would be stronger, better coordinated, and infused—and I think that is the most important part—infused throughout the Agency's decision-making process. And if it were law today there would probably be a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology testifying today before the Science Committee. So, Mr. Longest, the sooner the EPA helps get my bill signed into law, the sooner you are off the hot seat.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also comment, I am not only an enthusiastic supporter of science, but I am also a very enthusiastic environmentalist and have been for many years. I was elected to office my very first time on an environmental platform. And I have been consistent in that position. So I hope everyone recognizes this bill is an attempt not just to instill better science in the EPA, but also to strengthen the EPA and its ability to deal with environmental issues and regulations.
In my view, science at the EPA needs to be well funded, focused and coordinated. Today we will hear from three witnesses as to whether the President's budget for EPA is sufficient to allow it to meet these goals. The witnesses are Mr. Henry Longest—did I pronounce that correctly?—from the Agency itself, Dr. Randall Seeker, a member of EPA's Science Advisory Board, and Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt, representing a group that depends on the Agency to provide the right answers to complex problems, the states that comprise these great United States.
And now we will hear more than just the budget numbers. We will also hear about how well the EPA is meeting the strategic goals it has set for itself: positioning itself to replenish its scientific work force, anticipating the environmental problems of tomorrow, and dealing with the complex, multi-media, cross disciplinary problems of today.
As for the overall numbers, let me say that I believe the President's budget request for EPA is fair. It requests $7.3 billion for EPA overall, and $5.35 million for the Office of Research and Development, EPA's research arm. Both these numbers, I should like to note, are higher than those submitted last year by the previous administration. Of course, Congress ended last year by bumping up both numbers significantly, but much of the additional funding was in the form of earmarks, with strings very much attached. So while the comparison between the President's budget request and the funding levels Congress enacted at the end of the last year might be tempting, it is not entirely fair nor accurate.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I am interested to hear today from the witnesses about the individual science and technology programs at EPA to find out which are adequately funded, which are appropriately focused, and which are well coordinated. I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony and to a productive discussion.
The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member, James Barcia, the gentleman from Michigan, for an opening statement.
Mr. BARCIA. I want to join Chairman Ehlers in welcoming our distinguished panel to this morning's hearing. The Environmental Protection Agency is an agency which has instant recognition by the American public and every Member of Congress. Over the years we have done many of the easy things to clean up the environment. In addition, the public's environmental awareness and our ability to monitor the environment has grown exponentially over the past thirty years. Improved monitoring, and I am talking about measurements moving from parts per thousands to parts per millions, and indeed parts per billions, has increased the importance and significance of scientific data to support EPA regulations. However, EPA has often been criticized that it has lacked comprehensive scientific evidence for its regulations. That is why today's hearing is so important.
The Office of Research and Development supports the scientific research that must be the basis of sound regulatory policy. As our witnesses address the Administration's budget request, I would also appreciate their views on the Office of Research and Development Operations. As a life-long resident of the natural resource rich state of Michigan, and as an avid sportsman, I too appreciate and want to protect the environment as much as anyone. This can only be done when EPA policy is based on comprehensive scientific data. Again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee this morning and I look forward to your testimony.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. At this time I would like to formally introduce our witnesses. Mr. Henry Longest is Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at EPA. He will present the Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the EPA. Dr. W. Randall Seeker is a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board's Research Strategies Advisory Committee. He will discuss the findings and the board's—published in the board's annual review of the EPA's budget request. Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt is the Vice President of the Environmental Council of the States, and Director of the Kansas Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and the Environment. He will discuss the importance of science at EPA from a state perspective.
As our witnesses know, spoken testimony is limited to 5 minutes each, after which the members of the Committee will have 5 minutes each to ask questions. Before we start, I just want to mention and get on the record, if there is no objection, all additional opening statements submitted by the Subcommittee members will be added to the record without objection. So ordered.
We will now turn to the witnesses since the bell for voting hasn't rung yet. We will start with Mr. Longest.
Mr. LONGEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say to the Subcommittee——
Chairman EHLERS. Is your microphone on?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LONGEST. Are we one now? Mr. Chairman——
Chairman EHLERS. Just pull the mike a little closer to you and see if it is—or tap it and see if it is working. Yeah.
Mr. LONGEST. I think we are on now.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much.
Mr. LONGEST. All right.
Mr. LONGEST. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2002 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development. I would like to share with you some important and exciting accomplishments of our research program. I have provided you with additional details on each of these issues in my longer, written testimony, which has been submitted for the record.
ORD continues to be focused on providing the highest quality science in support of the Agency's mission. We are uniquely positioned to provide the support because of our ability to integrate expertise from many different disciplines in environmental and human health, and exposure, risk assessment and risk management.
Through conscientious organizational development and detailed programmatic planning, ORD continued to conduct leading-edge research and to foster the sound use of science and technology in environmental decisions. We have worked very hard over the past 5 years to bring ourselves to this position, to organize, invigorate and motivate ourselves to become an efficient, effective and results-oriented research organization.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have focused our energies toward developing a research planning process that is inclusive of others and sets our directions for the next 5 to 10 years. It is based on independently peer-reviewed research strategies and plans. And as a result, we do research in our laboratories and centers, and fund research in our nation's universities, that is both relevant and responsive to the EPA mission.
I would like to give you two examples of work now underway.
The first being surveys that are now being conducted in all coastal states and Puerto Rico. And because no consistent survey data prior to 2000 exists, these surveys will establish baseline trend data on the condition of our coastal estuaries. The baseline trend data will be a yardstick by which the effectiveness of environmental programs for coastal ecosystems can be measured.
Second, ORD has led an effort to understand how our young children are exposed to pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals. We have developed methods to understand these routes of exposure and have incorporated this new understanding into human exposure models that, for the first time, allow us to assess children's multi-pathway exposure to these chemicals.
Now turning to the actual budget request for ORD. Our Fiscal Year 2002 request is $535 million and 1,935 work years. This includes $38 million and 112 work years that are in accounts other than S&T to support the Superfund Program, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and Oil Spills research.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These resources support both our in-house research program and our extramural Science to Achieve Results, referred to as the STAR program. For Fiscal Year 2002, the President's budget request includes $100 million for STAR grants to academic institutions, and $10 million for competitive Star fellowships to support pre-doctoral education.
Our Fiscal Year 2002 budget request builds upon ORD's significant accomplishments, supports the Agency's mission, and provides the science and technical information that is essential for EPA to achieve its long-term goals. Our resources focus on core science issues that environmental media and more specific problem-oriented research. The research and development program outlined in our budget request reflects both ORD's highly effective in-house research program and our efforts to partner and work with academic and other organizations.
An example of one such leveraged partnership is the Children's Health Centers that we have established in the STAR Program and funded together with NIEHS. While these Centers are only part-way through the period of their grant, much is already being accomplished.
For example, the Children's Center at the University of Washington has: discovered that the enzymes that humans use for detoxifying certain pesticides are not uniformly distributed among people; children below the age of 12 months do not have this enzyme; and about 20 percent of Hispanic farm workers have low levels of this enzyme. These findings have significant implications for defining populations that may be particularly susceptible to pesticide exposures.
Another example is a feature article in the science section of the New York Times this Tuesday, which covered the Children's Center at Columbia University in New York, which has found that sensitization to indoor allergens occurs early in life, perhaps even in utero.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Anticipating the need to continue to bring the latest science into ORD's research program and to anticipate needs of hiring due to our aging workforce, ORD began a post-doctoral program in 1999. This 3 year effort to enhance EPA's scientific workforce has provided a constant stream of highly trained Postdoctoral candidates, referred to as postdocs, who bring state-of-the-science to the training of ORD.
In ending my testimony before you today, I would like to emphasize ORD's commitment to not only provide the foundation for sound environmental science, but to assume leadership on a national level in producing the knowledge that will help us solve critical problems of the 21st Century. Cutting-edge research that is both relevant and responsive to EPA needs, and that is coupled with rigorous peer review, remains a critical foundation of EPA's work. While conducting sound science is the foundation for our success, producing results in a timely fashion to solve problems is a measure of that success.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. And we will have to recess now until such time as we return from voting. So thank you for your testimony. The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess]
Chairman EHLERS. I would like to call the meeting to order. I apologize for the delay in getting back here. I had to solve a major crisis while I was on the Floor. And the world of—the world is now safe for humanity, at least for another 20 seconds. We will proceed with the hearings. Dr. Seeker, you may proceed.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. SEEKER. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Randy Seeker. I am honored to be here today to present the views of the EPA Science Advisory Board.
Chairman EHLERS. Is your microphone on?
Dr. SEEKER. Yes, it is.
Chairman EHLERS. Okay.
Dr. SEEKER. On EPA's fiscal 2002 Science and Technology Budget request. I will highlight the research strategies Advisory Committee's comments on the formal examination of the budget that—as a result of our meeting earlier this month. We have provided that report to the Committee and written testimony to the Committee. So today I will only provide a very brief summary of some of the major findings and recommendations in four general areas: the EPA Science Technology and Science Planning Process, the adequacy of the Science and Technology budget level requested, the balance of the budget request, and the need to expand EPA's core competencies.
Let me begin by talking about the planning process. In the past several years we have noted at ORD, the Office of Research and Development, in coordination with program offices and regional offices has made considerable progress in a number of areas, include the development—including the development of a planning process and its focus on strategic plans and goals, and the development of multi-year planning for selected areas, and the developing of an agency-wide science inventory and product list, and the use of national program directors for selected cross-cutting research area, and in transitioning some of the high priority areas to the states research and development programs. We strongly recommended to the Office of Research and Development that they continue these important efforts. We think it is important the Agency to stay the course in improving its strategic planning process.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, we further recommended that the Agency expand this process to go beyond just the Science and Technology budget and develop an overall science strategy for the Agency that uses a science inventory and product list as one of the resources. Relative to the level of the request, the Presidential Science and Technology and Office of Research and Development budget request are very similar to the levels requested in the last 3 years when Congressional add-ons and Superfund transfers are factored out.
However, we note that the current and future environmental health and problems have become increasingly more complex. For instance, many of the pressing environmental problems are not separate air and water media specific problems. But rather, they are integrated and multi-media. They are also not chemical specific. Rather, they are systems issues related to very low concentrations of environmental mixtures of contaminants and other stressors. They are also global in nature.
In addition, there is also more pressure on the EPA to make decisions based more on science. We recommended, therefore, that Congress and the Agency consider increasing the Science and Technology share of the overall agency budget by a modest but important 1 percent per year for the next 3 years from the current level of 9 percent of the total agency budget to 12 percent by FY 04. Even more significant increases will be required if the Agency is going to make further progress in its decision to use science more effectively.
Now let us talk about the balance of the budget. We endorse the findings and recommendations of several national academy panels and other science advisory panels that EPA Science and Technology budget should have a balance in both short-term and long-term research activities as well as a balance in core versus problem-driven research. We are concerned that the Office of Research and Development's ability to maintain this balance given the pressures that are placed upon by the Program Office to address the problems that are here and now. Therefore, we strongly recommended to the Committee that they be vigilant in how they define the core research activities, critical core research techniques, and they also work toward that effective balance.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, we continue to be concerned over the over-emphasis on the shorter term issues that EPA—since EPA is the key agency responsible for aggressively watching future critical threats. Therefore, we expand—we recommended ORD expand their use of multi-year planning processes, as well as expanding the role of the Exploratory Grants Program.
Finally, to the issue of core competencies. One area that needs additional attention is building the key core competencies to address future environmental threats. The Science Advisory Board and others have noted there is an aging workforce at the Office of Research and Development. Clearly, 50 percent of the Office of Research and Development staff are older than 50 years, and many are near retirement. To remain vital, the Agency must define the future core competencies needed and assemble the next generation of agency scientists. One near term approach is the expanded use of the Postdoctoral Program. However, this appears to be limited by the FTE ceiling imposed on the Office of Research and Development.
In closure, I would like to say that the EPA Science Advisory Board is continuing with a number of reviews that may be of interest to this Committee. In particular, we will be looking in the future at the multi-year planning, strategic planning processes for several of the areas, as well as continuing progress and evaluation of the peer review process. We would be pleased to provide those findings and recommendations and report back to this Committee on those.
I wish to express my gratitude to members of the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to deliver this. And I will be glad to expand on my comments in response to any of your questions.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your testimony. And I also want to thank you very much, and also the other members of the board for their service. I think it is a very valuable service to the EPA and the Congress and the country. And I appreciate your service. Dr. Hammerschmidt.
Dr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Ron Hammerschmidt. I am Director of the Division of Environment for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. And I also serve as the vice president of the ECOS, which is an organization of state environmental directors.
State and environmental programs are essential the protection of the public health and the environment. We are kind of where the rubber meets the road when it comes to implementing most of those programs. During the last couple of decades we have formed a partnership with EPA and we have all kind of staked out our own particular roles. States have a very important role in enforcement and in measurement. One of the roles that we see that is best suited for EPA is that of credible basic science. We feel strongly that this is an appropriate role for EPA and one that should continue. We would state quite strongly for the Subcommittee's benefit that states are very dependent upon EPA to produce that science that we use in our day-to-day operations.
We are constantly faced with questions and demands that we base our regulatory state level decisions on good science and credible data. We frequently find ourselves in the role of trying to convince the regulated community, advocates for the environment and public health, local leaders, even elected state officials of the needs, wisdom and basis of our decisions. Agencies are often confronted with the question, why is this necessary? Is this protective enough? Or even the assertion, there appears to be no risk. Why do we need to do anything? That is a question that state policy makers must deal with every day. We must have a strong basis for the science and technical decisions that we make. And our regulatory programs in that area must be above question.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have had a lot of environmental successes, and we are heartened by the actions that the Subcommittee took earlier on H.R. 64. We think it is important for science to have a high level role at EPA. And we do commend you on that effort.
We do have some concerns however. As the state regulators and implementers we need some fundamental criteria and things looked at. For example, and this has been a particular issue in our state, one of the commonly held standards across the country has been that for fecal coliform and E. coli. That particular standard was based upon work that was done in the seventies. It was based upon a process which really required after-exposure examinations and questionnaires. And we think that that is one area where EPA needs to re-examine that role and what that standard should be.
The second is the need for identification characterization and prioritization of risks associated with air contaminants. This is one that will become increasingly of concern. And I will talk about one in particular a little bit later.
In addition, and this is an issue that goes across the country, states also need a better mechanism to understand the effectiveness of best management practices to reduce or eliminate urban or rural non-point source pollution. There are a number of efforts underway, but we need a concentrated effort to determine how these best management practices do indeed work. As the states go through the TMDL process, this is going to become even more important as we look to the rural and urban communities to take actions that will reduce the impact from non-point source pollution.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I now go through a few of these very quickly. Mercury is becoming more of a concern across the country. It is both a regional—local, regional, national, international issue that we think needs some work. In particular, identification of sources and mechanisms for immobilization and sequestration. Another important tool, as has been mentioned, is risk assessment. One that we do want to bring to your attention we have not heard mentioned though is the need to work on systems to move new methods and technologies from the lab to use more quickly. These systems are needed to expedite verification, certification and commercialization of available technologies. One example that we bring to your attention is the commercialization of refinements to diesel engines to remove—to reduce their emissions. This will improve not only our efforts to improve air quality but perhaps also national efforts. And we can't over-emphasize the need for this enough.
The message I would like to leave with the Committee today is the crucial need that states have for EPA and Federal health in developing scientific information to guide and support our efforts to protect the public health and the environment. We are obliged to address these responsibilities with the best information that we can have, even if that means we have to go back and relook at some of the things that have been on the books.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear and would be happy to follow-up or answer any questions that you might have.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your testimony. And for any of you who are not familiar with it, the ground rule is that we will now take turns asking questions for 5 minutes each. I will begin the process.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First of all, Dr. Hammerschmidt, I served in local government and state government and now I am here. And I have a healthy respect for what can be done locally and in the states. And I appreciate your comments. Your statement—your comment about technology transfer and the delays there. That is not just a problem in this field. It is a national problem. I did a science policy study for the Congress a few years ago and pointed out that there is basically a valley of death between the basic research that is done and the application of it in the field. The model that I like of the system that has worked is the one that we have used for many years in agriculture. And perhaps it works so well because we have had a 150 years to perfect it. But I know at Michigan State University, if they discover something in the labs, the farmers are using it in the field the next year. I hope we can develop that kind of technology transfer or information flow in every field. But apparently, it is also needed in yours.
I also wanted to ask you about the relationship of the states offices, such as yours, with the EPA. And I know you have your organization. But is—do you have a good informal and formal relationship with the EPA's information flow back and forth fairly readily, do you tend to agree on issues or is—let me provide a little context. I am dismayed at how many states end up suing the federal government, in particularly, the EPA over decisions that are made. Do you see a way of working these things out in more friendly fashion by constant interaction? Or is that just naturally going to be the result of EPA's regulatory authority?
Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to answer that question in a couple of ways. One is based upon our own experience in Kansas. We have over the last 5 and 6 years really attempted to reach out to the regional office, which is only located about an hour drive from my offices. And we have had some successes. For example, we have set up a process when we get new air permit applications in, for instance, an application for an air permit to expand a power plant, we bring the applicant, their consultants, the state regulators and EPA together informally early in that process. And we have found that that particular effort has paid dividends well beyond our expectations. We can move permits through fairly quickly that our protective of public health and the environment.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sometimes though, there are fundamental differences in approach and in philosophy. And that is, I think, where you are seeing the—the states battle with EPA. Sometimes we are just not in agreement on what the end result needs to be. I think our communications, particularly the regional levels, have been good. Some of my colleagues would probably not say that. And I think that is somewhat of a local interaction between the regional office. But something that we try to encourage is, talk early, talk often.
Chairman EHLERS. I think that is an admirable goal and I hope we can achieve it throughout the nation. I noticed, by the way, in your testimony, your written testimony, that you support H.R. 64, the bill we just reported out. Dr. Seeker, I am wondering if you or your board may—has taken any position on that or if you have any comments on H.R. 64.
Dr. SEEKER. We have not taken an official position, we have not reviewed it. But, however, we have had a number of dialogues and discussion on this issue. And we think that it is a—and it is sort of in the context of the overall—our overall interest in driving a comprehensive integrated science process within the Agency. Because when we review the Science and Technology budget, we see a lot of the Science and Technology elements but not the overall science activities. And what we are very supportive of, I think in general, or the people I have dealt with, are very supportive of it because they see it as a central point that can help us drive the integration and planning of science across the Agency. Not just within ORD, not just within the Science and Technology budget, but across the board. And one of the things that has frustrated us as we got into the Science and Technology budget review each year as we know that there is more science going on. We—and there is now this science inventory that you may be aware of that for the first time you can actually see all of the major science activities going on at the EPA. You can also see the products that are going to be peer-reviewed as a result of that. And that can reach the cornerstone. But as you move forward somebody has got to drive that at a high enough level, and that is where I think a deputy position can do that. Can drive that down and make sure that all of those science activities are integrated across the Agency. And it gives it a focal point for bringing it all together, if you will.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. I—that is essentially my goal and I hope we can achieve it. Just a quick question, Mr. Longest, on that question-in that connection as to what the relationship is and where the money goes. I noticed in your testimony that—that in ORD there is also some funding provided outside of what you consider the research area for Superfund and for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, better known as LUST, and Oil Spills. And I wondered, why is that pooled out. And I also wanted to recognize Mr. Farland who is—you have asked to accompany you to the table. And either one of you can answer that question.
Mr. LONGEST. The first part of that is that the programs, they have made the decision to give us money to give them more assistance. You know, we do a lot of research across all the programs. But at the same time many of the programs, the three that you mentioned, need a lot of direct on-site technical assistance on specific problems. So it has been their decision over the years to provide money to Research and Development. Not just to do research, but more importantly to go with them to sites where they have site specific problems and help solve those problems.
Chairman EHLERS. Okay. So you are basically aiding the other programs——
Mr. LONGEST. Mostly in technical support area.
Chairman EHLERS [continuing]. In a very direct way. In a way that is directed by the Congress and the President, correct?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LONGEST. Yes, sir.
Chairman EHLERS. Okay, yeah. Fine. I—well, I will cease and desist at this point and will recognize Mr. Gutknecht from—gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do apologize for being late. I would like to keep my perfect attendance record at your committee meetings. And I also want to thank you for taking us out to the National Institute of Standards and Technology the other day. That was incredibly eye-opening. And I think what it said to me is that many of the problems we face today, whether it be with the environment or energy problems, ultimately, science and technology is going to play a very important role in helping us solve those problems. And we are really fortunate to have the quality of science and research that we have in the United States. And a large part of it is due to what we do at the Federal level. And we are still working on seeing if we can't beef up and plus up some of those numbers in terms of the budget this year.
I also want to thank Dr. Hammerschmidt for coming. Because I do believe as the Chairman mentioned, that states play a very important role in all of this. And I would just make an editorial comment that, frankly, I think the states have done a better job in cleaning up some of the hazardous waste sites, I know in my own state, than perhaps under the Federal guidance that we have done.
I also want to make one other comment. You didn't exactly say this, Dr. Hammerschmidt, but you alluded to one of the concerns I have. And one of the people who at least played a role in the development of the first spectrometer, the modern day spectrometer as we know it, is from Minnesota. And he said something to me one time that I thought was pretty interesting. He said, just because we can measure parts per billion does not mean that they are necessarily statistically significant. And I think to a certain degree we have gotten a little ahead of ourselves in terms of, you know, what does 4 parts per billion mean. What is 10 parts per billion. And I think at the end of the day I think we are all going to have to sort of sort this all out and make that determination.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The real issue though I would like to talk about is something else you brought up, Dr. Hammerschmidt. And that is the issue of mercury. And I am concerned that the EPA—that is one area where I think the EPA is not moving aggressively enough. And I am not talking necessarily about the mercury that we find in thermometers. I am talking about the mercury we find in this fluorescent tubes over head. Millions and millions of them that are disposed of every year. And it has been brought to my attention that that is one area where the EPA has been awfully slow in implementing a comprehensive set of regulations. And perhaps, Mr. Longest, you could discuss that for us.
Mr. LONGEST. If you don't mind I would like to rely on Dr. Farland to talk——
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Okay.
Dr. FARLAND. Mr. Gutknecht, the issue of the disposal is actually part of the waste programs mandate at EPA. And just about a year-and-a-half ago we put together a Comprehensive Mercury Action Plan. And these are some of the issues that the Agency is grappling with right now in terms of what kinds of approaches should be taken. In Research and Development we are not specifically working on that issue. But the program is looking at that as one of the issues related to disposal of mercury containing waste.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. But it is my understanding that there are some private sector industries, some private groups that have developed some fairly good technology for reprocessing much of the mercury that is in fluorescent tubes. But they are sort of being held in abeyance because you have not implemented the regulations. Is that correct?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. FARLAND. I don't know that specifically. I think we could certainly go back and check and get back to you on the record for that particular issue.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, if I submit—Mr. Chairman, if I submit a series of a few questions, because I really am very concerned about this. And we in Minnesota take clean water very seriously. And mercury is one concern that I think all Americans need to be—need to pay a little more attention to. And so I would like to be able to send a letter perhaps to Dr. Farland and perhaps get some answers on that issue.
Chairman EHLERS. Without objection any member can submit letters to the panel. And we would ask that you be kind enough to respond in writing.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, finally, I would just say that this Subcommittee and the full Science Committee really looks forward to working with you. Because I think at the end of the day, as I say, science and technology are going to play a big role in our future. And part of the reason I was late, I was listening to a speaker talking about how technology can go a long way in helping us solve, perhaps not in the short-run, but certainly in the long-run, the energy problems which we are confronting today. And I think we all need to be part of the solution. And certainly science and technology are a big part of that solution. So thank you so much for coming today.
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. We will continue asking questions. I believe Mr. Barcia will be returning in a few minutes. The—Mr. Gutknecht just mentioned energy. And I have a question on that, Mr. Longest. The Administration has released its new energy plan today, or is releasing it. My understanding is that it calls for a renewable energy partnership involving the EPA. And I am wondering if you know any details about this proposal and do other—the Office of Research and Development will be a leading peer in the program. And whether or not—just how we can integrate environment and energy efforts.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And let me preface that by saying, I think one of the biggest feathers in the EPA cap in this area for some years has been the Green Lights program. I have castigated the Department of Energy regularly because they should have started that program. And they didn't, you did. And that has saved a lot of energy by letting industry and individuals know what a short payback there is in putting efficient lighting in either home or business. So I would appreciate if you comment on that.
Mr. LONGEST. The—our Administrator has been very involved in all the deliberations as a member of the Committee. But we have not heard yet ourselves down in Research and Development the outcomes. I am sure we will be hearing something very soon.
Chairman EHLERS. Okay. Mr. Farland, do you have any comment?
Mr. FARLAND. Just to say that the Administrator did make a statement at the House Appropriations Committee hearing that did suggest that we would be looking at environmental issues related to energy. And she supported the idea of sound science and research that would support those kinds of activities. So she has gone on record.
Chairman EHLERS. Well, I hope that goes forward—and saving energy wherever possible. And I can probably give you a long list of areas you could research on. So thank you very much. The question for Dr. Seeker, on Tuesday I understand the board, your board, voted unanimously to send to the administrator a report that includes dioxins pose a potentially serious threat for cancer to humans. I wonder if you could explain the rationale and give us some additional comments on that.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. SEEKER. Yeah. I am going to have to beg ignorance to a certain extent. I did not serve on that panel or on the Executive Committee of that. So I was not involved with that. I am aware that that report is—will soon be available and can be made available to the Committee. But the—it was—this was a review, if I understand it right, of EPA's doc and reassessment document. And it was a peer review of that and commenting on whether the information that was presented in the EPA's reassessments was consistent with science understanding. But that is unfortunately about all I can tell you.
Chairman EHLERS. All right. Thank you very much. And let me just—getting back to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank question a moment earlier. This is not a question for you but a comment from me. The big fuss that has been made about the MTBE appearing in ground water from these tanks, there has been a lot of concern about that, everyone saying we made a horrible mistake in requiring that. We have to change that, we have to find something else, etcetera.
I have a different perspective on that and you can comment, if you wish. But I am just stating it here. I think you can—this is a case where you can make lemonade out of the lemon. It seems to me that MTBE, because of its high ability to travel through ground—to—through the ground and ground water and so forth, could very well be the canary in the mine shaft. Because obviously, if it is getting out of the tank, the tank is leaking. And the MTBE would—could be very well used as an early warning signal that the tank is leaking. And you can repair it or replace it before the petroleum starts leaking out. I don't see the danger to it as long as you build good, tight systems, which you should have in the first place. Otherwise, the petroleum is going to leak out. I would appreciate any comments you would—anyone here would care to make off-the-cuff on that one.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. FARLAND. Mr. Ehlers, I think that the issue has been that because the MTBE separates from the petroleum plume as it moves through the soil, the sub-surface, that is why it shows up in the ground water first. So what you end up with is much less of a problem in terms of actually trying to do clean-up around the tank. But in fact, the MTBE and the petroleum is out of the tank at that point.
Chairman EHLERS. Excuse me. Okay. Proceed. Go ahead.
Dr. FARLAND. I was just saying that the MTBE begins to move away from the plume. And so you do perhaps find that earlier. But the petroleum is already out of the tank at that point. It is just that you have the ability to perhaps clean up less of an area because you have been able to detect it that way.
Chairman EHLERS. That is simply my point. I mean, if it is leaking you want to know as early as possible and not wait until the petroleum shows up in the water.
Dr. FARLAND. Exactly.
Chairman EHLERS. So I don't think MTBE is a major crisis in this country or that we immediately have to find substitutes. Now there may be other reasons for perhaps through the combustion process it is adding components that we don't want. I don't know. But I just wanted to pass that on. We have another vote. And did you have—Mr. Gutknecht, your turn.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, if I could, first of all, on the MTBE issue, we have the answer back in Minnesota. It is called ethanol that we can grow. And in fact, as many people don't know, if you leave it in an oak barrel for 7 years, it is not only good for the environment but some people think it is good for them.
I want to—I just want to raise two issues that I think are really important that I think here on Capitol Hill, and I think most Americans are concerned about. One is risk analysis and risk assessment. And there has been a feeling, and in fact I have said this myself that in many cases we have imposed $50 solutions to $5 problems. And I just want to stress that point and I would like to get your response to it.
And then secondly, I think the issue of peer review—I don't know how you can use sound science as we work our way through some of these very complex issues unless you have good peer review. And I think ultimately, what we need to know here in Congress is, A, that you have peer review, and that is honest peer review. So you really get some honest exchange of views so that you don't just line and stack the desk with people who may have a particular point of view. And I am wondering if you could just discuss those two issues, risk assessment/risk analysis and peer review.
Mr. LONGEST. I would respond to the peer review. Specifically, because when I commented about the many changes that have been made over the last 5 years, that is key among those. I mentioned the $100 million a year STAR Program, grants to universities. That is a competitive grant process. In other words, we identify an area that we want to receive proposals on. And the universities send those proposals in. Then we bring in, they are not EPA doing the peer review, we bring in professors from universities to sit and go through those proposals. And then they recommend to us through the peer review process the top proposals from which we select. So the entire $100 million that supports our program is completely peer-reviewed. While we run the process it is an independent peer review. And I don't remember the exact number, but actually it is a small number that actually receive grants because of the peer review process. It is very rigorous.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Okay.
Mr. LONGEST. On the other issue, Dr. Farland, happens to be our in-house resident expert on risk assessment and risk management. So I would like for him to address that.
Dr. FARLAND. Mr. Gutknecht, you raise a very good point about risk assessment, the way it has been carried out historically. And I think the issue that you are raising is this concern of paralysis by analysis, taking too long to essentially work through this, when in fact that problem might not really need that.
One of the things that we instituted in response to the National Academy Report in late eighties and early nineties, was too look at the issue of problem formulation. One of the questions that you really need to know is how do you do that analysis to address those questions, as opposed to doing a comprehensive risk assessment on everything and taking too long to get to the point of reaching these conclusions and perhaps not even answering the questions that are really being asked when you get there. And so we feel like we are really addressing that issue now. And the Agency is tailoring its assessments to deal with these kinds of issues.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Dr. Seeker?
Dr. SEEKER. Yes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Actually, I would really like to hear from both you and Dr. Hammerschmidt on both of those issues.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. SEEKER. Let me—I was going to speak to the issue of peer review, because that is an area that in particular the Science Advisory Board plays in fairly strongly. And more recently we have actually done a series of studies and are continuing studies of the peer review processes. The first aspect we did was we looked at the policies and procedures. Did they have the policies and procedures in place. And one of the early problems was you had to get all the products to find that you needed to get peer review. So that has occurred. And there are policies and procedures. And the EPA Science Policy Council has actually put in some nice procedures that basically state, you will review all major science products.
Now the next step, which is the harder question, I think which is the issue that you were getting to is, is it making a difference. Are they doing it—is it rigorous peer review. The way we are addressing that is we are going through a series of case studies. We are doing case studies, we are evaluating how they conducted the peer review process, what did the information—how was it used in the process—how was it being used in the final product development. And that is a much more difficult question. But one that is clearly to the heart of the matter in terms of the rigor or science.
So very soon, we hopefully within the next few months, we are going to be in the position of completing those case studies and start to wrap up that second phase of our peer review assessment.
But the bottom line is right now, we think the policies and procedures are good. But whether the—we are holding judgment on whether the impacts are the right thing. Are they the kinds of peer review that need to be conducted.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Dr. Hammerschmidt.
Dr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Let me speak to peer review first. Many state agencies have limited ability, or had limited ability to do scientific peer review. One of the things that is encouraging to us is as we have seen the change-over in our workforce, we are actually getting more Ph.D.s on our staff. So we are able to—we at least have the brain power, if you will, the intellect and training to do that peer review. It is a matter of time. And I don't know that we are involved much. And that might be because the states just haven't taken advantage of that. But it certainly is something that we would like to participate more in.
On risk assessment and risk management, my comment would really be that this is a three-part process. And the part that is often difficult is the risk communication. We have got the numbers, the scientists can do the risk assessment. We can talk about risk management. But how do you get that risk communicated to the people that are affected. We talked about local officials. You know, it is very difficult to explain to a mother who is very concerned about her child being exposed to some toxin from a refinery by saying, well, it is just a one-in-a-million chance of cancer. They want to know the answer, is my child safe playing outside.
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. And the answer to that is no, never. If you want absolute safely, you won't find it unless you have a cocoon. And that is the whole point that public has to understand that we are talking about, relative risk assessment. I—just to comment on that, I have always been amazed at the local and state level conducting hearings on an environmental issue, whether it is the site of a landfill or some other particular issue. And the very staunch environmentalists, frequently good friends of mine, who have come up and argue about the parts per billion and then light up a cigarette and drive home in their car. Both activities of which are hundreds of times more dangerous than anything we have discussed in the hearing.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I really would like to pursue this risk analysis. And I am really particularly concerned about relative risk analysis and communicating this to the public. But rather than keep you here through another vote cycle, and we do have to go vote now, I think it best we adjourn. We will send the questions to you in writing. And we would very much appreciate it if you would respond.
I certainly appreciate your willingness to come. It has been a good panel, a good representation of the issues and the interests involved. And I appreciate the work that all of you do as public servants in helping the Federal Government operate better. So thank you very much for your attendance and your testimony and assistance. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX 1: Opening Statements
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON EHLERS
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For those who are just now joining us, we are beginning the Hearing portion of our schedule this morning, so let me welcome you here today as the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee examines the science and technology budget of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I'm eager to hear from our witnesses today. As many of you already know, I am an enthusiastic science booster, and I believe that science must play an important role in protecting our environment. That's why I introduced the bill we just marked up a few moments ago to elevate and strengthen the role of science at the EPA. If that bill were law, and I believe it soon will be, I think science at the Agency would be stronger, better coordinated and infused throughout the Agency's decision-making process; and if it were law today, there would probably be a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology testifying today before the Science Committee. (So, Mr. Longest, the sooner the EPA helps get my bill signed into law, the sooner you're off the hot seat.)
In my view, science at the EPA needs to be well funded, focused and coordinated. Today we'll hear from three witnesses whether the President's budget for EPA is sufficient to allow it to meet these goals. The witnesses are Mr. Henry Longest from the Agency itself; Dr. Randall Seeker, a member of EPA's Science Advisory Board; and Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt, representing a group that depends on the Agency to provide the right answers to complex problems, the States. And we'll hear about more than just the budget numbers, we'll also hear about how well the EPA is meeting the strategic goals it has set for itself, positioning itself to replenish its scientific workforce, anticipating the environmental problems of tomorrow, and dealing with the complex, multi-media, cross-disciplinary problems of today.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As for the overall numbers, let me say that I believe the President's budget request for EPA is fair. It requests $7.3 billion for EPA overall and $535 million for the Office of Research and Development, EPA's research arm. Both those numbers, I'd like to note, are higher than those submitted last year by the previous Administration. Of course, Congress ended the year by bumping up both numbers significantly, but much of the additional funding was in the form of earmarks, with strings very much attached. So, while a comparison between the President's budget request and the funding levels Congress enacted at the end of last year might be tempting, it is not entirely fair.
But I'm interested to hear today from the witnesses about the individual science and technology programs at EPA to find out which are adequately funded, which are appropriately focused, and which are well coordinated. I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony and to a productive discussion.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. BARCIA
I want to join Chairman Ehlers in welcoming our distinguished panel to this morning's hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency is an agency, which has instant recognition by the American public and every Member of Congress. Over the years, we have done many of the easy things to clean up the environment. In addition, the public's environmental awareness and our ability to monitor the environment has grown exponentially over the past thirty years. Improved monitoring—and I am talking about measurements moving from parts per thousands, to parts per millions—has increased the importance and significance of scientific data to support EPA regulations.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, EPA has often been criticized that it has lacked comprehensive scientific evidence for its regulations. That is why today's hearing is so important. The office of Research and Development supports the scientific research that must be the basis of sound regulatory policy. As our witnesses address the Administration's budget request, I would also appreciate their views on the Office of Research and Development operations.
As a lifelong resident of the natural resource-rich state of Michigan, and as an avid sportsman, I appreciate and want to protect the environment as much as anyone, but that goal can only be achieved when EPA policy is based on comprehensive scientific data.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee this morning. I look forward to your testimony.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CONSTANCE MORELLA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing and for marking up this important legislation on strengthening the science at the Environmental Protection Agency. As issues which effect our environment become more technical and interdisciplinary in nature, it is critical that we have focused and coherent policies based on sound science. I can think of no better way to assure this than to have a dedicated deputy administrator assume full responsibility for infusing science into all decisions at the EPA.
No one can seriously question the need for a stronger focus on science. With the environment fallout of MTBE's last year and the recent controversy over arsenic, there is a real sense that regulators at the EPA are rudderless, creating rules devoid of available science. While this impression is largely unfair, it nevertheless exists and undermines the confidence of the American people in the value and rationality of environmental regulations issued by the EPA.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People are asking very reasonable questions about some recent EPA guidelines. Some question the need for their existence while others stress that they don't go far enough. All too frequently, the EPA doesn't have a good response to either of them. Given the magnitude of the costs involved, economically and environmentally, this situation is unacceptable.
I don't mean to bash the EPA and I am on record as supporting many of its efforts. It is a good agency with dedicated individuals doing a difficult job. And I want to help them any way I can. That is why this markup and hearing are so important. A dedicated office at the EPA will go a long way toward providing sound science for EPA decisions and communicating the scientific rationale behind the policies to the American people. In addition, it will provide a champion for research and development when budget talks come around.
On that note, I am anxious to here what the distinguished panelist thinks about the current budget and the direction the EPA is taking under the new administration. I would hope they would honestly discuss both its merits as well as its deficiencies and offer ideas as to how we can strengthen the EPA for the protection and well being of the American people.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
APPENDIX 2: Written Testimony, Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY L. LONGEST II
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), and to share with you some important and exciting accomplishments of our research program. ORD continues to be focused solidly on providing the highest quality science in support of EPA's mission to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment.
INTRODUCTION
ORD's research in support of the Agency's key priorities of clean air, clean water, healthy children, healthy ecosystems, and partnerships with stakeholders provides the highlights for the budget request that we will discuss today. ORD is uniquely positioned to provide this support because of our ability to integrate interdisciplinary expertise in environmental and human health effects and exposure, risk assessment and risk management. No other research organization is designed or mandated to conduct a balanced and carefully-targeted interdisciplinary research program that addresses such key environmental topics as particulate matter and air toxics, safe drinking water, advanced integrated ecosystem monitoring and analyses, and contains research initiatives to protect the health of our children and others. ORD is the principal scientific and research arm of the EPA and supports the Agency's unique mission of protecting both human health and the natural environment. Through conscientious organizational development and detailed programmatic planning, ORD continues to conduct leading-edge research and to foster the sound use of science and technology in environmental decisions.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ORD's total budget request for FY 2002 is $535 million and 1935 work years, which represents roughly 78% of the Agency's Science and Technology request, a slight increase over the 2001 President's budget, and we expect to maintain our momentum on critical environmental research. With these resources we will maintain partnerships with stakeholders in both the public and private sector in order to better align and leverage our investments.
STRENGTHENING SCIENCE THROUGH ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENT
ORD's National Laboratories and research portfolio are aligned along the Risk Assessment/Risk Management paradigm. The ''risk paradigm'' is an important Agency organizing principle. It consists of two interrelated phases, risk assessment and risk management. Risk assessment is the process used to evaluate the degree and probability of harm to human health and the environment from such stressors as pollution or habitat loss. It entails evaluation of potential effects, pathways and levels of exposure and culminates with characterization of risk under various scenarios. Risk management research involves development and evaluation of technologies for preventing or reducing risk. Our research activities are also balanced across the two broad categories of problem-driven research (to solve environmental problems of high risk and high scientific uncertainty) and core research (to improve the underlying scientific tools for understanding and protecting human health and the environment). We have recently completed an organizational and programmatic re-alignment to respond to a number of recommendations from external advisors regarding ways to strengthen EPA science. Our updated ORD Strategic Plan (at www.epa.gov/ord/SP) sets a solid platform for ORD's direction and serves as a roadmap for how we will work to more efficiently and effectively support EPA's mission. The new plan does not address research priorities, which are determined by a comprehensive Agency-wide planning process.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Five key strategic goals are outlined in the Plan along with specific actions we will take to achieve them:
support EPA's mission (to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment) by providing high-quality, relevant, responsive, and timely science
be a high-performing organization; continuously improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our organization and infrastructure
be a leader in the broader environmental research community; participate in scientific meetings, serve on professional committees, contribute to scientific debate, and play a leading role in shaping a national environmental agenda
integrate environmental science and technology to solve environmental problems; synthesize the broadest range of cutting-edge science and engineering into a comprehensive set of insights and an understanding of the increasingly complex environmental problems that we face
anticipate future environmental problems, before adverse effects materialize, to better inform our research planning and prioritization process.
Our strategic plan is the result of a comprehensive process that included: a series of workshops with internal and external stakeholders to gather advice and input; full participation by ORD's work force in developing objectives and actions; a thorough review by EPA customers and external stakeholders; and consultation with both ORD's Board of Scientific Counselors and EPA's Science Advisory Board.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By planning our FY2002 research program within the structure of EPA's Strategic Plan, we are ensuring that ORD's research program solidly supports EPA's program and regional offices. During our formal annual planning process, ORD actively seeks input on Agency priorities and our research program activities from Agency staff and senior management. This assures that ORD plans needed credible, relevant, and timely research results and technical support that is designed to inform EPA policy decisions.
Increased Focus on Multi-Year Planning
Multi-year research plans will serve as a tool to better plan and coordinate the direction of our research program within ORD, across the Agency, and with others. In 2001–2002, ORD will complete its first comprehensive set of multi-year research plans (MYPs) with a 5 to 10 year time frame. The Government Performance and Results Act's (GPRA) structure of goals and objectives served as a useful starting point while giving us milestones to monitor our performance (long term goals, annual performance goals and annual performance measures). The MYPs are a logical framework for integrating research across GPRA goals and are intended to both have more time-dependent detail than ORD's issue-specific research strategies and plans and to link with our annual plans, showing how we intend to meet our out-year goals. The MYPs provide a basis for more readily creating annual plans and a context to perceive how decisions made in annual planning impact the ability of ORD to meet future goals and outcomes. They also improve ORD's comprehension of the impact of Agency priorities and budget guidance, and allow for a more thorough understanding of changes needed to emphasize a new research direction or accelerate an existing research effort. Since integration and collaboration across scientific disciplines and goals will be increased by providing an understanding of where similar work is needed and by broadly communicating possibilities for collaboration at all levels within ORD, cross-ORD Laboratory and Center integration is fostered. Finally, MYPs will improve Agency accountability by projecting work outcomes (annual performance goals), outputs (annual performance measures), and developing quantifiable measures of ORD's performance.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While research strategies describe the approach to addressing scientific questions, research plans focus on where a laboratory/center can best use its resources to develop science-based results. Our peer-reviewed research strategies and plans provide the direction for our research programs. We have completed nine research strategies and plans, the latest of which are the Mercury Research Strategy and the Environmental Risks to Children Research Strategy. Additional strategies and plans are under development. I have attached to this statement a list of our completed and draft research strategies and plans. (Final plans and external review drafts are posted on ORD's Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.epa.gov/ord/). By developing these peer-reviewed strategies and plans, we are confident that we have a comprehensive research program that addresses today's most pressing environmental issues. Taken together, our accomplishments, current work, and strategies for future research point to a sound, relevant, and forward-looking environmental research program that solidly supports ORD's and the Agency's strategic goals. This then is the background against which we present our FY 2002 research program.
EXAMPLES OF RECENT ORD SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The following highlights provide examples of some of our recent contributions to the Agency. These showcase ORD's guiding principles of excellence, relevance, timeliness and leadership in meeting the scientific challenges of environmental and human health protection as well as striving for leading-edge science and engineering in support of environmental decision-making. These accomplishments also provide the context for discussing our FY 2002 budget proposal.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Airborne Particulate Matter
ORD has been a catalyst for stimulating research and data collection to understand the nature and effects of small particles in the air. By identifying Airborne Particulate Matter (PM) research needs, establishing five PM Research Centers, and compiling a database of research being carried out inside and outside EPA, the Agency is advancing the understanding of PM health effects by drawing on the expertise of some of the nation's leading researchers. Over 570 projects were described in the comprehensive PM research database, and reflects EPA and other agencies' alignment with National Research Council (NRC, 1998) long-term recommendations. The NRC's follow-ups since have reported that we are already well on track with their recommended focus areas. In response to a 1997 Presidential directive, ORD has developed a greatly expanded and coordinated interagency PM research program with other Federal agencies. This program is fulfilling the directive's charges of contributing to an expansion of the science associated with PM health effects, as well as developing improved monitoring methods and cost-effective mitigation strategies. The upcoming Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD), an update of the state-of-science, is based upon thousands of studies, many of which were funded or stimulated through EPA efforts. The Criteria Document is to be peer reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in July and will serve as the scientific basis for the review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA continues to support the five university-based PM Centers, focused on work in the relationship of specific components of PM to both short- and long-term human health effects. In addition, further development of the Federal Reference Method for use by States in compliance measurements will ensure the integrity of monitoring data.
EPA's 1997 PM risk estimates, which were peer-reviewed by the SAB, suggested tens of thousands of early deaths per year, with many more cases of illness in susceptible populations. ORD is leading the research effort to further our understanding of which parts of PM (e.g., size, chemical composition) pose the greatest health risks to specific populations. For example, ORD's health effects studies show that PM affect heart rate variability, a known factor in heart attacks in elderly people. In addition, exposure studies of elderly people show a relationship between measured ambient outdoor concentrations and actual personal exposure, a key finding that buttresses earlier epidemiologic evidence. The mechanism(s) of toxicity remains unclear, but several PM components are linked with biological toxicity. ORD is setting the stage for future mandated re-evaluations of health-based standards as well as providing tools to implement current and future standards with research in: atmospheric modeling, emissions characterization, source apportionment, and control strategies.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Understanding and Protecting Coastal Ecosystems
Because estuaries and other coastal waters are critical for wildlife habitat, commercial fisheries, and recreational enjoyment, ORD is focusing on understanding their condition, trends in their condition, and how they can be protected. Rapid population growth, coastline development, increases in agricultural fertilization and in the density of farm animals, and atmospheric inputs all factor into development of this understanding. Multiple non-point sources of environmental pollutants and stressors significantly impact coastal ecological integrity leading to impacts on public health and biological resources such as fish and shellfish. A successful federal/state partnership with 24 states and Puerto Rico has resulted in the development of a baseline data set of US coastal condition for estuaries. The National Coastal Assessment has melded state and regional needs with ORD skills and research. This partnership has resulted in a National Coastal Condition Report and monitoring designs for the streams and coastal ecosystems of most states.
Surveys conducted by ORD from 1990–1996 show that U.S. coastal ecosystems rank no better than fair with regard to ecological condition, and estuaries are rated poor in coastal wetland loss, sediment contamination, coastal eutrophication, and biotic condition. ORD's work in coastal monitoring has established the use of benthic communities as a surrogate for biotic conditions and the relation of benthic conditions to sediment contamination and coastal eutrophication. Surveys are being conducted in all coastal states and Puerto Rico during 2000–2001. Because no consistent survey data prior to 2000 exists, these surveys will establish baseline trend data on the condition of coastal estuaries. This baseline trend data will be a yardstick by which the benefits/results of environmental decision making and environmental programs for coastal ecosystems can be measured.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Assessing the Effects of Climate Change
ORD's Global Change Research Program is assessment oriented, with an emphasis on understanding the potential consequences of global change. This program focuses on the implications of global change and should not be confused with efforts to evaluate control technologies or propose solutions to mitigate change. The Global Change Research Act of 1990 established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, a coalition of 10 Federal Agencies) to provide scientific information to decision makers as they plan whether and how to respond to the risks and opportunities presented by global change. ORD is a member of the USGCRP and is responsible for regional and sectoral assessments as part of the periodic assessment of the consequences of global change for the United States.
ORD's Global Change Research Program emphasizes understanding the potential consequences of global change for four focus areas: 1) Human Health—assessing the consequences of global change on weather-related morbidity, vector- and water-borne diseases, and on the health consequences associated with particulate matter and ozone under global change; 2) Air Quality—examining the potential consequences of global change on tropospheric ozone and particulate matter; 3) Water Quality—assessing the possible impacts of global change on water pollutants and microbial pathogens, drinking water, and biocriteria; 4) Ecosystems—Evaluating the effects of global change on aquatic ecosystems, invasive species, and ecosystem services. These assessment activities address topics that represent the greatest risks to people and their environment, have demonstrated policy relevance, and show promise for extending the research community's assessment capabilities.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Global changes, climate change and variability, change in land-use patterns, and change in UV radiation, occur both on a regional and global scale. ORD and its academic partners contributed to the first national assessment and the synthesis report: ''Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, 2000''. Additional National Assessment publications supported by ORD include: ''Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Mid-Atlantic Overview, March 2000''; ''Climate Change in the Upper Great Lakes Region: A Workshop Report, May 1998''; Global Climate Change and Its Consequences on the Gulf Coast Region of the United States, 1999'', and ''The Potential Health Impacts of Climate Variability and Change in the United States, May 2000''.
Drinking Water Contaminants
While chemical disinfection of public water systems has controlled major risks from water-borne microbial diseases, it can create hundreds of compounds known as disinfection by-products (DBPs) which raise other public health concerns. ORD scientists have greatly advanced our understanding of these by-products. To better understand the health risks posed by drinking water contaminants, ORD has developed critical new information on DBP health effects, methods for detection and removal techniques. Contamination of water supplies with water-borne pathogens continues to pose public health risks when treatment is inadequate. Local water systems are using new methods developed by ORD to detect Cryptosporidium and Giardia, which have been responsible for a number of water-borne disease outbreaks the U.S. and elsewhere. An increasingly important part of ORD's drinking water research program is focused on unregulated chemicals and microbes on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Considerable progress has already been made in the areas of analytical methods development, health effects and treatment technology development for selected high priority CCL contaminants.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conjunction with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and the Association of California Water Agencies, ORD has secured an impressive amount of information on arsenic. ORD research has shown that arsenic can be metabolized in the human gut, and that various factors, such as the amount of selenium in the diet, influence how arsenic is metabolized and eliminated. These insights are being used to develop a model of arsenic behavior in humans. In addition to research at the cellular level, ORD scientists have studied its health effects in populations in the United States and elsewhere in the world. ORD conducted a study in several Utah communities that historically have had long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water. This study showed that it is feasible to conduct an epidemiologic study of water-borne exposure to arsenic in the United States in which effects seen in studies of non-U.S. populations (e.g., skin and bladder cancer) can be evaluated.
Because one chemical form of arsenic (arsenate) is easier to remove from drinking water, it is necessary to determine how much of each species is present before devising a treatment strategy. ORD researchers successfully developed a sensitive method to measure both of these forms (arsenite and arsenate) at very low concentrations. ORD scientists evaluated two innovative treatment processes to remove arsenic from drinking water: ion exchange with brine (salt solution) recycle and iron coagulation with microfiltration. ORD-sponsored research at the University of Houston developed more cost-effective and efficient use of the ion exchange removal process. Both processes were very cost effective for removing arsenic and practical for small systems.
Understanding Children's Exposures and Risks
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ORD has led the effort to understand how our young children are exposed to pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals. Children are more at risk from pesticides than most adults since pound for pound of body weight, children breathe more, eat more, and have a more rapid metabolism than adults. Because they are growing and developing, toxic substances can have a major impact on the way children's biological systems work. An indirect route of children's exposure to pesticides is through contact with chemicals brought into the home from the workplace (via contaminated clothing or skin). Children may be more directly exposed to pesticides by playing on floors and lawns where pesticides are applied. ORD has developed methods to understand this route of exposure and has incorporated this new understanding into human exposure models that, for the first time, account for both the variability and the uncertainties found in such exposures. We are testing our understanding and theories through field observational programs to measure the children's exposures in homes and day-care centers. The Children's Health program will continue with its two overarching research categories (Asthma and Non-Asthma Science) under the Agency's Children's Health program. These efforts focus on: age-related exposures; physiology; biological responses that may result in increased risks; and research in risk reduction methods. This research aims to provide the scientific underpinnings that will result in better EPA risk assessments for children and may ultimately reduce risks from potential environmental health threats. The eight existing Children's Health Research Centers, operated in collaboration with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), are scheduled to end in 2002. A new Request for Applications has been published, with the intent of creating four new centers in 2002 that focus on developmental effects in children. These new centers will be supported at about $1.5M per year per center with funding to be shared between EPA and NIEHS. In FY02, the Children's Centers will continue to focus on understanding the causes of environmentally-induced disease among children and on the eventual decrease the prevalence of childhood disease. Their efforts are focused on childhood asthma and other children's respiratory diseases, growth and development, and children's exposure and susceptibility to pesticides. The Centers are also investigating community-based risk reduction methods to lower children's exposures to environmental agents and improve their health outcomes.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe that the Children's Centers funded jointly by the STAR program and by NIEHS have been very successful. While these Center's are only part way through the period of their grants, much is already being accomplished. For example, the Children's Center at the University of Washington has: 1) discovered that the enzymes that humans use for detoxifying certain pesticides are not uniformly distributed among people, 2) children below the age of 12 months do not have this enzyme, and, 3) about 20% of Hispanic farm workers have low levels of this enzyme. These findings have significant implications for defining populations that may be particularly susceptible to pesticide exposures. As was extensively featured in a feature article in the science section of Tuesday's New York Times, the Children's Center at Columbia University in New York has found that sensitization to indoor allergens occurs early in life—perhaps even in utero. The Children's Center at the University of Michigan has been extremely successful in involving many community groups in Detroit in their research on asthma. This comprehensive (African American, Hispanic, Community, and worker groups) involvement has included: 1) participation in the design of the study, 2) recruiting study participants, 3) taking samples, 4) participating in investigators meetings. Individuals from these groups have received training in the implementation of the study, and some are now paid ''field'' employees.
EPA-WIDE INVENTORY OF SCIENCE ACTIVITIES
EPA is committed to continuing, expanding, and improving its EPA-Wide Inventory of Science Activities. On October 17, 2000, the EPA Science Policy Council (SPC), Chaired by the Deputy Administrator, directed Agency staff to expand and enhance the Science Inventory.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This year, EPA is compiling the Science Inventory in the Peer Review Product Tracking system, a searchable electronic database that EPA has used for the past three years to track the peer review of scientific and technical work products used in Agency decisions. By conducting the Science Inventory through the annual peer review data call and housing it within the Peer Review Product Tracking database, the new Inventory will be more comprehensive and detailed, and—most importantly—more useful as an important tool for the any or all of the following uses:
developing cross-cutting strategic science plans;
promoting and enhancing science collaboration across the Agency;
identifying areas where science consolidation and streamlining can occur and duplication can be avoided; and
identifying technical gaps to be filled.
One specific use of the Science Inventory will be for the completion of EPA's Contaminated Sediments Science Plan. The sediments plan, developed under the auspices of the SPC, will be the first Agency-wide strategic plan for a cross-cutting science issue. We expect to complete the sediments plan by December of this year. The Science Inventory, by cataloging the wide range of sediments-related science being conducted across EPA, will play an important role in completing this ground-breaking plan.
The Science Inventory responds directly to the National Research Council's recommendation in Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that EPA expand its science inventory activities, as well as its recommendation that EPA improve how it disseminates and explains the significance of ORD's research products and ongoing activities. The Science Inventory will enhance scientific communication and collaboration within the Agency, and improve public access to and understanding of EPA's diverse environmental science program.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ENHANCING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS, POSTDOCTORALS, GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS
ORD leverages the Nation's scientific resources by partnering with other Federal Agencies on the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) and through our Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants which supports the efforts of scientists in universities and not-for-profit organizations. Our FY02 Presidential Budget request includes $100 million for grants and $10 million for STAR fellowships. Our partnerships attempt to ensure that all external work complements and strengthens our in-house research. Partnering with Federal Agencies provides a common sense and cost-effective way for us to utilize the special expertise residing outside of our Agency, focusing on Agency research issues where possible, while also reducing overlapping and duplicative work. Two good examples of these cooperative enterprises are our Children's Health Centers with NIEHS, and our Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms program with NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Naval Research.
ORD's post-doctoral program, begun in 1999 as a three year effort to enhance EPA's scientific workforce, has provided a constant stream of highly trained Postdoctoral candidates ('postdocs') who bring state of the science training to ORD. Scientific and engineering postdocs brings a fresh perspectives and new skills to our intramural research program and contribute to work in critically important areas such as human exposure modeling in particulate matter and ecological risk assessment. In addition, the program enables EPA to improve workforce diversity and assists with succession planning. By the end of this year, over one hundred postdocs will be on board with many of our original group effectively competing for permanent positions inside and outside of ORD. The quality of these candidates and their contributions to the Agency's science has surpassed our expectations. We intend to maintain a total of 150 postdocs, backfilling in for those that completed or leave the program.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ORD's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants program is planned in tandem with our in-house research program to ensure that the Nation's needs for superior environmental science is met in a cost effective manner. The STAR program funds research grants and graduate fellowships in numerous environmental science and engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process. ORD has strived to ensure that opportunities to compete for the grants are available to numerous institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). The STAR program awards about $100M annually and currently has 1,000 active research grants and fellowships. Consistent with legal requirements, STAR grants are intended to advance scientific knowledge in important environmental areas and also provide an excellent base for EPA to build its own research program. STAR grants attempt to stimulate the creativity of our colleagues outside of the Agency. The program aims to expands the nation's expertise by recruiting the best environmental scientists and engineers from the academic and private sector through a variety of competitive grants, investigator-initiated exploratory research grants, graduate fellowships, and environmental research centers.
The GAO reported in September 2000 that although STAR program funding falls within EPA's strategic goals and STAR grants align with ORD and program office priorities, the program needed to improve tracking of grant results and better communicate grant results with program offices. In response to these GAO comments, ORD has begun aggressive management enhancements which we will continue to implement in FY02. Since its inception in 1995, STAR has greatly expanded its partnerships with other organizations involved in scientific research of mutual interest. STAR has worked with numerous federal and private sector partners, allowing leveraging of EPA's funds. At present, STAR has awarded over 1,100 grants to institutions in 49 states and Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. This has allowed us to develop broader, more comprehensive programs that leverage resources and provide prompt and efficient results. Some of the other organizations that have partnered with ORD in STAR RFAs include: National Science Foundation, United States Department of Agriculture, National Air and Space Administration, National Ocean and Atmospherics Administration, Department Of Energy, National Institute of Environmental Health Science, Department Of Interior, American Water Works Association Research Foundation, and Association of California Water Authorities.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA'S FY 2002 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET
The Agency's total FY 2002 request in the Science and Technology (S&T) account is $641 million and 2417 total work years, a decrease of $34 million and 47 work years from FY 2001. The S&T account, created in 1996, funds the operating programs of the Office of Research and Development, the Office of Air and Radiation's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, and the Program Office laboratories. These organizations provide significant scientific, engineering, and technical expertise in meeting the Agency's broad array of environmental goals. The S&T account allows the Agency to utilize a variety of skills and expertise, regardless of their organizational location.
ORD's total FY 2002 request is $535 million and 1935 work years. Of this total, ORD's FY 2002 request in the S&T account is $497 million and 1823 work years. The remaining $38 million and 112 work years are in accounts other than the S&T account to support the Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and Oil Spills research programs. This budget supports critical research and development activities in 8 of 10 Agency strategic goals.
The President's FY 2002 request reflects the Administration's continued commitment to pursuing sound science at EPA. The Agency's statutory responsibilities are bound closely to scientific knowledge of human health and environmental problems, and it is therefore critical that research and scientific assessment be integrated with EPA's policy and regulatory activities. In addition, the increasingly complex issues facing the Agency necessitate a high-quality, integrated research program in order to develop sound scientific bases for its decisions. Key Administration research priorities in the FY 2002 request for EPA include:
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Particulate Matter—Current data on chronic health effects from PM exposure are very limited, yet available data indicate that these effects are substantial. In 2002, EPA is devoting resources to support PM chronic epidemiology research, for which we are now able to include the full measurement of the range of atmospheric pollutants, to evaluate the role of chronic PM and co-pollutant exposure in producing death and disease, and to assess the most prominent PM health risks.
Drinking Water Research—The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 require EPA to publish a list of unregulated contaminants to aid in priority setting for the Agency's drinking water program. The current Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) categorizes 60 chemicals and microbes where additional research in the areas of health effects, occurrence/exposure analytical methods and/or treatment is necessary to provide a sound scientific basis for regulatory decision-making.
Global Change Research—Continuing work to support EPA's Global Change Research Program will enable us to focus on integrated human health and ecosystem assessments, on topics like the potential spread of vector-borne and water-borne disease. Integrated assessments focus on the interactions of multiple stressors and their combined effects. The four priority areas for these assessments remain human health, air quality, water quality, and ecosystem health (including wildlife and biodiversity).
Our FY 2002 budget request builds upon ORD's significant accomplishments, supports the Agency's mission, and provides the scientific and technical information that is essential for EPA to achieve its long-term goals. The research and development program outlined in our budget request reflects both ORD's highly effective in-house research program, and our efforts to partner and work with other research organizations. Our resources are spread over eight of the ten Agency strategic goals, focusing on core science issues that cross environmental media and on more specific problem-oriented research. I would like to briefly highlight ORD's planned research contributions to each of these eight goals.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 1—Clean Air. EPA's particulate matter (PM) research program provides the scientific basis for the review and implementation of PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition to consulting with the National Academy of Science, the Agency continues to works closely with other Federal research organizations, academia, and the private sector to implement a research program consistent with NAS recommendations. Consistent with these recommendations, the Agency will continue its emphasis on PM epidemiology research to evaluate the role of chronic PM and co-pollutant exposure in causing death and disease. In addition, the Agency is expanding research efforts on how to attain the NAAQS for PM.
The Agency will also continue its tropospheric ozone research in the areas of atmospheric sciences and risk management. EPA's air toxics research will focus on urban toxics, fuel/fuel additives, and low-emitting vehicles to improve the knowledge underpinning decisions required by the Clean Air Act on residual risk, area sources, and mobile sources. EPA will emphasize research relating ambient concentration of air toxics to actual human exposure and on the risks posed from exposures to pollutant mixtures. ORD's active program in air toxics takes advantage of PM-related efforts. We are developing neighborhood-scale air quality modeling, undertaking personal exposure monitoring to aid in model development, increasing IRIS assessment, examining the effects of priority air toxics and air toxics mixtures, and developing more accurate estimates of air toxics emissions for mobile sources. Indirect (ingestion, dermal) exposure may contribute significantly to the residual risk of some pollutants. Work is continuing on refining total exposure modeling approaches for indirect exposures.
Goal 2—Clean & Safe Water. In support of the Safe Drinking Water Act priorities, EPA's drinking water research program will continue to evaluate the nature and magnitude of water-borne diseases, conduct research on sensitive sub-populations, and develop analytical detection methods for contaminants of regulatory interest. In 2002, the Drinking Water Research program will continue to develop and improve methods to detect and measure microbes (e.g., CCL-related microbes), field-test methods and collect exploratory occurrence data for worst-case source waters or vulnerable drinking water systems, and develop and apply methods to detect and measure human exposure to microbes. Additional health effects and exposure studies on arsenic will be conducted to evaluate the dose-response relationships at low doses for effects such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other toxic endpoints. A primary focus of drinking water risk management research is determining the treatability of microbial and chemical contaminants on the CCL, and determining cost-effective approaches for maintaining water quality in drinking water distribution systems.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Aquatic stressors research will continue to focus on the development of methods and models for determining total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), on the risks posed by chemical pollutants to wildlife, and on the development of more cost effective technologies and approaches for managing contaminated sediments. Research is continuing to determine the nature and extent of the risk associated with nutrient loadings leading to eutrophic conditions, hypoxia and increased frequency of harmful algal blooms. EPA will also continue to develop and validate effective watershed management strategies for controlling high volume and toxic Wet Weather Flows, and develop effective evaluation tools to aid timely and informed decisions on beach advisories and closures. In FY 2002, the beaches research program will develop monitoring and risk communication alternatives in order to provide water quality managers with tools to make timely and informed decisions on beach advisories. A new emphasis will be placed on watershed restoration research for the development of decision support tools to assist watershed managers in analyzing problems and identifying cost effective solutions. This activity will help to provide the scientific underpinning of TMDLs. New research will develop the scientific basis to support the development of criteria for suspended solids and sediments (excessive siltation is among the most frequently identified causes of water quality impairments) and will develop and evaluate more cost effective technologies and approaches for their management. Research is continuing on the development of diagnostic tools to help identify the causes of water quality impairments. EPA is developing and validating effective watershed management strategies and tools for controlling wet weather flows, especially when they are toxic. Watershed management research will investigate techniques to reuse and reclaim stormwater for beneficial purposes, defining the conditions when secondary uses are both desirable and economically possible. Research will continue to address critical data gaps regarding the growing human health and environmental concerns of microbial pathogens in surface waters.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 3—Safe Food. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) mandates a single, health-based standard for all pesticides in all foods and provides for special protections for infants and children. The Act identifies clear science needs consistent with evaluating potential pesticide exposure pathways and effects, and the need to review more complex factors (such as cumulative exposure and effects, and multiple routes of exposure). In FY 2002 the Agency will continue to focus on developing new and improved test methods to evaluate the effects of environmental exposure to pesticides and other chemicals in sensitive subpopulations. Work will continue to address uncertainties regarding intermittent exposure by developing data, methods, and models for characterizing and combining exposures and assessing exposure-dose-response relationships for pesticides with different exposure patterns, with an emphasis on developing a foundation for a cumulative risk assessment methodology. The Agency will continue efforts to develop a systematic approach for determining the cumulative risk for a given set of exposure conditions. Understanding the cumulative risks associated with exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals will provide the foundation for improved regulatory decisions.
Goal 4—Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk. Research will continue to support the development and improvement of methods to evaluate hazards on human health endpoints, models to improve the biological basis for human health risk assessment, and methods to identify ecological hazards, predict ecological risk, and characterize environmental stressor interactions. In FY 2002, ORD will continue its multi-Agency effort with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), in support of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which is an examination of the health of men and women in agriculture. Data collection for the study is scheduled to be completed in FY 2002; sample analysis will be completed and data analysis initiated in FY 2003; and reporting will be completed by FY 2004. EPA's role is to evaluate how accurately the study questionnaire classifies pesticide application activities and enables the prediction of applicator exposure and dose. Under the Children's Health program, research will address the need for methods to evaluate the special sensitivities of children to pesticides and other toxic substances. The methods are developed to evaluate endpoints of toxicity that are qualitatively/quantitatively different from those of concern for adults.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 5—Better Waste Management. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program continues to foster the development and use of lower cost characterization technologies and innovative treatment techniques intended to solve difficult and complex site remediation problems and reduce the cost of clean up. Research includes studies on ecological samplers and biosensors for characterization along with evaluations of technologies dealing with priority remediation problems, such as contaminated sediments and brownfields redevelopment sites. Since the initiation of the SITE program in 1986, cleanup of contaminated sites though the use of innovative technologies has resulted in a total inflated cost savings of over 2.1 billion dollars (SITE Program Annual Report to Congress, 1999). Research on methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a fuel additive, includes a field evaluation of natural attenuation of MTBE in ground water with different hydrogeologic conditions. Studies on the biological processes that control the degradation of MTBE are also being conducted. Research on the remediation of dense, non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), a major source of organic groundwater contamination, includes studies on using geophysical techniques and thermal treatments for cleanup processes. In FY 2002, research will continue on characterization and containment evaluation of contaminated soils, sediments, and groundwater, and will develop methodologies and factors that more accurately quantify estimates of contaminants in soils. Work under this Objective will address priority remediation problems in order to reduce human and ecosystem exposure.
Efforts in waste management are focusing on improving multimedia science/modeling for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). This ongoing research includes work on the Multimedia, Multi-pathway, and Multi-receptor Exposure and Risk Assessment (3MRA) methodology. The 3MRA modeling system (version 2 will be out in the Fall) and attendant databases will help determine which wastes can be safely released (''exit levels'') from costly disposal requirements without posing risks of either human or ecological exposure.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA is also conducting research on the factors influencing the formation of dioxins and other products of incomplete combustion (PICs) as well as research on PIC measurement techniques. Work will also focus on emissions characterization and control research of toxic contaminants, such as furans and mercury, to reduce uncertainties related to waste combustion. In FY 2002, waste management research will continue to examine improved ways to manage solid and hazardous waste, including developing and evaluating more cost effective alternatives. Research includes work on bioreactors and how to minimize releases to the environment through air and groundwater will continue along with studies on the design and effectiveness of municipal waste containment units, including landfills.
Goal 6—Reducing of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks. As part of the Second U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) National Assessment, EPA will address key new assessment questions of concern. These issues were raised by stakeholders in the first national assessment. We will address these concerns by expanding efforts to assess the impact of global change on air quality and water quality and quantity, including work to understand the interactions between regional air quality and global change. This will partly be accomplished by interacting STAR Grant Research on global models with in-house efforts, using EPA's Models-3 to predict regional air quality as a result of global change.
Goal 7—Quality Environmental Information. In FY 2002, the Agency's Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) will assist risk assessors by producing products which include: risk assessment guidelines, technical panel reports on special risk assessment issues, and peer consultation and peer review workshops addressing controversial risk assessment topics. The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which provides EPA consensus health information, will continue to support the Agency, state and local governments, and the general public in making human health decisions and developing risk assessments and regulatory standards. As part of IRIS, ORD has committed to produce or update nine chemical assessments. In response to SAB comments, ORD is developing more detailed guidance on appropriate documentation of uncertainty and variability in health assessments. The guidance will include: ways to use data-driven uncertainty factors rather than default values; methods for examining curvilinearity or thresholds in dose-response relationships; means of integrating information from multiple relevant studies of adequate quality; and how to balance assessments of known human variability in susceptibility to various classes of chemical compounds.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 8—Sound Science. ORD's research investments in this Goal are arrayed across the following four long-term objectives:
Conduct Research for Ecosystem Assessment and Restoration. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), in cooperation with all 24 coastal states, interested tribes, and other Federal Agencies, is conducting the National Coastal Assessment to provide the EPA and Congress with the first integrated, comprehensive, and statistically valid national report card on the health of estuarine communities. Under the National Coastal Assessment, three states (California, Oregon, and Washington) have completed sampling while 19 states are in their second year of sampling and Hawaii and Alaska are in their first. EPA, in cooperation with Regions 8, 9, and 10, is also continuing to implement Western EMAP in order to demonstrate that monitoring tools developed for the Mid-Atlantic can be adapted to ecosystems in the western U.S. Other research includes methods and multi-media integrated models to identify the most significant environmental stresses and forecast how risk reduction alternatives improve or sustain biological and chemical water quality. EPA will continue to develop improved remote sensing techniques and landscape indicators to efficiently estimate and forecast ecological conditions and vulnerabilities. EPA is also developing restoration technologies which focus on: (1) rehabilitation of the structure of watershed ecosystems, (2) reduction of the stressor(s), and (3) enhancing the natural resilience of the system. EPA is maintaining its commitment to coastal and western states and is requesting continued full funding for the National Coastal Assessment and Western EMAP.
Improve Scientific Basis to Manage Environmental Hazards and Exposures. This program supports the development of multimedia and multipathway exposure models and mechanistically-based data, tools and approaches to address uncertainties in human health risk assessment, with an emphasis on infants and children and other sensitive populations. The Children's Health program will continue its two overarching research categories' (asthma and non-asthma) efforts, to include: age-related exposures; physiology; biological responses that may result in increased risks; and research in risk reduction methods. This research aims to provide the scientific underpinnings that will result in better EPA risk assessments for children and may ultimately reduce risks from potential environmental health threats. As previously described, the Children's Centers will continue their efforts on understanding the causes of environmentally-induced disease among children and to eventually decrease the prevalence of childhood disease.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Enhance Capabilities to Respond to Future Environmental Developments. Efforts in this area will include developing new assays on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) for the Agency's endocrine disruptors screening and testing program and determine the magnitude of adverse impacts of EDCs on human health. We will also develop approaches for reducing exposures to EDCs from sediment, wastewater treatment outfalls, confined animal feeding operations, and combustion sources. The STAR program's efforts in this area in this objective includes the Exploratory Grants program, which, unlike issue-specific RFAs, provides opportunities for individual investigators from the academic research community to conceive, define, and propose research projects. Increased effort in the mercury research program will focus on the atmospheric transport, transformation, and fate of mercury from source to deposition point. This research will improve the Agency's understanding of problems posed by mercury releases into the environment. Providing relevant information and data will enhance EPA's ability to assess and manage mercury and methylmercury risks, thereby leading to improved human and ecological health.
Improve Environmental Systems Management. EPA addresses human and environmental health issues through the development of pollution prevention tools and technologies for the industrial and other sectors. Research includes the enhancement of computerized databases on less-polluting alternatives and the development of decision tools for process simulation and chemical replacements. Environmental technologies are tested through the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to provide stakeholders with an independent and credible assessment of technologies for their consideration and decision making. ETV provides objective, high quality information on the performance of innovative, commercially ready environmental technology. This information is intended to reduce barriers to acceptance of higher performance technology and to promote more rapid adoption by decision makers and appropriate marketing of technological solutions to environmental problems. The ETV Program completed its five-year pilot phase in FY 2001 with over 100 technologies verified. Six of the twelve most successful ETV pilots will continue in FY 2002: advanced monitoring, air pollution control, greenhouse gas, drinking water systems, water protection, and pollution prevention. ORD expects to submit a report to Congress assessing the 5 year pilot program to Congress in the Fall. Reduced funding in FY2002 reflects our success in securing private sector cost sharing for technology verification testing, one of the ultimate goals of the Agency's ETV program.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONCLUSION
In ending my testimony before you today, I would like to emphasize ORD's commitment to not only provide the foundation for sound environmental decisions, but to assume the national leadership in producing the knowledge that will help us solve critical problems of the 21st Century. Sound science, on a foundation of rigorous peer review, remains a critical mainstay of our work. While conducting sound science is the foundation for our success, producing results in a timely fashion to solve problems is the measure of that success. Further, ORD's continuing innovations in the way we perform and manage research will optimize the delivery of results to our Agency customers, stakeholders, and the American people.
COMPLETED RESEARCH STRATEGIES AND PLANS
Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters
Waste Research Strategy
Pollution Prevention Research Strategy
Ecological Research Strategy
Research Plan for Endocrine Disruptors
Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water
Mercury Research Strategy
Environmental Risks to Children Research Strategy
RESEARCH STRATEGIES AND PLANS IN DEVELOPMENT
Particulate Matter Research Strategy
Global Change Research Strategy
Human Health Risk Assessment Research Strategy
EMAP Research Strategy
Air Toxics Research Strategy
Drinking Water Contaminants Candidate List Research Plan
Comprehensive Drinking Water Research Strategy
Social Sciences
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Asthma
BIOGRAPHY FOR HENRY L. LONGEST II
Henry L. Longest II began his career with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in July 1970. He joined the Office of Research and Development in 1995, as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Management. Since January 19, 2001, he has served as the Acting Assistant Administrator. Also, in mid-1997, he served a 16-month assignment as the Acting Assistant Administrator.
Mr. Longest has broad EPA program experience having served in the Superfund program as the director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, and in the Office of Water as the Deputy Assistant Administrator and as director of the Office of Water Program Operations. His EPA regional experience includes service as the Region VI Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, as Region V's director of the Water Division and as Region III's chief of the Environmental Planning and Standards Branch.
Following graduation from the University of Maryland in 1962, he entered the U.S. Air Force as a civil engineering officer serving tours of duty in Florida, Alabama, and Vietnam, where he was responsible for various base construction and maintenance projects. Upon completion of military obligations, he worked for the E.I. du Pont Company as a construction engineer responsible for various phases of plant construction related to chemical process facilities. He then became involved in the field of water resources as a hydraulic engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He is a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Virginia Society of Professional Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers. His major awards include: the Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award; the Distinguished Executive Presidential Rank Award; EPA's Engineer of the Year Award; the Gold Medal for Exceptional Service; and the Gordon Maskew Fair Award from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses submitted by Henry Longest II, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
Question: What kind of turnover exists among professional scientific staff at the EPA and what are the Agency's prospects for attracting and retaining new talent and expertise? If there are barriers to recruiting young science staff, what are they and what is needed to overcome them?
Answer: For the period 1997 through 2000, ORD's science and engineering staff had an attrition rate of approximately 5% per year.
ORD's Strategic Plan (2001) sets a framework for recruiting and maintaining a high-quality, diverse work force. A successful element of our recruitment strategy is the Post-Doctoral Program, which began in FY 1999. Under three to four year term appointments, these Postdoctoral scientists and engineers bring fresh perspectives and new skills to the Agency's research program and perform critical work in areas such as human exposure modeling, particulate matter, and ecological risk assessment. As of March 5, 2001, ORD had hired a total of 118 postdocs. Seventeen postdocs have since left the Agency, and seventeen have since been converted to permanent employees. We are continuing to recruit postdoc scientists and engineers with the goal of having 150 postdocs on-board by the end of FY 2001. ORD also has the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program which provides stipends to graduate students and tuition to environmental researchers at America's universities in order to encourage these students to pursue careers in environmental science and engineering.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to retain and enhance on-board scientific talent, ORD has initiated career development programs, including classroom training, details, and rotational assignments, to enhance the professional development of staff and provide additional career advancement opportunities.
EPA is currently working with the Administration to assess barriers to recruitment as well as to develop a strategy to address them. We will give full attention to these issues in the FY 2003 President's Budget.
Question: Should EPA recruit top-tier scientists prominent in various fields of environmental science, and if so, what would be the advantages? What barriers, if any, prevent EPA from recruiting these experts now?
Answer: EPA should and does recruit top-tier scientists. Top-tier scientists serve as examples and mentors for other scientists and ensure scientific excellence. The National Research Council's (NRC) recent report, Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, states, ''In research, perhaps more than in other fields, pre-eminent leadership sets the standard and tone for the rest of the workforce.'' One mode through which EPA recruits top-tier scientists is its Post-Doctoral Program. Under three to four year term appointments, postdoctoral scientists and engineers bring fresh perspectives and new skills to the Agency's research program and perform critical work in areas such as human exposure modeling, particulate matter, and ecological risk assessment. In addition to the Post-Doctoral Program, the Agency is considering new approaches to recruiting and retaining world-class researchers, pursuant to the NRC's recommendation in Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA is currently working with the Administration to assess barriers to recruitment as well as to develop a strategy to address them. We will give full attention to these issues in the FY 2003 President's Budget.
Question: EPA has had success coordinating complex research by appointing a ''national program director'' to be the lead on specific cross-disciplinary environmental problems such as endocrine disruptors. Why has EPA not appointed a national program director for mercury? Are there other problems that would benefit from having a national program director appointed?
Answer: EPA continually evaluates its research program to decide if a national program director (NPD) can provide a significant benefit to our efforts in a specific area. NPDs are considered when a research program meets criteria including: 1) the expected outcomes/outputs are tied directly to a regulatory program mandate or a program of national importance; 2) requires a long-term effort (3–5 years); 3) integrates research from three or more laboratories/centers; and 4) generally has funding of greater than $10 million per year.
EPA has considered naming a NPD for mercury, but does not believe it is necessary at this time. Although mercury is a significant environmental problem, EPA's program directed at mercury is not large enough to require additional coordination beyond the Agency's already extensive planning process. The Agency has developed a Mercury Research Strategy to address the key scientific uncertainties that need to be addressed (e.g., how much methylmercury in fish consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by U.S. emissions compared to other sources of mercury?). Consistent with the criteria above, EPA will, however, continue to evaluate its research in mercury and other areas to determine if any area would significantly benefit from a national program director.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question: On May 3, 2001 the Science Committee heard from scientists who said that the EPA needed to expand monitoring networks for mercury and acid rain. In fact, in its own Congressional Justifications, EPA admits that these networks should be expanded. But EPA does not seem to ask for the extra money for these purposes? Why not?
Answer: EPA funds a variety of environmental monitoring networks for various media and pollutants. Each provides valuable information for EPA, states and tribes as well as the research community. In developing its budget request, the Agency weighs competing priorities and makes hard choices. For 2002, EPA chose to maintain but not expand these networks. We will continue to work to identify additional resources for these programs.
Question: To what extend does risk analysis and risk assessment play a role in helping to set the Agency's priorities and guiding the Agency's decisions? Who determines the methods by which risks are assessed and analyzed?
Answer: Risk assessment has been defined as ''the characterization of the potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards'' (NRC, 1983). Risk assessment information is used in the risk management process in deciding how to protect public health and the environment. Examples of how EPA uses risk assessment in decision making include deciding how much of a chemical a company may discharge into a river; determining which substances may be stored at a hazardous waste disposal facility; deciding to what extent a hazardous waste site must be cleaned up; setting permit levels for discharge, storage, or transport; establishing levels for air emissions; and determining allowable levels of a chemical presence in drinking water. Risk assessment provides information on the health risk, and risk management is the action decision makers take in response to that information in order to protect human health and the environment. Generally, the use of risk assessment within each regulatory program is guided by both statutory and judicial requirements. EPA has a long history in writing and implementing program-specific guidance that best characterize human health and ecological effects resulting from exposures to different stressors.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to established Agency guidelines and policies, EPA uses tools such as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS is an electronic .database that provides hazard identification and dose-response assessment information on individual chemicals. IRIS was initially developed for EPA staff in response to a growing demand for consistent information on chemical substances for use in risk assessments, decision-making and regulatory activities. The data in IRIS can be used for characterization of the public health risks of a given chemical in a given situation, that can then lead to a risk management decision designed to protect public health. EPA is working toward updating the highest priority IRIS files. We have initiated a screening study of the scientific literature to determine how many of the chemical files in IRIS need updating.
EPA has made use of comparative risk analysis (CRA) in our Agency-wide strategic planning processes, in our partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments, and in many specific programs, both regulatory and non-regulatory. CRA is both an analytical process and a set of methods to systematically measure, compare and rank environmental problems and the relative effectiveness of risk reduction strategies. CRA generally follows the risk assessment framework (i.e., problem definition, hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment and risk characterization and communication), however, CRAs are usually carried out at a broader level and accept greater uncertainty than traditional risk analysis. Examples of comparative risk analyses supported by EPA for informing priorities include integrated environmental management projects in five cities (1983–1985), qualitative CRA pilot projects in several states (1985–1987), EPA's Unfinished Business project (1987), the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reducing Risk report (1990), EPA financial and technical support of state, local, tribal and regional CRA projects (1992–1998), and the SAB report entitled Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making (2000).
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An important area in which comparative risk information comes into play is in the Agency's planning, priority-setting, and budgeting processes. As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), EPA developed a five-year Strategic Plan in 1997 and 2000; Annual Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001; and Annual Performance Reports for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000. EPA is one of the few agencies to restructure its budget to match the goal and objective structure of its Strategic Plan. This allows Agency decision makers, Congress, and the public to more easily identify the resources associated with each of the Agency's goals and objectives, and to compare the prospective benefits of these long-term outcomes when making judgments about the Agency's proposed priorities and funding.
In setting its strategic goals and objectives and developing specific budget proposals to achieve them, the Agency uses the best available scientific and economic analysis. The performance targets identified in the Strategic Plan reflect the Agency's decisions on the relative priority the Agency will place on different environmental problems and programs. In communicating our GPRA goals and objectives, annual performance targets, and actual performance, the Agency has attempted to characterize for Congress and the public the nature of the different health and environmental risks that our programs are addressing.
With regard to the annual budget process, comparative risk considerations have been explicitly factored into various internal Agency-wide budget investment and reduction exercises. As an example, EPA's Office of Research and Development uses information on the relative risks associated with environmental problems in its annual cross-goal ranking used in determining research priorities. Furthermore, risk information, when available and relevant, is implicitly included in most discretionary decisions made by Agency program managers, both in setting priorities within major programs and allocating resources across programs.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many challenges face EPA and our state, local and tribal partners and stakeholders in better using comparative risk information in environmental priority-setting and budgeting. Availability of cost and risk data is improving, but varies greatly across and within EPA programs. Methodologies for assessing risk and benefits are at varying stages of development. The diverse endpoints being addressed by environmental programs—such as cancer versus non-cancer health effects, human health versus ecological protection, reduction of chronic exposures versus prevention of low-probability/high-risk chemical spills and accidents—make direct comparisons of risks and benefits difficult. As the Agency works to improve comparative risk data and tools for use in priority-setting and budgeting, EPA also will continue to improve the links between its budget and its GPRA goals and objectives in order to facilitate the ongoing dialogue with Congress and stakeholders about our priorities. The science of risk assessment is ever evolving and improving.
Question: To what extent is the science used to form the basis for regulations peer reviewed? Who does the peer reviews and to whom at the Agency do the reviewer's comments return. What mechanism exists in the agency to ensure those comments are adequately addressed?
Answer: The principle underlying EPA's Peer Review Policy, first established in 1994, is that all major scientific and/or technical work products used in decision-making will be peer reviewed. Therefore, Agency regulations (and other policy decisions) developed in accord with this policy, where supported by major scientific and/or technical work products, have drawn upon only peer-reviewed work products. To be deemed major, a work product must fulfill one or more of the following criteria: 1) establishes a significant precedent, model, or methodology; 2) addresses significant controversial issues; 3) focuses on significant emerging issues; 4) has significant cross-Agency/inter-agency implications; 5) involves a significant investment of Agency resources; 6) considers an innovative approach for a previously defined problem/process/methodology; and 7) . satisfies a statutory or other legal mandate for peer review. Usually, a major scientific and/or technical work product supports a regulatory decision or policy/guidance of major impact (i.e., applies to a broad spectrum of regulated entities or has significant consequences on a smaller scale). Chapter 2 of the Agency's Science Policy Council Handbook on Peer Review (Peer Review Handbook) provides greater detail.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Section 1.4 in Chapter 1 of the Peer Review Handbook provides detail on who is responsible for the peer review of individual major scientific and technical work products. Under EPA's Peer Review Policy, the Administrator designates the Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators (AAs and RAs) accountable for implementing the Policy in their respective organizations. The Deputy Administrator is ultimately responsible for peer review across the Agency and is the final arbiter of conflicts and concerns about peer review. In terms of the conduct of the peer reviews themselves, the principal Agency staff involved are the Decision-Makers (and their line managers) and Peer Review Leaders in the Program and Regional Offices. The AA/RA may designate Office Directors and/or Division Directors as the front-line Decision-Makers. The Peer Review Leader is assigned by the Decision-Maker to organize, conduct, and complete the peer review for a specific individual work product, and is the person to whom the peer review comments are returned.
The Decision-Maker must ensure that all relevant issues and comments raised by the peer review comments are adequately addressed and documented for the peer review record (the Peer Review Leader provides the actual documentation for the record). By signature, the Decision-Maker acknowledges these decisions for the record and this also becomes part of the Agency's annual reporting of peer review activities to the Deputy Administrator.
Question: If earmarks end up taking a bite out of EPA's budget and the money must be found in science programs to offset their additional costs, cuts in which programs would create the greatest disruption to EPA's efforts to protect the environment?
Answer: EPA's budget request for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) is developed through a participatory, risk-based planning process that reflects the environmental priorities and concerns of EPA and the Administration. As outlined in its Strategic Plan, ORD strives to perform the highest quality research in support of EPA's mission. Congressional earmarks are not competitively-awarded, nor do they go through ORD's risk-based planning and prioritization process. Therefore, earmarks that must be offset through cuts to EPA's research programs will prevent ORD from funding efforts that have been identified as priorities for EPA's Program Offices. The nature of the disruptions would vary from program to program and according to the size of the earmark, but in each case the reduction would limit ORD's ability to address EPA's research needs.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question: I am interested in hearing how the STAR program is progressing. Mr. Longest, you say in your testimony that there are currently 1,000 active research grants and fellowships in this program. Are all of these extramural grants and fellowships, or are EPA employees allowed to compete as well?
Answer: The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program is a fully extramural program that provides funding for research grants and fellowships to institutions, not-for-profits, and state and local governments. EPA employees are not allowed to compete for the STAR program resources. They are, however, allowed and encouraged to interact with the Principle Investigator through structured progress workshops and personal contacts. All project descriptors and progress reports are posted on the EPA website.
Question: Do you have targets as to the areas where you grant awards? For example, are twenty percent aimed at water before you review proposals?
Answer: Yes. The targeted areas are developed from a set of program priorities established by the Agency through interactive planning with EPA's Program Offices and Regions. These priorities represent research areas that best meet the risk management paradigm for program planning and the level of resources needed to accomplish the task. EPA does not, however, target percentages of the STAR program to specific problem areas.
Question: How many research projects have been completed?
Answer: Approximately 250 grants have completed their final report.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question: Is there a way for people both inside and outside the Agency to see the results?
Answer: Yes. Final reports, annual reports, and project abstracts for STAR research are placed on the EPA website for access by all interested public and private parties and individuals. Those reports provide a summary of the results of the research projects, as well as related publications and references that support the results. The web address is: http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa
Question: Is a portion of the grants funds dedicated to core research with no preconceived notion that the research will affect a particular problem?
Answer: Yes. Two programs within STAR are dedicated to supporting research proposals that are relevant to the mission of EPA but which are open for the proposer to design the direction of the project. First is the Exploratory Program where the researcher can make a proposal in areas not found in other Requests for Applications (RFAs). A ''futures'' component of the exploratory program supports development of issues that may become environmental problems at some time in the future. Second, the STAR fellowship program is open to proposals that relate to any area of environmental science, in an attempt to support projects that are the latest and best thinking of the next generation of researchers and decision makers, both public and private.
Question: Has the research developed under this program been useful in helping the Agency with its mission? Can you give a couple of examples?
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Answer: The STAR process is modeled after the National Science Foundation grant program but differs in that the Agency attempts to target RFPs for the STAR program that are relevant to needs of the Agency. The Agency believes that research performed by the STAR program has been very useful to the Agency program offices in achieving the Agency's mission. EPA is currently performing formal evaluations of the STAR program and during the next several years intends to issue reports of these evaluations starting in 2002.
PAST EVALUATIONS OF THE STAR PROGRAM ARE LISTED BELOW:
a. Two reviews of the management of the program were carried out by the ORD Board of Scientific Councilors (April 1998) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (March 2000).
b. Two reviews (January 1999 and April 2000) were done jointly with the NSF to evaluate the Technology for a Sustainable Environment and the Decision Making in the Environment Programs.
c. GAO Report, GAO/RCED–00–170, ''STAR Grants Focus on Agency Priorities, but Management Enhancements Are Possible'' (September 2000).
d. In April, the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the SAB evaluated the STAR Water and Watersheds Program,
e. We have recently started a more comprehensive evaluation of the STAR program by the National Academy of Sciences.
The Agency is currently addressing recommendations raised in each of the evaluations.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some examples of support to the Agency's mission include:
Office of Water
f. Innovative treatment methods in drinking water, including methods for arsenic in small systems;
g. New, innovative methods for detecting pathogens in drinking water; and
h. New approaches for assessing the health impacts of disinfection by-products.
Office of Air and Radiation
i. Mechanisms by which fine particles in air act to cause deleterious health effects, including effects on the lung and cardiovascular system; and
j. OAR has used the air quality databases developed by a STAR researcher to help develop exposure protocols for assessing the air quality impacts associated with various pollutants emitted from mobile sources.
Office of Pesticides Programs
k. OPP has changed its exposure testing protocol to reflect the results of STAR research on the uptake of pesticide from household pets.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
a. OPEI has used one of the STAR studies on stated preference methods to develop a handbook for EPA economists.
In addition, SOME States are using information developed through the STAR program. For example, managers in California are working with ORD's STAR researchers on water quality issues in Lake Tahoe. Minnesota Department of Health used survey data from a STAR grant to the University of Minnesota for a comparative risk assessment, which found that the highest exposure risk to children is from benzene. State Land Managers have used the Lake Erie Ecosystem Model to make decisions regarding phosphorus management and Zebra Mussel control.
Question: The Science Advisory Board's report noted that nearly half of ORD employees are over the age of 50. Can you tell me what percentage of ORD's workforce is eligible for retirement in the next five years? What is ORD doing to ensure that a ''brain drain'' does not occur? How much of the workforce has less than five years experience? Since the majority of the workforce is either new or old, what is ORD doing to find lateral hires?
Answer: Nearly 50% of ORD's workforce is over the age of 50, making ORD among the oldest workforces in EPA. Approximately 40% of ORD's workforce will be eligible to retire in 2006. However, ORD employees tend to continue working beyond the time when they become eligible to retire.
ORD has an active workforce planning effort underway in anticipation of a future wave of retirements. In addition to our recently issued Strategic Plan, ORD worked with EPA Program Offices and Regions, and the scientific community to develop Research Strategies, which can assist in guiding workforce decisions.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As of June 30, 2001, ORD has 268 permanent employees on-board (out of a total of 1836 permanent employees) with less than five years of experience. ORD continues to recruit and hire at the entry, mid-level, and senior-level, depending upon programmatic requirements.
EPA is currently working with the Administration to assess barriers to recruitment as well as to develop a strategy to address them. We will give full attention to these issues in the FY 2003 President's Budget.
Question: Goal 8 for EPA is Sound Science. Unless we understand what that term means, it will be difficult to determine if the goal is being met. What is your definition of what constitutes ''sound science''? What components must be included for research to be considered sound? What types of research are unsound?
Answer: Sound science is the foundation that supports all of EPA's regulatory and policy decisions. Making decisions with sound science requires: 1) relevant, high quality, cutting edge research in human health, ecology, pollution control and prevention, and socio-economics; 2) proper characterization of scientific findings; and 3) appropriate use of science in the decision process.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) considers its research to be ''sound science'' if it is credible (Is ORD doing research of the highest quality?), significant (Is ORD working on the right issues?), relevant (Is ORD providing data that the Agency can use?), and timely (Is ORD meeting EPA's needs in a timely manner, providing research products according to schedule, and addressing long-term issues with adequate forethought and preparation?). These criteria are met through, and judged by, the level of external input to the ORD research planning process, external peer review of products and programs, the number of peer-reviewed journal articles and scientific citations, the degree to which ORD's contributions support EPA policies and decisions, and external recognition of both ORD and its people.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although the term ''sound science'' appears only in Goal 8, the principles outlined here apply to all of the research that ORD conducts.
Research that would be considered ''unsound'' includes that which is not of high quality, does not generate reproducible results, or does not properly characterize research findings. Unsound science can not withstand the scrutiny of independent peer review.
Question: What is the $106 million in the S&T account that is not going to ORD being used for?
Answer: For FY 2002, EPA requests $679 M for the Science and Technology appropriation (including the Superfund transfer). Of that total request, approximately $497 M (78%) is the S&T budget request for EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD's total budget request, including Superfund, Lust and Oil is $535 M). The remaining $144 M (22%) in the S&T request is allocated as follows:
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) $102M
These resources fund OAR's programs labs (Ann Arbor, MI, Montgomery, AL and Las Vegas, NV), all of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality activities (including the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles), Acid Rain monitoring (CASTNet), and quality assurance work for the particulate matter monitoring program, among other programs. Radiation and indoor air lab support is provided at the Montgomery and Las Vegas labs.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Office of Water (OW) $5M
These resources fund the Drinking Water Technical Support Center (TSC), which carries out functions related to setting standards and developing regulations to ensure safe drinking water, including developing and coordinating the development and approval of analytical methods for measurement of contaminants. In addition, through partnerships with the American Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) and the American Water Works Association (AWWA), these resources support activities with water utilities to ensure that measures are either in place or being developed to safeguard water supplies from terrorist and seditious acts.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) $4M
These resources fund two laboratories (one in Ft. Meade, MD and one in Bay City, MI) that support the pesticides program. These research activities support registration, re-registration and tolerance reassessment decisions.
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance (OECA) $11M
These funds support monitoring and civil and criminal enforcement activities by the National Environmental Investigations Center (NEIL). NEIC provides technical support, including forensic support, for civil and criminal enforcement cases, develops screening and targeting methodologies, arid conducts on-site multimedia and process-based inspections.
Office of Administration and Resource Management (OARM) $18M
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The resources will fund the transition costs related to the completion of the new Research Triangle Park complex. These costs include expenditures for decommissioning (the process necessary to meet federal requirements to close down the old facility in an environmentally acceptable manner), utilities, and furniture achieve optimum space utilization in the new facility.
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) $4M
These funds support risk assessments focusing on three areas: cumulative risk assessment, ecological risk assessment and risk assessments for children. These efforts will result in technical guidance for the identification of the appropriate age groupings for exposure assessments for children and a framework for preparing cumulative risk assessments.
Question: President Bush has either backtracked or delayed several major environmental initiatives over the last few months. His main lament has been a lack of ''sound science.'' Let's assume the $535 million for ORD is correct and can be compared to prior years. Since $528 million is the non-earmarked amount (as determined by EPA) appropriated to ORD in FY 98, does it seem reasonable for ORD to need only $7 million more than four years ago when the current science base is considered by the President to be inadequate? Do you believe additional research into environmental hazards can be done by EPA, in the words of the Administrator at NASA who has a $4 billion cost overrun, better, faster, cheaper?
Answer: EPA's FY 2002 President's budget supports a strong and rigorous research program. The FY 2002 request of $535 million for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) reflects an increase of $5 million over the previous administration's FY 2001 request, as well as an increase of $43M over the FY 2000 enacted budget (excluding earmarks) and $33M over the FY 1999 enacted budget (excluding earmarks). This request assures ORD can provide research in support of the Agency's key priorities of clean air, clean water, healthy children, healthy ecosystems, and partnerships with stakeholders. Our FY 2002 budget request builds upon ORD's significant accomplishments, supports the Agency's mission, and provides the scientific and technical information that is essential for EPA to achieve its long-term goals.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question: When I think of the two types of research that most agencies perform, I think basic versus applied. However, in the testimony both Mr. Longest and Dr. Seeker refer to core versus problem-driven. Is there a substantive difference between these two classifications or is it merely semantic? Do you agree with Dr. Seeker's testimony which states that EPA does not have a transparent method to determine which research is core or problem-driven? It seems that EPA is a unique agency in that the ratio of core research to problem-driven is nearly one-to-one. Would it make sense to move the core or basic research out of EPA to a place like NSF?
Answer: In its report Building A Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions (1997), the Committee on Research Opportunities and Priorities for EPA of the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) defined problem-driven and core research. Problem-driven research is defined as ''investigations that attempt to understand and solve identified problems. Frequently, these efforts are motivated by current or foreseen regulatory action.'' Core research is ''investigations that seek to elucidate key physical, chemical, biological, geological, and economic processes that underlie environmental systems, thus providing the basis for responding to a wide range of environmental problems in a comprehensive way.''
In addition, the committee stated that it, ''is important to note that the concepts of problem-driven and core environmental research introduced above are not the same as the familiar categories of basic versus applied, fundamental versus directed, or short-term versus long-term research.'' Contrary to the common misperception that core research is always basic and problem-driven research is always applied, the NRC Committee offered the following, ''It may be necessary to perform a great deal of what is usually called 'basic' research in order to make progress in solving a particular problem. Similarly, certain technology development tasks—traditionally categorized as 'applied' research—can have broad applicability and therefore are included in our definition of core research.'' Therefore, there is a substantive difference between these classifications.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the issue of determining which research is core or problem-driven, the NRC committee that defined these terms stated that ''the distinction between core and problem-driven research is not always clear-cut.'' In general, EPA considers research conducted under GPRA Goals 1–7 to be problem-driven since it is directed at accomplishing specific science needs of EPA's Program and Regional Offices. Research conducted under GPRA Goal 8 is generally considered to be core research, since it provides a science base for more than one program or addresses emerging issues.
Finally, the NRC committee's report also reinforced the need for EPA to conduct both problem-driven and core research:
''To develop the knowledge needed to address current and emerging environmental issues, EPA should undertake both problem-driven and core research.''
''Both kinds of investigations are needed, and the feedback between them will greatly enhance the overall environmental research endeavor.''
''. . .it is crucial for the Agency to maintain and enhance its [core research capability].''
''EPA should establish an approximately even balance between problem-driven and core research.''
These views were reiterated in the NRC report entitled, Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research-Management and Peer-Review Practices (2000), which stated ''Our committee concurs with the 1997 NRC report and supports the increased priority and proportion of a core-research program in ORD.'' EPA concurs with these recommendations.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question: Some of the President's budget cuts seem ill-advised. For instance, cutting funding to the United States Geological Survey, which helps find mineral deposits, during an energy crisis. EPA pays for the collection of a large amount of environmental monitoring data. After correcting for congressional redirectives to the account which funds the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, the Global Climate Change Program, and the Wet Weather Flows Program, these programs see reductions. Can you assure the Committee that no monitoring programs run from the S&T account are being cutback in the FY 02 budget?
Answer: While resources for individual research programs may rise and fall as a result of changing science priorities and needs in any given year, EPA's FY 2002 President's Budget Request supports a strong and rigorous research program, including on-going monitoring efforts. The FY 2002 request of $535 million for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) reflects an increase of $5 million over the previous administration's FY 2001 request, as well as an increase of $43 M over the FY 2000 enacted budget (excluding earmarks). This request will allow the Agency to support research that goes beyond routine monitoring at specified locations. Research monitoring focuses on understanding key environmental concerns such as the health effects of small particles in order to assure promulgation of standards that protect human health; the unique susceptibilities of children to potential environmental health threats; and the potential consequences of global climate change and climate variability on human health, air quality, water quality and ecosystem health. For example, environmental monitoring efforts will result in FY 2002 reports on the condition of streams in the Mid-Atlantic region and on trends in acid deposition and the acidity of lakes and streams to assess progress toward reducing the impacts of acid rain.
Question: Mr. Longest, in your testimony you make a point of stating that this budget request is an increase over last year once congressional earmarks are taken off the table. Does the Office consider all research conducted due to the set-asides for the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) and the Southern Oxidant Study (SOS) outside the priorities of the Office? If not, what percentage is research the Office would fund without the set-asides? If those earmarks are not renewed, do you think those organizations would successfully compete for research dollars thereby displacing other valuable research you are currently funding?
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Answer: ORD's budget request is developed through a participatory, risk-based planning process that reflects the environmental priorities and concerns of EPA and the Administration. As outlined in its Strategic Plan; ORD strives to perform the highest quality research in support of EPA's mission. To ensure this, ORD depends upon competitively-awarded and peer-reviewed grants, as well as rigorous peer review of all its in-house products. If the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and the Southern Oxidant Study are not funded through earmarks, they would be provided equal opportunity to compete for funding to assist EPA in addressing priorities identified through ORD's risk-based planning process.
Question: I was pleased to see that EPA is conducting an Agency-wide inventory of science activities. However, I am disturbed to read in Dr. Seeker's testimony that the first compilation created two years ago was not done in an electronic format, thereby making it difficult to update. Mr. Longest, is it true that a science inventory exists in a non-searchable format? How was the information gathered such that it could not be inputted into a database? How much money did doing it in this fashion save? When will an electronic version be available?
Answer: The new EPA-Wide Inventory of Science Activities is fully searchable and housed in an electronic database. EPA expects the new Inventory to be fully populated and presented to the Deputy Administrator for approval in September of this year.
The 1999 version of the science inventory, compiled by a cross-Agency workgroup led by the Office of Research and Development (ORD), was in a non-searchable format. The 1999 effort was a quick-turnaround and minimally disruptive effort that served to gauge the feasibility of compiling an EPA-wide science inventory. ORD asked EPA's science organizations to provide a list of their science activities, in whatever form possible, with brief project summaries and contact information. Most organizations chose to submit the information in standard text format. While limited, this early inventory provided value to the Agency by demonstrating that ORD and the Program and Regional Offices could generate a meaningful and coherent compilation of science activities that cuts across programmatic and disciplinary boundaries.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RANDALL SEEKER
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Randy Seeker. I am honored to be here again this year to discuss with you the views of the EPA Science Advisory Board Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) on EPA's Fiscal Year 2002 Science and Technology budget request. Dr. Ray Loehr, the current chair of RSAC has asked me to present the views of the committee. I was formerly the chair of RSAC and have presented the RSAC evaluations in testimony for the last two years. RSAC is a standing committee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (SAB) and is composed of senior members of the SAB, including members as well as past chairs from most of the other standing committees of the Board. SAB is an independent Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee established by Congress. My testimony will reflect the consensus views of myself and the other members of the RSAC, with added input and endorsement from the SAB's Executive Committee.
I will highlight the major points developed as a result of the RSAC formal examination of the FY 2002 EPA Science and Technology (S&T) Budget Request on May 1 and 2, 2001. The specific charge questions and our detailed responses to the charge are in a separate SAB report that was approved by the SAB Executive Committee on May 15, 2001. We have provided this report to the committee, and today I will give only a brief summary of our consensus conclusions. I would refer you to the full report for more detailed comments.
Fiscal Year 2001 Science and Technology Budget Request
We reviewed the full S&T and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) Presidential budget request for Fiscal Year 2002. EPA's Science and Technology Program is designed to produce the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental pollution and to advance the base of understanding on environmental sciences. The Agency's science and technology efforts are conducted through contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with universities, industries, other private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's 12 laboratories and various field stations and field offices. The S&T account funds activities such as developing and improving sampling and analytical methods and instruments for measuring pollutants; determining the effects of pollutants on animals, plants, materials, and the general environment; researching the processes that relate to pollution; evaluating technologies for preventing and controlling pollution; and developing guidelines and research tools to improve risk assessments. This account also provides S&T operating expenses such as personnel salary and benefits, laboratory supplies and materials, operation and maintenance of lab facilities, equipment, ADP support, human resource development, and printing. Beginning in FY 1996, this account also funds the Hazardous Substance research formerly appropriated in the Superfund account.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the past five years that I have been reviewing the Science and Technology Budget, I have noted that ORD, in coordination with program offices and regional offices, has made considerable progress in its planning process, in its focus on strategies and goals, in the development of multi-year planning, in the use of National Program Directors, and in transitioning some portions of the R&D program to the states. We strongly recommend that ORD continue these important efforts. We think that it is important for the Agency to stay the course in its strategic research planning.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our major findings and recommendations were:
1) In terms of financial resources, the S&T component of the total Agency budget request is approximately 9%. This percentage has remained the same for more than a decade. RSAC notes that the current and future environmental and health problems have become increasingly complex and multi-media. RSAC recommends that the Agency and Congress consider increasing the S&T share of the total Agency budget by a modest but important additional 1% per year for the next three years from its current level of 9% of the total Agency budget to 12% of the Agency's budget in FY '04. Significantly greater increases will be required if the Agency is going to make more use of science in its decision-making process.
2) The Presidential Science and Technology (S&T) budget request is similar to the level requested in the last three years, and it is $39 million less than last year's enacted budget due to the EPA policy of not requesting Congressionally directed add-ons. RSAC strongly recommends that if Congress adds specific projects or programs for EPA, Congress also appropriate the funds needed for the successful completion of the projects or programs it adds on to the S&T program budget as was done in the current fiscal year appropriations.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3) RSAC commends ORD on the development and implementation of its planning structure for research. The use of National Program Directors to serve as a focus for developing strategies to address selected major issues has been very effective and RSAC endorses continuation of this approach.
4) RSAC strongly recommends that the Agency be vigilant in defining and maintaining core research needed to achieve a balanced S&T research program.
5) RSAC recommends that the criteria used for the classification of research activities as ''core'' or ''problem-driven'' should be further clarified and applied consistently.
6) RSAC notes that nearly 50% of the ORD workforce is over the age of 50, and to remain vital, the Agency must assemble the next generation of Agency scientists and engineers. An important approach is the post-doctoral program, but it appears that this approach may be limited by the FTE ceiling imposed on ORD. RSAC recommends that EPA explore possibilities to have the ORD FTE limits not apply to the number of post-doctoral fellows who can be hired under this program.
7) RSAC recommends that EPA continue with its Science Inventory efforts which catalogue science projects and products, so as to capture and identify the extent of science being done at EPA and expand the planning process to include development of an overall science planning process for the Agency that uses the Science Inventory as a reference.
CONTEXT FOR THE FINDINGS
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As part of the review process, the RSAC responded to six charge questions. I will briefly summarize our response to these questions and the thinking that led to our major findings and recommendations.
1. Can the objectives of the research and development program in ORD and the broader science and technology programs in EPA be achieved at the resource levels requested?
The Presidential Science and Technology (S&T) budget request was similar to the levels requested in the last three years. The S&T budget request decreased by $54 million from last year's enacted budget primarily due to the EPA policy of not requesting Congressionally directed add-ons. The 2002 S&T budget request was $5.2 million less than the 2001 enacted S&T budget when Congressional add-ons and Superfund transfers are taken out. The S&T component is 9 percent of the total Agency budget. This percentage has remained approximately the same for more than a decade. However we noted that the current and future environmental and health problems have become increasingly complex. For instance, many of the pressing environmental problems are not separate air or water media-specific problems but rather they are integrated multi-media problems. As another example, the environmental problems facing humans and ecosystems are not chemical-specific. Rather they are system issues related to low environmental concentrations of mixtures of contaminants and other stressors. We recommend, therefore, that the Agency and Congress consider increasing the S&T share of the total Agency budget by a modest but important additional 1% per year for the next three years from its current level of 9% of the total Agency budget to 12% of the total budget in FY '04. Significantly greater increases will be required if the Agency is going to make more use of science in its decision-making process.
The ORD budget request for FY 2002 has decreased by $39 million from the FY 2001 enacted budget. This decrease is the result of this Administration not requesting funds for Congressionally directed add-on (so-called earmarked projects). We recommend that Congress appropriate the funds for projects or programs it adds on to the S&T program budget as was done in the current fiscal year appropriations. This Congressional action will minimize impacts on the already scarce S&T budget for EPA. We concluded that both the S&T budget, including the ORD budget, is the result of a sound and appropriate prioritization of Agency needs and distribution of resource levels at the allocated resource levels. If additional programs or projects are added to ORD by Congress without the appropriate additional funds, it is not likely that ORD will be able to accomplish its identified goals and objectives.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans?
In September 2000, the Agency published its strategic plan which charts the course which it plans to follow in the coming years. The Office of Research and Development followed suit by issuing its revised Strategic Plan in January 2001. Both of these Strategic Plans are clear and set several strategic directions for pursuing and achieving the Agency's goals. RSAC compliments the Agency and the ORD for these plans and endorses their use for conducting Science and Technology programs. In general, we found the budget request related reasonably well to the goals and objectives for research as stated in the EPA and ORD strategic plans. The Science and Technology budget is consistent with the priorities set by the criteria for risk-based decision making in the Agency. However, the choices are increasingly constrained by the budget ceilings and resource limitations. Research strategies that attempt to address the multi-pollutant and multiple pathway complexities of many current and emerging environmental problems still need to be more vigorously pursued.
In particular, we noted that when a legislative mandate is absent, ''orphan'' risks (even when known) remain unattended in the budgeting process. Because environmental concerns are more complex, and need more scientific insights, it is necessary that the Agency emphasize and conduct anticipatory research and place high priority to the topic of new and emerging risks in the budget allocation process. In our report, we documented several examples where EPA has no statutory authority to regulate an activity but where research is necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing exposures and health risks resulting from exposure to environmental contaminants.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Does the budget request reflect coordination between ORD and the Program Offices?
We were impressed with the continued progress made by EPA to heighten the level of interaction between ORD and Program Offices. Goal 1 of the ORD strategic plan is to support the Agency's mission. Implicitly, this requires that ORD must work with program offices to plan its research agenda.
The program office staff we interviewed supported our perception that there have been tremendous strides in increasing communication between ORD and program offices. The level of interaction has been most successful where ORD has established National Program Directors. It is also emerging in those areas where multi-year plans are being developed.
Two years ago, an EPA wide science inventory was created. The committee found the inventory to be extraordinarily helpful in its evaluation of the Agency's research planning and coordination activities. The committee was informed that the first edition of this effort had not been stored in an electronic form. This has delayed updates, but we were assured that the inventory, and the multi-year plans, would become available in the Fall of 2001. As was recommended by RSAC, there are plans to combine the new science inventory with the database on products requiring peer review. This inventory should be updated at least annually, with appropriate adjustments to multi-year plans. Such an up-to-date inventory would make the Agency's direction in its science program much more understandable. We recommended that the Agency annually update its science inventory and begin the process of overall science planning
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. Does the budget request support a reasonable balance in terms of attention to core research on multimedia capabilities and issues and to media-specific, problem-driven topics?
The RSAC emphasizes the importance of maintaining core research capabilities as the problems confronting the Agency are increasingly multimedia rather than single-media issues. The RSAC committee strongly endorses the need to balance core and problem-driven research at the EPA consistent with the balance recommended by the NAS and with ORD's strategic plan. ORD staff indicated that they use the definition of core and problem-driven research that was identified in the NRC ''Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions'' report to categorize its projects and activities. Using these definitions, ORD feels that the research efforts identified as associated with Goal 8 of the Agency's Strategic Plan (Sound Science, Improved Understanding and Greater Innovation) are mostly the core research projects. ORD also feels that its efforts associated with Goals 1–7 of the Agency Strategic Plan are more appropriately categorized as problem-driven research. With these definitions, the FY 2002 ORD request allocates approximately 46% and 54% of the budget, respectively, to core (Goal 8) and problem-driven research areas (Goals 1 through 7).
However, in spite of recent discussions with ORD on this issue, the decision process and criteria that lead to a project being classified as ''core'' or ''problem-driven'' research is still not transparent, so that we could not fully evaluate this question. We recommend that the criteria used for the classification of research activities as ''core'' or ''problem-driven'' be further clarified and applied consistently. We are concerned about the ORD's ability to maintain a balanced core and problem-driven S&T program because of the increasing pressures from program offices for more attention to problem-driven research. Therefore, we strongly recommended that the Agency be vigilant in defining and maintaining core research needed to achieve a balanced S&T research program.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
5. Does the budget request balance attention to near-term and to long-term research and science and technology issues?
Long-term research projects are at special risk, because they can be terminated or truncated due to cost-cutting imposed by the need to respond to high-priority, short-term objectives within a fiscally-constrained budget. Long-term research requires multi-year planning and evaluation. ORD reports that they have been actively developing multi-year plans for a set of major research areas. However, at this time, they have not shared these plans outside the Agency; thus, RSAC is unable to adequately judge EPA's ability to integrate long-term program planning into the annual budget planning process. We recommend that the ORD use the multi-year plans to find ways to leverage resources and to broaden the benefit and impact of research across programs and offices.
In addition, we urge the Agency to improve its ability to identify and pursue emerging issues. Although emerging issues are identified as Goal 5 in the ORD Strategic Plan, there is no clearly identified budgetary support to identify and explore emerging issues. It would be useful for the ORD to support the full range of scientific and engineering issues faced by EPA in an exploratory research program. Thus, we recommend the reinstatement of an exploratory research program similar to that which used to be part of the EPA grants program where there are no a priori constraints on the subject matter. Such a fully open solicitation is necessary even for a mission-oriented agency, such as EPA, to stimulate and take advantage of the full creativity of the scientific community in identifying areas that may become critical in the future. Such future environmental concerns are difficult to anticipate and, as such, cannot be the subject of STAR RFAs that are restricted in their focus.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe that emerging issues need to have ongoing stable funding and consistent research solicitations from EPA, because EPA is the key Agency that can aggressively watch for critical new threats to human and ecological health. In addition to an adequate funding level, RSAC recommends that selections for Exploratory Grant proposals be based on the extent to which they identify novel and important themes that are relevant to EPA's responsibilities.
6. How can EPA use or improve upon the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure to communicate research plans, priorities, research requirements, and planned outcomes?
ORD's has developed a list of FY 2002 Annual Performance Goals, Objectives, Subobjectives and deliverables. The budget allocation is organized around specific work products and deliverables to be produced consistent with EPA's GPRA goals and objectives. We recognized the large effort and organization necessary to produce these products. We were pleased with this strategy as it clearly correlates budget allocations with Agency goals and objectives. Consistency of goals over time allows annual tracking of program funding. It remains important, however, to seek identification and development of metrics to assess the ''usefulness'' of these deliverables to ORD customers.
The statement of research priorities in the 2002 budget document was clear. While we generally agreed with ORD's use of criteria for prioritizing research, we did not understand the criterion that ''ORD can make a difference''. The ORD strategic plan indicates that this criterion is the ability to make a contribution relative to other research institutions who may be doing work in this area, and it is within ORD's capability and expertise to do the research. We recognize the utility of not duplicating ongoing research activities. However, we are concerned that this criterion may exclude critical research that no one else is doing. When this is the case, the Agency needs to build the needed capabilities internally or find ways to obtain the necessary science from other sources.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ORD Annual Performance Goals and Associated Key Annual Performance Measures constitute a useful tool for the evaluation of outputs resulting from research activities, and EPA should be commended for moving in this direction. However, this evaluation process is incomplete. There is a need to evaluate the outcomes of research program activities, particularly addressing the question of how ORD programs specifically contribute to the knowledge base that provides the sound science required to successfully accomplish EPA's mission. We recommend that the Agency develop criteria and measures for evaluating the outcomes of its research programs and the linkage to specific GPRA goals.
This concludes my testimony. I want to express my gratitude to the Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me and for giving me the opportunity to share with you the SAB's review of the President's request for the FY 2002 S&T budget for EPA. I look forward to your questions.
BIOGRAPHY FOR WILLIAM RANDALL SEEKER
EDUCATION:
Bachelors of Science (with honors), Physics/Mathematics, 1974
New Mexico State University, Los Cruces, NM
Masters of Science (GPA 4.0/4.0), Nuclear Engineering, 1976
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Thesis Topic: Design and Construction of a Shock Tube System for the Study of the Combustion of Pulverized Solids
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Doctorate of Philosophy—Engineering, 1978
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Thesis Topic: The Kinetics of Ignition and Burnout of Coal Dust Suspensions under Rapid Heating Conditions
Summary
Dr. Randy Seeker is the Senior Vice President of Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric Corporation. Dr. Seeker is the manager of New Products Development activities for the Air Quality Systems and Services Division of GE Power. Dr Seeker joined EER soon after the company was formed in 1978 and joined GE after EER was acquired in 1999. Today the Air Quality Systems and Services Division of GE develops and commercially offers advanced air pollution control systems and services for the reduction of emissions from combustion sources.
Dr. Seeker is a recognized authority in a wide range of environmental systems but his focus is on combustion and power systems. He got his Ph.D. at Kansas State University in nuclear and chemical engineering but the focus of his dissertation was coal combustion. Today, Dr. Seeker is particularly recognized in the fields of nitrogen oxides and air toxics emissions from stationary sources. He has been the Technical Organizer and Editor of the Proceedings for two International Congresses on Toxic Combustion By-Products. He has directed a wide range of theoretical studies and lab, bench, pilot and full-scale experimental studies on the formation and control of air toxics including work on organics such as dioxin and toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium and mercury. He has authored over 150 technical papers and has 6 patents on various aspects of the environmental systems. Today his group is responsible for a wide range of new product introduction R&D in areas such as advanced diagnostics and monitoring of emissions from utility boilers and gas turbines, multi-pollutant control technologies for coal fired power plants, advanced generation power plants for coal utilization and conversion (Vision 21), advanced fuel processors for hydrogen generation, and economic and environmental strategic analysis and, assessment techniques. Dr. Seeker has over 150 publications and over 50 appear in peer-reviewed journals.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He currently serves on the EPA's Science Advisory Board. He has been a member of the Engineering Committee and the Executive Committee and chair of the Research Strategy Advisory Committee. For the last two years he has given Congressional testimony on the EPA Science and Technology budget, the EPA grants program and the EPA peer review process. He has also served on several National Academies panels.
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
Formation and Control of toxic air emissions
Formation, Control, and Monitoring of Chlorinated Dioxin and Furan and related compounds
Thermal treatment of waste
Medical, hazardous, municipal solid, mixed (radioactive and hazardous), and sewage sludge waste management
Combustion of coal and alternative fuels
Advanced applications of natural gas
NOX formation and control
SO formation and control
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Combustion systems, conventional and advanced
Waste and Superfund material treatment technologies
Pollution Prevention
High Temperature Reaction Engineering
Advanced Thermal Recycling technologies for industrial waste streams
Air Pollution Assessment and Control from Petroleum Refineries
PROFESSIONAL DATA
Executive Committee of the Western States Section of the Combustion Institute (1985–1988)
Scientific Advisory Committee of LSU Hazardous Waste Research Center (Chairman, 1985–1986)
Fuels Research Executive Committee of ASME
Technical Advisory Panel of California Air Resource Board on Hazardous Waste Incineration (1985)
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
National Science Foundation Panel member on Research Needs in Hazardous Waste Thermal Destruction (1986, Drexel University)
NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Fundamentals of Physical-Chemistry of Pulverized Coal Combustion (Invited chairman of Pollution Formation, 1986, Les Arcs, France)
Chairman of Technical Advisory Panel on Waste Treatment Thrust of the UCLA National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center (1988–1991)
Technical Organizing Chairman for the First International Congress on Toxic Combustion Byproducts: Formation and Control (held Aug. 2–4, 1989)
Editor of ''Toxic Combustion Byproducts: Formation and Control'' (published by Combustion Science and Technology, 1990)
Technical Organizing Committee Chairman of Second International Congress on Toxic Combustion Byproducts (held in Salt Lake City, March 26–29, 1991)
NSF Panel on Research Needs on the Monitoring of Waste Combustion Systems, UC-San Diego, 1988
EPA Review Workshop on Core Combustion Program Development, Durham, NC (1989)
NSF Panel on Research Needs in the Formation and Control of Fine Particulate, Washington DC (1990)
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Technical Advisory Committee to University of California Davis, NIEHS Superfund Research Center (1991)
Program Advisory Committee and Session Chairman of 1992 Incineration Conference, Albuquerque, NM (1992)
Co-Organizer of ASME/EPA Workshop on Toxic Metals Emissions, Cincinnati OH, Nov. 1991
Technical organizer and session chair of the EPRI/DOE International Workshop on Trace Elements Transformations in Coal-Fired Power Systems, April 19–21, 1993
Technical Chair of the ASME/EPA workshop on Continuous Performance Assurance for Metals, Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 1993
Secretary and Member of Steering Committee of the National Technical Workgroup on Mixed Waste Thermal Treatment (EPA/DOE Interagency Agreement) 1993–1997
Editorial Advisory Board of Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste Management Symposia, American Chemical Society, 1995–1996
Technical Organizing Committee Member for Fifth International Congress on Toxic Combustion Byproducts (held in Dayton, Ohio, June 25–27, 1997)
Executive Secretary of the National Technical Workgroup on Mixed Waste Treatment (a U.S. EPA and DOE interagency agreement) 1995 to present.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DISTINGUISHED PANELS
Congressional testimony on thermal disposal of chemical weapons to the Joint Armed Services Committee (written comments in Congressional Record, July 1986)
Report to Congress on Combustion Control of Trace Organics from Municipal Waste Combustion (1988)
Contributor to the Report to Congress on the Management of Medical Waste (1989)
Invited Member and Co-Rapporteur at the Conference of Mayors, Blue Ribbon Panel on the Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste (1989)
EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on the Regulation of Municipal Sewage Sludge (1989)
EPA Science Advisory Board, Environmental Engineering Committee. Appointed in Sept. 1990. Reappointed by Administrator Browner, Dec. 1993. Appointed as Chair of Research Strategy Advisory Committee and Member of Executive Board, Feb. 1997
Co-Chair of EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Explosives and Flammables Criteria, May 1991
National Research Council Panel on the Status of the Cryofacture Process for the Army Chemical Weapon Stockpile Disposal Program, 1991
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA Science Advisory Board, Research Strategy Advisory Committee. Appointed Oct. 1992
Co-Chair of EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Global Climate Change Engineering Research, May 1993
Peer review panel for the DOE Mixed Waste Integrated Program, Washington, DC, June 1993
Peer review panel on Off Gas Capture Concepts For Mixed Waste Thermal Treatment, Boulder, CO, Sept. 1993
Peer review panel for DOE on the Molten Salt Oxidation for Mixed Waste Treatment, Gaithersburg, MD, October/November 1993
Peer review panel for work plan for WTI Incinerator Risk Assessment for EPA, Washington, DC, November 1993
Chair of EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on EPA Report to Congress on Hydrogen Fluoride, June 1993
EPA Science Advisory Board Environmental Engineering Futures Subcommittee, March 1994
Peer review panel on DOE Integrated Thermal Treatment Systems Study (phase II), Washington, DC, 1994
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Subcommittee on EPA Office of Research and Development Budget, Washington, DC, April 1994. Report developed for Congressional Appropriations Subcommittee and EPA Administrator.
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Subcommittee on EPA Research Laboratory Study, Washington, DC, May 1994
Chair of EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Innovative Continuous Air Emission Monitors of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Research Triangle Park, April 1995
EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Environmental Technology Innovation and Commercialization Enhancement (EnTICE), Washington, DC, May 2–3, 1995
EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Dioxin Reassessment, Washington, DC, May 15–16, 1995
Peer Review Panel on Risk Assessment on WTI hazardous waste incinerator, Washington, DC, Jan. 1996
Chair of the Independent Experts Panel on Thermal Treatment of Mixed (Nuclear and Hazardous) Waste to Produce Vitrified Products, Dallas, TX, Nov. 13–17, 1995
Chair of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Technology Selection for Transuranic (TRU) Mixed Waste Treatment at the Savannah River Site, Savannah River, SC, Dec. 1995–Mar. 1996. Formal presentations made to the SRS Citizens Advisory Board, Mar. 1996
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA Science Advisory Board Research Strategies Advisory Committee review of the Strategic Plan of the EPA Office of Research and Development, Dec. 1995–Mar. 1996
EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Options for Reducing Environmental Risk; Integrated Risk Project, Jul. 1996–Apr. 1997
EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee Review of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sept. 1996
EPA Science Advisory Board. Appointed by the EPA Administrator as Chair of the Research Strategy Advisory Committee and member of the Executive Committee, Feb. 1997
National Research Council Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons, May 1997 to Dec. 1998; Supplemental Study, Sept. 1999 through Dec. 1999
Chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Office of Research and Development Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999, Feb. 1998. Report developed for Congressional Appropriations Subcommittee and EPA Administrator.
Peer review panel on ''The Inventory of Sources of Dioxin in the United States'' for the U.S. EPA (June 1998)
Peer Review Panel for U.S. EPA and NSF Program on ''Technology for a Sustainable Environment: Fluid and Thermal Systems,'' May 1998
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chair of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board ''Strategic Ranking Criteria Subcommittee'', Sept. 18, 1998
Appointment to American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Strategic Environmental R&D Program (SERDP) on Workshop on Research Needs for Air Quality Compliance Diesels, Turbines, and Ordnance. Co-author of Monitoring and Measurement Needs for Book. Baltimore, MD, June 2–3, 1999
Chair of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board ''Review of the Peer Review Program on the Environmental Protection Agency Subcommittee'', Sept. 23 and 24, 1999
TECHNICAL REVIEWER
National Science Foundation Research Proposals
Department of Energy University Coal Research Proposals
International Combustion Symposium Paper Review Committee
New York State Solid Waste Combustion Institute
NSF Technical Review Team for Engineering Research Centers
University of California, Los Angeles NSF Engineering Research Center
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NIEHS Superfund Research Centers Review Panel (1990)
Aerosol Science and Technology Papers
Combustion Science and Technology Papers
Combustion and Flame
National Science Foundation Bilateral Cooperative Science Program Proposals
American Chemical Society Symposium Series
National Research Council
73329z.eps
Post-Hearing Answers to Questions
Submitted by Dr. William Randall Seeker
1. What kind of turnover exists among professional scientific staff at the EPA and what are the Agency's prospects for attracting and retaining new talent and expertise? If there are barriers to recruiting young science staff, what are they and what is needed to overcome them?
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Should EPA recruit top-tier scientists prominent in various fields of environmental science, and if so, what would be the advantages? What barriers, if any, prevent EPA from recruiting these experts now?
The Science Advisory Board has not undertaken an assessment of the turnover rate, recruiting practices or hiring and retention success of environmental scientists at the EPA. The only obvious barriers to hiring top-tier scientists are FTE caps and potentially the inability to pay salaries commensurate with industry. The quality of the employees of the EPA will ultimately dictate the success of the EPA in developing new regulations that are protective of human health and the environment at a reasonable cost to the nation and in identifying and preventing new threats before they can cause serious damage. It is obviously critical for the EPA to build a scientific staff that can address both the near-term and longer-term environmental threats to the nation. The future environmental threats to human health and the environment, and the solutions necessary to prevent them, are hard to predict. However, if the EPA can ensure that right types of environmental scientists are available at the Agency, even the unanticipated threats can be mitigated.
The Agency needs to undertake a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the critical core competencies needed for the future and it needs to continue to build a competent environmental staff to ensure that scientists are available to fill these core competencies. This should be undertaken in much the same way that the EPA develops its budgetary process, i.e., the EPA should evaluate the ''human capital investments'' needed and ensure the talent and capabilities are aligned with the highest priority goals and initiatives. At the same time, the EPA should not focus this assessment too closely on the near term problems and solutions but rather focus on future issues, environmental threats and new innovative solutions. For example, the future solutions will likely center around the need to assimilate large amounts of information on susceptibility of humans to environmental threats resulting from the new insights gained in microbiology and decoding the human genome. For instance, the EPA needs to find and attract scientists into both ORD and program offices to deal with the emerging field of bioinformatics. The EPA would be well served to critically review its mix of scientific core competencies and invest in the appropriate human capital on an annual basis in much the same way it does in planning and budgeting funding requests.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. EPA has had success coordinating complex research by appointing a ''national program director'' to be the lead on specific cross-disciplinary environmental problems such as endocrine disruptors. Why has EPA not appointed a national program director for mercury? Are there other problems that would benefit from having a national program director appointed?
On March 7th, 2001, the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board met in Washington, D.C. and completed a consultation on the topic of the National Program Directors (NPDs) in the Office of Research and Development (ORD). The ORD only recently has selected and appointed NPDs to manage large cross-cutting research programs. We listened to the prepared presentations from four National Program Directors and made inquiries about the strengths of this matrix management structure and areas where improvements could be beneficial to the Agency. The four ORD programs covered in our interactions were Particulate Matter Research, Drinking Water Research, Endocrine Disruptors Research, and Global Change Research programs. We also received the recently completed ''Management Review of the Particulate Matter Research Program'' by the Board of Scientific Counselors for the Office of Research and Development.
Based on our discussion, the RSAC decided to prepare a commentary to provide our assessment and advice regarding the National Program Directors in ORD. This commentary offers specific recommendations including a strong endorsement for the continuing use of National Program Directors and for strengthening some aspects of this management structure. Some of our key findings and recommendations included the following:
a) RSAC found that the management structure utilizing National Program Directors with a lead executive, while fairly new, is well organized and efficient. It appears to be working well and is offering the type of leadership and coordination functions that are essential to successfully executing crosscutting research programs in ORD.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
b) RSAC notes that even though there are a number of research programs in ORD, all of them do not have National Program Directors. RSAC learned that ORD management appoints National Program Directors, only for a subset of the programs. RSAC does understand that all programs may not require National Program Directors. However, RSAC recommends that the Agency establish a set of defined criteria and standards to implement a transparent process to decide when a National Program Director is needed and when one is not necessary.
c) RSAC noted that there were differences in the functioning of the National Program Directors between different programs. For example, the Particulate Matter Research Program by necessity requires NPD efforts to be mostly devoted to identifying research needs, to coordinate the research planning, and to monitor research carried out by contractors and participating research groups. The NPD for Endocrine Disruptors, on the other hand, has to place a lot more emphasis on coordination of national and international efforts. This flexibility and tailoring of NPD activities is a good attribute that ORD should continue to cultivate.
d) RSAC also noted that the NPDs play a very critical and strategic role in developing and following the ORD Research Strategy. This allows a focus for ORD's efforts and a means to evaluate how responsive the results are to the stated goals of the National Program Director management program. However, the research planning process is quite complex and requires consensus building. RSAC recommends that additional staff support be provided for the NPDs and that such staff support be adequate for their assigned tasks.
e) RSAC observed that a dedicated budget for the National Program Directors would be very helpful to bolstering the abilities of the NPDs to be more efficient and successful in their positions. RSAC recommends that ORD allocate limited budget authority to the NPDs consistent with the management needs of the particular program.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Overall, RSAC was very pleased to see the instituting of National Program Directors for a subset of ORD Programs. RSAC also encourages ORD to continue with this matrix management structure and fine-tune the operations along the lines of our recommendations.
While the Agency has yet to establish a set of defined criteria and standards to implement a transparent process to decide when a National Program Director is needed and when one is not necessary, other environmental problem areas would likely benefit from the establishment of NPDs. In particular problems that are multi-media in impact, solutions that cross EPA program offices, regions and ORD, and have a large enough profile and budget that would benefit from the coordination function served by the NPD. RSAC has not attempted to define what areas might be good candidates for NPDs. However at first consideration the ongoing mercury program at EPA is relatively mature due to the development of a mercury action plan and mercury research strategy and is likely too modest in scope to be a good candidate for the establishment of a Mercury NPD. One potential area that might benefit from a NPD is the area of energy and environment impacts.
3. To what extent does risk analysis and risk assessment play a role in helping to set the Agency's priorities and guiding the Agency's decisions? Who determines the methods by which risks are assessed and analyzed?
It is our understanding, that the science and technology activities included in the request were selected using a process similar to that used in the previous year. This involved a priority-setting process that identifies the highest environmental risks within each environmental goal established in the EPA Strategic Plan and uses the sound scientific principles of the risk assessment/risk management framework.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have reinforced on a number of occasions our support for the use of the risk assessment and risk management paradigm to develop priorities for research and regulation designed to protect both human and ecological health. Resources in all Program Offices are limited and methods that begin with evaluations of exposure and hazard identification for humans or loss of habitat for ecosystems provide a first cut for determining which contaminants and/or biological (e.g., exotic organisms) and physical (e.g., habitat destruction) stressors are likely to be detrimental serve as guides for fuller characterization of the hazard or stressor for purposes of risk assessment. At the same time there must be sufficient flexibility so that efforts can be directed at understanding new problems or addressing older problems too complex to resolve in the past (e.g., meaningful studies of complex environmental mixtures).
We have continually encouraged the Agency to more fully integrate the risk assessment paradigm into its strategic planning process. Considerable energy and resources were spent during the last 15 years, under the direction of the Risk Assessment Forum, to fully develop and test the risk assessment paradigm leading to ultimate publication of risk assessment guidelines in the Federal Register. Agency staff and management now recognize that they have the most effective and efficient planning and prioritization tool at their fingertips with these guidelines. The well-known steps of problem formulation, risk analysis, risk characterization and risk management apply to essentially all of the Agency activities. RSAC recommended that the Agency be vigilant to ensure that new and existing programs within the Agency properly reflect the knowledge that could be gleaned from proper application of risk assessment guidelines. Agency staff should be continually refreshed and tutored on the applications of the risk assessment guidelines. There is not a better tool available to ensure the promotion of high quality science and the proper allocations of budgetary resources.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. To what extent is the science used to form the basis for regulations peer reviewed? Who does the peer reviews and to whom at the Agency do the reviewer's comments return? What mechanism exists in the agency to ensure that those comments are adequately addressed?
Peer Review is being employed to address the science developed to inform the rules and decision-making, but not the way the science is used by decision-makers when they set Agency policy. The latter involves the application of policy and values, and it should also be peer reviewed to ensure that appropriate methods and procedures have been used, including an explicit treatment of assumptions and value judgments, adequate sensitivity analysis, and adequate treatment of uncertainty. Thus, the explicit need to review major social science products (in addition to economic products), and policy analytic products should be added to the Peer Review Handbook.
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board has recently completed a review of the overall peer review process and the Agency's efforts to develop and implement the peer review policy and guidance. We conducted this review in two phases and each resulted in separate SAB reports that can be provided to the committee by SAB staff.
The first phase, conducted in September-November 1999, focused on whether or not key components of sound peer review process are in place at the EPA, whether appropriate tools and training are available, and whether management commitment exists to carry out EPA directives for peer review. The Committee was pleased to see the Agency's diligence with respect to Peer Review. From the materials presented to RSAC, EPA's Peer Review Process was well articulated and appeared to be fundamentally sound and, with a few exceptions, working as intended. RSAC noted that peer review processes seemed to be well established at the EPA and were continuing to improve through a mechanism of continued internal examination, led by the Office of Research and Development, and process changes carried out by decision-makers at the direction of the Science Policy Council.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The key driver for the Peer Review Program was EPA's management leadership. RSAC made several suggestions to strengthen the peer review process the most important of which was to expand the scope to the evaluation of interagency and international products considered. important to environmental decision-making. RSAC also recommended that peer review should be extended to the up-front review of scientific and technical planning products such as strategic plans, analytic blueprints, research plans, and environmental goals documents noting that major science and technology products, social science research products can and should be subjected to the peer review process in a manner similar to natural science products.
Products that are policy analytic, in that they are not purely science-based but involve the application of policy and values, should also be peer reviewed to ensure that appropriate methods and procedures have been used, including an explicit treatment of assumptions and value judgments, adequate sensitivity analysis, and adequate treatment of uncertainty. Thus, the explicit need to review major social science products (in addition to economic products), and policy analytic products should be added to the Peer Review Handbook. Finally there should be a requirement for completion of training before a person can be designated as a Peer Review Leader.
The second phase, conducted in the last few months, focused on the implementation of the processes and policies, and the impact of the Peer Review Policy on the Agency's decision-making. This subsequent in-depth analysis was designed to more fully examine trends in the use of peer review in EPA, the impacts of the peer reviews, and additional opportunities for enhancing the benefits from peer review in the form of quality, credibility, relevance and Agency leadership position. The major findings of the second phase were as follows:
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
a) Peer Review is being extensively conducted by the Agency and it is clearly making a difference in those examples that RSAC examined.
b) RSAC found no examples of lack of independence of the reviews examined. RSAC encourages the Agency to continue to take necessary steps to ensure that even the potential appearance of lack of independence.
c) RSAC reviewed guidance documents in this study. RSAC recommends that the Agency should also address how Peer Review is being employed to address the use of science in the rules and decision-making. This type of review is at the interface of science and policy and therefore is a different type of peer review than the normal scientific peer review process would be necessary.
d) An area for potential improvement is the need to develop a uniform process for collecting, documenting and archiving information on responses to peer review comments so that they can be used in the future by those outside of the original peer review process.
e) While this was not the focus of this review, the committee observes that there are important products that are apparently not being peer reviewed such as, e.g., technical resource documents for MALT standards, TRI lead rule and residual risks documents.
f) RSAC's review was limited to a small number of products. There is need for continual review of the robustness and effectiveness of the peer review process to ensure that the process is effective and making a difference in timely manner. RSAC recommends that the Agency develop a continuing in-depth analysis to fully examine trends in the use of peer review in EPA, the impacts of the peer reviews and additional opportunities for improving the benefits of the peer review at the Agency.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
5. If earmarks end up taking a bite out of EPA's budget and the money must be found in science programs to offset their additional costs, cuts in which programs would create the greatest disruption to EPA efforts to protect the environment?
The ORD budget request for FY 2002 has decreased by $39 million from the FY 2001 enacted budget. This decrease is the result of this Administration not requesting funds for Congressionally directed add-on (so-called earmarked) projects. RSAC strongly recommends that if Congress adds specific projects or programs for EPA, Congress also appropriate the funds needed for the successful completion of the projects or programs it adds on to the S&T program budget as was done in the current fiscal year appropriations. This Congressional action will minimize impacts on the already scarce S&T budget for EPA.
6. In your testimony, RSAC is concerned that the S&T budget is only nine percent of the overall EPA budget. The report goes onto say that the S&T budget should be raised by one percent a year over the next three years so that in FY04 the S&T budget is twelve percent of the overall EPA budget. Is there a rationale for the one percent per year increase other than it is a nice round number? Why not just advocate doubling the budget in five years—it seems to be working for NIH, if not for NSF? What additional programs would you expect the Agency to fund with the extra $73 million?
In our analysis we did note that the S&T component of the total Agency budget is approximately 9% and that this percentage has remained the same for more than a decade. We had concerns about this relatively low level since the current and future environmental and health problems have become increasingly complex. For instance, many of the pressing environmental problems are not separate air or water media-specific problems, rather they are integrated multi-media problems.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As another example, the environmental problems facing humans and ecosystems are not chemical-specific. Rather they are system issues related to low environmental concentrations of mixtures of contaminants and other stressors. Research addressing these problems is much more complex and the Agency is currently forced to resort to the precautionary principle (or simplistic application of uncertainty factors) for the lack of appropriate data or validated principles upon which to act.
For these reasons we suggested that the Agency and Congress consider increasing the S&T share of the total Agency budget by a modest but important additional 1% per year for the next three years from its current level of 9% of the total Agency budget to 12% of the total budget in FY04. We think that this rate of increase is appropriate because it is both significant and manageable
One of the hallmarks of the EPA budgeting process is the use of a well-managed strategic planning process to prioritize and track S&T activities. Too large of a growth rate such as doubling in five years is more difficult to manage, would be potentially disruptive to the established planning process, and therefore could potentially lead to wasteful inefficiencies. An increase in the S&T fraction of the total budget by 1% per year corresponds to approximately a 12–14% annual growth rate in the S&T budget. This increase can be readily incorporated into the current planning process with little disruption. In addition the agency should be able to develop the human and physical resources necessary to conduct this additional S&T activities within the annual budgeting and planning process.
7. When I think of two types of research that most agencies perform, l think of basic versus applied. However in the testimony both Mr. Longest and Dr. Seeker refer to core versus problem-driven. Is there a substantive different between these two classifications or is it merely semantic? It seems that EPA is a unique agency in that the ratio of core research to problem-driven is nearly one-to-one. Would it make sense to move the core or basic research out of EPA to a place like NSF?
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Defining the different types of research is critically important when attempting to evaluate whether there is an appropriate balance of research activities underway at the EPA. RSAC has followed the lead of the National Research Council Committee on Research Opportunities and Priorities for EPA in its 1997 report ''Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions.'' This report defined problem-driven research which refers to investigations that attempt to understand and solve an identified problem and core research which seek to elucidate key physical, chemical, biological, geological, sociological and economic processes that underlie environmental systems and thus provide the bases for responding to a wide range of environmental problems that may have not yet been clearly identified. Core research also refers to development of tools and collection of data required to detect and assess environmental threats, prevent or mitigate environmental harm, and determine whether environmental policies are effective.
The NRC Committee recommended and the RSAC committee has strongly endorsed that EPA conduct both types of research and that there is a roughly equal emphasis to these types of research in order to strike an appropriate balance to address both today's and tomorrow's environmental threats.
The NRC committee noted that the concepts of problem-driven and core environmental research are not the same as the familiar categories of basic versus applied, fundamental versus directed, or short-term versus long-term research. ''It may be necessary to perform a great deal of what is usually called ''basic'' research in order to make progress in solving a particular problem. Similarly, certain technology development tasks—traditionally categorized as ''applied'' research—can have broad applicability and therefore included in our definition of ''core research.'' In the NRC committee definition and as used by RSAC, we are referring to core environmental research that specifically addresses three components:
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
a) Understanding underlying processes—investigation of the processes that drive environmental systems, including effects on human health.
b) Development of tools—development and demonstration of innovative research tools, including measurement techniques, models, and methods.
c) Acquisition of data—collection and dissemination of accurate, long-term environmental data.
Using these specific definitions, we have concluded that the EPA should conduct both types of research and there should be an approximate even balance in these research types.
8. Goal 8 for EPA is Sound Science. Unless we understand what that term means, it will be difficult to determine if the goal is being met. What is your definition of what constitutes ''sound science''? What components must be included for research to be considered sound? What types of research are unsound?
Goal 8 for EPA is Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and Greater Innovation to Address Environmental Problems. The question raised by the Committee relative to clearly defining what is and what is not sound science is clearly important and right at the heart of many of the current ongoing debates. As a preliminary answer, I suggest that sound science should have at least the following characteristics:
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
a) Extensive and focused research program
b) Draws upon and extensively utilizes published research
c) Expands upon previously proven conclusions
d) Based upon scientific method, e.g., hypothesis establishment, test plan to evaluate hypothesis, results verification
e) Results independently verifiable and verified
f) Results and reports independently peer reviewed
g) Results documented in appropriate manner and published in peer-reviewed forms.
I have suggested to the RSAC that they may want to take this question on in a more formalized and comprehensive fashion in future studies. In particular the RSAC could provide valuable input to not only how to define sound science but some of the outcome metrics that might be useful for determine progress towards the stated goal.
9. Presidential Bush has either backtracked or delayed several major environment initiatives over the last few months. His main lament has been a lack of ''sound science.'' Let's assume the $535 million for ORD is correct and can be compared to prior years. Since $528 million is the non-earmarked amount (as determined by EPA) appropriated to ORD in FY98, does it seem reasonable for ORD to need only $7 million more than four years ago when the current science base is considered by the President to be inadequate? Do you believe additional research into environmental hazards can be done by EPA, in the words of the Administrator at NASA who has a $4 billion cost overrun, better, faster, cheaper?
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As indicated above, we had serious concerns about EPA's ability to fully meet the nation's environmental goals in future years within the limitations of a level budget. We remain concerned that the relatively flat budget request may force the Agency to not be able to fund projects and programs that are critically needed to meet GPRA goals and strategic objectives. We further noted that the current and future environmental and health problems have become increasingly complex and provided examples where we felt more resources were needed. While we did not evaluate if EPA could bring greater efficiency in the use of the limited resources, it is unlikely that the new demands and complexities could be addressed with efficiency increases alone. More resources will be required to fill the existing gap.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD F. HAMMERSCHMIDT
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards. My name is Ronald Hammerschmidt. I serve as the Director of the Division of Environment of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. I am also the Vice-President of the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) an organization representing the environmental directors of the states and territories.
State environmental programs are essential to the protection of public health and the environment. We are the point at which environmental management and protection programs are typically implemented. Approximately 70% of environment programs Congress has made delegable to states are being performed by state environmental agencies. Some programs are implementable only by states. For example, the establishment of water quality standards as set forth in the Clean Water Act, is specifically assigned to states. The states perform the required duties of the delegated programs through the efforts of dedicated professional staff using the best available information.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
State environmental agencies and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are engaged in a partnership developed over the past three decades. As in most partnerships, we each have particular strong points and unique capabilities. One important area of this partnership is the development of scientific and technical knowledge, theory and measurement. While states have a unique role in measurement of environmental conditions, the EPA has assumed the critical role of developing comprehensive and credible science as a sound foundation for programs implemented by EPA and the states. We feel strongly that this is an appropriate role for EPA and one that must continue. State programs are very dependent upon the science developed by EPA.
When states develop regulations, draft permits, or any of the other actions necessary to conduct environmental programs, we are consistently faced with questions, even demands, that ''good science'' and ''credible data'' be utilized. We frequently find ourselves in the role of convincing the regulated community, advocates for the environment and public health, local leaders and elected state officials of the need, wisdom and basis for our proposed actions. Agencies are often confronted with the question ''why is this necessary?'' or the assertion ''there is no risk, so there is no need for controls or permits.'' Agency actions are frequently controversial because of social, economic and political impacts. Controversy is becoming more frequent as our programs affect smaller businesses such as dry cleaners and print shops. Quality information based upon contemporary scientific examination, direct measurements, rigorous review and scrutiny is a key part of our efforts—and a necessary foundation of our partnership with EPA. The scientific and technical basis of the decision-making processes and regulatory program must be above question.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Though we have had many environmental successes, EPA and the states still face numerous unaddressed public health and environmental challenges. We are obliged to address these concerns with the best information that science can provide. If we are committed to provide a solid scientific foundation for policy decisions at EPA, as your markup of H.R. 64 this morning demonstrates, then this is not the time to reduce this nation's investment in EPA's scientific effort. In that light, we note with some concern that the President's FY 2002 budget for EPA would reduce investment in its ''Sound Science'' goal by about $27 million. We will work closely with EPA to determine more fully the implications of that reduction. As you will see in the balance of my statement, there is much more scientific work to be done to ensure public health and environmental protection. Investment in science at EPA will be essential to meeting that commitment.
Rather than recite a detailed list of all the science needs states have identified, I will provide a few examples. For instance, there are a number of current standards which should be re-examined. These include the fecal coliform and E. coli counts currently used by a large number of states as indicators of biological safety for use in water quality standards. Although the current standards have served us well in developing point source discharge requirements and the application of disinfection to municipal wastewater, they have some serious inadequacies. These standards are at the center of a contentious statewide debate in Kansas. There are questions concerning the adequacy of the current fecal coliform standards that are based upon studies performed in the 1970's. These studies are based upon interviews of individuals at swimming beaches concerning the occurrence of gastrointestinal effects. This standard should be thoroughly reexamined and changed as necessary to help establish a more credible basis for—and a better understanding of—the standard among the regulators, state and federal, the regulated community, interest groups and citizens. EPA can play a critical role in providing a thorough and rigorous scientific study of this standard. In addition, there is a compelling need to develop an accurate method capable of measuring this contaminant in a short time frame.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A second need is the identification, characterization, and prioritization of risk associated with air contaminants. We also need to determine levels of public health risk associated with existing ambient atmospheric levels and to establish targets for reduction of these contaminants to an acceptable level. Because many of these pollutants are easily transported in the atmosphere, this evaluation has national, regional and local implications. A related specific need is the evaluation and development of methods to change from intermittent to continuous monitoring for fine particulate matter, less than 2.5 microns in size.
States also need better mechanisms to determine the effectiveness of best management practices used to reduce or eliminate urban and rural non-point sources of pollution. There are a number of efforts currently being underway, but there is no comprehensive approach. As TMDL efforts across the country develop and mature, knowledge of the effectiveness of BMPs is essential to the design and implementation of measures to decrease loading of the contaminants in the surface waters.
Mercury has become an environmental and public health concern across the country. The distribution of mercury through the U.S. and world ecosystems has received significant attention. Key research needs include identification of best methods for immobilization and disposal of mercury stockpiles and development of science concerning the sequestration of mercury in ecosystems.
The physiological effects of synthetic chemicals are a continuing area for scientific and technical review, investigation and analysis. In order to adequately protect the public health and the environment, databases must be continually addressed and updated. A notable example is the current debate over the effects of chemicals on endocrine functions. There is too much we do not know about these effects, and solid research at EPA can add immensely to a rational debate on appropriate next steps.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Risk assessment has become an important tool for state regulatory and cleanup programs. These programs face the difficult prospect of finding cost-effective remedial or control options while ensuring public protection . This decision process is complex and challenging. There are significant ongoing needs for additional information to assess risks posed to affected populations.
Finally, there is a need to create systems to quickly move new methods and technologies from the lab and development centers to actual use. These systems are needed to expedite the verification, certification and commercialization of available technologies. An example is the commercialization of diesel engine refinements to reduce emissions. Reduction in the time needed to complete the steps towards use of these refinements will have significant impacts on air quality across the country.
The message I would like to leave with you today is the crucial need states have for EPA's help in developing scientific information to guide and support our efforts to protect the public health and environment. We are obliged to address these responsibilities with the best information science can provide.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. I will gladly answer any questions that you have.
BIOGRAPHY FOR RONALD F. HAMMERSCHMIDT
Education:
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
B.A. (Chemistry), St. Mary of the Plains College, Dodge City, Kansas, May 1973
Ph.D. (Chemistry), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, August 1978
Professional Positions:
Research Scientist, Veteran's Administration Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska; July 1978 to December 1978
Director, Agricultural Lab Division, Harris Laboratories, Lincoln, Nebraska; December 1978 to February 1980
Senior Public Health Scientist and Deputy Director of Laboratories, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Topeka, Kansas; March 1980 to November 1987
Director, Bureau of Environmental Remediation, KDHE, Topeka; November 1987 to January 1990
Deputy Director, Division of Environment and Director, Office of Science and Support, KDHE, Topeka, Kansas (including Acting Director, Division of Environment January 1995 to December 1995); January 1990 to December 1995
Director, Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and Environment; December 1995 to present
Experience:
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ronald Hammerschmidt has a varied background in public health and environmental protection. He has professional laboratory experience in both public health and environmental monitoring. In addition, he has administrative and management experience in environmental monitoring, regulatory programs, environmental remediation, planning, budgeting, human resources and legislative contacts. As Director of the Bureau of Environmental Remediation, Dr. Hammerschmidt was responsible for the management of federal and state superfund programs in Kansas, the above and underground storage tank programs, emergency response and remediation programs including voluntary, cooperative and state financed cleanup activities.
As Director, Office of Science and Support, Dr. Hammerschmidt was responsible for the management of the Division of Environment's science and data management activities. From 1991 through 1995 he represented the four states of Region VII on the Board of Directors for the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, ASTSWMO.
From 1990 through 1995, Ronald Hammerschmidt served as the Deputy Director for the Division of Environment. During that period, he served as the Acting Division Director from January–August 1991 and February–November 1995. He became Director in December 1995. During this period he was responsible for the management of the Division of Environment programs including air quality, water protection, waste management, water supply, radiation and remediation. From 1998 through the present, Dr. Hammerschmidt has served as the chairman of the Environmental Council of States' Waste Committee which developed national core performance measures for waste and cleanup programs, national policy development and advice to U.S. EPA in coordination with other states. Dr. Hammerschmidt served as the Secretary Treasurer for ECOS in 1999–2000 and Vice President 2000–2001.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Personal:
Home Address: 5857 SW 25th Street, Topeka, KS 66614
Phone: 785–273–6045 (Home); 785–296–1535 (Work); 785–296–8464 (Fax)
E-mail: rhammersch@aol.com
73329aa.eps
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
Question One: ''If earmarks end up taking a bite out of EPA's budget and the money must be found in science programs to offset their additional costs, cuts in which programs would create the greatest disruption to protect the environment?''
The question of which program should be reduced to fund increases in another area is one faced by Congress and state legislatures during every budget cycle. The most appropriate venue for that discussion is the overall mark up of the EPA budget. The state perspective, of course, is to hold the state and tribal portion of the budget relatively harmless. That view may not be realistic depending upon the nature of the cuts which must be made; however, we ask that impact on states be kept to a minimum. One request we make, as the budget is considered, is that Congress give states the maximum amount of flexibility in utilizing funds designated and awarded to states. The one-size-fits-all approach does not work with the fifty states each having individual needs.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question Two: ''To what degree does EPA help train or provide expertise to States? To what degree do States and their environmental needs influence the research agenda at the EPA?''
EPA does provide a variety of training opportunities for states. This training ranges from subject specific topics to fundamental scientific and technical topics. These efforts are of value in augmenting states' internal training programs. On occasion, the regional offices assist the states by providing training specifically tailored to the state's need.
The primary influence of states on the EPA research agenda has been through support of specific subjects. This occurs in general when a state program expresses specific support for a research proposal typically one requested by a researcher within the state or region. ECOS has not been routinely contacted for input into the ORD process, although individual environmental commissioners may have provided input independently.
Question Three: ''Congress has delegated much enforcement of environment law to the states. You also describe a number of areas where EPA research is needed to help the states with these mandates. Is there any environmental research science research being done at the State level? If so, in what areas? What two or three areas of research do you believe would be most beneficial to helping the states with their environmental protection programs?''
The research efforts of states have been limited. In the case of Kansas, the most recent environmental research supported solely by state funding was an examination of the effectiveness of construction techniques for building lagoons for containment of wastewater. A similar research effort was performed by Iowa. Other states have funded research efforts in other areas of interest to the state.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are a number of areas of current interest to the states which follow our concerns as environmental regulators. These include ambient air and water quality monitoring, risk assessment, mercury deposition and sequestration, and chemical toxicity. There is a significant amount of research and activities currently underway in these areas. Continuation and expansion of these efforts may be the most beneficial to the states.
Question Four: ''EPA has had success coordinating complex research by appointing a 'national program director' to be the lead on specific cross-disciplinary environmental problems such as endocrine disruptions. Are there other problems that would benefit from having a national program director appointed?''
The Science Advisory Board has noted the benefits of the use of national program directors (NPD) to coordinate efforts in a specific area of concern. The board has noted the limited number of NPDs involved in ORD programs. Additional areas from the state's perspective may include mercury, and the ambient monitoring efforts in air and water. The recommendation of the Research Strategies Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory Board, supporting a formal process for appointing NPDs should be further reviewed.
Question Five: ''Goal 8 is Sound Science. Unless we understand what that term means, it will be difficult to determine if the goal is being met. What is your definition of what constitutes 'sound science'? What components must be included for research to be considered sound? What types of research are unsound?''
A cynical definition of sound science is that body of knowledge which supports my preconceived theory and conclusions. However, a more appropriate definition is science supported by data, experimentation, and strong theoretical basis. This science should be peer reviewed and able to withstand the scrutiny and examination of both the scientific community and general public. In reviewing and considering science, the experimental results, theory and conclusions should always be treated with a healthy skepticism. In addition, we must keep in mind that science is not a static collection of facts; rather it is a framework of understanding which does change and evolve.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In responding to your question ''What types of research are unsound?,'' we must consider research results and their interpretation. There are cases of misconduct among scientists. A number of alleged and actual cases of scientific misconduct have been widely reported which include data fabrication, fraud and other unethical practices. These can be readily understood. In addition, there is a concern with junk science. The latter involves the misuse of legitimate science. We should be concerned with both the fraudulent science and the misuse of legitimate science.
Question Six: ''When I think of the two types of research most agencies perform, I think basic versus applied. However, in the testimony both Mr. Longest and Dr. Seeker refer to core versus problem driven. Is there a substantive difference between these two classifications or is it merely semantic? It seems that EPA is a unique agency in that the ratio of core research to problem driven is nearly one-to-one. Would it make sense to move the core or basic research out of EPA to a place like NSF?''
The basic methodology for conducting research should not be fundamentally different between core and problem driven research. The identification of the research area and goals is the primary distinction between the two. State programs are often most interested in problem driven research due to our role in implementing environmental programs. This implementation often immediately dependent upon the results of the research. The core research is more long-term in nature and performed to develop fundamental knowledge and trend definition. There is more than a semantic difference between the two.
The role of the EPA in directing core research is essential to keep the research focused on issues relevant to protection of the environment. The location of this research control in an organization not charged with environmental protection such as the National Science Foundation is not the best approach. In addition, state environmental directors for all our complaints about EPA, have frequent, direct and productive interactions with EPA headquarters and regional offices. This interaction allows us to influence—if indirectly—the activities of the agency. A concept with some merit is, however, to encourage EPA to more closely coordinate research efforts with other federal organizations such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in areas of common concern including consultation with states. The federal agencies should be working together in order to maximize efficiency.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question Seven: ''President Bush has either backtracked or delayed several major environment initiatives over the last few months. His main lament has been a lack of 'sound science.' Let's assume the $535 million for ORD is correct and can be compared to prior years. Since $528 million is the amount appropriated to ORD in FY98 that is not considered earmarked by the Agency, does it seem reasonable for ORD to need only $7 million more than four years ago when current science base is considered by the President to be inadequate? Do you believe additional research into environmental hazards can be done by EPA, in the words of the Administrator at NASA who has a $4 billion cost overrun, better, faster, cheaper?''
One challenge given to government managers at all levels (local, state and federal) is to do more with less. Many state programs face decreases in appropriations as we enter this state fiscal year. Reductions in funding force managers to make difficult decisions and continually work to increase efficiency. The challenge to ORD is to find means to cut costs either internally or among the grantees, or to limit the scope of less important programs. These decisions are difficult, but mirror events in state capitols across the county.
Question Eight: ''Let's suppose that ORD suddenly receives $50 million more for unrestricted S&T activities from Congress than the President requested. Besides fainting dead away, how do you think the Agency should allocate those resources? Another way of looking at it is what items are the most pressing that would not be funded under the President's request?''
From a state point of view, a substantial amount of the increased research funding should go toward addressing those problem driven research needs. These needs include the development of energy conservation, mercury reduction and sequestration, and national evaluation of air and water quality. In the latter, many states are faced with the daunting task of developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) without the necessary data on water quality. Increased funding for ambient monitoring would directly assist these states. In addition, the projected turnover in EPA scientific and technical staff with the retirements facing the agency in the near future will place a burden ORD and EPA in general to develop a well trained work force. States are faced with a similar challenge as our workforce is also in a state of transition. Perhaps some of these increased funds could be used to better prepare both federal and state staff to meet the technical and scientific demands of the future.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question Nine: ''Some of the President's budget cuts seem ill advised. For instance, cutting funding to the United States Geological Survey, which helps find mineral deposits, during an energy crisis. EPA pays for the collection of a large amount of environmental data. After correcting for congressional redirectives to the account which funds the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, the Global Climate Change Program, and the Wet Weather Flows Program, these programs see reductions. What are the implications on States to reducing or holding flat these types of monitoring programs? What health or environmental benefits will be lost?''
Monitoring and ambient measurement programs are crucial to states' efforts to implement environmental programs. The states have a substantial investment in these efforts. Kansas has a recognized program for monitoring ambient water quality. With the data developed in this program, we have been able to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads at a rate which is significantly better than required by the consent decree between KDHE, EPA, and the plaintiffs. Reductions in funding has an impact both directly and indirectly. The questions note the reduction in the USGS funds. This reduction will directly affect the availability of the stream flow data available to complete the remaining TMDLs and implementation of management methods to reduce pollution. Typically, states must decide whether to continue the abandoned federal monitoring and assessment programs or to make do without this important data. In Kansas, state funds will now be required to fill some of the void left by the federal reductions.
The question of the immediate and direct results of the reductions is difficult to answer. The states and EPA will in all probability act to maintain the necessary programs. As the overall funding is reduced, there is the challenge of increasing efficiency while seeing a funding reduction. States are then face with the tough choice which may lead to reduction in service. There has been a considerable discussion of unfunded mandates. This offloading of expenses to state and local governments forces us to fund important activities at the expense of the activities which states may have identified.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EPA science budget. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or if I can be of assistance. My e-mail address is: rhammers@kdhe.state.ks.us
Sincerely yours,
Ronald F. Hammerschmidt, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Environment
APPENDIX 3: Additional Material for the Record
73329c.eps
73329d.eps
73329e.eps
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73329f.eps
73329g.eps
73329h.eps
73329i.eps
73329j.eps
73329k.eps
73329l.eps
73329m.eps
73329n.eps
73329o.eps
73329p.eps
73329q.eps
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73329r.eps
73329s.eps
73329t.eps
73329u.eps
73329v.eps
73329w.eps
73329x.eps
73329y.eps
73329bb.eps
73329cc.eps
73329dd.eps
73329ee.eps
73329ff.eps
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73329gg.eps
73329hh.eps
73329ii.eps
73329jj.eps
73329kk.eps
73329ll.eps
73329mm.eps
73329nn.eps
73329oo.eps
73329pp.eps
73329qq.eps
73329rr.eps
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73329ss.eps
73329tt.eps
73329uu.eps
73329vv.eps
73329ww.eps
73329xx.eps
73329yy.eps
73329zz.eps
73329a3.eps
73329b3.eps
73329c3.eps
73329d3.eps
73329e3.eps
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73329f3.eps
73329g3.eps
73329h3.eps
73329i3.eps
73329j3.eps
73329k3.eps
73329l3.eps
73329m3.eps
73329n3.eps
73329o3.eps
73329p3.eps
73329q3.eps
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73329r3.eps
73329s3.eps
73329t3.eps
73329u3.eps
73329v3.eps